Employment Rights Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I am going to speak, in mercifully brief terms, about SMEs, but I will spare noble Lords the history of SMEs in the UK from 1910 to 2026.

My point, in relation to Motions B and B1, is that lifting the cap on unfair dismissal without warning and at this very late stage fundamentally undermines the claims of careful consultation with employers. My email inbox, like those of many others in this place, is awash with anger and indignation from SMEs in particular. The question they keep asking is: how can we trust this Government, coming as this does after punitive and disproportionate hits on employers’ national insurance contributions and inflation-busting increases in the minimum wage, who are sneaking in this clause on uncapped compensation? SMEs will not be persuaded by the data we have heard in this debate on medians and modes. Frankly, we are creating yet more uncertainty, piling up the risks of employing new staff and fuelling unemployment that much further. It is anti-entrepreneurial, anti-enterprise and, I fear, a job destroyer. In my view, it has no place in a free, growth-driven economy.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, there is one short point that the House should bear in mind in relation to Motion B1. There is already no cap on the award of compensation in employment tribunals for race discrimination, sex discrimination and disability discrimination cases. The House may therefore think that the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps rather exaggerated.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. This continues the robust discussion that we have had throughout the passage of the Bill.

I come first to some of the constitutional points, or those that go to the way that we do business. As I outlined in my opening speech, the tripartite talks and the amendments resulting from them were context- and Bill-specific. They were really a demonstration of the way in which we listened very clearly to the views expressed in this House through many exchanges, which led to a very productive tripartite discussion. However, they are very context- and Bill-specific. The noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cromwell, will be familiar with discussions with the Leader of the House on how she and other Members would like to conduct business more regularly.

I will address some of the points made. Again, coming back to the nature of it all, these were discussions between business representative organisations, trade unions and the Government. Specifically on the question of the minutes, there are Civil Service contemporaneous notes of the meetings, but they have not been shared with participants or more widely. We think that it would be impolite and inappropriate to share the meeting notes without the agreement of those who attended the meetings. The Government’s statement and update on the Employment Rights Bill, released on 27 November, and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statement laid in both Houses provide the public summary and conclusion of that meeting. Although it was a slightly different process, we laid that Written Ministerial Statement as soon as we could to give as much clarity as possible to the House on the developments that were happening, which were, as I said before, in response to concerns raised here.

On the question of lifting or removing, that is indeed something that I have also given some thought to. The word “lift”—lifting embargoes; lifting bans—is used very commonly in that manner to mean “remove”. When asked this question in the other place, my colleague, Minister Dearden, confirmed the outcomes of the negotiations and said

“I was in the room as part of the negotiations … I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/25; col. 94.]

I was not in the room and I therefore give weight to the comments that she made on that.

To address the comments and interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lord Barber, this is, in total, a pragmatic way forward. The opposition amendment would not enable us to move forward because it would remove the cap and replace it with the report. It is not something that can be encompassed, and we should continue with the package as negotiated; it is not consistent with the agreement that was reached and which we have brought to your Lordships and encapsulated in the Bill. I just underline that it is not something that we can accept.

Points have been made about the actual substance of the cap. The noble Lord who spoke just before me made the extremely pertinent point that there are already areas of the law that have uncapped areas, and we do not think that removing the cap will mean that compensatory awards will necessarily increase in the way that others have set out. Tribunals have well-established ways of calculating the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. As the figures cited today show, those methodologies lead to awards that are, on average, under £7,000. Employment tribunals will continue to focus on claimants’ actual losses when determining awards. I think that some of the fears are unwarranted but, in any case, we will publish the impact assessment and we will engage with business organisations continuously. The last month has shown how productive it can be to engage with business organisations and trade unions together to advance all the measures here. I think that I have dealt with all the points made by Members on the cap.

I come on to the political funds and the question of whether it is an active choice or whether we are trying to restrict people from making an active choice as to whether to contribute to a political fund. When joining a trade union, new members are taking an active choice to voluntarily join a collective organisation that has decided, via a democratic ballot of members, to establish a political fund. We do not see these as two distinct decisions—a decision to join a democratic organisation that has a political fund and a decision to opt in to a political fund—but one active decision. I remind noble Lords that all we are proposing to do is to restore the position as it was for 70 years—I will perhaps not give quite as much detail as my noble friend—before the Trade Union Act 2016 came into force. This simplifies the political funds process to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting trade unions from administrative burdens and ensuring that members continue to have a choice on whether they wish to contribute to a political fund.

