Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has just said, yesterday a letter was sent to Members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the Chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear: the Government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.

The agreement—I choose that word carefully—was to remove the 52-week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community, but the Government have now chosen not only to abandon that agreement but to misrepresent it to the House. To prove that point, I will quote from the same letter from the six business organisations, which states:

“Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions’ request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit”.


This is made all the more serious by the Government compounding the error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping-pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this Bill, neither in your Lordships’ House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp late-stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances.

Let me be clear about the Conservative Motion that is tabled in my name. It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the Government: the removal of the 52-week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit. There is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the Government to not accept it.

The Motion also provides for a formal review and proper consultation. I remind the House that, when the cap was increased under the Labour Government in 1999, that change followed consultation. When the coalition Government introduced a 52-week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken. There is no reason whatever why the Government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence-based manner again.

It is the Government’s choice, and theirs alone, to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. It is also wholly wrong for the TUC, the Minister in another place and others to attack hereditary Peers for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do: scrutinise legislation. It is also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary Peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer who backed the Government.

If the 65 Labour Peers who were absent last week had attended, the Government would have likely prevailed. However, I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet once they realised that they were being asked to support multimillion-pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions. Perhaps absence in this case was a mercy.

Over the weekend, the latest employment tribunal statistics were published. They are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases, and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives advised by the very best lawyers will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have a legitimate and modest claim, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.

This debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this Government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and young people are bearing the brunt. At a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities, the Government choose to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market. What on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they are creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk—precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires.

I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is a curious position to demand that water company bosses be dismissed while simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye-watering compensation. Something does not add up. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the Government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships’ House. In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, can explain this sudden change of heart.

The Government have claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of awards. The Ministry of Justice’s own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards. Yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reach the point of an award because they are settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known endpoint and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult. Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate—and tribunals, which are already overwhelmed, are left to pick up the pieces.

Even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness and introduced one in 2017. It is a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British Government about competitiveness. The only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg, which has a youth unemployment rate of 20%.

I have a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector, where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was, frankly, inadequate—a fact recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating. Will the Government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate and that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? If it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the Government commit to reintroducing a cap, as President Macron did? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small?

In conclusion, because of the Conservative Party a six-month qualifying period has been secured. However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of the Bill. The £5 billion cost remains. The costs of a raft of 1970s-style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for, by the Government, and I repeat that all this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. Let me be completely clear: the next Conservative Government will repeal every job-destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned part of the letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What he did not mention is that the letter from those groups also said that

“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”,

despite their concerns. That seems to be a much wiser approach than that adopted by the Conservative Front Bench—not least because Motion A1 raises no great issue of principle. It raises a request for an impact assessment.

Refugees: Notice Period for Home Office Accommodation

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord that that is not the case. You can start to apply for things like universal credit before you receive the biometric residence permit. I appreciate that that is not perfect, but it is certainly enough time to get into the system.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem here is that asylum seekers are restricted in their ability to work until they receive their asylum status? Therefore, when they receive their asylum status, they have no resources that they can use in order to obtain accommodation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point, and I will take that back to the department.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On noble Baroness’s second question, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative is a key focus for the UK. We are a global leader on this. We have committed £60 million since the launch of this programme in 2012. In November 2022, the UK hosted an international PSVI conference with over 1,000 attendees. A political declaration came out of that, which was endorsed by 53 countries. It sends a clear message that these types of crimes must end and sets out steps on how to achieve that. We have also launched the PSVI strategy, which sets out how the UK will work to drive global action to prevent and respond to CRSV—conflict-related sexual violence—and that includes sanctions. I refer noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Ahmad’s comments on that in June. Regarding the domestic picture, significant amounts of money and resource have been committed. I am sure I will be answering more questions on that shortly.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister share the widespread outrage at the use of rape and other forms of sexual violence by Hamas in Israel on 7 October? Does he also share the widespread outrage that so many individuals and groups who do such excellent work in combating sexual violence have remained silent until now—almost two months since those outrages? Can he think of any reason why in this respect Jewish women do not matter?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very sensitive subject. I found Christina Lamb’s article in the Sunday Times very distressing and upsetting, but very powerful. Why did it take the UN so long to condemn those actions? The words of Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, who was quoted in the article, deserve mentioning:

“It’s mindblowing. We were there for our sisters when terrible things happened across the ocean, when they took away abortion rights in US, the killing of women in Iran, the abduction of Yazidis … but with us they looked away and I can’t think of a reasonable answer”.


Unfortunately, I can think of an unreasonable answer, and it disgusts me. From a personal point of view, I hope the perpetrators get what is coming to them—and believe me, I do not mean sanctions.

Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling in this House, and in the other place, on this subject. Let me explain what the Government have done. The Home Office is leading work on countering Iranian state threats in the UK, making full use of the breadth and expertise of government and our extraordinary and courageous police, security and intelligence agencies. On 1 November, the Security Minister announced in the other place that the Prime Minister has asked him to lead the Defending Democracy Taskforce to build further resilience within our institutions in order to safeguard against physical, personnel and cyber threats.

The National Security Act will provide another significant toolkit in the fight against individuals working for state entities such as the IRGC; it criminalises a wide range of hostile activities conducted by, for or on behalf of foreign powers. Materially assisting a foreign intelligence service in any activity in or related to the UK will be a crime.

