Retirement of a Member: Baroness Meacher
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from 28 October of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for her much-valued service to the House.
Offshore Oil and Gas: Venting and Flaring
Baroness Hayman
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to end routine non-emergency venting and flaring on offshore oil and gas infrastructure.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a director and past chair of Peers for the Planet.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
In 2020 the UK committed to the World Bank zero routine flaring by 2030 initiative to end routine flaring and venting by 2030. The UK’s oil and gas sector has one of the lowest upstream methane emission intensities globally, but the North Sea contains a lot of ageing infrastructure, including much with only a short production life remaining. However, the approach the UK has been taking, with support from government and regulators, means that the industry is on track to meet its ambitious emissions reduction targets.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer and recognise that some limited progress has been made, but it really is too little, and 2030 is too far ahead, given that methane is one of the most damaging, dangerous and fast-acting greenhouse gases. The practice of venting and flaring in non-emergency situations is both wasteful and damaging to the environment. We were very near to achieving a ban in the Bill that was going through Parliament when the general election was called. The Labour Front Bench at that time supported amendments for a ban. Why do we have to wait longer? Would this not be a very good initiative for the Prime Minister to announce when he goes to COP 30 next month?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I just want to point out a few facts on this. As of 2023, methane emissions from upstream oil and gas accounted for less than 2% of all methane emissions. In its emissions monitoring report this year, the North Sea Transition Authority estimates that absolute methane emissions from oil and gas production have fallen by more than 60%, and flaring reduced by 51% between 2018 and 2024. The regulator issues consents for flaring and venting activity, with strict limits, and uses enforcement with fines of more than half a million pounds. The regulator is also taking action to increase transparency and accountability with regular published updates. I think our approach is working.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, when it comes to routine venting and flaring, there are different estimates about the extent and scale of the problem. Given the loss of MethaneSAT in June, what actions are the Government taking to work with partners to improve international monitoring capabilities?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
On transparency, the regulator benchmarks performance asset by asset across UK infrastructure for oil and gas rigs, and shares findings with operators to encourage sharing of best practice. The NSTA publishes data publicly on our website on flaring, venting and the methane performance of different assets. We are working in collaboration on that with the rest of the world, considering that we signed up to the World Bank zero routine flaring by 2030 initiative.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, while this is clearly a very important element when we look at the oil industry, Petrofac, a major employer in Aberdeen, is going into administration. There are 2,000 employees’ jobs at risk—1,200 offshore and 800 onshore in training and operational roles. The trade unions are seeking clarity from government on wages and entitlements. Has the Secretary of State for the Environment met with the trade unions? What was the outcome? Does the Minister agree that the rush to net zero by this Government is destroying jobs across the United Kingdom?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We have to be careful in what we say about Petrofac. This is an international commercial matter and not related to UK policies or contracts. The company has faced significant challenges that go back several years. It received a significant financial penalty of £77 million, imposed in 2021 by the Serious Fraud Office following a bribery probe. Certain group entities have also been impacted by loss- making contracts.
The UK arm of the company, Asset Solutions, is successful and growing and will continue to operate as normal, including for workers. It is a successful business that is well integrated into the UK supply chain. There will be an orderly process led by the administrators to find a long-term future for the whole of the business, including Asset Solutions. The UK Government are working with all parties to ensure that we do everything we can to secure those jobs. This is a commercial issue, but Asset Solutions, the company in the UK, is a going concern.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of net zero and the North Sea, can my noble friend remind the party opposite that in the last period of their Government, the CBI showed that the green economy grew by over 9% as opposed to a miserable 1% in the economy generally? Does he not think that the party opposite’s attack on net zero is quite extraordinary, given the vibrancy of the net-zero economy?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. He is absolutely right. We need to remember the previous Government’s record on this. Because we are heading for net zero, we are seeing massive investment in the clean energy industry, creating millions of jobs in the long term and investments of billions of pounds. It is the way forward for the country and for the world, and we should continue doing it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Minister mentioned our ageing infrastructure. We have become a global outlier in leak detection and repair to stop methane leakages. Norway has monthly checks, the US has quarterly checks and Canada is bringing in monthly checks. What is our policy, and will it mandate these leak detection and repair testing regimes?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. There are regular assessments of all this. As I said, the NSTA publishes data on its website highlighting flaring, venting and methane performance of different assets. We are well aware of the issues and are keeping on top of them. If there are any issues around this, especially on venting, fines of over half a million pounds can be set against the company involved.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, which last year produced a report on methane. Methane is responsible for a full third of the global warming we see today, but it behaves very differently from carbon dioxide because it is much shorter lived. Therefore, if we can reduce methane emissions rapidly, we can start to cool the planet within a decade or two. Given that the Secretary of State for DESNZ has accepted that credible UK leadership on methane needs a methane action plan, when will we see it?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The answer to that question is that we are expecting it very, very soon. Not very soon—very, very soon. We will see it in the coming days.
On our record on methane, I will repeat what I said to the noble Baroness earlier. The North Sea Transition Authority estimates that absolute methane emissions from oil and gas production have fallen by more than 60%, and flaring reduced by 51% between 2018 and 2024. We are making great progress on this. Is there more to do? Yes, but we are on top of it.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, in his answers the Minister has mentioned many different forms of energy that make up the sector in this country. Can he tell the House how many jobs have so far been created by Great British Energy?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As we know, Great British Energy has been set up in recent months. We have a great approach on the strategy for creating jobs. We are going to see jobs in solar, wind farms and nuclear, and we are making predictions that there will be thousands of jobs in the pipeline. As I said on a previous occasion on nuclear, for example, we are establishing the foundations for a golden age of nuclear energy that will generate a lot of power and jobs, and that is something to be optimistic about.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in July the World Bank reported that, in the last year, the fossil fuel industry had pumped out an extra 389 million tonnes of carbon pollution from flaring gas. That number rose for the second year in a row to the highest level since 2007. Will the Government make strong representations at COP 30 about gas flaring, and would we not be in a stronger position if we were further ahead in our own industry?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. The COP meeting is in Brazil next month. We are advising the Brazilian Government on how to control zero routine flaring going forward, and we are not just doing it there—we are also doing it with the central Asian republics and Finland. We have a good reputation on this. There is more to do, but we are getting on with it. We have signed up to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring by 2030 initiative, and we intend to meet that target.
