Employment Rights Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 42, 43 and 44, which address a crucial gap in the Employment Rights Bill as currently drafted. The Bill, in its present form, assumes that collective agreements and the important rights that attach to them can be made only through trade unions. The assumption is problematic, as it fails to reflect the diverse and evolving landscape of employee representation in the United Kingdom.

Across a wide range of sectors, there are effective forms of employee representation that operate independently of trade unions. For example, many large employers across the UK have implemented formal employee forums, staff councils and other representative bodies that play a critical role in negotiating terms, improving working conditions and ensuring that workers have a voice. These bodies operate with transparency and independence; they often work closely with management but are not subject to the control of the employer. In sectors such as retail, hospitality and technology, companies have established these independent bodies to provide workers with a platform to express concerns, suggest improvements and engage with senior leadership on workplace issues. These bodies, although not unions, are trusted and valued by workers as genuine vehicles for consultation and negotiation.

Likewise, in industries such as financial services, employee representation often takes place through staff associations and other internal bodies that focus on consultation, transparency and communication between employers and employees. These bodies are instrumental in maintaining a constructive dialogue between workers and management, and they often handle issues such as pay, conditions and workplace policies without the need for union recognition.

The current draft of the Bill fails to accommodate these vital forms of representation. It risks excluding workers who are represented by such independent bodies from accessing the protections associated with collective agreements, including important provisions on guaranteed hours. This approach undermines existing employee engagement practices that have proven to be effective in fostering good relations between workers and employers. The Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to modernise our economy and bring employment rights into the 21st century. A key part of that modernisation must be acknowledging that trade unions are not the only legitimate means through which workers can be represented. Properly constituted employee forums and staff bodies can and do play a vital role in today’s diverse and evolving workplaces. By recognising this, the Government have an opportunity to align this legislation with the modern realities of work and deliver on their commitment to updating our employment framework.

Moreover, the Bill raises serious concerns about freedom of association. The principle of freedom of association is about not just the right to join a union but the right not to be compelled into union membership as a condition for accessing fair treatment at work.

If we want to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees, we must ensure that the Bill is inclusive of all legitimate and independent forms of worker representation. These amendments are designed to achieve that. They would extend the recognition of collective agreements to properly constituted employee representative bodies, such as staff forums or associations that operate independently from the employer in their decision-making. They would ensure that these bodies meet clear governance standards, including transparency, accountability and independence.

The Government’s aim is to promote better workplace relations, and these amendments support that aim. They would recognise the wide range of ways in which workers and employers engage with each other constructively. By recognising diverse forms of representation, we can build trust, enhance co-operation and create workplaces where both workers and employers can thrive. I urge the Government to support these amendments, which would reflect the realities of modern employee representation and strengthen the protections available to all workers, regardless of whether they belong to a traditional trade union. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I totally oppose these amendments. This is the first time I have spoken in the progress of this Bill. I have amendments coming up later. I think the noble Lord’s amendments illustrate the complete difference in mental framework between those who support and work with the trade union movement and those who do not. I should be clear that, although I do not have any formal interest to declare, I have spent most of my working life working in or for the trade union movement. The trade union movement and what it has achieved is based on 150 years of struggle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, let me just explain that if an organisation meets the requirements to be free and independent, it is a trade union. Anyone can set up a trade union. If it does not meet the standards—many of which have been set by the party opposite—it is not a trade union and it is not capable of collectively representing its members. There is an illogicality in suggesting that an organisation that is not meeting the standards of a trade union can represent its members.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is so, it is very simple: we can all agree to this amendment, with such alterations as are necessary, to make sure that they are independent. Then we can all feel that we have created an answer that suits today. Can we please get out of this yah-booing from both sides—and I mean both sides—about these issues? We have to find a way in which the whole of society can come more effectively together, without constantly determining that we have to do it like we did 100 years ago.

Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the length of time that it has taken to reach this point. Let us not forget that the collapse of BHS and Carillion caused havoc in the country. It was a wake-up call, when 11,000 people lost their jobs in BHS and 30,000 people lost their jobs in Carillion. Improving auditing standards is an important step, not least to better inform lending and investment decisions. I hope my noble friend will take heart from the fact that this was included in our manifesto commitment and in our first King’s Speech. We look forward to the proposals receiving pre-legislative scrutiny in due course.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. I thank my noble friend for his answers to the questions, but my heart sinks when he talks about presenting the Bill “in due course” and when he will not even tell us what is actually going to be in it. One area that may be covered in the Bill is the regulation of the actuarial profession. At the moment, we have planning blight. Will he please expedite the process?