Crucially, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that members who, for whatever reason, choose not to contribute, should and will be able to do so easily and without detriment, and can exercise that right to opt out of contributing. We will continue to require trade unions to make new members aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. The unions will have to explain to members on the application form that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership and they will not face any disadvantage. Members will be able to easily inform unions of their decision to opt in or out, including by post, email, completion of electronic form or by any other electronic means.

I was asked about the guidance or regulations in this area. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to issue the guidance within three months of the relevant section coming into force. This guidance will set out expectations as to how quickly unions should action opt-out notifications and will state that unions should, as a matter of best practice, give effect to opt-out notices at the earliest feasible opportunity. This will help to ensure that unions action the opt-out notices promptly. As I stated earlier—I can commit to this again—the guidance will also be clear that opting out must be properly available and practically possible for members who wish to exercise that right. We want to make sure that members are able to opt out in that way, and the guidance will be clear on how that is effected. On the question of the rebate, that will be effected at the earliest time possible once the opt-out notice has been given.

On the question of ballot thresholds, I noticed the attempt to recontextualise the recent year’s industrial action, but the fact is that a threshold of 50% has not led to less industrial action. All strike action recently has taken place with a turnout of more than the 50% threshold, so we do not think that this will inhibit good industrial relations. In fact, we think that the 50% level is unnecessary. It is inhibiting the democratic right of union members and unions to demonstrate their will. It does not take place in other areas—for example, local government or parliamentary elections. Therefore, we do not think it should continue. However, to reiterate, we will not repeal the 50% threshold until we have assessed the impact of e-balloting. The Secretary of State will have to have regard to the impact of that, and he will lay a Statement explaining what the effect of e-balloting is before the 50% threshold is rescinded.

To conclude, we now want to move forward with purpose, guided by our manifesto commitment to work constructively with stakeholders.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a barrister who occasionally practices in employment law. Secondly, in Committee on 18 June, Hansard recalls that I described the Bill as

“a complete Horlicks … truly bizarre”

and

“absolutely beyond belief”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. 2048.]

I am amazed at my moderation. Nothing I have heard since addresses my concerns. As ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, whose amendment I entirely agree with, this clause allows the Secretary of State to bring a complaint to an employment tribunal without the consent of the complainant. Have these people ever been to an employment tribunal? This is absurd.

Is it proposed, in the event that the claimant has the temerity to disagree with the Secretary of State’s assessment that they have a valid claim, to witness summons the claimant, on pain of arrest, if they do not come and give evidence in support of their claim? If, when there, they have the temerity to give evidence against the claim brought by the Secretary of State on their unwilling behalf, will the Secretary of State apply to the judge to treat their witness as hostile, thus permitting the former to cross-examine the latter on the basis that they really were badly treated by their employer? This is palpable nonsense. This clause cannot stand part of the Bill.

I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, the wording of the clause is an exercise in discretion and is therefore subject to judicial review. There can therefore be a judicial review of both the decision to bring proceedings on the part of the unwilling claimant and of the decision not to bring proceedings. This is going to be marvellous for those of us who are both at the employment Bar and the public law Bar. There will be endless litigation, all at public expense on every side. This is absurd. I invite the House to remove this clause from the Bill as swiftly as possible.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot match the peculiar tones of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but I do agree with the thrust of his remarks. Noble Lords often oppose clauses in government Bills; sometimes noble Lords are alarmed by such clauses, but, very occasionally, it is appropriate to say that a clause in a government Bill is simply bonkers—a technical term, but appropriate in this context. That is the appropriate term in respect of a proposal that the Secretary of State should be given power to

“bring proceedings … in an employment tribunal”,

in place of the worker who has the employment right, where

“it appears to the Secretary of State that the worker is not going to bring proceedings”.

This is a quite astonishing provision, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, in particular because the Bill does not require the Secretary of State even to consult the worker whose rights they are going to pursue, far less to obtain the worker’s consent.

