Employment Rights Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 143B standing in my name, regarding outsourcing measures and their applicability to higher education providers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Universities, like other employers, are preparing for the enactment of the Bill and will be adapting to the new legislative expectations around workers’ rights. I want to stress from the outset that universities wholeheartedly support the Bill’s objectives to ensure fair employment practices for workers. They do, however, have some technical concerns about Clause 30. I hope that, through Amendment 143B, my noble friend can provide helpful reassurances to the higher education sector—so this is a probing amendment.

As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 30 outlines expectations that contracting authorities must treat any employee transferred from a contracted body no less favourably in the terms offered than core employees. Many universities consider themselves to fall within the definition of “contracting authority”, meaning they may inadvertently be caught by this clause. This is of great concern to the higher education sector and, so far as I am aware, does not appear to have been scrutinised in the Bill so far.

The enormous financial challenges facing universities are well documented, and I know are of grave concern to many Members of this House. The potential imposition of further costs for universities from Clause 30 should therefore be of concern. For the many universities that constitute as contracting authorities, there are likely to be significant cost implications, as well as increased difficulty in finding contractors as a result of this clause. Crucially, unlike with public bodies, these additional costs for universities will not be met by the Government.

In addition to the financial implications, there is also the potential for policy divergence across the UK. Given that Scotland and Wales will be able to set their own regulations and code of practice, there may be inconsistency in arrangements, which could discourage agreements with suppliers. This would have a particular impact in the complex environment that the higher education sector operates in and could have a significant impact on its moves towards greater efficiency.

I would appreciate assurances from my noble friend on three questions. The first is whether, and in what circumstances, universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation. Has my noble friend’s department or the Department for Education made an assessment of the likely impact of Clause 30 on the university sector? Secondly, are the outsourcing measures defined in Clause 30 applicable to pension provision? Where employees are transferred to another organisation, will their pension arrangements form part of the requirement that they be treated no less favourably? Thirdly, what consideration will be given to the impact on shared services where many providers, including across UK nations, will work with the same body as a key driver of efficiency efforts? If my noble friend is unable to provide assurances from the Dispatch Box today, a letter would be very warmly received.

I urge my noble friend and her department to engage closely with the higher education sector to ensure that the implementation of Clause 30 does not inadvertently undermine the financial sustainability and operational flexibility of our universities. While of course we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to fair employment practices, we must also ensure that the legislation takes full account of the distinct nature of the higher education sector and supports our universities to continue their vital work.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Warwick on an issue that, as far as I am aware, has not appeared anywhere else but is of some importance. There is growing unease in the higher education sector about the potential implications of Clause 30. Universities UK has said it is frustrated that its letters to both officials and Ministers—they would be the same thing, I imagine—remain unanswered. UUK is probably being a bit polite in saying that it is frustrated; I suggest that it is unacceptable for a letter from any UK-wide organisation not to receive a response. If nothing else, I hope my noble friend will be able to give an assurance in her reply that she will ensure that Universities UK receives a considered response to its very legitimate concerns.

As my noble friend said, the higher education sector is concerned at the potential impact of measures proposed in Clause 30, which relate to outsourcing, on current arrangements within the sector and on the viability of steps that universities have taken or are planning to take in order to stabilise their financial position. Many universities consider themselves as falling within the definition of contracting authorities and may therefore be inadvertently caught in this clause of the legislation.

As originally introduced, the public sector outsourcing provisions applied to contracting authorities in England only. However, Ministers introduced an amendment in Committee in another place, and provisions now apply to contracting authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Again as my noble friend said, the major point on which clarification is essential is whether and in what circumstances universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation.