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in raising this consistently, before I came to this House and beyond. The type of campaigning she has undertaken is one of the reasons why the Labour Government put a pledge in their manifesto to both introduce the Windrush commissioner and put some energy into the system, for the very reasons the noble Baroness has mentioned.

We have put in £1.5 million to support advocacy groups. The noble Baroness mentioned legal aid, and I know she is meeting Minister Malhotra in early January; I hope the matter can be discussed then. I want to reassure her and the House that there is real energy to make sure that Windrush victims get compensation early and speedily, for the very reasons that she has mentioned, and I will take that commitment back to the Home Office today.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister reconsider the decision to exclude loss of pension rights from Windrush compensation? The loss of employment and of employment opportunities means that the people affected by the policy have lost significant amounts of their pension rights. Will the Government reconsider that decision?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the question. We will examine the points that he has made, and I will write to him about the detail of the potential Home Office response on that. He needs to be reassured that the Windrush commissioner proposals that we are bringing forward, the £1.5 million we have put in to help with advocacy—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin—and the commitment to deliver this scheme quickly are for the whole purpose of recognising the hurt and suffering of Windrush victims, and giving them proper redress for that hurt and loss.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. At this stage there is little more to say other than to support the brilliant, excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I find that I agree with everything that has been said so far in this discussion. It is not necessary to repeat it.

I would like to make a couple of additional points. First, there is a London dimension to this. I understand that it affects the whole country, but it is notable that the input from local authorities has come from London Councils. Its figures, and just living in London, make it clear that this is a problem that does need to be addressed.

Secondly, I have not heard any discussion, least of all from my Government—so I hope that my noble friend the Minister can help us—on whether there has been any research on what period is needed? It is obvious that 28 days was totally arbitrary. It was not chosen on the basis of deep research about what time is necessary to do all the tasks that are required. All the written evidence we had, as well as the evidence from speakers today, shows that 28 days is not enough. I do not think there is any debate about that. So what time is required? The same thing could be said about the 56 days, to be honest. What time is required? Will the Government undertake research on which a rational decision can be taken to assess how long it is reasonable to expect people in the circumstances that refugees find themselves to introduce themselves to our society and undertake all the tasks that other speakers have identified?

I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the temporary extension of the period. One finds it difficult that, at the end of the period, the Government would be so brutal as to go back to 28 days. This is not really a fudge but a partial acceptance of the point. One does not have to be that paranoid to see the fingerprints of the Treasury on this decision. All those who know the subject and all those who have spoken today are absolutely clear that 28 days is not enough.

Tackling Stalking

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his broad welcome for the Statement on stalking made by my honourable friend Jess Phillips in the House of Commons yesterday. It is important that we get former senior police officers such as him endorsing that approach, so I welcome his endorsement and thank him for it. He will know that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have today reconfirmed the provision of an additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers. That will help at a local level with a range of issues, but I take his point about the need for specialist support.

As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I cannot give a commitment on resources today because December’s police settlement, next year’s settlement and the spending review have not yet been announced. However, the specialism to which the noble Lord refers will form part of the needs and assessment review. The Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing need to look at those issues, and again, that will be part of the mix going forward. I assure the noble Lord and the House as a whole that the Government wish to address this serious issue. They have taken steps to do so in this Statement, and welcome contributions on how that can be built upon.

Ultimately, we will be judged by the test of whether we reduce the number of reported incidents, increase the number of incidents that are followed up and increase the number of prosecutions, as well as, in the longer term, taking steps to ensure that young boys, as they grow into young men and adults, have respect and understand their role in society. That is a longer-term issue that we need to be working on. I take the noble Lord’s points and I hope I have answered them as best I can, but they are issues we will return to.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repeat of the Commons Statement. It is right that the Statement should focus on the victims of this horrendous behaviour, and that that is the heart of the response. However, we have to ask ourselves what we are getting wrong as a society that causes people to perpetrate this sort of behaviour. I do not think it is just about evil people; it is learned behaviour, and learning is part of how we raise people in this society.

