Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Certainly, other areas need action too—particularly vetting—and I very much hope that today’s announcements on that and related matters from the Cabinet Office bear fruit. But this amendment sets out an additional approach that would be an important part of the solution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, after that, I had better begin by confessing a misdemeanour. Many years ago, I added my terrier’s name to the census as a “rodent operative” and gave her age in dog years. That illustrates that it is important that when we are gathering data it is, by and large, reliable.

In fact, the principles of GDPR should surely lead us to say that we have no business collecting personal data from people if we are not going to use it. If we are collecting data that is so remarkably corrupt as some of the data that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, talked about, it is useless. It tells us nothing about what is going on in society. It has no function—there is no valid use we can make of that data—so we should not be collecting it.

The first question for the police and the Government to ask themselves is whether they need the data. Do they actually need to record sex in all crimes and for all victims. If so, what will they use that data for? If they are going to use it, is it not important that it is accurate? They should choose, therefore, what data they record according to the use they are going to make of it. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with Amendments 406 and 407. I am, despite my past bad behaviour, in favour of accurate data.

I end by giving the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a moment’s comfort. Once an amendment is on the Marshalled List, it is the property of the House—anybody can move it or address it.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak incredibly briefly, purely because the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. She personally spoke to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Katz, and she apologises. She was otherwise detained and sends her regrets.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

318: Clause 121, page 163, line 32, leave out “(6)” and insert “(6A)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces subsection (6A) inserted by another Lord Lucas amendment.

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

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been called to move his amendment. The debate will proceed from there.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 318 I will speak to the other amendments in my name. Amendment 318 is a revised and strengthened version of a proposal that was kindly spoken to in Committee by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It has been modified in light of comments made then, particularly from the Government Benches. It bears on disqualifying persons convicted of a serious cycling offence.

I suspect most of us, particularly those of us who spend any time in London, have experienced the enormous discomfort of being ridden past on the pavement at speed by a cyclist who has absolutely no interest in your comfort. If one has spent any time outside this Palace, one will also have noticed that the police have no interest in enforcing the law in these circumstances. It is up to us to do something to tighten the screws on cyclists like this. They make life for pedestrians extremely uncomfortable. The practice of continual and open law- breaking just brings the whole of the law into disrepute. It is really important that we tighten things up.

Amendment 319 would insert a new offence of riding or attempting to ride a cycle while disqualified. Such an offence requires accompanying sanctions. A licensing system seems to me entirely disproportionate; it would be a heavy weight of bureaucracy. I prefer the solution adopted by the Government in their approach to cycling offences in the Bill, which is to leave them to be enforced if circumstances allow—for instance, where somebody has been involved in a serious incident that the police have taken an interest in, or a member of the public makes a complaint that the police choose to follow up. That would sit easily with current policing practices. Continuing enforcement along these lines, though limited, would, if and when a prosecution or conviction was reported in the media, send a warning message to disqualified cyclists generally.

Turning turn to Amendment 321, the thrust of Clause 121 is to bring cycling offences pretty much into line with those applying to motor vehicles, but it leaves out disqualification. This is a missed opportunity to provide a substantial deterrent to offending. Proposed new subsection (9A), to be inserted by Amendment 321, prescribes that the period of obligatory disqualification for the two most serious offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling will not be less than five and two years, respectively. As for the other two offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling, where the culpability is less, they will be subject to obligatory disqualification for not less than 12 months.

Proposed new subsection (9B) extends the definition of “disqualified” so that it can apply to cycles in a manner that is in conformity with the wording of the new cycling offences already created by the Bill. Amendments 323 to 325 add “obligatory” to the entries inserted by subsection (11) in Part I of Schedule 2; without them the amendment of Section 34 set out in Amendment 321 would be of no effect.

Amendment 333 would prescribe the penalties and mode of prosecution for the offence created by Amendment 319, and it inserts a new schedule containing minor and consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act which is fine-tuned as it applies to persons disqualified for riding a cycle. Sections relating only to mechanically propelled vehicles are omitted.