There is also the question of whether the planned separate outsourcing rules for different UK nations will or even might create complex and prohibitive arrangements for universities. As an example, if an institution is working across the UK nations—a good example would be the Open University—that could mean it is subject to two or more sets of outsourcing rules, potentially providing a conflicting legislative framework for its operational practice. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify how the Government envisage such separate outsourcing rules will operate, and that in doing so she will provide reassurance to many in the higher education sector who, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, are very supportive of the Bill in general but fear that universities could become victims of unintended consequences.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for her introduction to her Amendment 143B. We think it is important to recognise the unique position of higher education providers when considering worker protection in public sector outsourcing. Because universities and similar institutions operate outside the traditional public sector framework, they possess a level of autonomy that sets them apart from government bodies, so applying the same regulatory requirements to these institutions clearly risks imposing unnecessary burdens that could affect their ability to focus on their core missions of education and research.

The amendment seems to us to thoughtfully acknowledge that difference by excluding higher education providers from the scope of these specific worker protection provisions. Such an approach would allow the focus of these protections to remain on core public sector organisations, where procurement processes are more standardised and closely tied to government accountability. At the same time, it would respect the operational independence of universities.

The fair treatment of workers remains an essential principle across all sectors, including higher education. Encouraging good employment practices within universities should continue through other means, but the amendment recognises the practical realities faced by these institutions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, what a relief to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I thought I was going to be on my own with the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. They were prophets of doom and living in another world.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 134, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

The aim of this amendment is simple but vital. It seeks to provide day one financial support for parents of children diagnosed with a serious or life-limiting illness. It would create a new statutory right for parents to take a period of paid leave from employment to care for their seriously ill child. This right would apply to parents of children aged between 29 days and 16 years old who are receiving or have received specified types of medical or palliative care. The duration of this leave, including rate of pay, would need to be set out in regulation.

This amendment is tabled in honour of a young boy named Hugh, who sadly lost his battle to rhabdomyosarcoma, a rare form of cancer, at just six years old. His parents, Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis founded the charity It’s Never You to help support the parents of children who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses. They have been campaigning for three years to change the law and are here in the Gallery tonight to listen to this debate.

Throughout Hugh’s treatment, Ceri and Frances saw first hand the immense challenges faced by parents—not just the emotional and physical strain of caring for a seriously ill child but the severe financial pressures that come with it. Each year, around 4,000 families in the UK spend two months or more in hospital with their child, who is undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. These parents are being forced to make the impossible choice of earning a living or being by their child’s bedside. The current system is leaving these families unsupported at the most vulnerable moment in their lives. Many are selling their homes, their clothes and turning to crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe just to cover basic living costs, which can go against them in any application for universal credit.

At present, no parent is entitled to any financial support in the first 90 days of their child’s illness. After 90 days, they can apply for disability living allowance, which would help with the costs of caring for their sick child. But even then, successful DLA applications can take up to 20 weeks to be approved.

Of the families surveyed by It’s Never You, 90% believed that immediate financial support would have made a critical difference to the hardships they faced following their child’s diagnosis and treatment. This amendment seeks to build on important progress made through the 2023 Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act. Under this Act, parents of babies admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of life and who require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more, are now entitled to up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay for those eligible. This leave is also in addition to existing maternity or paternity entitlements.

Regarding these recent legislative changes, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, remarked:

“No parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn or returning to work … We are giving parents peace of mind so they can focus on their family.”


Considering this statement, I would like to ask the Minister just one question. The Government clearly recognise that no parent should be forced to have to make such choices between their child’s health and employment. So why are they so reluctant to provide essential financial support to those vulnerable parents who are in equally devastating situations?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 77 on foster carers’ leave, and Amendments 78 and 79 on kinship carers’ leave. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on bringing them forward.

Both types of carers, as the noble Lord said in tabling his amendments, provide a huge service by allowing children to remain in loving family settings, and both types will be the subject of wider consideration in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. But today there is a need to ensure that the essential caring role they provide is acknowledged by making provision for them to have a right to leave, as do employees.

Foster carers at least receive fees and allowances, although a survey by The Fostering Network last year found that 32% of local authorities pay less than the national minimum allowance to their foster carers, and even those rates are out of date and fail to meet the costs of caring for a child. It is also essential that recognition be given to foster carers’ right to leave from work to enable them to respond to situations in the same way as birth parents are able to do.