Of course, the worker may have good reason not to want to bring proceedings. Not everyone wishes to spend more time with their lawyers. Not everyone wishes to have the finer details of their conduct picked over in public by lawyers for the employer and to be the subject of a public judgment. I declare my interest as a practising barrister, occasionally in employment law cases. I spend much of my time advising clients in all areas of the law that litigation is not necessarily the answer to their problem. The idea that the Secretary of State should decide whether to bring proceedings, and not the worker themselves, could appeal only to those who believe in a state that is ever expanding to take more and more responsibility for areas of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Is it really appropriate for a Secretary of State to insist that the circumstances relating to an individual are publicly exposed—subject to cross-examination, subject to a public judgment—when the individual whose private rights are the subject of those proceedings wishes, no doubt for good reason, that they not be so exposed? Is it really appropriate?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

I venture to suggest that in some circumstances it might be, but I add an important point, which is that my party has been involved in discussions with the Government about the protection of such a worker.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

There is nothing secret about any such discussions. They relate to anonymity for such a worker and the restrictions on publicity that might protect such a worker from exactly the dangers and difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests and envisages. But the Secretary of State might, in a given case, take the view that an issue of law or principle was involved, with wider ramifications going beyond that particular case, and that the public interest required the issue to be determined. With respect to all the arguments that have been put by those who have spoken before me, I am not sure that any of those arguments met that possibility, certainly not in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, expressed it. Even the moderate tones of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, a colleague of mine, failed to deal comprehensively with that suggestion.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

This is a very important matter. Surely the answer to his concern that the individual case may raise wider, broader issues is that it is absolutely inevitable in those circumstances that there will be other affected workers, one of whom no doubt will bring proceedings. We do not need the Secretary of State to bring proceedings in those circumstances. It is inconceivable.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

There might be others. Then again, there might not. I quite accept that a Secretary of State would have to weigh up very carefully the competing considerations in favour of the public interest in having a point determined against the private interest of the worker concerned in not being involved in any way in litigation. Of course, the worker concerned does not have to be involved; proceedings are brought—this is a point I will come on to in a moment—as if he were involved, but the point may need determination in any case.

I think I have covered the point about the public interest, which I suspect is the argument that we will hear from the Government. Nevertheless, and on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made, in a case where Section 113 is invoked, I suggest that it would be utterly wrong for such a worker to be exposed to risk by the Secretary of State proceeding with such a case. I have dealt with the point about anonymity and circumscribing publicity, and I suggest that this must be addressed before this clause becomes law.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

Such protections as would be afforded would depend on the individual case and on such measures as the tribunal thought appropriate; they might indeed include anonymity or witness protection in an extreme case. I do not believe that that is likely, but I do believe that the right of the worker to some sort of privacy, in a case in which he positively did not want to be identified, would have to be protected.

Going on to my point about the risk in costs, I suggest that it would be simply unconscionable if the decision of the Secretary of the State to take proceedings could expose the worker to a risk in costs. There is no protection in the Bill for a worker on this point; indeed, in subsections (3) and (6) in particular, there is the clear suggestion that there would be a risk in costs for an unwilling worker claimant. Specifically, subsection (3) would provide that, if the Secretary of State brings such proceedings, they are

“to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker”,

and that needs to be addressed. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, subsection (6) will provide that:

“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done) in, or in connection with, the discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State’s functions by virtue of this section”.


That, in my submission, renders the worker vulnerable to an order in costs and there ought to be an indemnity against any such order. I accept that there is not one; the question is therefore whether that can be addressed by the Government. It is not a question that leads to a stand part decision that the clause should be left out of the Bill altogether.

We would of course hope that no employment tribunal would make a costs order against a worker in such circumstances, but this House should not proceed on the basis of hope alone; the possibility remains, particularly if the tribunal were to take a dim view of the worker’s conduct. That, we should remember, may be exactly the conduct that sensibly dissuaded the worker from launching proceedings in the first place.

I invite the Government to bring forward an amendment, hopefully by agreement at Third Reading, whereby protection from this risk in costs could be given to a worker, either by way of indemnity by the Secretary of State or by a prohibition on a costs order. I also urge the Government to look at the other protections that the worker might have. Alternatively, the Government might consider giving solid assurances to meet this point. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can I ask for the noble Lord’s assistance? He mentioned that, according to subsection (3),

“the proceedings are to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker”.