The Statement touches on that issue, as did my noble friend towards the end of his last reply. It refers to the need to engage with the perpetrators, to consider the root causes of the behaviour and to address it. All of that needs more attention and more resources, particularly but not just in the sphere of mental health. I was particularly struck by the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to someone who had been in prison seven times because of this behaviour. My assumption is that nothing happened in that prison to address those behaviours, and unless we get that right, dealing with the outcomes is the wrong end of the issue.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work in scrutinising the regulations and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling this debate. I have the privilege of being a patron of a charity in Sheffield called ASSIST, which works with people who are seeking sanctuary and who have been refused asylum; it provides accommodation, information, advocacy and other support.

Just last week, I met a man called Victor, a former client of ASSIST. I have his permission to tell his story. Victor is from Zimbabwe. In 1980, he was among those who greeted with joy the nation’s independence and the election of Robert Mugabe as the first democratically elected Prime Minister of that country. That year, Victor embarked on a career in banking of 20-plus years; he became very senior. However, through the 1980s and into the 1990s, he became increasing disenchanted with the Mugabe regime and then opposed to it. Finally, in 2008, after a warrant was issued for his arrest on account of his political dissent, he sought asylum in this country. Victor was eventually granted leave to remain in 2022 and was united with his wife after a 14-year enforced separation. So, in the end, his has been a good news story.

However, in 2019, Victor experienced detention. Reporting in one week as required, he was in effect arrested and assigned for deportation. The decision came out of the blue, with no notice and no explanation. It was apparently arbitrary. In Victor’s case, deportation did not follow. He had by then lived for 10 years in Sheffield, which sets itself out to be a city of sanctuary, and he was known and valued. Within four days, 70,000 people had signed a petition for his release; he was indeed swiftly released and, within another two years, had been granted leave to remain.

I summarise his story because the inhumane way in which the detention and deportation process is operated makes every person subject to it vulnerable. At the time of his detention, Victor was a resourceful and accomplished adult male in good health. He was not vulnerable, according to the definitions in these regulations, but the impact of his detention on his well-being made him vulnerable. It was terrible at the time and remains considerable today. In other words, until the whole process of detention is managed in a way that is humane, consistent, fair, transparent and accountable, every immigrant and asylum seeker detained will be vulnerable.

I am deeply concerned that these regulations expressly remove the intention to reduce the numbers of people in detention who are vulnerable in specifically acute ways. As the Minister will know, the previous Government appear to have accepted just one of the Brook House inquiry’s 33 recommendations. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, requested, the detention review will revisit that inquiry report to ensure that all the recommendations are given due consideration for implementation.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I support the need to discuss and debate these regulations. The issues have been laid out more than clearly by my noble friend Lady Lister. This stems from the Shaw review, reinforced by the subsequent Brook House inquiry.

The principle that we work under—I am sure that we all agree with it—is that the detention of people with severe mental health conditions amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. I hope we can all agree on that. It has been defined as such by the European Court of Human Rights, but the issue runs wider than that. There should be—indeed, there must be—a clear presumption that people at risk because of existing or potential mental health problems should not be detained. “Detained” is a euphemism; they are, in effect, imprisoned. We imprison people as a punishment, so the need to avoid providing these people with punishment is clear.

The statutory guidance was established in 2014 and has been reviewed. One could not object to the review at all; I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that a full and adequate review is reasonable. The problem with this review is that it is driven— it says as much in paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum—by a wish to avoid “undermining lawful action” to remove people from the UK. That is the most concerning statement in the EM. Such an objective is totally at odds with the general principle that we should not imprison people with severe mental health conditions when they have committed no offence. The story it tells us is one of an attitude in government of wishing to prioritise the need to remove people from the UK rather than protecting people who are vulnerable.

The statutory guidance clearly represents its purpose: a weakening of the guidance originally given. One particular example, which is clearly a major issue here, is the issue of a second opinion. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded, the data

“does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second opinion policy”.

We do not really know what the effect of the second opinion policy would be, except that it will result in people remaining in detention for longer; that is the one known effect of having a second opinion policy. Clearly, that in itself suggests that it is something to be done with great care and attention.

Another problem is that there is a general belief among a number of the voluntary organisations most closely involved in these issues that the consultation process on the new statutory guidance was woefully inadequate. It was short, there was a lack of information and there was no equality impact assessment.

The upshot of all of this is that I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept that the statutory guidance requires review and reconsideration, and that it should be driven by the clear presumption that we do not lock up people with severe mental health conditions.