Built Environment Sector
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the report from New London Architecture The Built Environment Sector, published on 16 September, what assessment they have made of the economic value of the built environment sector and its role in the national economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of the built environment. It contributes hundreds of billions of pounds annually to the UK economy, supports millions of jobs and underpins key areas such as housing, infrastructure and urban regeneration. It drives innovation, sustainability and regional development, making it essential to national growth, climate goals and global competitiveness. That is why the Government provide it with extensive support through funding, policy reforms, skills development and strategic planning.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply and welcome her to her first Oral Questions. I also welcome plans to streamline judicial review for nationally significant infra- structure, where cases currently average 1.4 years. Given similar delays in housing and other planning cases during an acute housing crisis—I declare an interest as someone who is trying to build a new park in north London—does the Minister agree that comparable reforms should be considered more widely across the planning system, and will she explore whether the legislation currently before this House offers any scope to do so?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his active interest in this area. The nationally significant infrastructure projects regime is separate from other planning regimes and operates under different legislation. My noble friend will recognise that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, supporting delivery of the Government’s plan for change milestones, building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions for major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this important report. It has highlighted the skills shortage of between 100,000 and 170,000 jobs needed annually to ensure that this sector continues to grow. As well as welcoming the Minister to her post, I ask her specifically what further actions the Government are taking to ensure that these skills gaps are filled, so that our economy can grow.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an extremely important point. He will recall that, at the Spring Statement, the Government announced a £625 million package to boost construction skills. This aims to deliver up to 60,000 additional skilled workers and includes everything from foundation apprenticeships, the expansion of skills boot camps specially tailored for the construction industry and the establishment of construction technical excellence colleges. This will all be overseen by the Construction Skills Mission Board, which is a collaborative partnership.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has just set out very clearly the need for skilled construction workers to support the built environment agenda and the Government’s growth agenda. But could I push her a little further on how what she has just set out will tie in with Ed Miliband’s announcement last week about tech training hubs for the energy sector? All these things are vital for regional growth in areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to draw our attention to this area. Ensuring that we have the workers to support a clean energy transition is essential and she will know that, last week, the department put out a very detailed plan—I commend it to all noble Lords—to address the skills gaps we have in 31 priority occupations. The plan will create well-paid, secure jobs with good workplace rights. Noble Lords will also be aware that, in the last few weeks, the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has also published a skills White Paper, which shows just how joined up these projects to create skills will be. It includes details of the technical excellence colleges, which will specialise in these areas.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I too very much welcome the Minister to her seat. Much of the historic success of the built environment has depended on small and medium-sized businesses: developers, architects, housebuilders, plumbers, planners and so on. What will the Minister do to bring down the regulatory and other barriers to their continued and, I hope, growing success?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes another very important point. Over the past years, the nature of the construction market has changed and it is absolutely right to focus on small builders. There is a whole programme of support for SME builders, some of which is in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It includes streamlined planning rules for small sites to reduce bureaucracy around those kinds of approvals and new reforms to ease biodiversity net gain requirements, again for small sites. We are also making efforts on late payments, which can be particularly difficult for small businesses in the construction industry. The consultation proposes a package of measures, including specific measures to address the use of retentions in the industry.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, my father was one of those who were known at the time as “McAlpine’s Fusiliers”, helping to build houses across this country, as many immigrants like him from Ireland did. When we talk about deregulation, can we ensure as a Government that that does not mean compromising on health and safety standards for construction workers, nor compromising on the standards of housing that we are building, so that we are building homes for the families of the future, not the slums of the future?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right on that point. We need to have the right standards, skills and funding. Among the programmes the Government have in front of them, the affordable homes programme, for example, commits £39 billion over 10 years to build social and affordable housing, which will include low-interest loans and rent settlement reforms to support housing providers to provide those decent standards of housing across the country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the report argues that the built environment should form a core part of the Government’s industrial strategy. But, as we heard in our recent debate on steel, for Britain to have a strong industrial base, we must also foster a flexible, innovative and low-tax business environment if industrial policy is to thrive. Could the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not impose further tax increases on British businesses in the forthcoming Budget?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows that that is an issue the Treasury will be dealing with in due course.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us an update on the practice, carried out for many years under the previous Government, of land banking by housing companies? Is she able to recall the promise that we would deal with this? Can she give us an update?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
This question is very pertinent. I am afraid that I cannot give him the full details on that right now, so, if I may, I promise to follow up in writing with him.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, gardens play an important part in enhancing the built environment. Will the Minister bring her fresh eyes and keen intellect to the task of ensuring that we do not lose the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee in these areas?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point, which I suspect has been raised in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but it is not one that I can respond to at this point. I apologise for that, but I will also follow up with him afterwards.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I ask about density of housing in the new built environment? I declare an interest: I live in a village that is almost entirely terraced housing and is therefore extremely dense, with a park and allotments round it so that there is public space. I am very struck that all the new developments I see up and down the valleys of west Yorkshire are spread out. This means that access to public transport, shops, et cetera, and normal social life, are much more difficult, because developers prefer to build separate houses for better-off people. Do the Government have a strategy towards density as a way of resisting the spread of housing across green spaces?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord raises some very interesting observations on density in the UK and in his local area. This is probably something that local planning authorities and developers are best placed to opine on, in consultation and taking into account the local area. One thing that the New Towns Taskforce stressed when coming up with its report was the importance of place and character. That is a really good basis for carrying on those discussions about the nature of communities and how they can really solidify around a physical space.