As someone who frequently obstructs and remonstrates with pavement cyclists, I very much hope that my amendments will attract the support of the Government. I approve of the other amendments in this group and will listen to them with great interest. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments I propose. There are three sets affecting two themes. Amendment 343 is about the registration scheme for cyclists, and the two other groups—Amendments 326 to 328, and Amendments 330 to 332—are about creating a system to award points for offences committed by cyclists against their driving licence. They have the same theme, which is trying to get more accountability for cyclists when they hurt people or commit offences.

I do not intend to take as much time as I did in Committee, because I think the argument is fairly straightforward and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made it. In 2015, 444 pedestrians were injured by cyclists; in 2024, that had increased to 603 and, of that number, those seriously injured had risen from 97 to 181. These numbers are based on police reporting, where the police attended. It is clear that these are minimum numbers. As a correspondent reminded me recently, it is not a legal requirement for the police to record an accident that occurs between a cyclist and a pedestrian, because it does not involve a motor vehicle. The numbers do not include incidents where the police did not attend a collision, where the pedestrian did not need medical treatment or attend their GP or a hospital— I think we have a serious gap in that information as well, because the data is not recorded well or collected at all—or where the police were not told.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library with further details of the research and how it is being commissioned by the DfT.

In addition, the DfT’s road safety strategy, which has been referred to already this afternoon and which was published on 7 January, makes a clear commitment to the Government piloting a national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them, whether using cycles, e-cycles, motorcycles, cars, or light or heavy-goods vehicles. The charter will aim to promote good practice and improve compliance with current requirements. It will be developed in collaboration with businesses and industry and will be informed by existing schemes. The pilot, which is voluntary, will run for two years and will be monitored and fully evaluated.

Before I conclude, I want to pick up a point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in Committee and repeated this afternoon on issues around the employment status of some of these delivery drivers. The Government are absolutely clear that bogus self-employment is unacceptable. Employers should never seek to deny people their employment rights and avoid their own legal obligations by claiming that someone is self-employed when in reality they are not.

We understand that many delivery riders in the platform economy value the flexibility that that kind of employment status can bring, but new technologies and ways of working have made it more complex for businesses and workers to understand and apply the current employment-status framework. That is why the Government are committed to consulting on a simpler framework which allows to properly capture the breadth of different employment relationships in the UK and ensure that workers can continually benefit from flexible ways of working where they choose to do so without being exploited by unscrupulous employers. We understand that this employment space of delivery drivers is a particular issue, which is why this is very much an important issue to act on.

In conclusion, I am afraid that I cannot follow up the call of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for all-out vigilante action from pedestrians. I am not entirely sure that even he and his chariot—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—might expect me to. However, I want to take this opportunity to really acknowledge the frustration and fears of all noble Lords, and, indeed, many members of the public, about the abhorrent and dangerous behaviour of a minority—I stress that—of cyclists.

However, I come back to where I started. Any new legislation in this area must be proportionate and must be mindful of the potential adverse impact on law-abiding road users. I want to encourage micromobility to reduce congestion and promote healthy living— very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We need a clear evidence base, and, as I have indicated, we are undertaking research concerning the road behaviours of delivery riders. I just want to repeat what we were saying. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility in the round, including on e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. For now, therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw his Amendment 318 and other noble Lords not to move their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was disappointing reply, but it ended on a more encouraging note, and I am grateful for that. It is a simple thing. If a company sets terms for its riders that encourage, incentivise and reward law-breaking, we need to control that. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is quite right about that. He and I are going to have to continue our vigilante efforts to deal with the more ordinary personal misbehaviour of cyclists. There we are—that is something we have taken on—and, thanks to the Government, I shall have more time for it than I have had recently. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 318 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, that it is not merely that, under the Interpretation Act, “person” includes “persons” unless the context requires otherwise—which I do not think it does here. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the object of his amendment is indeed to cover cases where there is more than one person. If the Minister can say that that is the Government’s objective, the courts will have regard to that if there is any ambiguity at all, which I do not think there is.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward these amendments. However, reading Amendment 340 as it is written, in the context of our treatment of Lord Mandelson in this House, I cannot see how we are not guilty of honour-based abuse. We are a community that considers that a person has dishonoured us; we have subjected them to economic abuse and greatly restricted their access to money and income. How does it not apply? How would it not apply to a part of a community deciding to ostracise people who have been involved with a grooming gang? There is nothing in this definition that exempts “abuse” directed at people who have done serious wrong.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I completely support my noble friend. I have worked in this area for over three decades and know the communities well. Sadly, unless it is very clear that those community members will be punished in the same way as the perpetrator—in many cases, there are many perpetrators —this will not be effective. Clarity needs to be put into legislation, so I wholeheartedly support my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I merely chose it as an example that we would all be aware of. It seems to me that the clause as drafted catches a lot of people who should not be caught by it. I will write to the noble Lord, if he will allow that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always happy to have letters—or, potentially, one of those newfangled things, an email—from Members of this House. If the noble Lord wishes to send something through, I shall happily examine it with my colleagues.

