Employment Rights Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The uncollected rubbish of Birmingham must be a ghastly historical aberration. However, this legislation, if it is unamended, threatens to turn the bins of Birmingham into an augury of the future and create a new norm. The nation deserves better. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. There is not much more to add, but I will try. I also put my name to the amendment.

I thought we had gone past the stage where we look back at history and do not learn its lessons on protecting the franchise and the ballot in sensitive elections. There are no more sensitive elections than workplace elections, on which people’s very livelihood, careers, family and income depend.

I take your Lordships’ Committee back to February 1834. Colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will be aware that in 1833 agricultural workers in the village of Tolpuddle in Dorset quite rightly formed a union to fight wage cuts. The following year they were arrested, arraigned, found guilty and transported not because they had administered oaths, which was the official reason for their incarceration, but because they assembled as a group. The point is that they did not have a secret ballot. They had an open meeting to form the union and a strategy for fighting those wage cuts, and they were betrayed by two union members. If you talk to Unite the Union and GMB, there is nothing new under the sun.

That said, the point was they did not have a secret ballot. One reason that the unions have evolved in a positive way over many years—hitherto, until we reached this Bill—is that we have had that workplace democracy, unlike in the bad old days of the 1970s and before, where people were pressured to join a union in the closed shop and sometimes pressured to support industrial action which was uncalled for and damaging both to their own jobs and to the business generally, as we saw, for instance, in 1984 with the miners’ strike. Amendments 247 and 248 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral are very sensible. I would say: be careful what you wish for, because there is another historical example, although noble Lords on the other side may resile from it. The Jim Crow laws in the southern part of the United States existed for many years post-reconstruction in 1865. That they marginalised, traduced and undermined the right of black people, of African Americans, to vote was, in effect, because they did not have a secret ballot and had to register, and there were many legal impediments to them voting.

We respect the integrity of the secret ballot. We would not dream of asking local councillors, parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors and certainly not Members of Parliament to seek election on the basis that their electorate would be corralled into voting a certain way and there would not be a secret ballot. That is as it should be and as it has been for modern times, and it is correct. Why are we now going back to a potential era of bullying, harassment and attacking people who may not support the union line? Give people a chance to think, reflect and choose the right way for not just themselves and their families but their union by means of a secret ballot. For those reasons I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister will give it due regard.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose this group of amendments. I have to say that it is with deep regret, because my assessment of them is that they are trying to stir up a spectre of trade union intimidation, which reminds me strongly of the initiative going back in history—not quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—to 2014, when the Government commissioned Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, to conduct an investigation of intimidation in workplaces. As it transpired, Mr Carr declined all opportunities to make any recommendations whatever on the basis of the evidence that he received. For the TUC’s part—and I was at the helm at the time—we described it as a party-political stunt and said that, frankly, the then Conservative Party in government should have repaid the taxpayer for the significant cost of conducting that investigation that led to zero—I repeat, zero—recommendations for changes in the law. In fact, Mr Carr went on just a year or two later to oppose the then Conservative Government’s Trade Union Bill as “a threat” to industrial relations and to civil liberties.

That brings me to safe and secure e-balloting. It seems to me that anybody who was a true democrat would be looking to increase opportunities for participation in safe, secure, secret and electronic balloting. Any boost to democracy should be welcome. I have to say that it is disappointing that those who oppose the right for trade unionists to cast their vote safely, securely and secretly by electronic ballot apparently believe that there is no threat of intimidation in respect of political parties. Therefore, it is fine for political parties to use modern methods of balloting; it is not fine for trade unionists. I would ask what view that gives us of the perception of trade unions from the Benches opposite, when, on the contrary, we should be proud of trade unions. We should tackle the causes and not just the symptoms of industrial action. We should be proud of constructive industrial relations in this country, which are vital for productivity and growth.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

224: Clause 61, page 89, line 33, after “take” insert “reasonable”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled a number of probing amendments to Clause 61. As I alluded to earlier, I take the view that the amendments are not unhelpful but should be seen through the prism of fairness, balance, proportionality and reasonableness. There is the possibility that, as drafted, it could plausibly be argued that the Bill’s balance is very much in favour of not just employees and union members but unions themselves as corporate bodies and organisations, rather than employers.

We are on our eighth day in Committee, and we have discussed on a number of occasions the less than benign economic circumstances faced by many businesses, including small businesses. The situation is deteriorating. Pretty much every week, there is worse economic data than one would hope for, particularly for the jobs market and the levels of employment and potential unemployment.

Therefore, anything that the Government do—and certainly this Bill represents a very far-reaching change to the employment relations regime—to make things more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises, and businesses generally, to employ people should be a cause for concern for Members of your Lordships’ House.

I will briefly go through the amendments. Amendment 224 would qualify the right to time off for union officials with a reasonableness test. I can see that most relationships between employers and union representatives are positive, based on mutual respect and it was ever thus. Therefore, this will not be a problem for the vast bulk of employers. However, when I was a local councillor, I had to rely on the Employment Rights Act 1996 to enforce my right to attend a number of meetings held during the day—in my case, at Ealing Borough Council, although I was an alternate member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which met across the road at County Hall. As a young working man, it was sometimes very difficult to get time off, and I understand that we went in the right direction in guaranteeing the right to time off. Equally, reasonableness is key, and this amendment speaks to that.

Amendment 225 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union officials with an appropriateness test. Again, this reflects a real-world experience of the discrete circumstances affecting a business at the time that the request is made. It might not be appropriate for a business to provide a room, audio-visual facilities or materials. This would be easier for a big company, which has a bespoke budget for HR training et cetera, than for a much smaller commercial entity, which might struggle to provide a similar level of facilities for trade union officials.

Amendments 226, 227 and 228 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union activities, and therefore there would be more of a balance for making the case for facilities being provided. I do not want to delay the Committee at this relatively late juncture; the amendments stand on their own merits.

Amendment 229 would qualify the right to time off for union learning representatives, again with a reasonableness test. In past debates, I mentioned my admiration for the Workers’ Educational Association and the great work it did in empowering working people to improve their life and their life chances, which is very important. However, a reasonableness test makes sure that it can be accommodated in a way which will not undermine the commercial viability of a business, while at the same time assisting individual workers and their representatives to deliver education and training outcomes.

Amendment 230 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union learning representatives, again with an appropriateness test.

Amendments 231, 232 and 233 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union learning representatives. It would be for the union representatives to explain why their request for facilities and learning resources was reasonable rather than the other way round.

These are probing amendments. I know I have said it before, but it bears repetition that these are not wrecking amendments. They do not alter substantially the kernel of the Bill, which is—and I take Ministers on their word—to improve the working lives of people, as in the report, Make Work Pay. I accept that premise and that Ministers sincerely want to do that, but these amendments are an attempt to rebalance between the workforce, their representatives and employers in a fair and equitable way. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I oppose the question that Clause 62 should stand part of the Bill, with the intention of removing provisions which compel employers to allow time off for trade union equality reps. To note, I am not opposed to trade union facilities time per se, and I am actually not objecting to Clause 61 in relation to learning reps.

My concern is specifically on the nature of equality as has been interpreted by the trade unions in recent years, the divisive nature of their adherence to identity politics, for example, and the ideologically contentious implementation of prescriptive policies, often setting one group of workers against another. Trade union priorities under the auspices of fighting for equality have been skewed, to say the least.

The wording in this unfeasibly long clause states at subsection (12)(b)(i) that:

“‘equality’, in relation to a workplace, means … the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation … in accordance with the Equality Act 2010”.


You would think I would have nothing to disagree with there, yet, time after time in the last few years, what we have actually seen is the discrimination and victimisation of women workers that has been at best ignored and too often actively abetted by trade unions’ own version of inclusive equality. They have in fact ignored the Equality Act.

Let me use as an example an incident that happened in May 2024 at Epsom and St Helier University Hospital. A black female nurse, Jennifer Melle, indirectly called a six-foot transgender patient “Mister” while on the phone to a consultant. The patient, whom I will call Mr X, was having treatment on the ward, having been transferred from a male prison. He was chained to two guards. Mr X is serving a sentence for luring young boys into sex acts on the internet while pretending to be a woman. For Ms Melle’s alleged misgendering, Mr X, the convict, violently lunged at her, screaming, “Do not call me Mister, I’m an effing woman”, and then called her the N-word, screaming it at her. He of course used the full words in those instances, and he screamed that word at her three times.