There are over 150,000 children in kinship care in England, and yet there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to just what kinship care is and what it involves. It is any situation in which a child has been raised in the care of a friend or family member who is not their parent. The arrangement may be temporary, or it may be long term. Kinship carers need employment leave because they step up in times of crisis to provide love and care to children who may otherwise be sent to the care system—a situation that has often come about because of tragedy and/or trauma.

The period when the child moves in with a family can be difficult. They are likely to need a lot of support. Often, the carer has not planned to take on parenting responsibilities for one or more children, so they may have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, being involved in court proceedings, finding a nursery or making arrangements with the child’s school and GP. Sometimes, children’s services place an expectation on kinship carers that they at least temporarily stop working, if they think it necessary to meet the needs of the child.

Whether the carer receives any local authority support, in a financial sense, in this situation is dependent on where the carer lives, the type of arrangement and whether the child is or was previously in the care system. More often than not, kinship carers become dependent on social security, which is simply not right or fair. Surveys by Family Rights Group have found that a third of working-age kinship carers are not in paid employment due to their caring responsibilities, and six in 10 kinship carers have to give up work or reduce their hours when the child comes to live with them.

The contrast between adoptive parents and foster carers is stark. Adopters are entitled to 52 weeks of leave and 39 weeks of pay to enable them to settle a child into their home. This is paid at 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, followed by a payment which currently stands at £184 a week for the next 33 weeks, and employers can usually reclaim almost all those costs. There is no equivalent employment leave entitlement or payment for kinship carers, but there should be. Amendment 78 would introduce significant steps towards that, because providing kinship carers with paid leave would provide families with financial security and lead to direct savings for the Treasury from kinship carers remaining in employment, reduced universal credit claims and greater tax revenues, not to mention wider social benefits from gains in children’s well-being and in GDP.

Foster carers and kinship carers do not simply provide a service to the children they look after: they provide a service to the Government by lessening the demands on children’s services and saving public expenditure. I very much hope that my noble friend will recognise this and give an assurance that she will bring forward a government amendment to right these very obvious wrongs around leave for foster carers and kinship carers, and recognise the vital service that they provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I appreciate what the Minister has said. If I heard him correctly, he said it would not be appropriate to introduce this leave without undertaking an assessment of how it would be applied. Will such an assessment be undertaken? I think it is important.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to my noble friend with more details. We will cover some of the issues on carer’s leave in the round later in my speech, but I thank him for his intervention.

Rwanda Treaty

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Friday 8th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said the funding of this ill-considered and, I think we will find, ill-fated scheme is coming from the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund. It is not clear who or what will be economically transformed or who or what will be integrated. Can he say how much of that funding will be taken from the overseas development aid fund?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The money is actually going to the ETIF, which is responsible for the economic growth and development of Rwanda. Investment so far has been focused on areas such as education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure and job creation. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord that none of it came from ODA.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by apologising to the Minister for the discourtesy of missing the first minute of her speech. I was in the Library and the Bill started too quickly for me.

The Bill is certainly a step in the right direction to strengthen the capacity of the UK’s law enforcement agencies to address dirty money, whether it is connected to corruption, money laundering, tax evasion or terrorist financing. In particular, I am happy to support measures such as the unexplained wealth orders and the new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion. The Bill highlights why the integrity of the UK’s financial system is so important. This goes to heart of the UK’s global reputation for its commitment to clean business and fair play, and of public confidence in business and corporate behaviour domestically.

I was pleased to hear the Minister echoing the Minister for Security, Ben Wallace, who remarked, at Second Reading in the other place, that the Government’s aim is,

“to combat money laundering, terrorist finance and corruption—here and overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/16; col. 195.]

That is most welcome but, rather like the Bill itself, the Ministers did not go far enough. The elephant in the room with this Bill is the overseas territories. The Government are not doing enough to persuade them to adopt public central registers of beneficial ownership. Why has the Government’s stance on this weakened during the passage of this legislation?