Plant-based Diet
Baroness Boycott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the benefits to human health and the wider environment by promoting a predominantly plant-based diet.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we know that a diet based predominantly on fruit, vegetables and higher-fibre starchy foods but also containing some protein, such as beans, pulses, meat, fish or eggs, and dairy or dairy alternatives, as depicted in the UK’s Eatwell Guide, is associated with improved environmental outcomes and reduced risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am not quite sure what the Government are doing to arrive at that result. Currently around 62% of UK grain goes to feed livestock. Meat products, for instance, are only 32% of the calories consumed in the UK, but livestock feed and land space make up 85%. It is disproportionate, especially when you add in the known health impacts. I would like to know what measures the Government are taking to achieve a more plant-based diet.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, but I point out that the UK’s dietary guidelines, as depicted in the Eatwell Guide, to which I referred in my Answer, already recommend a diet that is based predominantly on plant foods. Analysis has shown that adherence to that guide does indeed improve both health and environmental outcomes. We are clear that we have to promote healthy eating messages based on that guide. We are working with the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition both to improve robust assessments of the evidence that we receive and to make sure that we work with our farming industry to produce environmentally sustainable food that we can rely on as a country and export.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I chaired your Lordships’ inquiry into food, diet and obesity. We recommended that the school food standards, which are 10 years old, should be updated in the light of the latest dietary advice. The Department for Education agreed to that, and this is under way. Can the Minister tell us when the updated standards will be published? Can he say how many food industry representatives are on the advisory committee, and how many farmers? Will the new standards mandate a more plant-rich menu for schools? How will they be funded, monitored and enforced?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am sure that I could fill up the whole of Question Time trying to address all those questions. I thank the noble Baroness for her interest and for the work that she undertook with the committee. Many of the recommendations from that report are being taken forward through the Government’s 10-year health plan. The plan has set out action to tackle the obesity crisis with a broad policy package aimed at improving food environments and ensuring better access for everyone. As regards the school food standards, we are working on this—coming up with standards to define the food and drinks that must be provided to schools and which must be restricted. We are looking particularly at foods that are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar.
I think it is important to respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness concerning the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Members of that committee have a duty to act in the public interest, in accordance with the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, and to be independent and professionally impartial. The committee’s code of practice has been updated recently. Individuals are now eligible to be members only if they do not hold significant interests in relation to the food, drink, diet or supplement industries. So we can be assured that they are acting on impartial and independent grounds when they provide the Government with advice.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
One thing that is important is clarity for farmers, and one idea could be to link farm payments to soil health and other good practices, through the SFI. I ask my noble friend the Minister: will the 25-year farming road map still be published this year, and will it be published along with other pieces of work, including the land use strategy?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. As she suggests, the farming road map is part of a package of land-based strategies being published by Defra, which will include the food strategy. It will set out what is needed to restore nature, address climate change and support the production of healthy and sustainable food. The land use framework to which she referred will express the land use implications of these objectives and how the Government intend to manage trade-offs between them. The road map itself will describe how the farming sector will be supported to deliver land management and land use changes. I can say that it will be published in due course.
My noble friend mentioned the sustainable farming incentive. This pays farmers and land managers to carry out actions that support the sustainable production of food and boost farm productivity and resilience while protecting and enhancing the environment. I am pleased to say to your Lordships’ House that the SFI now has more than 39,000 multi-year live agreements, and is not only delivering sustainable food production and nature recovery for today and the years ahead but putting money back in farmers’ pockets.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, a number of elite athletes follow a plant-based diet, and some of the wealthier ones are investing in companies that produce plant-based foods, but we know that not all plant-based foods are necessarily healthy. For example, some plant-based burgers or sausage rolls have been found to have higher levels of sodium or salt than their meat-based equivalents. This can be very confusing for consumers, especially those who want to eat more healthily. Are the Government satisfied that consumers wanting to switch to a plant-based diet have enough information to understand which plant-based foods are healthier and which are not? If not, who do the Government think is responsible for ensuring that consumers get the appropriate information they need to make an informed choice?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his observations. Speaking personally, I find that we are eating far more of a varied diet at home, and indeed often plant-based and purely vegan meals. That is generally generated by the desire of my teenage daughters to live a healthier lifestyle, even if they are not particularly my objectives. The noble Lord makes a point about the way that, through the food strategy and the Eatwell Guide, we are trying to ensure that people have a clear understanding of what a healthy, balanced diet looks like and can be accessed, whether that includes meat and dairy or, indeed, a purely plant-based approach. It is important that consumers of all ages can access that information, which is being promoted as part of the food strategy.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has noted the importance of at least some meat-based protein in a varied and healthy diet. Have the Government assessed the relative merits for health and the wider environment of grass-fed meat of the sort that predominates in our western counties? I note my interest as a Devon farmer.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The important thing to say to the noble Earl is that it is about empowering people via the food strategy to have more and better options so that they can make better choices. That can include a range of different food options. No one is going to yield to me in my preference to have, occasionally, a very good West Country steak that has just passed through the kitchen, not lingering for too long. At the same time, it is very much part of a balance. It is important that we are able to demonstrate to people that, whether it is plant based or not just plant based, as long as there is a rich variety of foods on their plate, that is going to lead to a healthier outcome.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister in a position to update the House on the commitment to end the use of neonicotinoids, the toxic insecticides that have a particular impact on biodiversity, insects and pollinators such as bees, which is a commitment that this Government made and the previous Government started to take action on a number of years ago?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is right: it is important that we are able to support not just bees but the bee farming industry to ensure that that is a sustainable future. I do not have the specific details on where we are up to in banning the insecticide that he mentioned, but I certainly undertake to write to him for more details.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referenced the Government’s food strategy that was published in July. We are still waiting for the implementation plans. In the development of those plans, will the Government undertake to look at the highly authoritative EAT-Lancet commission that published earlier this month, which demonstrated that globally a move to a more plant-based diet could reduce preventable deaths by 15 million a year, one-quarter of all such deaths globally?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The Eatwell Guide, the UK’s dietary guidelines and, indeed, the EAT-Lancet diet have shared principles and a shared understanding of what makes a healthy diet. We have not undertaken a formal assessment of the EAT-Lancet diet compared with the Eatwell Guide, but it is fair to say that the guide is based on modelling UK dietary recommendations against UK habits, whereas the EAT-Lancet diet has not been tailored to the UK population. People in the UK are more likely to be able to follow our guidelines more successfully than EAT-Lancet as our guidelines are specific to the UK.