After her shift, Jennifer went home shaken but resilient about the reality of unpleasant abuse at work. She was then contacted by her hospital trust. You might think it was a welfare check—but no. There was no mention of support after the racist attack. Instead, she was issued with a written warning, and the trust reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to investigate her fitness to practise, because she posed a risk to the public, it was said, and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient’s preferred gender identity. Only when Jennifer went public and the story hit the media did the trust say it would investigate the racist abuse. But by then, it had suspended Jennifer for telling her story. Then, they moved her to another hospital, demoted her to a lower grade, and she lost pay et cetera.

Now, I would have assumed that this shocking story would be a huge equality-at-work story for the trade union movement to take up: an ethnic minority female, a front-line health worker, a victim of explicit racist harassment and male violence, all over the papers, and then gross discriminatory employer behaviour. But no, not a dicky bird: a deafening silence in the nursing unions and the TUC. Maybe Nurse Jennifer was, as an open evangelical Christian, rather than a trade unionist, the wrong kind of victim.

Recently, we heard that another nurse, Sandie Peggie, a Royal College of Nursing member for 30 years, has been forced to sue her union for its failure to support her or provide legal assistance when she was suspended by NHS Fife. Her crime was that she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, a biological man, in the women-only changing rooms at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. That Nurse Peggie’s legal action is necessary should shame the trade union movement. As Mrs Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, explained, her client expected the union to

“exercise its industrial muscle to challenge the decision which was adversely impacting her and other female union members”.

She alleged that she

“spoke to the union about the issue of single-sex spaces in February last year”.

In relation to this amendment, how can we mandate employers to provide generous facility time for trade union equalities work with such a risible attitude to the real-life attacks on equality at work, as evidenced? When Nurse Peggie is forced to take legal action to get justice from her own union, I am not sure I want any more union equality officers. Susan Smith, of the For Women Scotland organisation that brought the successful Supreme Court action, notes:

“We imagine this is likely to be first of many such cases. Sadly, it seems that only financial penalties will persuade the unions to step up, do their job, and represent women in the workplace”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy with that and I apologise if I have misunderstood the point that the noble Baroness was trying to make. This has been a fascinating debate but, in the interests of time, I want us to make progress and finish.

Amendment 237 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government resist this amendment, which unnecessarily asks the Government to conduct a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. We strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers. We have already conducted an impact assessment that covers the measures in the Bill. This assessment noted that the cost of facility time is not likely to be significant for particular employers. Instead, it could benefit business performance in the form of increased worker training and support greater worker retention through a reduction in dismissals and voluntary exits.

It is worth noting that the estimated percentage of public sector pay bills spent on facility time in the first year of reporting regulations that were enforced in 2017-18 was 0.07%, and that, for the 2023-24 reporting year, the figure was 0.06%. That suggests a minimal impact of facility time in the public sector. Before I turn to Amendment 333, it is worth saying that we expect further savings from the Exchequer resulting from more positive industrial relations, which come about through greater facility time. For instance, we expect enhanced facility time to result in a reduction in the number of disputes going to an employment tribunal. This again makes the point that more harmonious workforces are more productive workforces.

Amendment 333 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Again, the Government strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers and we have already conducted an impact assessment covering the measures in the Bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary and would simply delay the implementation of this clause and the benefits that equality representatives would bring.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, to withdraw Amendment 224 and I hope that noble Lords agree that Clause 62 has a rightful place in the Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 224 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for bringing this into our debate but, candidly, his Amendment 240 is truly extraordinary. The only success Flying Pickets had was a number one in 1983 with the single “Only You”—and, by the way, that was a copy from the great band Yazoo. The idea that we would go back to flying pickets is just extraordinary.

Some 45 years on, no sensible Labour Peer has put this forward until tonight. I genuinely find it astonishing that we are here still debating the idea that it is democracy for a strike to be called somewhere else all of a sudden and for you to go off somewhere else for a dispute you are not part of.

While I appreciate the erudite speech we have heard tonight, going back to the real substance and principle of this, this is an important Bill. I do not agree with a lot of it, but I find it extraordinary that we are going back in time when this country actually needs to move forward in modern industrial relations. I regret the amendments that have been tabled today.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment very briefly. I agree wholly with my noble friend Lady Coffey. I also agree that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was very persuasive, compelling, detailed and comprehensive, but completely wrong. It would be a disaster for our country if we were to go back to the era of Saltley coke works, Grunwick, the disaster inflicted on the automotive industry, flying pickets and the closed shop.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am against Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. The 2010 Act protects against gender and other types of discrimination. It replaces earlier Acts, as your Lordships will know, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The principles of equality are commonly supported. The aims are those on which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 78 of the Equality Act stipulates that:

“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees”.


We have an Act that is commonly agreed on and obeyed, and known by those to whom it is addressed.

Clause 31 proposes to add a new Section 78A after Section 78, which stipulates:

“Regulations may require employers to … develop and publish … an ‘equality action plan’”


in respect of gender and equality,

“showing the steps that the employers are taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and … publish prescribed information relating to the plan”.

This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers—and it is unnecessary because we have the law.

We have just been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. To oblige more compliance and bureaucracy on employers at a time when things are tight will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse. It is not only about compliance and bureaucracy; much worse than that it leads to something beyond the principles of the Equality Act. It prompts institutions in practice to devise and interpret action plans that result in a 50:50 balance between men and women, and steps will be taken to achieve that level playing field and to discriminate positively.

Take the example of academic shortlisting, where, in order to achieve a 50:50 balance, things can be so ordained at the shortlisting stage in order to appoint women, and as they are so ordained, discrimination takes place against men and appointments are made not on merit but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women because, once positive discrimination comes into play, women too suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived to have been appointed not because they come first on merit, or in a fair competition, but on account of their gender.

I shall comment briefly on new Section 78A(4), which sets down that

“matters related to gender equality include (a) addressing the gender pay gap, (b) supporting employees going through the menopause”.

New Section 78A(4)(a) is too broad. Take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. They start with the same salary, but one may do far better than the other, be given far more responsibility and be promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, given that the talent, resourcefulness and ability of one employee naturally results in more responsibility and higher payment?

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has already mentioned new Section 78A(4)(b), which has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in its assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professionalism of a good workplace in treating the personal as public, and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role in requiring special support for a select group of employees, rather than acting as a dispassionate employer who treats all employees well and fairly.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.

I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of

“the content of a plan”

for every business that has more than 250 employees,

“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”

that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—

“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?

What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?

It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.

In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:

“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.


Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:

“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.


It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.

For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to express a view that I did not think I would be expressing in your Lordships’ House. I am utterly appalled by this proposition and the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who, lest there were any doubt, has given the clearest possible indication of her political journey from the extreme left to the extreme right, which is there for all to see.

It is an absolute disgrace to suggest that to seek to help women in the workplace gain equality is somehow to treat them as victims. I did my university dissertation in 1974 on the Equal Pay Act, when the gap between men and women was 25%. Half a century later, it is down to something like 7% or 8%. Yes, that is a huge improvement, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others who have spoken have said, “Well, that’s okay. We can leave it there. We don’t want to push it any further, because it’s going to burden industry with costs”. What about the women who are burdened with wages lower than they are entitled to get for the job they do on a day-to-day basis?

It is well known that inclusivity in the workforce increases levels of production, is good for problem solving and enhances job retention. I am talking not just about gender issues but wider diversity. The speech that the noble Baroness made and others have echoed will be cheered to the rafters by Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, because it is exactly the sort of thing they have been saying, and I think it is a very dangerous line for Members of this House to push. It is a perfectly legitimate expectation in a Bill such as this that an equality action plan is something that employers should be expected to have. Many already do—they do not need to be told. Good employers have one in place and are benefiting from the standard of output they are getting from employees who are more satisfied because they are clearly better valued. To suggest that we just leave it there is absolute nonsense.

I will not talk about the menopause, but I just could not believe what I heard—that, somehow, women are being painted as victims. As a man, it is difficult for me to comment, but there is a broad spread of opinion that the issue has to be dealt with by employers. To be perfectly fair, some employers do, but others do not, and there should at least be the opportunity for women who want to take advantage of this to be able to do so. To try to slam that door in their faces is an absolute disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I came into this debate by chance, but it seems to me that this is part of a very undesirable development: an attack on the principle of equality, diversity and inclusion policies. These principles are at the heart of my politics. I have fought for racial equality ever since I was a student, when I went on marches against Enoch Powell and what he stood for. I thought that the response of the Labour Government in the 1960s—to make racial discrimination illegal—was very important. In more modern times, when I was chair of Lancaster University and looking at the question of student admissions, I always thought that we should make allowance for the fact that some working-class people had not had the best chance in life and take this into account in admissions procedures Therefore, I rather regret what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to do, which is to undermine the political acceptability of these policies.