The contributions in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, rightly emphasise the need for clarity and to ensure a proper definition that covers situations where multiple people are involved in perpetrating abuse. I completely agree that the definition must reflect both the survivor experience and capture multiple perpetrator contexts. However, I put the caveat to her that we have to be careful that what appears a straightforward change to the wording does not create drafting ambiguity in itself or add complexity that would hinder practitioners. As I stated in my opening comments, as drafted this amendment covers a situation where there is more than one perpetrator. I am happy to put on the record that the Government will also make that clear in the Explanatory Notes and the statutory guidance, to be published in due course, so that front-line practitioners understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators. Again, I hope that that goes to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool.

I understand and recognise the noble Baroness’s point but, again, the Home Office wants fully to consider the impact of the amendment. However, I hope the statement I have given from the Dispatch Box—which, again, for ease of practice, is that front-line practitioners can understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators—is clear. I hope that, with that commitment, these government amendments will ensure that we have a significant milestone in strengthening the Government’s response to honour-based abuse, but more importantly that the public authorities have the tools, guidance, understanding and clarity they need to ensure that we provide a better overall multi-agency, victim-centred response.

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. A number of noble Lords have referenced organisations outside Parliament that have campaigned long and hard. I pay tribute to them and share their objectives. I hope with those comments that the amendments that I have tabled can be moved—

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great deal of interest in this Bill, so I shall confine myself to talking about something that is not in it but should be. The research we have done over the last five years shows that, of the 42 million vehicles on UK roads, 10 million of them are non-compliant: uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without MOT. That is an astonishing figure, but it should not surprise us. If you do not enforce a law, you get an upsurge in people breaking the law. As this Bill deals with shoplifting—I am delighted that it does—so it should deal with vehicle non-compliance.

With non-compliant vehicles, there is something that we can do without cost to the Treasury, because we are dealing with people who are easier to locate, who owe money anyway and who are in possession of a substantial asset. That produces a set of circumstances where we can devise a system of enforcement that does not cost the Treasury anything. If any other noble Lords are interested in this problem, please correspond with me. In the Commons, it has been most actively pursued by Sarah Coombes MP, who has now been brought within the Government and therefore cannot campaign for it actively. This is very much a cross-party issue—a national issue, not a party one.

I intend to propose amendments to this Bill to allow a pilot to help us reach a self-funding solution to the problem. My amendments will enable local authorities and other enforcement bodies to identify high-risk vehicles and intervene, starting with things such as warning notices and text messages, targeting the worst persistent evaders, those using cloned number plates, foreign registered vehicles and those without DVLA keeper details. There are a lot of them. The pilot can be delivered at zero cost to police or government. It will end up supporting overstretched police forces, denying criminals the use of our roads and reducing vehicle-related antisocial behaviour. The pilot proposals have been developed in consultation with those representing the interests of roads, policing, local government and trade associations. This is very well thought through—I take no credit for it; I am just a spokesman—but none of this can happen without government support and legislative change. This Bill seems to me to be the place for that.

Rather than embarking on something wholesale, which would raise all sorts of questions about people needing to be consulted, a pilot is much more limited. If it falls over, we will all have learned something without the Government having to pay for the lesson. If it succeeds—and I am most optimistic—it will drive lasting reform and make UK roads safer for us all. I very much hope that the Minister will be agreeable to a meeting with him and relevant officials to present this initiative in more detail, alongside industry experts who have helped to shape its development.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 135 to 143, all in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. When this power first appeared in the Bill, the Minister in the other place, Mr Justin Madders, admitted that the Government had not even decided whether they were intending to use it. First, they said there would be no consultation, then they changed their minds. That is not a serious way to make laws; it is confused and confusing, especially for, as ever, SMEs, which are, as we have discussed many times during the passage of the Bill, in a state of uncertainty about the basic rules governing their own workplace.