People with Disabilities: Employment
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following reports of the dismissal by Waitrose of a volunteer with autism, what steps they are taking to ensure employers are encouraged to support people with disabilities into employment.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interest as chairman of Team Domenica.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the valuable role that volunteering plays in helping people prepare for work, we want disabled people and people with health conditions to be able to secure sustained employment. That is why we are funding local authorities to open our supported employment programme, Connect to Work, throughout England and Wales. Crucially, as part of this programme, specialist employment advisers work with both participants and employers, ensuring that participants are supported and workplaces are inclusive.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, but the fact remains that only 5% of people with learning disabilities are in paid employment. Will the Minister agree to giving businesses an exemption or a remission from the employers’ national insurance contribution for this cohort, whose lives would be transformed by being included in the workplace and their communities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s desire to find more opportunities for people with learning disabilities, severe autism and other conditions to get the benefits of work, of which money is but one. I pay tribute to the work she has done in creating Team Domenica and the work it has done in supporting learning-disabled people into work. I am sure the whole House would share in that.
Having said all that, successive Governments have taken a view that the best way to support disabled people into work is not necessarily by changing the rules around national insurance or the minimum wage. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the level of employment for disabled people is only around 50% and for those with autism around 30%, and, as she says, it is vanishingly small for those with learning disabilities. We believe passionately that disabled people are vital to the UK’s workforce. The way we have approached this is with the priority of providing opportunities and support for disabled people to thrive in work. That is why we commissioned the independent Keep Britain Working review, which will be published shortly, to understand how we can create and maintain the kind of workplaces that want to support disabled people and enable them to thrive. It is why we are reforming employment, health and skills support, to tackle rising economic inactivity and get people into good jobs. We want the same thing; we are doing it in different ways, but we are determined to make things better.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for her important Question. I declare my interest as having a 46 year-old son with a learning disability and autism. I am currently mentoring a highly educated 38 year-old young man, who has four degrees, including a master’s and a PhD. He still cannot find a job. Is the Minister satisfied that the local authority allocation for Connect to Work will be ring-fenced for that precise purpose? Will she consider apprenticeship schemes specially designated for people with autism?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for sharing her circumstance with us. I am really optimistic about Connect to Work. For noble Lords who do not know, Connect to Work is a specialist voluntary support and employment programme. It is for anyone who is disabled or who has a health condition or other barrier to work, such as homelessness. Local authorities, supported by DWP, are developing programmes. The reason it works—there is international evidence that shows what works in this space—is that it incorporates helping someone to work out what they want, engaging with employers and job-finding. A specialist adviser works with an individual and with local employers, and connects an individual to an employer, gets them into conversations, and then gets them into work and carries on supporting them in work. Crucially, they help the employers know how best to support people. Recently, I was talking to the head of this programme at one of the south coast councils. She said that lots of employers want to do the right thing but often they do not know how to —they may lack knowledge or be worried about how to have the necessary conversations. We have to tackle this on both fronts, but I am positive about it.
Lord Laming (CB)
Does the Minister recall the Public Services Committee’s report on the transition of young people with a disability from education into adult services? The evidence showed that there was a remarkable divergence. In some parts of the country, local authorities demonstrated quite inspiring work in getting young people with disabilities into work; in other parts of the country, the parents described it as like facing a cliff face. Does the Minister agree that we should set targets for every local authority, to make sure that, year on year, the number of young people with a disability going into employment is increasing? The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, can demonstrate that very well.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who makes a very important point. There has been an issue for some time—I am not telling him anything new; he knows it better than I do—around the transition between the support for young people when they are in school and the support when they get out of school. The bit that we can do something about is around funding to local authorities, which we are providing. A couple of weeks ago, we announced further funding of £167 million to roll out Connect to Work to nine further areas in England, and we expect all areas to be open by early next year. We are working with them to look at what they are providing, how they provide it, and how they tailor it to their local populations and job markets. If we can make a difference and get young people into work—I thought the example of Tom working in Waitrose, until things went wrong, was so interesting—then what is gained from them working is certainly money, but also self-respect, teamwork, a peer group and the chance to make a difference. If we can do that, it can be transformative.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister add to her comments by providing an update on the publication of the Charlie Mayfield report into employment for people with long-term sickness and disabilities? We have been waiting for that report for some months.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We have indeed. Despite being a Minister, I have not yet completely calibrated the scale that runs from, at one end, “in due course”, to, at the other end, “very soon”, but it is very much not at the “in due course” end. Watch this space; it will be out very soon.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Monckton. In November 2017, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead set the UK Government a target to get 1 million more disabled people into work by 2027. In 2022, the Conservative Government hit that target five years early, giving 1 million more disabled people the opportunity of fulfilling employment. The noble Baroness spoke about giving opportunity and offering support, which is fair enough, but perhaps she could go further and say what practical steps Ministers are taking to support small and medium-sized businesses, especially those rooted in local communities, such as cafés and pubs, to accommodate these additional needs?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that really good question. We have a service called “support with employee health and disability”. We are not great at names in DWP, but it does what it says on the tin. That was developed directly with input from smaller businesses and disability organisations. The idea is that it gives employers step-by-step guidance on how they can support employees in common workplace scenarios involving health and disability. For example, employers using the resource may be asked, “Have you got somebody you are working with now?”, and if they say yes then it will ask them what the challenge is. It can support them in understanding what the law says and how to have difficult conversations.