There is a danger here. I have seen it from some people in my own party who say that, in response to the alleged great Reform upsurge, we should start abandoning EDI. That would be catastrophic for a social democrat like me, who has always believed in these things. I hope that the Members opposite will withdraw their amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I would gently advise the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to have read the amendment before he pontificates down memory lane on his great campaigns of the past for equality.

This amendment is about fairness. It ill behoves his party to lecture us on equality when it needed the Supreme Court to tell its own Prime Minister what a woman was. We will take lessons on equality from many people but not from a party that was found to be institutionally racist by the Equality and Human Rights Commission not that long ago.

Let us move on from there because, if noble Lords read this amendment, they will see that it is an amendment that speaks of fairness. All it says, very simply, is that anyone who construes a situation where they have felt themselves personally discriminated against should have a proper, legal and transparent opportunity to question the decision of a person who is taking a big decision in their life: whether to appoint them to a post or not. It is not draconian and does not include fines; it is merely an occasion for that person to challenge a decision taken by authority in a fair, open and transparent way.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope the Government will consider this amendment in the constructive and pragmatic spirit in which it proposed. I say this as someone in this debate who has not been a member of a trade union. The Institute of Chartered Accountants is probably a trade union, but it does not recognise itself as such. It is so often daunting for the worker, who is already morally undermined, to go to a tribunal without some form of assistance. Assistance comes from a number of sources, which I have outlined and which the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, outlined as well. I believe these amendments should go forward in some form in the future.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with the soothing balm of cross-party collaboration to support the excellent amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. I declare at the outset an interest as a member for more than 20 years of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, an estimable professional body. More importantly, I have been made redundant twice. My experience of redundancy is that it is often a difficult and traumatic experience if you are working for a small company or if you are relatively new to the company. I certainly had a great deal of sustenance and support from my trade union representative in securing and expediting a reasonably successful outcome in what could have been a very difficult period financially for me in that situation—this is many years ago.

I think the benefit of these amendments is that they look from the perspective of the small employer in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and from the employee’s perspective in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I think that, for people who have, for various reasons, chosen not to join a trade union, it is important that not just anyone, not their mate from the pub, but a professional accredited person can accompany and support them in this.

Normally, I would not want to amend a Bill unnecessarily, but I genuinely think it would not be administratively and financially onerous for these amendments to be added to the Bill, and in fact they would improve it. I would not say they are cost free, but they would be important in saving potentially significant amounts of money if, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, has said, they would alleviate or ameliorate the possibility of an escalation to expensive litigation and an employment tribunal. Having an expert in the room with you can sometimes dissipate the anger, the frustration and the sense of a battle between two sides, and in that respect it is sensible.

For those reasons, with the proviso that I have experienced these issues myself, I think the amendments are sensible and I look to the Minister to give them due consideration. They would not add to the burden of businesses, and in the long term they would save significant amounts of money.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 132 and 137. Both of them seek to expand the list of organisations recognised in law to represent workers. Amendment 132 relates to representation in reaching settlement agreements, while Amendment 137 refers to representation in hearings at workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings.

At present, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions, fellow workers or, in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from, for example, the respected network of citizens advice bureaux. Both amendments propose that the right to representation be extended to professional bodies specified by the Secretary of State, and Amendment 132 refers in particular to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled about which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role.

In short, the law should rest where it stands. Workers should be represented, where they are present, by workers’ organisations—trade unions—that, where appropriate, can provide legal representation. The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals, but it essentially represents employers’ interests and would surely be conflicted if it were to take on this very different role.

I know my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley is motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration, but ACAS—which I chaired for six years, to declare an interest—has the responsibility and the independent, impartial expertise to conciliate in such matters, and a considerable track record of success in doing so. Far better to ensure that it has increased resources to provide this vital service in the interests of both parties in any such dispute, rather than muddying the water on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will not be pressed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I offer qualified support for the Bill. I do so in the firm belief that, unless we seize this moment to regain credible control over all forms of migration, we shall betray both the national interest and the public trust. Regrettably, my own party failed to properly deal with the issue in government and to honour the pledges made in general elections between 2010 and 2019 to lower immigration—a policy currently supported by over 80% of the public in polls. Hence net migration increased massively in the last three Parliaments. We also did nothing to address the pernicious misuse of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In fairness, the Bill does give Parliament a coherent framework: new powers for intelligence-led interceptions, faster inadmissibility decisions and tougher criminal offences for those who facilitate irregular entry. Yet legislation alone is not enough unless we confront the scale of the problem with unflinching candour. The net migration figure in 2022 was 764,000—that was the peak—but even last year the figure was 431,000. That number of people is equivalent to a city the size of Bristol, yet we built only 218,000 homes in England last year.

Some 81% of those migrants were from outside Europe, presenting major problems for integration and challenges related to shared identity, values, culture, history and way of life. Only 14% came to work, while 149,000 were family dependants. Figures released over the weekend show that over £900 million is claimed by foreign national households—one in six households—each month in universal credit, which is barely two months’ worth of the winter fuel allowance.

Mass uncontrolled migration is bad for the economy. It is astonishing that per capita GDP, at $49,464 in 2023, is less than it was in 2008—17 years ago. No civilised country can absorb such numbers year after year without acute pressure on housing, health care and social cohesion, particularly in the very towns and cities that feel least heard by liberal, metropolitan opinion-formers—who are of course well represented in your Lordships’ House.

At the illegal end of the spectrum, the channel crisis persists. More than 36,000 people arrived by small boat in 2024—up a quarter on 2023—and the death toll tragically reached 77, the worst year on record. On Saturday, as we heard, over 1,200 people crossed the channel—so much for smashing the gangs. Behind every dinghy is an organised-crime business model that mocks our sovereignty and imperils vulnerable lives.

The key question is: will the Bill be a real, effective and significant deterrent for people traffickers? The Government’s pointless and performative repeal of the safety of Rwanda Act—while begging last month for the support of the Albanian Prime Minister, in vain, for a resettlement hub—was entirely unnecessary and predictable, and destroyed such a deterrence. Meanwhile, the fiscal costs mount inexorably. Hotel accommodation for failed asylum seekers and those in the ever-lengthening backlog now drains £8 million every single day—money that could have trained 260 nurses or built three primary schools each week. Labour promised to reduce the number of asylum seeker hotels, but they have increased in number since July 2024.

That said, the Government deserve some credit for establishing the Border Security Command and their efforts to develop renewed bilateral returns agreements. But the command must be given teeth: it needs real-time data-sharing across MI5, the National Crime Agency and Border Force, and an unflinching mandate to disrupt the smugglers’ logistics upstream, not merely a mop up on our southern beaches.

Crucially, the Bill must address legal migration. Skilled worker and student routes, laudable in their intent, have become porous. Employers in the care sector are now permitted to import labour at a minimum salary that undercuts our own workforce, while overseas students—commended for their tuition fees—import 150,000 dependants a year. This is not an immigration system; it is an open invitation. Even the Defence Secretary said this week that the Government have lost control of our borders.

We need to insert a statutory annual cap on gross immigration, set by an affirmative resolution of both Houses, for work and study visas allocated by auction, to ensure that they are allocated to the areas that need them most. We need a new system of sureties for visa holders that ensures a financial penalty if they do not leave the country when their visas expire. We should require the Migration Advisory Committee to publish full displacement and wage-suppression effects, not just labour-market shortages. We need to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the ECHR where they would thwart the deportation of serious criminals or those who have entered clandestinely.

The Times editorial was quite right on Saturday to excoriate the Attorney-General’s ill-judged and intemperate comments on those questioning the workings of the ECHR and to point out that many European countries are seeking sincerely to reform the convention to eject illegal immigrants and strengthen the asylum rules. I wonder why, if the Minister will answer the question, the UK has declined to support such an effort—for what reason? These measures are not draconian. They are proportionate, democratic and entirely consistent with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, properly interpreted, notwithstanding the fetishisation of international law by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and other noble Lords.