We continue to make use of any and every opportunity to call out Iran’s malign activity—I apologise for the long answer but there is a lot to say. More than 350 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned for activities, including human rights violations. Since January 2023, we have sanctioned more than 140 Iranian individuals and entities in response to the regime’s human rights violations. That is being strengthened.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, is there not a much simpler and shorter answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker: the Foreign Office?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

It is a shorter answer, I will certainly give the noble Lord that. The Government keep the list of proscribed organisations under review. We do not comment on whether a specific organisation is or is not being considered for proscription. This position has been informed by several considerations, including to avoid creating an expectation that the Government will proscribe a certain organisation, to reduce the risk of an organisation taking evasive action before the proscription order comes into force, and to manage the risk of any subsequent decision being vulnerable to challenge on procedural grounds. The Government will always consider the full range of powers available to tackle threats on our soil.

Abortion Clinics: Safe Access Zones

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Monday 20th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness invites me to speculate on operational policing. As we discussed many times from this Dispatch Box recently, I cannot and will not do that. What I can say is that, in my understanding, some of the context around previous arrests is that they are more to do with breach of PSPOs than with the behaviour that she describes. In that case, I think it was repeated breach of a PSPO, so I am not sure that she is completely correct in her assertion, but I take her point.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke earlier about the need for the guidance to address an appropriate balance. He spoke a few moments ago about the relevance of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Was not the whole point of the parliamentary debates earlier this year to specify in legislation where the balance lay? Surely it is therefore time to get on with implementing it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I have tried to explain the context. I do not think those two things are entirely mutually exclusive. The fact is that some of the language in the law is relatively unusual. Therefore, the consultation is necessary to make sure that people are aware of what it is.

Rape: Operation Soteria

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Absolutely—I can give that assurance. I am also going to go on to one of the reasons why it was a little difficult in the past to prosecute some of these cases; it was to do with the attrition of victims from the process. In the year ending June 2022, 62% of adult rape offences ended up not being supported for further police action because the victim withdrew. There were a number of complicated reasons for that but, obviously, it is necessary to collect the data which supports that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, Professor Betsy Stanko’s report on Operation Soteria, which was published on GOV.UK last month, had two other key findings in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. She found that investigators and other police staff lack sufficient specialist knowledge about rape and other sexual offending. She also found that disproportionate effort has been put into testing the credibility of the victim, and that there is a need to rebalance investigations to include a more thorough investigation of the suspect’s behaviour. Can we see action on both of those points?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Action is being taken on both of those things. The noble Lord is completely right about specialist knowledge, and this finding is now being applied in South Wales Police and the Met, two of the pioneering forces in Operation Soteria. Structural changes have been introduced in Durham, another of the pioneering forces. That has improved shift patterns, supervisor ratios and so on, which will enhance officer and organisational capability.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I see where the noble Lord is coming from and, yes, I accept that.

I return to the reasonableness defence in Section 50. While we consider that properly authorised activity to protect national security should be interpreted as being reasonable, the application of the reasonableness defence to UKIC’s activity is untested.

I come back to one of the earlier points from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am not aware of any prosecutions, but he will know that I cannot comment on operational matters.

I also come back to the questions about the CPS. The fact that the CPS would not be obliged to prosecute offers little comfort to those carrying out legitimate work on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, who may still be subject to criminal investigation for carrying out authorised activities in the interests of national security. The Government consider that we should be able to offer legal reassurance to individuals carrying out vital work to support those interests.

I finish by reiterating that I am committed to continuing to work with the experts in this House, particularly the noble Lords who have tabled the amendments we have debated, and those in the other place to reach consensus on Clause 28. I thank all noble Lords for their patience as we move towards that shared objective.

I have noted the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on timeliness but, at the moment, the Government cannot support these amendments and I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could I see whether I have understood him correctly? Is he saying that an act of torture or sexual offences committed in support of another country’s services could not be a proper exercise of the functions of the Security Service—the SIS—or GCHQ? If he is, would it not be better to have that on the face of the Bill rather than simply as a statement from the Minister?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is what I am saying. I will come back to whether it should be on the face of the Bill in due course.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question? Why is it that public confidence requires, in his view, this absolute rule, when I can serve as a Supreme Court Justice even if I was convicted of an imprisonable offence at the age of 17 or 18?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

With regard to public confidence, I go back to what I said earlier: this was originally designed with cross-party support and with the assistance and advice of police chiefs.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Pannick

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is very important to have clarity that homophobic abuse is here covered. For my part, I understand—I ask the Minister to confirm whether he agrees—that the substance of these amendments does cover homophobic abuse, in particular proposed new subsection (6) of the new clause, which refers to Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, which, as I understand it, specifically covers homophobic abuse, as does proposed new subsection (6)(x)(ii), which refers to Section 66(1) of the Sentencing Code, which, again, I understand covers homophobic hostility as well as racial hostility. But clarity is absolutely essential here.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Bassam and Lord Pannick, I can happily clarify that this includes homophobic and misogynistic hate speech, and all other forms of hate speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely right: it is under Section 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. I am afraid I do not have the Sentencing Code so I will have to look into that for him.

The core amendments apply to online hate speech where the court has found on sentencing that the offence was aggravated by racial or religious hostility, or hostility related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity. This reflects the five types of hate crime recognised by the law, which I think is the Sentencing Code.

I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about other sports. I have heard the DCMS Minister answer questions on this, and there will of course be other opportunities in other Bills coming up, which I suspect will also have something to say on the subject, but I will take it back to both departments.