My noble friend Lord Rosser highlighted the pathetically weak wording in the letter sent by the Minister to noble Lords this week. For those who have it to hand, it was the third paragraph from the end. I will not repeat his critique, but the Government simply have to do better on the overseas territories. We all know that they will not voluntarily take meaningful action on transparency. Requiring transparency in the overseas territories would be one of the most effective things the Government could do to tackle corruption and money laundering.

Introducing provisions for public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories would fulfil the Government’s stated aims and support the measures in the Bill. I was pleased to note the cross-party support on this on Report in the other place. It was led by the All-Party Group on Responsible Tax with the support of a large number of NGOs. The All-Party Group on Anti-Corruption—I declare an interest as its vice-chair—also supported and continues to support campaigning on this issue.

I acknowledge that there are some constitutional and jurisdictional sensitivities as far as the overseas territories are concerned, but that is not a reason to delay meaningful action in this area. Progress has already been made with some private registers, allowing information sharing between law enforcement agencies. That is welcome, but the wider, and crucially important, issue of the need for public registers cannot be overstated. I urge the Minister to commit to a deadline by which we can expect to see public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories in place and operating. I also urge the Government to continue their dialogue with the territories and to support them in achieving this objective.

There is a strong, responsible business case for transparency on beneficial ownership at a public level. Companies carrying out due diligence need access to this information so they can be confident that they know who they are doing business with. This supports sound, clean, competitive business practice. A survey of companies in 2016, conducted by Ernst & Young, showed that 91% of respondents believe it is important to know the ultimate beneficial ownership of the entities with which they do business. The only surprise about that outcome was that 9% apparently believe it is not important—and we can only speculate as to who they might have been. Transparency on beneficial ownership is also really important for developing countries, where illicit financial flows, often channelled through anonymous companies, have a significant and damaging impact, leading to the loss of millions of pounds needed for schools, hospitals and other public services.

Other noble Lords have referred to this matter, but it is a powerful argument for registers of beneficial ownership being made public. Developing countries and their civil society organisations must have access to the information needed to combat the vast amounts of money siphoned off by corrupt politicians or officials and redirected to private foreign bank accounts. The UK needs to remain a leader on this issue, ideally in partnership with other members of the G20. Under David Cameron, the UK forged a leading role in tackling corruption and criminal financial activity. I am not usually one of his cheerleaders, but by hosting the anti-corruption summit last May he sent a clear message that his Government were serious about the issue—and not just on a global scale. He also believed that it was essential that the UK should shed its image as a major repository for dirty money.

I also want to focus on the importance of bringing the law on corporate liability for economic crime up to date with current business practices and structures. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned his experience as a Minister in respect of overseas territories and Crown dependencies—but, regrettably, he had nothing to say on corporate liability. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence is currently open on this issue. That is welcome, but it represents a rather timid approach by the Government, because one commitment of the anti-corruption summit was a full consultation on corporate liability. Perhaps the Minister will announce that the intention is to move on to that—and, I hope, ultimately to legislative reform.

We can no longer tolerate Victorian era law which means that large companies can insulate themselves from liability via evasive internal structures enabled by their size and complexity, while small companies have fewer places—or perhaps just fewer people—to hide and thus are more likely to be prosecuted. That does not accord with the Government’s stated commitment to a level playing field and fair competition. This must operate not just internationally but domestically as well.

This also goes towards protecting the UK’s reputation as a key financial centre. I will quote another Tory now. Sir Edward Garnier stated in the other place last month that the UK’s global reputation was connected to our financial services industry. He was right: companies in that sector, and their employees, need to know that there is a real risk of a criminal conviction if they step beyond the line of honesty and acceptable behaviour. I do not see this as an area in which regulatory oversight and fines should be the sole means by which we address corporate malfeasance. There should of course be a role for regulators, but there needs to be more. It is widely understood that companies can and do plan contingencies for fines into their budgets. That is no disincentive to criminal activity—or even to just looking the other way, which can amount to the same thing.