If the membership threshold was reduced to 2%, as the Government appear to envisage, in a company that employs 250 employees, it would require only five members in the bargaining unit to request a ballot. That would mean that a union could gain bargaining authority over workplace conditions, pay and leave arrangements for the entire bargaining unit based on the explicit support of a tiny number of employees. This raises questions about whether such an arrangement adequately reflects workforce preferences, particularly for employees who may value direct engagement. That potentially creates a situation in which unions may submit many speculative requests for recognition, with little depth of membership in a proposed bargaining unit. The process comes at a cost to the employer of both managing and arranging access and facilities, and to the Central Arbitration Committee for supervising these potentially speculative ballots.

I really think this speaks for itself; there is not a huge amount to say in addition, although I would note that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked earlier about workplace democracy. Whatever it is, it is not this, so I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 144 in this group. We discussed the same amendment in Committee. If we do not have a number, it means that, essentially, one employee could trigger union recognition. Surely that is not something we should impose on small businesses.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this set of amendments is a proportionate response to the Bill’s Schedule 6 to ensure that we have clarity in the Bill for all parties about the threshold to be met in respect of a union seeking recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers making a request for recognition. As matters stand, employers, unions and employees know that the threshold for recognition is 10%. This is established under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on trade union recognition for the union or unions seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct the collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers.

The 10% threshold is set out in paragraph 36 and reinforced throughout Schedule A1 in the subsequent paragraphs that my noble friend’s amendments seek to reinstate. That includes paragraphs 45 and 51 on competing applications, paragraphs 86 to 88, and paragraph 14 on applications. As your Lordships know, this Bill substitutes the words “the required percentage”, including for paragraph 45 on the validity of applications. We know that the required percentage may be 2%, but it has become almost a euphemism for whatever a Minister may decide post consultation and impose via statutory instrument in whatever circumstances we may imagine. It may be that the union masterminding the Birmingham bin chaos, which finds its members fleeing to another union, wants the Government to get a 1% or 0.5% figure in the instrument—or else it would withhold its support from the Labour Party.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As usual, my noble friend makes a brilliant observation; she is spot-on. We have to focus on skills. This is another thing that is brought to my attention every time I meet with businesses in the UK, and with international businesses. They say, “You need to close the skills gap”. Skills are missing in certain places, and this strategy addresses that.

We are investing in technical excellence colleges through the further education scheme. As far as higher education goes, noble Lords know that four of the top universities are in this country. Businesses work with them and fund their research as well. We attract international business because of the higher education expertise and professionalism in this country.

Let me say more about skills. We have just announced £275 million of skills investment over three years, which forms a wider skills package made up of £75 million of government resource investment and £200 million of capital funding, made available from our new skills mission fund.

We committed in the industrial strategy to investing over £100 million to boost engineering skills. That is made up of £75 million of resource funding and £25 million of capital funding from the skills mission board. The Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education have contributed funding for these engineering skills. We are also investing a further £187 million to support the digital skills package, which the Prime Minister announced at London Tech Week a few weeks ago. More details on defence skills will be set out in the forthcoming defence industrial strategy.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I will follow my noble friend and ask about Cinderella geographies. Coastal East Sussex is included in south-east England, but the examples given of the south-east are the Solent and Oxford, which are both four hours away. How does a bit of England that is not currently mentioned in or connected to the industrial strategy find purchase with this policy and document? What would the Minister recommend as a strategy for coastal East Sussex in trying to become part of the industrial strategy? Will he draw to his colleagues’ attention the virtues of the British Council initiative Alumni UK as a way of building international networks for industrial strategy businesses?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I will mention the British Council’s Alumni UK to my noble friend—she is sitting on the Front Bench and I am sure she heard the noble Lord’s point. On coastal towns and rural areas, the industrial strategy covers everything. This industrial strategy is not place specific; it is based on sectors. For example, rural areas will benefit from it, with clean energy in Cornwall, advanced manufacturing and agritech in Lincolnshire, financial services in Norwich and east Norfolk, and life sciences in Coleraine. So we are right across the country. It is not rural or coastal; it applies right across the country based on the sector. For example, computer games are very much up in the north, so that covers some of the rural areas as well.