This is a necessary start, but without the amendments I have referenced it will be neither sufficient nor credible. We have a brief window—perhaps the last in a generation—to restore a balanced immigration policy that is fair, lawful and, above all, trusted by the British people. In conclusion, I commend in principle the Bill, but give notice that I and other noble Lords will table amendments to deliver the effective border control and the sustainable legal migration regime that this country both expects and deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and helpful summing-up of the debate. He will understand that the current discussions around reforming the ECHR are germane to this Bill and wider immigration issues. There are nine countries doing that. This Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity to take part. If he cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining why that is the case?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are aware that a letter has been circulated by countries, which is perfectly legitimate. They are countries within the European Union; we are outside the European Union now. We will look at the provisions of Article 8 and how we can interpret them but maintaining—very importantly for those Members who have raised these issues—our integral role as a member and supporter of the ECHR. That is a critical part of our international obligations, but it does not mean that we cannot look at interpretations and examine how we implement those regulations in a UK context. We will do that. I will certainly give the noble Lord a fuller reply in a letter, but I hope that reassures him that we will look at those issues.

I will look at Hansard in detail. I have sat through every minute of the debate today and heard every contribution in full. I look forward to the debates we will have on specific amendments and specific clauses. However, I look to this House to give support to the Government’s proposals to tackle criminal gangs who are exploiting people and bringing people to this country in an illegal way, even if those people have legitimate asylum claims. This is being done by criminal gangs for illegal profit. We need international co-operation to tackle the downstream issues and to tackle the gangs at source.

I commend this Bill to the House today in order to continue that progress and to ensure that we have a full debate in Committee on its contents and the suggestions that will undoubtedly come forward from all sides of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the name of my noble friend. I am an employer, and I have declared my interest in the register. I founded and was the executive director of a think tank for over the best part of a quarter of a century, and now I am research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. As your Lordships know, many universities have changed their timetables. Some are taking much shorter summer breaks, some have started working more flexibly and many work remotely for certain classes. Postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, get a foothold in the world of work and understand what happens there. They learn disciplines. They learn the discipline of work, timetabling and deadlines. But we have to be flexible. Terms can be busy. There can be things such as essay crises, or a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in, and of course we will accommodate that.

We have devised a good work programme. I am speaking only to give the Committee an example of the damage this will do, particularly to the students. We devise a work programme so they can work remotely and do research when they have free time. They want to earn money, and both parties are flexible. I, particularly as a former academic, recognise that their work in the university, their teaching and their essays come first. This suits all parties. We have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees, stayed three or four years and then gone on to do a professional training course, perhaps in law or accountancy. They, too, want to come back and continue with the work that they have brought to a high level, and they will be paid accordingly. There is no exploitation in this market; rather it is mutual gain.

It is a great pleasure for me to see young people. I have had students from inner London universities whose family had no habit of third-level or even second-level education, who came from families from abroad, who used to ask for time off during their time to take their granny to the hospital in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities, and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result. Some of the work placements are organised directly with the university, and for others students write in themselves. I beg the Government to listen to this amendment and take heed, because the Bill will do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn and keep afloat when they are paying for their studies.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this debate takes me back to my own student days and the work that I did as a student. It was not very glamorous, I have to say. I did the overnight shift shelf-stacking at Gateway, which set me up, obviously, to be a Peer in your Lordships’ House. I also did a stint at McDonald’s. That was valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the important opportunity to meet different sorts of people.

I believe that this Government are fair-minded and decent in the way they wish to protect the interests of working families who want the certainty of being able to put food on the table and earn a decent wage. I think we all believe that that is very important as an imperative. However, the mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question, “What problem is this solving?” Another mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of a Bill where the effect of the Bill will be disadvantageous to a group. I think that this is one such example and that the very important points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral should be taken on board by the Government.

Remember that this is a student generation that has lived through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career not being able to socialise in an office or a factory or out on site but at their kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who, broadly speaking, are not wicked and rapacious but want good people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and individuals and workers, will not take a risk with this legislation. This goes through the whole of this legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk-averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I think Ministers should give that consideration.

The reason that this is a good amendment is that it recognises that we have a very complex, fast-moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgments about their work, employment, training, skills, knowledge and experience that I did not take 30 years ago and my parents certainly did not take, as you were generally in the same job for the whole of your working life, but—I would not use the word “promiscuous” necessarily, but I cannot think of a better word—younger people now are a bit more promiscuous in the decisions they take, and therefore they value that ability to enter into a flexible contract. In my time, I would not have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone aged, say, 35 or 40 who had a family and had to provide for them, but I think my noble friends have made a good point that this amendment would allow the Government to carve out this particular group. I do not think there is anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that definitively makes the case for keeping students in this group, and for that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to improve the Bill. It recognises the real-life consequences and issues that may arise from the Bill: in other words, fewer young people having the opportunity to work and fewer long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s very good amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest that I work for Marsh, a very large insurance broker in this country and around the world. I run a team of between 30 and 40 people. Within that team, I have all sorts, sizes and cultures—you name it. Of that team, all the married women—I should say, the women with children—have some sort of flexible way that they work with us. I can tell noble Lords from my own experience that unhappy staff do not do good work; it is 101. Happy staff are very likely to do very good work. One of my main jobs is to keep my team happy, and I am given immense flexibility to do it. Without this amendment, it is less easy. I rest my case.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which was so ably enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I think that the amendment is neither fish nor fowl really. It is perfectly possible, as I understand it, for the Government to have already addressed this issue and, by statutory instrument, to set differential rates for compensation at employment tribunal. It seems rather a waste of time, and not necessarily a good use of ministerial time, to put in primary legislation another review.

My substantial issue is also that this, again, tips the balance are much more towards the worker, unreasonably, and away from the employer. I think that is to be deprecated, because that is what we have seen in so many aspects of this Bill. This leads me to conclude something else as well. On a risk-based assessment of whether you would wish to employ a person, an employer may very well conclude—it may, unfortunately, be an encumbrance of being a female employee or potential employee—that “We do not wish to employ that person because she may apply for flexible working, and it is better to employ someone else”. This is particularly because of the risk that, in going to an employment tribunal, after already having believed they had behaved in a reasonable way, they would be subject to a potential substantial monetary fine, which will impact on their bottom line. That is not good for those workers. It is not for the women who wish to work and have flexibility.

I broadly agree with the idea of reasonableness in applying for flexible working. That is how our jobs market and employment regime works now. Many women do want flexible working, and it is absolutely right that employers reasonably consider that. But I think this amendment is a step too far, because it will have the unintended consequence of making it more likely that women will not be employed because they may ask for flexible working. I think it is otiose: it is unnecessary, and it will not add to the efficacy of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, just when I was getting worried that everybody was going to agree, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, popped up to rescue us. In his objection, it seems that the noble Lord has second-guessed the findings of the impact assessment that we have not had yet, which will add to the level of fines if his point that it will help workers more than employers is correct. On that basis, he was admitting that the fine is already too low, so I am not sure where he was going on that. He then drifted into a critique of the principle of flexible working.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will not give way. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Had I been a little more organised, I would have signed her amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Will the noble Lord stop interrupting me?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way very briefly at this juncture?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Order. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not going to give way, and that is his prerogative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

If I get to a point where I feel like it, I will. At the moment, I would like to develop my point.

The issue in Amendment 64 was dealt with very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and then picked up subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. This is commonly thought of as a soft policy—a one-sided policy about giving people things—but both speakers touched on the harder edge to this, and I would like to emphasise it too. This is good for the economy. It is an economic hard edge. We have millions of people who are not working and not able to work. Some of them will never work, but many, with more flexibility and the right amount of help, will be able to work. It is, quite rightly, the Government’s objective to bring as many of those people into the workforce as possible, and flexible working is one of the important tools that will enable us to do that.

I am broadly sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson; there is no problem in assessing the impact of tribunals. But during the debate on the last group I promised to bring in a wider point on tribunals: unless we clear up the tribunal system, it will not matter what the level of sanction is, because it is going to be years before that sanction is brought. It becomes a meaningless activity, particularly for the employee but also for the employer. As I have said before, every time we go into a tribunal, both sides lose. We have to find ways of moving the system faster and eliminating issues within the system that are clogging it. That is why I asked the Minister for a proper meeting to go through the whole issue of what the Government are planning to do with tribunals—not on just what the Bill does but on how they are going to flush the system through and get it working properly.

If the Government do not do that, a huge lump of the Bill will fail, because it will be years and years before any of the sanctions are brought and before—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leong—case law becomes an important element of how we define what “reasonable” means. If we have to wait two or three years before we get that ruling, how many more unreasonable things are going to happen in the meantime? This is a vital point, and I very much hope that the Minister responds to it. I will now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. Not for the first time, he has mischaracterised what I said. It is very clear, and I was quite emphatic, that I support reasonable requests for flexible working. So I would be obliged if the noble Lord did not wilfully misrepresent what I said barely five minutes ago, although I know that, being a Liberal Democrat, he is not always acquainted with the actuality.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I was about to, but I clearly will not now, so the noble Lord can fly for that one.