The key point is that companies must abide by, and act in accordance with, the values of the society of which they are part. Free market economics often exists in a universe parallel to the power imbalances and social norms of society that it helps to perpetuate. Most people want business to be open and fair, with genuinely deterrent sanctions for those who feel that the rules do not apply to them and that they can get away with it. A vibrant but openly honest financial services industry is vital to build and maintain public trust in UK business, both at home and abroad.

My closing point is that public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories and reform of corporate liability for economic crime are very reasonable additions that would complement the valuable measures already set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading. We have had a very constructive debate and consensus across the piece that there should be general support for the Bill. Clearly, we will take a few things further in Committee—I think I know what they are.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said that I must be very happy to be introducing a Bill such as this. Yes, I am. It will further enhance our ability to bring to book those who seek to engage in corruption and tax evasion and benefit from all those other proceeds of crime.

I will turn first to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, because it is what most noble Lords have mentioned today. The Government agree about the importance of combating grand corruption. International corruption threatens the progress of many developing nations, and this country must do everything in its power to leverage our international status, and that of our financial sector, to combat it.

There is clearly still much to do, but the Crown dependencies and overseas territories with a financial centre have made significant progress on the commitments that they made in the run-up to the London anti-corruption summit last year. That summit positioned the UK as a global leader in the fight against corruption, and the Government have not changed their position. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and many other noble Lords pointed out, the UK has created its own public register. We are leading the way, and we hope that others will follow. Progress is being made, and I encourage noble Lords to recognise the considerable amount of work that is going on in this area. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Faulks for outlining the progress that is going on in the Crown dependencies as we speak.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we can legislate for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. We have the power to legislate for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but we do so almost always with consent. Where we do not, it is on moral and human rights issues, such as homosexuality and the death penalty. However, just because we can legislate for them does not mean that we should do so when we are working with them to implement existing agreements on a consensual basis. This has already delivered significant achievements, and it is right that we continue with this approach.

Obviously, our long-term ambition remains that publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership will become the global standard. Should this happen, we would expect all jurisdictions to meet this standard, including the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I welcome the fact that discussions are continuing with the overseas territories, but they seem to be left entirely open-ended. In my contribution, I asked for a deadline. I do not believe that the Minister will give me one now, but there has to be some point beyond which we say to the overseas territories, “We’ve tried discussing this with you, we’ve tried to carry you with us, but if you’re not coming, then we have to take positive action”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope I can be helpful to the noble Lord. Progress is being made, but at a point at which progress is not made, we may have to take a different view. As we see it now, the overseas territories have come an awfully long way from where they were even this time last year. My noble friends have given the House an update on how much progress the Crown dependencies are making. The point is that there is progress. Were progress not to be there, I might have given a different response to the noble Lord. I hope he is satisfied thus far with what I am saying.

Immigration Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support Amendments 50 and 51 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon. In doing so, I want to reinforce many of the points that have already been made. It is important that is done and that the Government fully appreciate the amount of opposition to many of the proposals in the Bill, particularly in this section of the Bill. If I were being brutally honest, I would say that I believe that the whole of Chapter 1 of this part of the Bill ought to be deleted—that is, Clauses 15 to 32—because it is ill conceived and ill advised as an attempt to shift immigration control from the legal authorities rather dramatically and pretty fundamentally to the private sector. I believe that that is a societal shift because, as far as I am aware, never before has it been a legal requirement in Britain for private sector providers to demand that people prove their identity and legal status away from the border.

The effect on landlords of the burden of the bureaucracy associated with the proposals in the Bill was eloquently set out by my noble friend Lady Smith and others—and that is if landlords are even fully aware of the proposals. As has been said, they could face a civil penalty of, initially, £1,000. Landlords may well know of the need to vet potential tenants—that is fairly clear—but how will they understand what they are supposed to do about others who happen to move into the property after the tenancy has been granted? As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said, how often are landlords supposed to check this? How many extra staff are they supposed to take on for those checks to be carried out effectively and to demonstrate that they have been carried out to the best of their ability? It is impossible to know realistically who is living in a property at any time unless it is inspected daily. It is most unfair that landlords should be expected to police those requirements.