The Government believe strongly that rural and coastal areas offer significant potential for growth and are central to our economy. We are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in these areas. The Government have already committed £2.7 billion to support sustainable farming and nature’s recovery. This Government have also confirmed investment of over £1.9 billion over four years into broadband and 4G connectivity. It is shameful that we still cannot get wifi across every part of this country. We are doing something about that, and the Government are putting money into these sectors.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we believe that this ban is proportionate and we support it. Sword-related deaths are rare but even one, such as the tragic loss of Ronan Kanda, is too many. I join the Minister in his admiration for the family and how they have behaved. However, for this ban to be truly effective, it must be robust and well implemented. I have a number of concerns; I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up.

First, if the people we most need to reach are not even aware of this ban or the surrender scheme, they are unlikely to have the desired impact. The Youth Endowment Fund says that this was a key failing of the previous scheme to ban zombie knives. Even some individuals working in this field were apparently unaware of the process. Clear and targeted communication is essential. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that those who are the hardest to reach, who may not be easily identified or contacted, are made aware of these changes?

Secondly, I have a real concern that people surrendering zombie knives were asked to provide their personal details. Youth workers believe that this prevented many people coming forward, in particular those possessing weapons illegally, who already distrust the police completely. Will people be asked to provide their personal details this time?

Can the Minister clarify why the ban is limited to blades of up to 24 inches? Although most ninja swords are between 14 and 24 inches, knife enthusiasts are already bragging online that blades longer than 24 inches will remain legal. Was this intended to protect legitimate uses? From what the Minister said in his introduction, I assume that it was. If so, does the legitimate use exemption not already provide adequate protection? Is the Minister confident that criminals will not simply switch to longer blades to evade the law, which they seem to suggest online they would or should do?

I also want to ask about the exemption for fantasy swords. After the zombie knife ban, the BBC found that retailers were still selling them by claiming that they were for cosplay and could not cause harm unless modified. Is the Minister confident that this exemption will not create a similar loophole?

Furthermore, the legislation is narrowly drawn. The Home Office itself acknowledges that it may simply shift demand to other types of swords. It is unclear whether most swords used in recent homicides would even be covered by these new rules. What mechanism will be in place to review the effectiveness of this ban after it comes into force?

Finally, this law will make a difference only if it is enforced. The Clayman review suggests that the police currently lack the training, expertise and resources to police this effectively. Can the Minister provide information on how enforcement will be strengthened and what steps are being taken to improve police capability?

I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues when he winds up.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister’s expressions of gratefulness towards the family of Ronan Kanda for the way that they have taken forward this campaign. I also thank the Minister and his Home Office team for the really careful way that the order has been drafted. They have considered thoroughly the representations made by members of the antique trade, collectors, historical re-enactment groups and martial art practitioners, when the easiest thing would have been to have a blanket ban on every straight-bladed sword. This would have criminalised people involved in land management, antique collecting, living history and sporting activities. I am therefore very grateful for the care and trouble that the Home Office team have taken.

I am confident that this definition is precise and specific to just these swords, but it is complex in nature and needs to be accompanied by illustrated guidance notes, as was done with zombie knives. A great deal of very well-informed amateur effort is available to help the Home Office compile these notes. Perhaps, given the enthusiasm in some bits of this Government for AI and the progress that they are making, we could equip each constable with an app on their phone that, based on the detailed knowledge that can be provided, the illustrations and other details, would enable instant identification—at least in principle—for police officers, who would not have to receive deep, separate training. Maybe there is something that we can do here to improve enforcement. There is so much complexity in this area that the idea that we are going to train constables in how to recognise whether a knife is within or without this legislation is not practical, but there are ways in which it can be done.

I am delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of historical items by including defences that are identically worded to those in previous legislation. The role of amateur collectors and people who are interested in preserving our history is really important at a time when museums are strapped for cash and resources. That being recognised and supported is enormously appreciated.