Flexible working is an important tool for getting people back in the workplace and keeping them there. We should be grateful for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, tabled, and I hope the Government are sensible enough to adopt their version of it at the next stage of the Bill.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their response in Committee, and for confirming that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be publishing a framework outlining the conditions and procedures for using emergency powers under Clause 4.

However, we feel that it is vital that such a framework is discussed in Parliament. The use of emergency powers must be subject to scrutiny, transparency and democratic accountability. Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the scope, necessity and potential consequences of these powers before they are enacted, otherwise we will risk allowing significant regulatory changes to be made without sufficient oversight, which again potentially impacts business, consumers and public confidence in the regulatory system.

Just like the rest of the clauses in this Bill, there is a level of vagueness in Clause 4. Once again, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has stated, that represents an unacceptable shift in power to the Executive. Emergency powers should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations.

I am also revisiting Amendment 30, which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months. Not only do we need a clear understanding of what may or could constitute an emergency but, even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be by their very nature unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. We saw this during Covid-19, where initial emergency measures had to be quickly defined but, over time, continued justification and scrutiny became essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and, if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation. Furthermore, Clause 4 States:

“The disapplication or modification may be made subject to conditions”.


That raises the question: what conditions?

I urge the Government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing emergency decision-making. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think these amendments are very helpful to the Government.

I put on record that I believe that both Ministers have engaged. Whatever you say about them—we do not necessarily agree all the time—they engage with the argument, and they respond properly and respectfully. That speaks well of them, their Front Bench and their party on this Bill, even though we may disagree.

I support this amendment because it speaks to a need for flexibility. We know that there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend referenced Covid, which is the most obvious example of recent years.

One of the other issues running through this Bill has been business certainty—businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and take measures necessary to ameliorate any impact of it on their businesses. These two very sensible amendments would do that, because they would give business a proper framework and reference point for the sort of emergency secondary legislation that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. They address the imperative—this has been a major theme of this Bill, given the reservations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—for proper scrutiny and oversight because we have so many enabling powers, and give flexibility.

The amendments are not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers does not directly enforce a fear upon Ministers. It does not direct Ministers, and it does not fetter their discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest in the case of emergencies. It nevertheless is a way for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the Government are taking. As your Lordships’ House knows, we are looking at rationale and definition in Amendment 29, and clarity and certainty in Amendment 30.

My final point is that this will, no doubt, be litigated in the future, as all legislation is. The more certainty and clarity that we put in the Bill, the less chance there is for vexatious litigation arising from any use or discharge of those regulatory powers in unforeseen emergencies.

For those reasons, and because I know the Government are committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they intend to use, particularly in emergency circumstances, Ministers should look favourably on these two amendments. They are seeking to be helpful. I do not think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'être of the Bill. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Amendments 29 and 30.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the use of emergency powers under the legislation. Amendment 29 would require the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament outlining their use, and Amendment 30 would limit the use of emergency modifications to three months and would require a review of any extension to those modifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Frost, and I will speak very briefly. I am concerned about the Government’s likely resistance to this amendment being moved, because this goes to the very heart of what the Bill is about: proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

We have had many debates about the Delegated Legislation Committee and its significant reservations about the enabling powers and Henry VIII powers which will potentially be discharged by Ministers. The kernel of the debate is: why should we of necessity default to just one regulatory regime? People like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will say that it is our closest economic partner and, of course, it is absolutely logical.

I hesitate, because I know I will be accused of relitigating the Brexit battles, from which I have many scars on my back. However, the fact of the matter, is that, rightly or wrongly, we no longer have direct input into the design and execution of those regulations. So to put in primary legislation, with the background of the Delegated Legislation Committee expressing those significant reservations, a sub-clause which defaults to the position that any regulation, because it comes from the EU, is of necessity the right regulation for our country—in the context, as we have previously debated in Committee and on Report, of an expanding global economy where we will be trading with many different countries and different regulatory regimes outside the European Union—seems to me to be a mistake. On that basis, it is eminently reasonable and sensible for Parliament to have the opportunity to look in detail at these regulations via the affirmative procedure.

For that reason—I know the hour is late and there is other pressing business in the House—I ask Ministers to at least look at supporting this very important amendment on Third Reading. On that basis, I am delighted to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Frost.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, to echo what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said, we are reflecting at the moment on how this country is governed and the extent to which the Executive can be held to account.

In many ways we take pride in our committees. I know from what he has said in the past about government legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has many times criticised what we describe as skeleton Bills. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please allow us to do whatever we eventually decide we would like to do, but give us that power now and we will then do it by secondary legislation”. Speaking as the immediate past Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I always worked very closely with my colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Although my noble friend Lord Lansley said a few moments ago that the Government had introduced a number of amendments, they came back before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said, “That’s not enough”. So, in a way, we are now deciding whether or not the Government are right to ignore the unanimous report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I turn to Amendments 48, 57 and 58 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I commend my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Lansley, for all that they have said. But, to summarise, this is our last real opportunity to deal with what is in effect a skeleton Bill that allows an unacceptable transfer of power from an elected legislature to the Executive.

We welcome the amendments the Government have put forward, but let me quote from paragraph 8 of the unanimous report of 20 February from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, from which I have quoted before. Having considered all the issues, it said,

“these are limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill”.

There is of course provision for consultation, which is warmly to be welcomed, but the committee said,

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Surely, we as a House must agree with that.

It is not enough simply to engage stakeholders behind closed doors while sidelining proper legislative oversight. The Bill in its current form creates a dangerous precedent. This Parliament is asked to cede control over critical regulatory decisions in favour of unchecked Executive power. That is surely not how this democracy should function. If the Government are serious about ensuring transparency, accountability and proper legislative oversight, they must surely go beyond mere consultation and commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage of the regulatory process.

In a moment we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Leong. Will he allow me to quote him? In Committee on 20 November, he said this:

“Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so it really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need a full scrutiny, and we will have avenues for that”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 39.]


What I ask is—and I hope the Minister will reply in a moment—what are those avenues exactly? The Government are yet to provide any clarity at all on how they will distinguish between so-called minor technical changes and more significant regulatory shifts. They have yet to explain why the negative procedure will apply to all subsequent provisions. If some regulations will require full scrutiny, as the Minister acknowledged, why do his Government, in this Bill, predetermine that every future provision beyond the first use of the power will require the negative procedure?

The Government cannot state for a fact that all future provisions will be technical. Markets change, technology advances and legal interpretations, as all lawyers in this House know only too well, will shift. This is precisely why proper parliamentary scrutiny must remain in place for all product and metrology regulations, as recommended by a committee of this House. If the Government concede that some regulations may need full scrutiny then it follows that the affirmative procedure should apply in all cases. Anything less simply hands Ministers a blank cheque to determine the level of scrutiny after the fact, with Parliament left powerless to insist on proper oversight.

I said that I would refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, because I remember what he said. I looked it up when I heard he was going to be here. He said about the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, admittedly in 2021:

“We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to the Government”—


I would add any subsequent Governments—

“that we will not put up with this any longer”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 657.]

As he reflects on his words, I hope he will offer some wise advice to his good colleague.

I urge the Government to reconsider their position and accept the DPRRC’s recommendation that powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are, in all cases, subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny. Surely that is the very least that is required to ensure proper democratic accountability.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. We discussed what the point of the Bill is on many occasions in Committee, but I am afraid we are none the wiser and certainly no better informed on that subject as a result. That is why it is necessary to have a clearer purpose clause written into the Bill. The nearest we have is in the Explanatory Notes from a few months back; I will not read the full text, but they say:

“The Bill intends to ensure the UK is better placed to address modern day safety issues”


and high modern standards

“by allowing the UK Parliament the power to update relevant laws”.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the UK Parliament already has the power to update any law that it wishes, so I do not see how that can be the purpose of this Bill; there must be something else to it. Of course, one could speculate about it. Perhaps it is just to relieve the Government of the burden of having to go through the effort of legislating for the full range of manufactured goods that we still produce in this country, to delegate that power to the European Union and to recreate the situation that existed before we left that organisation. Perhaps it is to help with the woeful arrangements of the Windsor Framework and to make it a little easier to move goods across the internal border from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—I do not know.

What the purpose of the Bill cannot be is to reduce trade barriers—or it can be so only on one condition—because aligning with EU law does not reduce trade barriers. The EU itself is very clear about that; the process remains because it is a different legal system. The one condition on which that could be true would be if the UK and the EU reached an agreement that the aligned legislation under this Bill was to be considered as EU law and would be enforced by the Commission and the court—in other words, a Swiss-style arrangement. We have heard chat that that might be what the Government are aiming for in their reset.