Does he think that that means that if the worker decides to withdraw the proceedings, they are to be treated as withdrawn?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

The noble Lord has plainly given the Government solid pause for thought on that point, because of course any proceedings before a tribunal of first instance can be withdrawn by the litigants. The litigants in this case would be the Secretary of State and the other party—presumably the employer. If subsection (3) is given the interpretation that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests might be given to it, the worker would be treated as the litigant. That is a difficult point for the courts to resolve. It is a point that at Third Reading the Government really must resolve, and that I entirely accept.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, said from the Government Benches that his Government have handled this issue badly. I think he used the word “appallingly”. That is indisputable. The question I have is, why? I suggest that the answer may have been stated by my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. He put his finger on the point, referring to the concern of the United States Administration to protect the interests of AI companies. Noble Lords may know that the head of the United States Copyright Office was sacked last month, the day after she published a report identifying the importance of AI companies respecting copyright rights.

I have a question for the Minister, which I hope she will answer frankly. She said in her opening remarks that she recognised the importance of transparency. Will she tell the House, in the interests of transparency, what weight the Government have given to the concerns of the United States Government in resisting the repeated amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, over the last few weeks?

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, on Monday I asked almost precisely the same question of the Government and asked for a guarantee that no side deals or side understandings, or anything like that, had been done regarding the trade agreement we have with the United States. No answer has yet been forthcoming; I wish the noble Lord well in his adventure.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am delighted to be associated with the noble Lord on this, as on many other topics.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt these exchanges, which are of great interest. I have not been able to participate in ping-pong for some time, but the House will be aware that I am very keen on the issues being discussed and have been involved in a number of Bills on which issues of a similar nature have arisen. I have been working with a group, keeping in touch on WhatsApp—the fashionable thing to do these days—and we had a broad approach to this, which I am afraid is now fragmenting. My noble friend Lord Knight has traitorously said that he is going to come back into the fold, and I wish him well with that.

The very fine speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have been misinterpreted by this House, and I regret that. She is absolutely right in asking us to look again at this. If she is successful with her Motion, it is right and appropriate that at last, the Commons has a chance to put forward a proposal which would be in everybody’s interest as a compromise based very closely on—but, ironically, not the same as—the amendment she has been forced, by the system of ping- pong, to put down today.

The right amendment was suggested some time ago—I was involved in discussions around that, but it received short shrift. It would allow the Government to have the power to bring forward by regulation measures required to deal with the ongoing and accelerating crisis, which is increasingly difficult to understand, concerning the way in which creative rights are being stolen and theft exercised on a grand scale. The amendment does not have a timescale or a period over which it can be looked at maturely; it does not rely on consultation; it is a judgment. It is that trust in the decision I want to be taken by my Government that is important to stress, not some of the other issues raised today. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to reflect on the fact, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that although this is not the first time the House has been faced with a difficult issue, it is the first time it has been frustrated by inappropriate processes and procedures. Let us have a debate on what we can do to get ourselves to a better place. The issues have been well explained.

I reflect on the work we did on the Online Safety Bill, when I said from the Opposition Benches—unscripted, and with slight trepidation that I would be shot down—that I did not want to work in opposition to the Government on a Bill for which there was no political disadvantage on either side, and that we wanted to use the talents, skills and expertise so often found in this House to get the best Bill possible. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we worked well together. It was really difficult to do, because the system is set up to provide opposition to anything that challenges the supremacy of the Bill as introduced. Even the noble Lord had long and difficult times persuading his own side that there was a case to make on moving forward.

This is exactly the same issue. There is not a huge difference in where we want to get to. The Government have moved, but they lack the flexibility that we think will be necessary in the next few months—or even years—to bring forward at the appropriate time the transparency that everybody knows has to be there.

There are other things that need to be looked at, such as copyright, but they can be dealt with in time. However, transparency is at the root of this. I urge the Government to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others—I offer to participate in any necessary discussions—to get to a point where everyone can relax, knowing that the main issue is dealt with and we have a clearly articulated programme that will take us forward at the appropriate time, in the Government’s judgment. That is what we need.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful suggestion. Hopefully, she has fed that into the consultation. I am sure it will be considered as one of the many proposals to resolve this issue.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government received representations, formal or informal, on this subject from the Government of the United States and, if so, will they publish the substance of those representations?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

To my knowledge, we have not received any representations from the US Government. I am sure any such discussions that take place will become public very quickly.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, many of us are bewildered by the change of tune from those who while in opposition were clear that technology should be accountable and respect the needs of those with whom it engaged and the markets it operated in. Indeed, Labour ran on these very promises during the election. I ask the Minister to voice her support for a committee of both Houses on digital regulation. Our regulators are failing, and we now have no one to advocate for UK citizens, including children and vulnerable users, or even the Act itself.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is a regret amendment, and the conduct of Ofcom and the Government on this matter is surely deeply regrettable, for all the reasons that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Kidron. The treatment of small but high-risk services in these regulations simply frustrates the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to Schedule 11, which was approved by this House and accepted by the Government in the Commons. It contradicts what the Minister, Mr Scully, said in the Commons when he accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, approved by this House, and it fails to address the mischief in this context, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others have clearly identified. I, too, would like to see or even to understand what possible legal advice has led to this lamentable position. The impact of the service does not—it cannot—depend only on the number of users. That was the whole point of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.