I hope that we will—well, I am sure that we will—have an opportunity when the Crime and Policing Bill comes through the House to consider extending this defence consistently across the entire area of historical weapons. There is a set of inconsistencies at the moment, particularly around World War II items, such as the sort of stuff that the SOE used—I declare an interest as someone who is descended from the political head of the SOE. It is really important that this aspect of our history is preserved. There will be an opportunity with that Bill—not, as I say, to extend the idea of the legislation but to extend its ambit—to make sure that what has been done in this order can be extended to weapons of historical significance generally.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making it clear that we support the order before the Committee. The use of offensive weapons, such as so-called ninja swords, in violent crime is a matter of profound concern, and we recognise the devastating circumstances that led to this legislative action. The tragic death of Ronan Kanda was a heartbreak that no family should have to experience. We pay tribute to his family’s dignified and determined campaign, and acknowledge the Government’s response in bringing forward this measure.

As the Minister outlined, the order makes it an offence to manufacture, sell, import or possess ninja swords, a specific category of bladed weapon characterised by their tanto-style points and multiple cutting edges. It also introduces a surrender and compensation scheme modelled on the previous amnesty for zombie knives and machetes. These are measured and proportionate steps, and we recognise the effort that has gone into ensuring that this is a targeted and carefully drafted order.

However, we must consider what else is necessary and required beyond this intervention if we are serious about tackling the wider and more complex challenge of knife crime. We must be clear about what the order can and cannot achieve. Banning a specific category of weapon, although entirely sensible, will not address the root cause of knife crime. Tragically, those intent on violence will find other means. We must not fall into the trap of believing that legislation alone—in particular, legislation focused on the design or appearance of a blade—can resolve a problem that is systemic and growing in scale.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

140: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Notice periodsWhen—(a) an employee’s contract of employment contains a notice period of more than two weeks,(b) the employee gives notice of their intention to leave, and(c) their employer enforces any part of the notice period beyond two weeks,the employee may require the employer to pay them, for the enforced notice period beyond two weeks, at whichever is the higher of their current rate of remuneration and the remuneration offered to them under any new contract of employment that they have secured.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to incentivise shorter notice periods.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I thank Tim Leunig for drawing my attention to this proposal. The standard in the UK when a person has a job and contracts for a new one is that he or she has to serve a three-month notice period. In the United States, notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement, but that is the convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. It is quite clear, looking at things in the round, that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy—it is inefficient. Shifting the notice period down would be a contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting it 11 weeks earlier would mean a direct rise in the individual’s income, as well as a rise in GDP and tax revenues. It is of all-round economic benefit.

The most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, a dynamic company can scale up more quickly and easily than is currently possible. It can go out and bid for contracts knowing that it can get the staff in time to honour them. If an entrepreneur has a good idea, they can make it happen. If demand rises for one firm, it can respond more easily. Making it easier for dynamic firms to grow quickly is definitely an economic benefit.

Finally, knowing that employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about them. If their leaving is a big nuisance, firms will want them to stay, and will therefore have an incentive to think more about pay rises, promotions, new training opportunities and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having. In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps incumbents, particularly firms not seeking to grow and that do not want to respond to growth opportunities. That is not a productivity-enhancing strategy.

My amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change current practice in the UK—to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting to the same outcome, I should be delighted to support them. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.

I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.

If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 140.

When we were developing the plan to make work pay, we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal that balances employees’ rights and protections with employers’ confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. A notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, allowing the employer to manage minimum disruption to business requirements while the employee hands over their responsibilities. We therefore feel that, in the round, our proposals are beneficial to employers and fair. Many employers do not want their staff to leave too quickly, so that fairness is built in. Although the statutory minimum notice period that an employee must give an employer is currently, after one month’s employment, no less than one week, often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not recognise three months as the standard; for many workers, it is considerably less.

This is all about fairness and balance. In practice, employers and employees recognise that both parties require stability and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice, but the employer sets that out in the contract at the outset.

The current minimum notice periods legislation entitles an employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice period, as you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees’ rights to increased notice pay, which would result in more disputes being taken to employment tribunals or the fair work agency. It would create a requirement for an employee’s current and future employer to confirm their salary offer, adding an additional step in the process of offboarding an employee. It also presents the possibility of increased financial burdens on employers.

So, the Government feel that it is not necessary to make a further assessment of this. They have not made an assessment of the costs and the impacts of making this change to employment rights. To do so would require careful consultation with employers and employee representatives. However, we have not received lobbying or any suggestion from employers that they particularly want the sort of proposal that the noble Lord has put forward.