Most people who either are working or want to work, and who have a health condition or a disability, are happy to have conversations to help the employer know how to go about moving them into a job. One of the reasons that the Connect to Work programme I mentioned works so well is that the specialist advisers will work with the employer to help answer all those questions; they will also work with the person who is trying to move into work and can help bring the two together. A person I was talking to recently, who is a lead in one of these programmes, said that small businesses especially just do not have the resources—they have not got a huge HR department and so might not know how to do it—but they are really up for hiring people in the local community, and just want to be supported in doing so. I am really looking forward to seeing how that works out.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, last year, the TUC estimated that there is an average disability pay gap of £4,300 a year. Add this to the gender and ethnicity pay gaps, and then imagine the plight of disabled women from ethnic minorities. Can the Minister explain how many employers a year are investigated for persistently underpaying disabled persons and ethnic-minority females with disabilities?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if anyone is not paying the legal minimum then they are breaking the law, whatever the circumstances, and should absolutely be taken to task for that. However, my noble friend is making a broader point, which is that there are clear gaps in employment: for female employment, for the disability employment gap and in pay rates for a number of ethnic minorities, although the pattern is more varied there. One challenge in the whole strategy of trying to move to a more inclusive labour market is that it is not about trying to do something for its own sake but about recognising that if we do not use the talents of all our people, businesses are not getting the best people that they want to do the jobs, and we will not get the kind of growth we need or development in companies. One of the reasons we have had such a focus on working with combined mayoral authorities and local authorities is to try to make sure that they have local Get Britain Working plans which reflect their local populations, so that, as they develop them, everybody in the local area has a good chance to get into work. That is our approach.
Victims and Courts Bill
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 October 2025 - (27 Oct 2025)
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 September be approved.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberDogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (27 Oct 2025)
16:24 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 159 - Motion A1 agreed.
17:18 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 153 - Motion E1 agreed.
18:01 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 153 - Motion H1 agreed.
18:41 - Division on Motion L1 - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 142 - Motion L1 agreed.
18:53 - Division on Motion M1 - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 143 - Motion M1 agreed.
19:07 - Division on Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N) - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 195 - Motion N1 disagreed.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, and shall also speak to Motions B, E, E1, H and H1.
I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage. The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration that it received during earlier stages. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.
I believe that the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers, while providing the flexibility that good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success.
By now, after the extensive debates we have had at each stage of the Bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards for workers. These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them today. However, I will speak to Motions A, B, E and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the Bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously and we have had the pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to discuss their amendments. I will take these in turn, outlining why the Government believe these amendments are unnecessary or would disrupt the balance of the Bill.
On the right-to-request model for the right to guaranteed hours, I will speak to Motion A, relating to Amendment 1, and Motion A1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period explaining the workers’ right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The Government fully share the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.
Having discussed this with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guaranteed hours contract as the Bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should then be a right to request or opt into guaranteed offers after each reference period. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers while seeking to carefully manage burdens placed on business. The Government share this intention and are committing to delivering the promises set out in Make Work Pay and supporting businesses to drive the country’s economic growth. I certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters.
I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it the most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.
I move on to Motion B, which relates to Lords Amendments 7 and 8 on the right to payment and the definition of short notice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for originally tabling the amendments for consideration. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the Bill would pre-empt the Government’s planned consultation and limit our discretion to consider a range of options. The Government have chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations, allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation while enabling the Government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary legislation.
There will be a familiarisation period, so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations. I hope this reassures noble Lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled with more than the period of short notice, which is to be set in regulations. Therefore, Amendment 7 is unnecessary.
Lord Fox
As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu
“(1A) From the date on which this section comes into force, after the end of each reference period the employer must send the worker a written notice explaining their right to receive a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1) and giving them the opportunity to decline such an offer.
(1B) If the worker does not respond to the notice, or responds to confirm that they wish to receive an offer, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1).
(1C) A worker who is sent a notice under subsection (1A) may at any time ask not to receive any further notices or offers, after which the employer must not send further notices or make offers under this section.
(1D) A worker who has asked not to receive notices or offers under subsection (1C) may notify the employer that they wish to start receiving notices and offers again after the end of the next reference period, after which the employer must act in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B).”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think I am right in welcoming the Minister, noble Lord, Lord Collins, to the Bill. I too missed all of Report and so I thank my noble friends Lord Goddard, Lord Palmer and Lady Kramer for picking up the pieces. The Minister and I find ourselves at an interesting point in the Bill’s progress—the sharp end—when we come down to a small number of key issues. These issues are nevertheless crucial.
The Government have not been short of advice since the last time the Bill was discussed in your Lordships’ House. Some 13 major business organisations wrote to the Minister. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and, just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation—an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury—set out serious concerns.
These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling; when inflation continues to be worse than most of our international rivals; and when growth is, at best, stagnant. None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. Nevertheless, we should leave this to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who put it best when he said that Britain faces a “growth emergency”.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will go into more detail on some of those reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. The unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the Bill is likely to—or will have, in most cases—a chilling effect on our economy. The Bill contains 173 statutory instruments and still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations—for example, we await the conclusion of the consultation on notice periods that the Minister set out.
Even when the Bill gains Royal Assent—assuming that it will—no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty, which is the enemy of investment and which leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. At a time when things way beyond the control of national governance are running amok, this Government are wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. They could control this, but they are instead adding more uncertainty. That is at the heart of our concerns.