As so many have said, this part of the Bill is simply not practical. I do not want to repeat what others have said, but I also have grave concerns about the effect on UK citizens who happen to have a name, skin colour or accent that is not quite what some British people would regard as the norm. In any case, a landlord may be able to say, “I don’t know whether this person is a UK citizen or not, but frankly from my point of view as a landlord it is simply not worth taking the risk, so I’ll take the safe option”. That is racial profiling, which is a nefarious practice in any circumstances, but it does not take a huge leap of imagination to imagine that that would be the preferable option for some landlords even if they were deeply uncomfortable with it. They may regard it as preferable to falling foul of the law and then being fined accordingly. That is a dreadful situation in which to place anybody.

The private rented sector in this country is not good enough in many respects already, and this Bill will simply make things worse. It will have the effect of restricting entry to that sector to a significant number of people who have no alternative. That could impact in turn on homelessness, which is already a problem and could become worse through the requirements of the Bill. There is also the question of costs. It is quite unrealistic from what I understand from previous government comments that it is anticipated that landlords will pass the costs on to tenants. Apart from the fact that many tenants will not be able to afford that, and may ultimately make some properties unaffordable to tenants, why should the tenants have to pay the costs? It is not their responsibility. I would suggest that it is not even the landlord’s responsibility, or it should not be. In effect, landlords are being press-ganged into doing the job of the legal authorities. If that is what the Government want to do, at the very least they should be prepared to bear the costs themselves, and not allow landlords to pass costs on to tenants or take on additional staff, which in itself is a significant cost.

Finally, I want to reinforce the point on the question of pilots. It is self-evident that a change as fundamental as this has to be the subject of a pilot—and a properly evaluated pilot at that—before it is taken forward if that is what must happen. As I said, ideally to my mind the whole proposal should be scrapped. That is clearly not going to happen, so I hope that a pilot in one area, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will be taken forward and that lessons learnt from that can then be used to ensure that some of the major problems stemming from the legislation can at least be eased.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that residential landlords very often, particularly in Greater London, go to some length to seek out companies and embassies as tenants for their properties. That in itself constitutes discrimination against the ordinary individual or family. I agreed with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, particularly when she referred to the unintended consequences that are likely to affect black and coloured citizens of this country as a knock-on effect of what is intended to deal only with migrants. This category will include citizen students who come from British ethnic minorities. The noble Baroness was quite right to go on to mention lodgers. I would much prefer that Clause 15 did not stand part. If it has to be in the Bill at least there should be a carefully designed and carefully evaluated pilot project.

Immigration Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I, too, should like to speak briefly in the gap. I apologise, but I was unable to be in the House until six o’clock today, and so did not put my name down for the debate.

My major concern about the Bill is its wide-ranging implications for the safety and welfare of children, not least the proposals to limit children’s access to healthcare and housing. Those and other proposals run counter to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further, Clause 14 would restrict Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I notice that the Minister asserts on the front of the Bill that it is compatible with the convention. I would like him to explain how that can be.

The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act imposed a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to have concern for the welfare of children. It is a requirement for the Home Secretary to ensure that regard is had for children’s safety and welfare in the implementation of government policy on immigration, asylum and nationality. That clearly includes the Bill, but the Explanatory Memorandum makes no mention of children apart from a brief comment in relation to the provision on biometric information. I do not understand how that can be.

There are other crucial issues in the Bill, such as the restriction of appeals, the effect on higher education institutions, about which we heard from many noble Lords, and more general access to healthcare and housing to people unable to prove their status.

As we all know, cuts are being made to the level of staff in the UK Border Agency, but that does not make it in any way appropriate for the gap to be filled, at least in part, by asking nurses and landlords to become the gatekeepers. What does that say about this country and the whole question of the compassion that we offer? My noble friend Lord Judd spoke eloquently on that, and it is lacking in the proposals in the Bill.

By common consent, the Bill was denied proper consideration in Committee in another place. We have six days of Committee in your Lordships’ House, which offers the opportunity for that imbalance to be corrected and to deal with some of the ways in which the Bill needs to be amended. I look forward to contributing to that process.