The Minister suggested two arguments, as I understood her, but it is not good enough for her to say—if I may respectfully say so—that small services are still unable to act in an illegal manner. The Act is, of course, designed to provide further regulation—especially so because the criminal law is, regrettably, a blunt and slow instrument. Nor am I persuaded by the Minister’s suggestion that it is simply too difficult to draft regulations to address small but high-risk services. I simply do not accept that the expertise of the department and parliamentary counsel cannot come up with an appropriate regulation to address this mischief.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to Wikipedia in particular. Noble Lords who took part in Committee on the Bill will recall that on several occasions I asked the Minister at the time—now my noble friend sitting on the opposition Front Bench—whether Wikipedia would be in scope of the regulation and, if so, whether it would have consequences which would make it impossible for Wikipedia, a charity, to continue with its existing model. My noble friend was unable at the time to say that; he said it would be a matter for the regulations and, indeed, for the regulator. Now here we are, nearly two years later, and we have some regulations, and I have the same question to put to the Minister on the Front Bench today. It appears to me—I must say that I have no interest to declare other than that I am an inveterate user of Wikipedia—and as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, that we are still left in a state of confusion about this. Regulation 3 says that for large sites—those with more than 34 million users—two criteria have to be met. One is that it has that number of users or more, and the other is that it

“uses a content recommender system”.

In paragraph (2), a content recommender system is broadly defined; for example, it says that it is not simply algorithms by means of machine learning but algorithms by machine learning or “other techniques”. The verb is not simply “determines” but

“determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service”.

Wikipedia indeed uses techniques for sending people articles and information that relate to what they have shown an interest in in the past. Would it be caught or not? What are the consequences of Wikipedia being caught? There are many, but I would like to test one out on noble Lords. I do not claim that this is definitive law, because, I suspect, much of the Act will need to be determined in the courts before we know what the definitive interpretation is.

Let us take as an example the case of some loathsome foreign dictator or other such character whose article on Wikipedia is less flattering than he might wish it to appear and he has a complaint about this. Wikipedia will consider it and then probably throw it in the waste-paper basket. If he seeks by some means to change the content of the article, of course, the editors of Wikipedia, who are a distributed network largely of volunteers, will intervene to change it back and try to ensure that it still reflects what is known to be reality. But under Section 64 of the Online Safety Act, one may apply to become a verified user. Obviously, I do not expect the loathsome person himself to apply to become a verified user; there will be some stooge, some student, some trainee or some character somewhere willing to register on their behalf who could then change the article, but because they are a verified user, under Section 15(10)(a) of the Act, they would acquire immunity to peer review. What they wrote on Wikipedia could not then be changed by the editors, because they were a verified user and had that protection.

I offer that as a genuine possibility. Noble Lords know that I am not a lawyer. This could be tested in the courts and found otherwise but, on the face of it, it appears that this sort of consequence would accrue. So I come back to the same question that I have been asking to no real effect now for two years. Perhaps when she comes to reply, the Minister can give me a definitive answer. Is Wikipedia in scope of this regulation? Is it covered by Section 3 or not? We would like to know.

Construction Sector: Cash Retentions

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have been working to resolve the problems associated with cash retentions through the Construction Leadership Council. As the noble Lord said, there are a wide range of views across the sector about the use and problems associated with retentions and how they might be addressed. Many in the industry are in favour of reform and are now calling for a legislative ban, in the way that the noble Lord described, but any policy solution must be sustainable and work for the whole of industry and its clients, addressing both the surety and fair payment issues that are thrown up.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that the vice of late payments is not confined to the building industry? Do the Government have any plans to address this mischief more broadly?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes, my understanding is that the changes that will be introduced are not to affect only the construction industry. Certainly the late payments legislation that we are working on will be across the board and not specific to the construction sector.