As we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will introduce his Motions E1 and H1 in this group, and I will leave it to him to explain their intention. However, the need to place a qualifying period and initial period of employment in the Bill is an important concern on these Benches. As it stands, the Bill will remove this provision entirely. The noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote.
On Motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights. This is largely absent from the primary legislation. Once again, we are going to rely on statutory instruments. I am not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lord’s wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support him. Perhaps the Minister could take onboard this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations following on from the Bill will operate to manage the irregularity of seasonal work, while still making sure that such work pays for employees.
I turn to the detail of our Motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily. An example is in trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the Minister’s aim to make sure that every employee has the right to move from zero hours to guaranteed hours. Nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.
We support the aim that after a reference period those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate and make that offer from the outset. We understand—and heard—some of the issues that were raised: that it is difficult for certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage, initiate the contact and make the ask. Therefore, rather than reassert the amendment we tabled before, we have amended it. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did a better job of explaining it than I am probably going to do now.
In essence, we should start off and stay the same as the Government require. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain on zero hours, the employer will not be compelled to keep reoffering guaranteed hours, time after time, as each reference period is passed. Under the Bill, the process of calculating those hours has to be redone each time. That may seem trivial; certainly, for large employers, it probably is. However, for the smaller and medium-sized employer, it is an added burden that does not need to be there if the employee does not wish to leave zero hours.
The aim of the amendment is to make sure that both sides are managed well and have the opportunity to change. The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I am happy that the Minister wants to continue to talk about this, and I am very happy to continue to talk, but to do so, we need to agree Motion A1. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
First, I am also very grateful to the Minister and his new colleagues for their time during the past couple of weeks. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Motion E1 is the most important amendment we will be debating today. The introduction of day one unfair dismissal rights is the most damaging element in this Bill, in my opinion. While there are problems with much of the Bill, there will, I believe, be a lot of unintended consequences.
For most of the proposed changes to employment rights, the Government are trying to solve genuine problems. Zero-hours contracts can be abused, and the abuse of fire and rehire is well known, to give a couple of examples. But despite my asking many times, no Minister has yet provided any evidence that the current qualifying period is being abused or causing actual harm to employees, and the Minister has added nothing to that today. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill likewise provides no evidence of cost or harm. We have already heard from the Resolution Foundation that it agrees, saying:
“Making dismissals as hard as in the ERB might also be for little obvious gain to workers”.
Uniquely among the employment rights changes in the Bill, there is little or no evidence that there is really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here, but very real harms will arise as a result of this policy. The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees. The Government’s own impact assessment makes this clear, and it points out that the greatest impact will be on more risky hires, such as young people trying to get that first all-important break, people trying to get off benefits, ex-offenders and so on—all people the Government keep telling us they are trying to help. To repeat, do not take my word for that: the Government’s own impact assessment confirms this.
We have just heard about the business organisations. All that I have seen also points to these unintended consequences, but even if you think, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”, listen to the Resolution Foundation, not an organisation that has ever been accused of being in hoc to employer organisations. It says, as we have heard:
“The Government’s plan … of getting rid of qualifying periods entirely by making this a ‘day one’ right—has the potential to inhibit hiring”.
It goes on to say, importantly:
“One group of particular concern at the moment are younger adults. The number of young people (aged 16 to 24) not working or studying has risen post-pandemic, and is at its highest level in a decade. And young people’s employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers”.
I think we can all agree that the current two-year qualifying period is unnecessarily long. That is why the amendments passed on Report reduced it to six months, which should be long enough for most employers to decide whether the hire is working or not. That would bring us into line with countries such as Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden, none of which are well known for employment rights abuse. That seemed a sensible compromise, protecting around 6 million more people from unfair dismissal, while reducing the unintended impact on higher-risk hires such as young people. To quote the Resolution Foundation again— I think it is going to get quoted a lot today:
“Reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the Government’s manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers …but it would do so in a way that doesn’t needlessly put employers off hiring”.
The Government simply rejected this compromise, while providing no reason and no evidence whatever of a problem.
What is needed for a probation period to allow an employer to give a potential new hire the benefit of the doubt is for there to be no risk of being taken to an employment tribunal during that period, other than for the standard existing statutory reasons, such as discrimination. Before anyone suggests, as they have in the past, that there will not be an increase in tribunal claims, I remind noble Lords that the Government’s own impact assessment states that a benefit of the policy is that there will be an increase in tribunal awards. That is actually in the impact assessment.
We have heard that the Government intend to consult on the matter and to create a nine-month, light-touch probation period. That sounds good, but the Bill pre-judges that consultation. New Section 98ZZA(3) sets out very clearly that certain fair reasons must be given to dismiss someone during a probation period, and unfortunately, those reasons are materially the same as those that must be given after the qualifying period. That means that, as the Bill is drafted, the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal will always remain. It will not in fact be possible to create a genuinely light-touch probation period after the Bill is passed, whatever the results of the consultation. So the Government’s suggestion that it will be okay because of the future consultation and regulations just does not stand up to scrutiny.
We have often heard that this is a manifesto commitment, but the Government never mention the other explicit manifesto commitment: that they would
“consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society … before legislation is passed”.
It is in the same paragraph. It seems to be okay to breach that manifesto commitment.
As I say, the Government’s own impact assessment clearly acknowledges the harm this policy will cause. If you know that your actions will cause harm and you go ahead anyway, that is a deliberate act. So, if the Government are not prepared to listen, including to the Resolution Foundation, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Government intend, knowingly and deliberately, to damage the life chances of young and vulnerable people. Do they really want to do that? Please, Minister, take this seriously.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Motion E1, which is unnecessary. Under the Employment Rights Bill, employers can still dismiss workers fairly—for example, as they can now if they are incompetent or there is misconduct or a redundancy situation. But without the day one protection proposed by the Government, when workers move to a new job, they would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim.