In so far as I can see a purpose to the Bill, without the proposed new purpose clause in Amendment 1, it is maybe to prepare the ground for a Swiss-style agreement. Can the Minister, when commenting on this group, confirm or deny whether that is the intention of the Government and the purpose of this legislation? If it is not, it is very hard to see why the Government would not accept the proposed new purpose clause in Amendment 1.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I hope that over the course of my remarks I can illuminate the rationale for the amendment, for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Deben. This amendment is not about relitigating the Brexit battles. It is about holding the Government’s feet to the fire in a Bill that is deeply flawed. It is found to be deeply flawed by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and delegated legislation committee—more of that later.

The two reasons that Ministers should look benignly on this amendment are that it is not substantially at odds with the Bill’s raison d’être and it is not only a noble aspiration of the Government. The Government were concerned—indeed, the previous Government were also concerned—that they did not have sufficient powers to respond to the EU’s regulatory initiatives efficaciously and that this would have negative trade consequences. It is perfectly proper that the Government seek to address that issue.

The fundamental problem of the Bill is that it does not articulate how far the Government intend to exercise the wide-scale, sweeping enabling powers in favour of alignment with the European Union only, and not other jurisdictions. For that reason this amendment should receive the support of your Lordships’ House. It is a purpose clause and a fundamental issue. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I stray into the remit of Amendment 2. They are very similar and both look at Clause 1.

Before I go any further, I thank the Minister for how congenial and open he has been in engaging with all sides of the House—including our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—in seeking to improve the Bill and have a proper debate. Although there is no specific mention of dynamic alignment in the Bill, my noble friend Lord Frost makes a very astute point on whether the Government are moving towards a Swiss-style agreement—multiple bilateral agreements—which would potentially not be in the best interests of the UK as a much larger and more substantial economy than Switzerland.

The Minister should accept that our amendment seeks clarity, certainty and an explicit purpose, without undermining the concept of improving the regulation of products and metrology. This is not one giant statutory instrument. It is a piece of primary legislation. It is quite sensible to have the purpose of that legislation explicitly set out. It has an impact in terms of protecting the autonomy of the UK as an independent trading nation. As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere made clear in Parliamentary Questions earlier, adopting a regulatory regime over which we have no effective influence, input or sanction is not a sensible way to proceed. It would certainly circumscribe our capacity to make new, advantageous trade arrangements with countries—not just those outside the EU but others that will come into the EU as new members subsequently.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, chunters that “It would be in our interest” from a sedentary position. That is a value judgment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

I said that what we do is totally in our own hands. The Bill gives us the right to adopt if we want to—to change, if we want to. This is about the UK having control. I thought that is what the party opposite wanted.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

That would be the case if the Bill was not an egregious offence in respect of huge Henry VIII powers and enabling powers.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord again but I cannot resist it. Surely the whole point about the Bill is to give us flexibility to do what the noble Lord is asking us to do.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Then the noble Lord would support a purpose clause, which—one might make the case—is much clearer and more explicit. Incidentally, I agree with every word said by my noble friend Lord Lansley and will be supporting his amendment later.

But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rises to the Dispatch Box, I would just like to conclude my remarks with the words of his noble friend the Attorney-General. This has been mentioned before, because it is very important within the context of the Bill. It is not just that this is primary legislation; it is unclear. It gives ministerial fiat—wide-ranging ministerial powers—and there are not explicit protections. Indeed, the Delegated Legislation Committee specifically says there are not proper procedures for even consultation with key stakeholders. But the noble Lord will know that on 14 October, the Attorney-General—who is not as high-profile in this House as he used to be—said in his Bingham lecture on 14 October that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.

I could not have put it better myself. On that basis, I hope that Ministers may be minded to support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Report debate and to speak to this amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for reminding us that we are not relitigating the Brexit debate, because sometimes in Committee it was very hard to understand that point, given the speeches that came from his Benches. We are not relitigating the Brexit debate; we are trying to put in place a regulatory regime and the ability to deliver regulation that benefits the people of this country.

I was minded to consider that if I was using an electric lawn-mower and I started either to be electrocuted by it or have my toes removed by it, the last thing I would worry about was whether the regulation for that was autonomous. I would be worrying: why was it not safe? Why was the product not preserving my rights as a consumer not to be electrocuted or amputated? There is a serious point to this. If the noble Lord wanted to put a purpose to the Bill, its purpose is not to deliver some mystical autonomy—if we look at Amendment 8, we see that the Minister, far from delivering autonomy, is going to tie us to a whole bunch of other regulatory regimes. It is about delivering a regime that protects people and the environment, and gives consumers right of recompense if they are sold faulty products—all those sorts of things that we see before us. If we look in the draft code of conduct, that is what is set out in the introduction to it.

Sometimes we use before Clause 1 purpose amendments to make sure that we are the first speaker up. I do not think in this case that was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. His amendment is designed—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

If I can finish my sentence, please. The noble Lord’s amendment is designed to completely change the purpose of the Bill. I think he has admitted that, and that is right. I suggest that in all the discussion we have had, all the amendments that we have talked about through Committee have been about the consumer, safety and the other issues that actually matter. If we want a purpose, I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the Minister and we can draw up a purpose that encompasses that if it makes people feel happier, but the key issue is not the autonomy, it is the effectiveness of that regulation. I give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Our focus will be—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

No, as the noble Lord just said—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord agreed to give way.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I give way to the Whips to suggest what to do.

--- Later in debate ---

I remind people that we believed, or were told, that we were taking back control. I think we in fact did not take back control at all; we made ourselves less powerful in controlling our futures. But the one thing that we did not say we would do was to give Ministers the unfettered control which some had objected to in the European Union, so it is necessary for the Government to go further. I usually find the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, very persuasive, but I fear that he has given way too early. We ought to ask for further concessions before we can safely pass this Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 39, tabled in my name, which has ended up in this particular group almost by accident. It relates to a specific issue about the making of regulations as they relate to criminal offences arising from non-compliance in respect of metrology. This amendment is quite important because it requires that, at least 30 days before the making of a provision in respect of regulations as described in Clause 6(9), those regulations be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum.

This is important because the creation in secondary legislation of any criminal offence is a serious matter, and one that needs proper scrutiny and oversight. On that basis, it is a reasonable request for the Government to look benignly on this amendment, because they have previously committed to transparency and openness in many respects in the Bill. This would give parliamentarians an opportunity to raise some questions about the likelihood of a criminal offence arising from metrology regulations. For that reason, I may press this amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, following the theme of benign attention from government to amendments that have washed up in this group, I shall speak to my Amendment 41. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as it applies to Socially Recruited, an AI business.

There are many things that are not in the Bill, data centres being one of them; yet these are the factories and foundries that are going to fuel our fourth industrial revolution, which is already well under way. We might think back to all that Victorian factories legislation, all quite appropriate and proper, whereas all I am seeking here is not even a whole statute—which we could have on data centres alone—but merely one amendment, which I hope the Government can look benignly upon. It simply asks the Government to undertake a consultation to look at a new standard for the measurement of the power usage of data centres.

We are going to rely increasingly on data centres for almost everything that we do in this country. How we power them, where we site them, the inputs, the outputs, where the technology comes from—all of these are key features currently utterly unconsidered in any legislation or regulations. All that my Amendment 41 seeks to do is suggest that the Government launch a consultation, following the passage of the Bill, to look at the effectiveness of a,

“metrology standard for the power usage of data centres”,

and, not least, to reconsider the current power usage effectiveness—PUE—standard and whether it is up to the job in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Fox. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose common sense I often agree with. I am happy to echo his request that we treat and judge these amendments in the world we live in, rather than the world we would like to live in.

My name was attached to a predecessor of this amendment when the Bill came before your Lordships’ Committee. Its absence at this stage does not reflect any diminution of my belief that its provisions would both enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and strengthen Parliament’s scrutinising role. The fact is, I just left it too late to add my name.

The moving spirit behind this amendment is a desire for the greatest possible transparency and, leading from that, the greatest role possible for your Lordships’ House and the other place in examining regulatory decisions and subjecting them to scrutiny. The coverage surrounding this legislation has frequently described it as an enabling Bill, but I see this amendment as one that enables Parliament to have access to the thinking of relevant Ministers when they choose to align with or diverge from EU or other law. These decisions should and will be made according to a calculus of national self-interest, rather than—as I suspect some on the Opposition Benches are determined to believe—a desire unthinkingly to ape EU regulations, whether such alignment is in the interest of British business and industry or not.

