Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Debate between Lord Sentamu and Lord LeongMonday 13th July 2026
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 22–R–I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 Jul 2026)
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe. Their amendments were to this Bill and not to the trains Bill. Nevertheless, the point stands. The attendance was no greater than when it was debated in Grand Committee. I apologise and sincerely hope that they realise that I was so involved with both Bills that, in my enthusiasm, I erred. I am sorry.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to say a huge thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for their kind words and co-operation during the passage of the Bill.
Employment Rights Bill
Debate between Lord Sentamu and Lord LeongThursday 8th May 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (8 May 2025)
Lord Leong (Lab)
I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I want the Minister to explain something. He has refused to set the definite hours in which this needs to be done. He said that that would be prescriptive and that the tribunal will determine whether the matter is reasonable. Is it not quite odd to rely on the tribunal to execute what noble Lords are trying to suggest in their amendments? Should not the Bill itself include those hours? If you do not want to be prescriptive, you can say, “Up to 24 hours”, or, “Up to 48 hours”, which means that they do not have to go all that way—that is slightly less prescriptive. I am baffled that the Minister wants the tribunals to enter into these matters. He and I know that they take a long time and cost a lot of money. Why is he legislating to open a door in this area to tribunals, which everybody should try to avoid?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.