I encourage noble Lords to put themselves in the shoes of a worker, who in good faith leaves a secure job where they have completed the qualification period with protection against unfair dismissal to take up a new post, and who then finds themselves sacked, out on their ear, stripped of a livelihood for no good reason.
I also remind noble Lords that many groups of workers are already protected against unfair dismissal from day one, as their dismissal would be deemed automatically unfair—for example, if they are pregnant, on family leave or are a trade union rep, or, indeed, if they are a whistleblower. The Government simply intend to extend that protection to all workers. In addition, if someone thinks they have been unfairly dismissed because of race, sex or another protected characteristic, this could be discrimination. They could make a claim to an employment tribunal for both discrimination and unfair dismissal, and for that discrimination claim, workers do not have to meet that qualifying period of two years.
Finally, so far, I have heard little mention of the thorny issue of job mobility in this country, which economists agree is a significant barrier to economic growth and productivity. In the UK, reports show that job mobility has fallen badly—according to one report, dropping by 25% over a period of barely two decades. Poor job mobility is bad for workers—they have less chance of improving their wages if they stick in the same job—and bad for the economy, because we are failing to move workers fast enough into areas of growth. Under the previous Government, we saw insecure contracts at work soar. In 2012, the Conservative-led Government shamefully doubled the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal to two years, stripping workers with less service of protection at the stroke of a pen.
I am very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. But when I look back on employers’ opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. Labour’s manifesto commitment is clear—to deliver day-one rights in full. I hope that noble Lords will join me in opposing this amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords have mentioned the lack of detail in the Bill. As somebody who has been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I am very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law in a Bill. That has been the practice, from my experience, since the mid-1980s.
My noble friend has just made the point about the business and trade discussions. Business groups have written urging many noble Lords to support amending the Bill, particularly the qualifying period. The Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives and organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal. We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation. Any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer’s favour. My noble friend made the point that repealing the two-year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is that most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair.
I welcome the current journey of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As my noble friend pointed out, when this protection was introduced there was a six-month qualifying period. The Conservative Government increased it to one year, then to two years, so I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is now on. If he goes from two years down to six months, it will not be very hard for him to accept day-one rights. We are on the right pathway and can very much welcome that.
I welcome the Resolution Foundation’s contribution, which I have heard on the radio and read. It is important that employees can enforce their rights. We are contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But, to come back to my noble friend’s point, what often constrains our economic growth strategy is that many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they are currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades and new occupations. That is what is happening in our economy at the moment. The flexibility that we want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day- one rights.
I come back to the other amendments. On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, we are determined to address the issue of one-sided flexibility. I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally, but the current one-sided flexibility can leave people unclear on when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Under the Bill, there are several ways, depending on the circumstances, in which an employer can approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, such as using limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways. The Bill absolutely covers that.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. To create an economy that works for all, we want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, and we think that employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. The Bill is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that right.
The provisions in the Bill will apply to all employers, allowing good employers to benefit from a level playing field, which is the important point here. We need to recognise that most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. This legislation is underpinning those good employers, so that the cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. We are trying to ensure that there is fairness at all levels.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I was hoping to hear an answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: without a qualifying period, will employers take on people with a criminal record? That question has not been answered. Secondly, Clause 25 talks about the right not to be unfairly dismissed, so this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying period is not quite right. Will the Minister answer that difficult question? Would you employ somebody who has a criminal record without a qualifying period?
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I was about to make exactly the same point, but the noble and right reverend Lord beat me to it. The Minister has not addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against the day-one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders, who we are trying to get rehabilitated, or many young people—20 year-old boys and girls—who have never had a job before. The Government’s own impact statement seems to bear this out. The Minister has not even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly has not addressed it in his reply. This is the best argument made against the Government’s proposals.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.
The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.
So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.
I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.
There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.
The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think we need to consider the position of SMEs, as well as big employers such as Tesco. I cannot speak for Tesco any more, but it contributed to a letter that was sent to us all, and everybody was concerned on this point. Some of this probationary stuff has to be written into the Bill, or at least published before the Bill is passed: when I was a civil servant, you did the SIs at the same time as the Bill. We really need clarity here before we pass the Bill, because we cannot go into reverse once it is passed.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I wish I had heard the noble Baroness say that when she was a Minister and many other Bills were being pushed through in recent years and we did not have statutory instruments. A classic case that noble Lords here will remember was the minimum service level Bill that was pushed through the last Parliament. There was no indication of statutory instruments there. I repeat that the important point is about the opportunity to properly consult and agree a proper process to introduce the necessary secondary legislation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I would argue very strongly that it does. I come back to the point—and I make it strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his party increased the qualifying period. It started at six months, then went to one year and then two years; now he is saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one rights at the beginning. That is what we need.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the Minister what his answer to that is?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.
I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?
This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.
There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.
The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.
Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7A and 8A.
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21A and 21B in lieu.
“Review of extent of right to time off for public duties
(1)The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period—
(a)review the purposes for which employers are required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (right to time off for public duties), and
(b)publish a report setting out the findings of the review.
(2)In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider whether employers should be required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with that section for the purposes of performing the functions of a special constable.
(3)In this section—
“the relevant period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
“special constable” means—
(a)a person appointed as a special constable for a police area in England and Wales,
(b) a person appointed as a special constable under section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (special constables of the British Transport Police Force), or
(c) a person appointed as a special constable under section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8) (special constables of the Police Service of Scotland).”
“(za) section (Review of extent of right to time off for public duties)(review of extent of right to time off for public duties);”
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion C, I will speak to Motions K, K1, N and N1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school support staff negotiating body. The Government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these issues.
I will speak first on special constables and to Motion C, relating to Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter.
This Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe—a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to special constables. The Government have existing powers to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review via secondary legislation.