In that respect, this amendment is rather more narrowly drawn than its predecessor, to which I put my name. It does not represent dynamic alignment but offers a greater measure of regulatory certainty for business, while ensuring that decisions that prove not to be in our interest are regularly reviewed. As I have said, I am aware of the fears of some on the Opposition Benches, and the suggestion that the Bill encompasses the extinction of British regulatory independence. I do not agree with them but suggest that if this is indeed their belief, the greater transparency and reviewing requirements of this amendment should offer a vehicle for more effective scrutiny.

This amendment has been drafted carefully and is consonant with the aims of the Bill as a whole. It does not suggest or conform to any preconceived determination that alignment with EU standards is inherently desirable. As we have heard, it simply imposes on Ministers a duty to report to Parliament when a decision has been made against or in favour of regulatory alignment. In a further departure from this amendment’s predecessor, the yardstick against which that decision has been taken will be a simple one: whether the decision is to the benefit of British businesses.

Recent weeks have made it abundantly clear that we now live in a more transactional world. Although I might regret that fact, I recognise it and accept that this is the world that we live in, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, would say. Even judged by that metric, this amendment’s value is clear. Its starting point is what is good for our national economy and businesses; it ensures that Parliament is to be apprised of the basis on which Ministers make their regulatory determinations; and it ensures that if these have proved mistaken, they can be scrutinised and, where necessary, reversed. For those reasons, it should be part of the Bill. Whether through proceedings in your Lordships’ House or the other place—which, I am sure, will have an opportunity to consider it—I hope that this amendment, or something very like it, will make its way on to the statute book.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendments in this group, tabled in his and other noble Lords’ names.

I begin by focusing on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others. It would be churlish and unreasonable not to concede that it is slightly different from the amendment tabled in Committee and that it is slightly better, although I am surprised by the noble Lord’s comments, echoed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about the basis on which we seek to legislate with primary legislation. We do not do it for businesses; we do it for the good of the greater population of this country and not necessarily a small group, however estimable it is in the case of the British Chambers of Commerce. This is not a bad amendment but it is potentially a Trojan horse amendment, in that it closes out options other than the regulatory and legal regime of the European Union.

That brings me to Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost. The key issue here is that we are considering a Bill that we hope will improve the productivity and competitiveness of British business and commerce and reduce trade frictions. It is not sensible to close off the possibility of different opportunities for the United Kingdom to prosper outside the European Union. The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Being open and transparent, and putting in legislation the means to improve trade globally, does not necessarily mean that we are resiling from our friends in the European Union and our trade with them. However, by dollar denomination, global trade with the EU has reduced from, I think, 32% 30 years ago; it is likely within the next 10 years to drop to about 14%.

Therefore, we have a duty and a responsibility. It is imperative for us as legislators to put in place legislation that recognises those economic realities—that we will be trading more with Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and other countries. Of course, we are not taking the view that Europe cannot prosper. It is in our best interests that the European Union prospers. But to put in the Bill only the legal and regulatory regime of one part of the global trade possibilities closes off options that Ministers would be sensible not to close off.

My final remarks are on my noble friend’s Amendment 25, which affects Clause 2, on page 3 of the Bill, concerning the legal jurisdiction of potential supranational legal entities and the impact they will have on the regulatory regime of the United Kingdom. Again, I press the Minister to answer my noble friend’s question: as a result of this Bill passing, are we going to have a situation in the near future analogous to that of Switzerland—a fractious and difficult relationship as a result of many bilateral agreements with the European Union, and is that in the best interests of the United Kingdom? That is the rationale behind this very sensible amendment. For those reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment, and I would resist the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

Prevent: Learning Review

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for both his previous work on helping to support to development of the counterterrorism strategy and his comments. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, there have been around 5,000 successful Prevent referrals since 2015, and there are people now living productive, constructive lives who may have gone down the radicalisation route had Prevent intervention not taken place.

I add that I was in the Home Office from 2009 to 2010, and in the Ministry of Justice from 2007 to 2009, and when we dealt with Prevent then it was an entirely different world. There was no Twitter or Facebook; the internet was relatively in its infancy. In the 14 to 15 years between then and my return to the Home Office, there has been the dark web, radicalisation, fake news—a whole range of things. One of the key issues for the future is asking the tech companies to step up to the plate on what they need to do to help support the Prevent strategy and deradicalisation. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to tech companies, following both the Southport and Sir David Amess reviews, to ensure that we can examine, with them, their responsibilities once the Online Safety Act comes into effect on 17 March.

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He is right that Prevent can be a success and we should not throw it out on the basis of failings that are self-evident but which are not the full story of how the Prevent strategy has worked.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s typically generous remarks about my former colleague Sir David Amess, who was a personal friend and a fine and decent public servant. The city status of Southend-on-Sea and the Children’s Parliament, which he helped to found, are fitting tributes to a good life and one well spent.

Having represented a constituency which was 16% Muslim, I know the difference between those who follow the Muslim faith and those who follow the pernicious poison of Islamism. On the latter, can the Minister reassure the House that the Islamist proselytising that we have often seen across the prison estate, in madrassas and in some mosques in this country will be part of the review, and that the Government will take those issues seriously? If Prevent is in a position to intervene early with some individuals in those settings it may head off some of the much more serious criminal activity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. The loss of Sir David was felt keenly across the House, but particularly by those who shared his political party or were close to his region. He will be forever remembered for the Adjournment debate, now named the Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate, in the House of Commons. For those who do not know, Sir David was always first up in every Adjournment debate to raise about 46 issues to do with Southend. Of those, 42 or 43 ended up in some positive outcome for his constituents. I should mention that, before Southend, he was the Member of Parliament for Basildon.

The noble Lord raises extremely important points. There is a criminal threshold for individuals who promote Islamist or neo-Nazi terrorism, or terrorism related to any other form of hate, such as misogyny. It is extremely important, if evidence is brought forward and the threshold is crossed, that the police take action via the CPS. The Prevent strategy is particularly about younger people being radicalised by those who have criminal intent and have provided criminal material, or individuals who have crossed that threshold and are having their own grievances or immaturities exploited by individuals for the purpose of terrorist activity. The Prevent strategy is about helping people who are going down that route. I think the noble Lord is referring to the criminal threshold, which is for the police and the CPS to determine. They have my full support to prosecute anybody who encourages terrorist activity.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in group 1 and to support my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I extend my apologies at the outset to your Lordships’ House for the fact that I was not able to be here on 18 October for Second Reading due to a long-standing family engagement.

Given that I have tabled a significant number of amendments, I think it would be helpful to explain why my noble friends and I are seeking to amend the Bill. First, I put on record my appreciation of the commitment and tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in seeking to get this measure on to the statute book on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding that, this is a very poorly drafted and ill thought through Bill, which is why 32 amendments have been tabled to it in Committee. It gives rise to wide-ranging ramifications in terms of public finances, the delivery of public services and community cohesion. It is a de facto legislative open door to unlimited immigration—let us be honest about that. If noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to reject that analysis, I am more than happy to give way.

It is also inherently unfair on those seeking regular routes to indefinitely remain and to citizenship. Finally, more generally, I believe it is predicated on a mischaracterisation and a misunderstanding of whether the UK has indeed discharged its historic and current proper humanitarian and compassionate international duties to refugees. I think there is significant evidence that it has.

So, it is a bad Bill, but even now, at this late stage, I believe it can be improved. It is as well to say that the UK has a long and proud record of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution, including Jewish refugees in the 1930s and Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, some of whom came to my former constituency, Peterborough. Via bespoke humanitarian routes the UK actually resettled 31,000 refugees between 2012 and 2022, excluding the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Ukraine and Hong Kong programmes.

Indeed, in 2023, 62,000 grants of application for asylum were made, against 84,000 in-country applications, the second highest in the European league table. It equates to 76%: significantly higher than, for instance, Italy, Spain or France, and up from 33% in 2018. I accept that it has since dropped to around 67% but, with these numbers, the provision of basic accommodation, a weekly allowance, free healthcare and education for children is nevertheless a very significant drain on public resources, however laudable the aims are.

It would be appropriate to move to specifically consider the amendments that I have tabled in group 1. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my Amendments 3, 13, 18, 23, 26 and 27, which would all add sensible and reasonable safeguards to the Bill to ensure the integrity of our immigration system. Amendment 3 seeks to replace the proposed 21-day implementation period for changes to the Immigration Rules with a more measured timeframe of three months. Such a change reflects a pragmatic approach to policy-making, ensuring that any new rules governing refugee family reunion are implemented effectively and require sufficient time for consultation, preparation and operational adjustments, as well as for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in this House and the other place.