The Bill is delivering the commitments made by the Government to improve workers’ rights in the plan to make work pay. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. Our process is simple. It is also fair to both sides: to the employer and to the employee. If those arrangements need to change, by and large, that can be done within the workplace, based on negotiations—so we do not feel the pressure to make the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing, but I thank him nevertheless for the suggestion.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she does not feel sympathy for the direction I was taking. It seems to me that when you are addressing the question of productivity in the economy, there are no big solutions. It is rather like the way British cycling came to win: you make a very large number of very small improvements, all in the same direction.

This was intended to be one of those, to increase productivity but at the same time to make life a bit better for employees. I am inclined that way. I spent last weekend at a Premier Inn. Premier Inn does not provide toilet brushes. I do not see why the cleaners who come after me and other people should have to scrub out the toilet bowls when I could do that myself. Having a campaign with Premier Inn to change its policy on that would be worthwhile. It is a small change but, by making small changes enough times, you make some progress. Indeed, one of the secrets of this House is to make small changes. So I am sorry that this small change has not appealed to the Minister, but I will try again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 140 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.

We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that I would really appreciate the opportunity to look at how this Bill deals with lumpy demand— not only predictably lumpy but randomly lumpy. I ask the Clerk at the Table to transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a request to tell us how the Bill will affect the House’s employment practices, because we are a great generator of lumpy demand, not least on the Public Bill Office. I would really like that immediate understanding of how the Bill affects a substantial organisation, but one with a very unpredictable set of demands such as the Houses of Parliament.

This lumpiness is a characteristic of, say, the NHS, which may suddenly get a demand and have to do things. Suddenly something emerges and the pattern of working has to change. Will the Bill fix those longer hours so that they become set and cannot be rowed back from when the lump disappears? A good understanding, before we reach Report, of how the Bill will work in practice and interact with a range of real businesses would be really valuable, and I hope the Minister can offer it to us.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had already offered to have further discussions, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

21A: Clause 2, page 19, line 11, after “notice”, insert “of no more than 24 hours”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I hope this amendment will come under the “lumpiness seminar” we have been promised. It is about what “reasonable notice” means in the Government’s intentions and how this will work in practice.

This again comes back to my request to the clerk. How did this work in the case of Parliament being recalled to deal with the Government’s rescue of the steelworks? How would it work in connection with the NHS’s response to a train crash in its neighbourhood? What about the need to change working patterns suddenly and quickly and for the workforce to be flexible? Although I have kept this amendment simple, I would like to reflect in our meeting on the equivalent provisions in Schedule A1, which deal with agency workers. How is this all going to work in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his analysis of my amendment. I certainly do not intend to press it today, but I very much look forward to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss lumpiness.

On the noble Lord’s preference for keeping “reasonable” broad, I can see the attractiveness of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, postponing employees’ work for the next day at zero notice but saying, “We’ll want you in the day afterwards so you can start the clean-up” would presumably be reasonable. At the same time, giving very little notice when it is obvious that more notice could have been given would obviously be unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals does not seem to be the right way of going about it.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

29: Clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
“(l) the withdrawal from sale of products of a type concerning which Trading Standards have raised concerns, until such time as the seller has satisfied Trading Standards that those concerns are unfounded.”

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the market we have at the moment is such that, if there is, say, an orange teddy bear on the market, it may appear in a hundred or more different guises from ostensibly different sellers. Perhaps it has a different label or name attached, but it is, in essence, the same product. If we insist on trading standards proving that each of these instances is dangerous, we will find ourselves unable to enforce this legislation properly.

Amendment 29 suggests reversing the process so that, when trading standards become aware that, say, an orange teddy bear of a particular description appears to be dangerous, they can stop them being sold and put the onus on the sellers to prove that they are safe. In that way, we can achieve the protection of the public quickly and simply, without overwhelming trading standards. I beg to move.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31, 85, 97, 98 and 109, all on enforcement issues. Amendment 31 in my name and Amendment 98 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, deal with the subject of fulfilment houses. Yes, it sounds like a slightly dodgy building, does it not? Anyway, I have been educated.