A rushed 21-day period risks overwhelming local authorities, housing providers and other stakeholders, potentially undermining the system’s integrity. In my own home area of Peterborough, we have seen significant strains on the delivery of public services, particularly things such as GP surgeries, the provision of local authority and housing association housing, and primary school places. Three months provides a balanced compromise, enabling thorough preparation while allowing the Government to move forward in a timely manner. This measured approach ensures that the new policies will be robust and sustainable.

Amendment 13 seeks to remove “unmarried partner” from the scope of family reunion eligibility. This amendment aligns family reunion provisions with the established principles of the Immigration Rules, which prioritise formal marital or civil partnerships over less formal relationships. Quite frankly, in the real world, it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an unmarried partner is a bona fide claimant under these rules, and that is one of the many holes in the Bill as drafted.

So this is a matter of both consistency and clarity. Recognising only spouses and civil partners provides clear criteria for eligibility, reducing the potential for fraudulent claims. It also upholds traditional values that recognise marriage and civil partnership as the cornerstone of a stable family unit as it goes forward towards citizenship and playing a meaningful and useful role in UK society. This amendment ensures that the UK’s immigration policies remain fair, transparent and in line with public expectations. In fact, if your Lordships consider comparative regimes across Europe and other jurisdictions, they will see that this is very much in line with the practices adopted in other countries.

Amendment 18 proposes reducing the age limit for siblings eligible for family reunion from 25 to 21 years old. There is of course significant scientific data that says that a human being is not fully developed—certainly, their brain is not fully developed—perhaps until their mid-20s, but that is contested. It is generally accepted across the world that you are an adult either at 18 or, in the case of some legislation, at 21. Such a change reflects the practical realities of adulthood and independence. At 21, individuals are generally expected to be self-sufficient and capable of making their own rational decisions and establishing their own lifestyle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

It is an advisory time limit. I thank the noble Lord for that.

It would also be impossible to ascertain the veracity of a claim in foreign jurisdictions.

This amendment would ensure that family reunion rights were extended only to those whose adoptive status had been legally verified. Such a change would protect vulnerable children while ensuring that the system was not exploited; in fact, it would specifically protect children and young people from being trafficked for sexual or other exploitation.

Amendment 27 would introduce a requirement for medical health assessments for all applicants before their family reunion status was approved. This is a common-sense measure that ensures the health and well-being of those entering the UK. Early health assessments can identify any medical issues requiring treatment, ensuring that appropriate support is provided, and additionally, these assessments protect public health by identifying and addressing any communicable diseases. This policy is pursued by many countries across the world and is sensible and responsible. Such a policy is not only practical but humane, reflecting the UK’s commitment to safeguarding both incoming refugees and the wider community.

In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the Bill is both compassionate and practical. They would uphold public confidence, protect national security, and promote fairness and transparency in the immigration system. I urge the Committee to support these thoughtful and necessary provisions.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the speakers’ list for today states:

“Other speakers within each group are expected to keep within 10 minutes”.


If noble Lords could respect that, your Lordships’ House would probably appreciate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group introduced by their three proposers. I do so for five reasons.

The first is that I believe in putting the traffickers out of business, and studies show that about half of those in the camps in Calais are family reunion cases: they are people wishing to join members of their family here.

The second is that the principal virtue, in my book, of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that it deals with the anomaly where we, with the Swiss and Liechtenstein, are the only countries in Europe that do not allow a resident refugee child granted asylum status to sponsor family members to come into the country. Our position is an anomaly, which, in my view, is quite unworthy of us and quite unfitting with our pride in being a sanctuary country.

Thirdly, I oppose the amendments because they are unworkable. I think the intention is probably to make them unworkable, but in practice, they would be unworkable. A good example is Amendment 7, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which would require the Secretary of State to publish in the initial statement and every six months how many people would be expected to come in under the Act and the approximate cost per person. We know the answer, actually. The Refugee Council study established that the numbers would be somewhere in the range of 240 to 750 a year, if we, as every other European country, except Liechtenstein and Switzerland, does, allowed a resident child granted asylum status to bring in family members. The range would be no more than 750—it might be as little as 240—and the cost would be about £1,000 a head.

So we are talking de minimis here on money but constructing extremely elaborate bureaucracy and laying requirements on local government—and central government, because we are talking about the accommodation requirements—to do an immense amount of reporting. This, for Members of this House who oppose overregulation and bureaucracy, is a rather surprising structure. I, of course, was a bureaucrat—a proud bureaucrat. I should be delighted to see many more bureaucrats given entertainment and occupation, but actually I think it is a very bad idea.

My fourth reason is that overspecifying, going into all the detail that this does, is itself a bad thing. I think it is correct that the Immigration Rules lay down the details and primary legislation should not. That is the right way of doing it, and all this heavy detail in here is making this a very peculiar piece of primary legislation and is overlapping with the existing Immigration Rules.

My fifth and last point, which relates to that one, is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth—because he is a distinguished lawyer and I am neither distinguished nor a lawyer—to think hard a contrario. If we set out such extraordinarily detailed specifications in primary legislation, what about the other Immigration Rules that do not simply copy primary legislation? Will it not be open to individuals to argue in the courts, against the authorities, that, because the specification in the Immigration Rules was not set out in primary legislation, it is in some way defective? I think it is very dangerous to get into a contrario territory, but I bow to the lawyers in this Committee who know more about it than I do.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his kindness in giving way. Do I understand his main point to be that real-time, empirical data is inimical to the formulation of good public policy? Is he actually saying that we should not collect data in order to make policy, for the future of our country, in respect of the provision of health services, housing and all the rest? That is a very odd argument to make, if I am perfectly honest.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Of course not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is it? I do not think it is.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes. All this—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord has had his say.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.

Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.

On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. At the outset, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, if I caught him correctly, said that it was difficult to explain why the amendments in this group were laid. That is what I heard—I apologise if it is not what he said. It seems to me, from the conversation we have had on this group of amendments, that it is primarily about making further restrictions on what is already in the rules of our system and, secondly, about creating differences in timings. Those would then make it more difficult to put forward the principles that lie behind this Bill, which of course is about filling some of the eligibility gaps that currently exist for family reunion.

On timings, it strikes me as strange that we have two sets of amendments pulling in opposite directions. In one set we have amendments from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches saying that they want to restrict the amount of time that the Home Office and the Government have to make the new arrangements, while in the other set they are trying to expand them so that they have longer to do it. I do not know whether we can make a judgment on that, but it seems to me that what is common practice in the timings for dealing with changes that the Government have to make—the current procedure in this Bill of six months for the Government to prepare, and 21 days before Parliament—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I fear that he is wrong on this, in that we are seeking to open a larger window for parliamentary oversight, in terms of a statement laid by the Secretary of State under the conditions laid down in the Bill, but to give more time for those people more acutely affected at local level, such as local authorities, police and other agencies. That is why he may see a slight difference there, but they are not mutually exclusive ideas in respect of our amendments.

[Lord German (LD)]

I understand the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not understand how they can be put alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which seek to increase the time overall. Anyway, I am sure that noble Lords in this Committee will be able to make their minds up, having heard that interjection just then.

Beyond timing, of course, there are a number of issues relating to restrictions. The issue fundamental to this is that, on the family reunion potential, those who come with family reunion protection are largely women and children. We must not forget that this is the group of people we are talking about. Family reunion costs less to the British purse than it does if you have to manage things through the state. Looking after young people by local authorities does not come cheap, and having people within their own family background certainly helps to support every aspect of family life—but particularly for young people it makes sure they have a good start in life and can proceed.

I will not repeat the numbers because I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, but they are small. There are other numbers that might give an indication of the future—the ones that I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was asking about. In the past 12 months, 3,201 unaccompanied children were given protection in this country up to the year ending September 2024. Those 3,201 may have family; it is true that they may have parents somewhere, but you have to make a judgment as to how many would seek to bring their families here. We are one of only three countries on the European continent that do not operate on that potential.

--- Later in debate ---

So I find myself in the strange position that I cannot fully agree with the noble Baroness and I certainly cannot agree with His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Let us see what happens today. Let us see whether Members withdraw their amendments or push them to a Division—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments.

I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.

Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.

The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.

I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “6 months” and insert “one month”

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. It is very gracious of the noble Baroness to apologise—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I think we need to look at the time and bring the Committee to a conclusion fairly quickly. If the noble Lord would help us by not speaking to his amendment, then we can get on with that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

On the basis of being as collegiate and collaborative as the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—before I have even spoken to it.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.