Amendment 31 addresses Clause 2. At the end of line 14 of page 3, it would insert

“a person who controls fulfilment houses in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment adds to the list of persons in Clause 2 on whom product regulations may impose product requirements. I thank the Chartered Trading Standards Institute for its advice on this issue.

Fulfilment houses or centres store, pack and ship products for other companies, which are third-party sellers, often from overseas. Without clear rules, these products easily skip safety checks, creating risk for consumers. It is important to aim for compliant products only to enter the market, and these fulfilment houses should play a critical role in ensuring that.

There is presently a lack of clarity regarding the specific obligations of fulfilment houses, as their operations may not fall directly under the role of traditional retailers or manufacturers. This amendment makes it clear that fulfilment houses must meet safety standards, just as regular shops must, and are accountable if they are storing and passing on products for delivery that are unsafe or dangerous.

Amendment 98 aims to close a critical gap in the supply chain and protect consumers from non-compliant goods from third-party sellers. The amendment seeks to define “fulfilment houses” because at present the Bill does not. This is needed as these houses are, as I said, a key loophole for unsafe products entering the UK market. The amendment also outlines how fulfilment houses will have to keep records showing that the products they store meet all necessary product safety requirements. These houses are also to work with enforcement officers if that is needed. Although fulfilment houses already register for tax due diligence, this extension to product safety is a necessary logical next step towards ensuring safe consumer products across the board.

Amendment 85 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is on enforcement of metrology regulations. This amendment, advised by trading standards officers, makes it the duty of weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and a similar body in Northern Ireland to ensure that products are accurately measured and to add to the list in Clause 6 on page 6, line 30.

Although the Bill currently includes rules about measurement units and product quantities, it does not, according to weights and measurements officers on the ground, fully cover the checking of equipment used to make these measurements. Accurate measuring equipment is essential for ensuring fair trade, so expanding the regulations to include equipment testing, as our amendment suggests, would help authorities to enforce those rules more effectively. There are also concerns that the Bill may allow people other than trading standards officers to carry out enforcement, even though trading standards officers are already trained and authorised to do this work.

This amendment clarifies who is responsible for enforcement, helping build consumer trust in fair measurements, which affects consumers UK-wide. It will also ensure that local authorities will be responsible for regularly checking products to ensure accurate measurements, investigating complaints and taking action if they find issues. This will mean that all sellers follow the same standards so that consumers can trust the quantities they are buying—whether groceries, petrol or other goods—and that they are measured fairly.

I shall now speak to Amendment 97 in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The explanatory statement says:

“This amendment inserts safeguards to ensure non-regression from existing legal protections, as well as providing for the due consideration of the precautionary principle when scientific evidence about a possible risk may not yet be fully available but there is a need to be cautious given the potentially serious consequences for the safety of individuals”.


In current legislation, Regulation 10(5) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, for example, includes the duty that

“An enforcement authority … take due account of the precautionary principle”.

That point was relied on by the organisation Which? in its campaign to persuade the Government in 2019 to take action and require Whirlpool to recall dangerous tumble dryers that were responsible for starting hundreds of fires. When the scientific evidence was not fully available, the precautionary principle kicked in. At that point, scientific evidence is not completely collated but, when there are hundreds of fires, something needs to be done.

The Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to introduce new regulations that will upgrade consumer rights, but we believe there needs to be a more encompassing principle to keep consumers safe and underpin all future regulation with key consumer protections. With this amendment, we are seeking to ensure that the primacy of a high level of consumer protection is built into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. We would expect regulators and authorities to carry out enforcement in line with the regulators’ code, which I am happy to share with noble Lords.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the debate ranged a long way beyond my amendment, and I shall not attempt to summarise it. I suspect that I shall be listening to many of the arguments again at Report, specifically those from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, too. In his reply to my amendment, I felt that the Minister rather missed the point, which is that, no, they do not have the powers at the moment. That is why this amendment has been tabled, because they are saying that they do not have the powers. Yes, you can name a product and have it taken off, but if it appears in 100-plus different guises, which all claim to be different but are actually the same, you are stuffed. That is what I am trying to get at. I shall come back to this at Report, after taking further advice.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of how overregulated our nuclear industry has become and that allowing it to continue to be the subject of such a ridiculous free for all—resulting in us paying five times more than it costs the Koreans to build a nuclear power plant—is not something that should be waved away in the breadth of the powers that we have in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.