As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already under way and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose and whether any changes should be made, including the case that noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to the list will deliver the intended support for public services and assess the potential impact on businesses. I hope this provides reassurances to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables, as we all want to see them supported in performing their important duties. I thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in earlier debates, and I ask for his support for this amendment in lieu.
I now turn to Motion K, relating to Amendment 60, and Motion K1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their continued engagement on this important subject. While we recognise the important contribution that these volunteers make, noble Lords will know that the Government could not accept the original amendment as it risked creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground. While we have concerns with the current drafting, the Government consider that targeted guidance for heritage railways can address his practical concerns, without the need for a legislative exemption, and support the intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with the Heritage Railway Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year-olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways. We are grateful to the HRA for its prompt response in relation to this offer and look forward to working with it on the guidance.
This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both the ORR and the HSE. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways would be free to take other action, but that if they followed the guidance then they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law. The Government are committed to this guidance. Both the ORR and the HSE agree that this work is a priority. Our officials are ready to begin work with the HRA on preparing the guidance, with an intention to publish it by 31 March 2026.
As I mentioned, the noble Lord’s amendment has some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the ORR and the HSE on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA. At this stage, there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The Government will therefore not oppose this amendment today.
I now turn to Motion N, which addresses Amendment 121 on the school support staff negotiating body, or SSSNB, and Motion N1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB provided that their overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis.
I understand that this was a point the noble Baroness wished to make on Report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision that the Government brought forward for the purposes of clarification. This new amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case-by-case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums. Ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I can be very brief because the Minister has brought glad tidings. I thank him very much for that and for the way that he set out this debate.
As noble Lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this confusion stems from the question of how a 1920 Act of Parliament applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade, this has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law; I pay tribute to him for 10 years of hard work and for his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting last week with them both. They were in listening mode and I am glad they have taken this away and helped to solve it. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting, and I am glad to report that the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association, as the Minister said. I am delighted to hear that the target is for that to be completed by 31 March; I am sure that work can indeed be done.
The sticking point for us is that this needs to be clarified in law as well as in guidelines. In our debate on Report, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, said that it is no use Ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations will not prosecute; the fact is that the law forbids it—and if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That is why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table sought to describe what the Government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I am delighted to hear that the Government are happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept that my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I would be very glad to work with the Government to clear up.
I have a non-financial interest to declare: I am the unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. I am very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up to become the Rail Minister. Next week, I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, which will be delighted to hear that this long-standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved, and I am grateful to the Government for their part in solving it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am almost lost for words. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, this campaign has been running for almost 15 years. The first stage was when I took a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House to attempt to address the problems of the 1920 Act. It passed without any opposition, except from the Government Front Bench, sadly—not this Government Front Bench but previous one.
We have reached this point because the organisations involved—the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive—have been instructed by the department to come to a conclusion. We had an excellent meeting on 21 October, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to, which my noble friends Lady Lloyd of Effra and Lord Leong also attended. I offer them, the ORR and the HSE my warmest congratulations and thanks for what is a very satisfactory outcome.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, in addressing Motion C, I thank the Government for their amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, in particular, has been very patient and has provided us with his time. He has responded to an issue that was first raised by Sir Ashley Fox in the Commons, when one of his constituents, who was a special constable, presented the unfairness of the fact that he could not get time off from his employer as a right. That issue was raised in his amendment, which was dismissed in the Commons but was supported in the Lords by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, which I appreciate.
Of course, I would have preferred that the specials were added to the list of those who get that right, but the Government responded by saying that they would have a review. I then said that reviews often do not happen—and if they do happen, they do not get any outcome. They replied, “In that case, how about making it a statutory one that is time limited? Now what is your argument?” That is a fair point, and I accept that the review will take place and is time limited, and I look forward to its outcome.
The Government’s other point was that, of course, there are other groups that might want a similar right on a list that is waiting to be addressed, and it would be unfair to consider the specials only. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, I am glad of the progress that has been made and the support that the Government have shown.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I feel in a lonely position in not being able to thank the Government for their comments on my amendment. I feel sad that I have to speak again, as I hoped that the Government would have talked to those running our schools and trusts and would have adjusted their approach. They clearly have not done that, so we are here again.
I feel slightly sorry for the Minister, because the remarks he was given about my amendment were—if I may say so—ill-advised. It is disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would have facilitated contracts where someone was offered a free lunch and then paid below the minimum wage. There is absolutely nothing in my amendment that suggests that, and both the Minister in the Department for Education and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, whom I met at the end of July, were very clear that there was nothing at all like that. I will also challenge some of the other remarks that he made, but there is nothing in my amendment that would worsen the terms for employees. It is therefore unfortunate that that was the advice he was given on how to approach this.
Before I come to my Motion, I remind noble Lords, by way of context, that this is—unlike heritage railways, with the greatest respect to my noble friend—a big issue. There are 800,000 support staff in our schools and about half a million full-time equivalent employees. Half of them are teaching assistants and the other half are in a multiplicity—literally thousands—of different roles, so when the noble Lord says that this is not a top-down approach, my jaw hits the ground. The idea that the SSSNB is going to be able to create a full range of role profiles, pay scales, et cetera, is just not realistic. We are going to end up with either a labyrinth or a straitjacket, and neither, I would suggest, is an ideal outcome. Despite me having raised this at every stage of the Bill, the Government have not explained how they will address the multiplicity of roles that exist. When the SSSNB was in existence previously, before 2010, we did not have about 2,500 trusts of different sizes and geographic footprints, organised differently with various roles within them.
The amendment also does not address the inconsistency in the Government’s approach between the schoolteachers’ pay and review body and the SSSNB. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government accepted the principle of a framework that academies must have regard to. In Schedule 3 to the schools Bill, it says that academies
“must have regard to any provision of an order under section 122 that relates to conditions of employment”.
It goes on to say that they
“must also have regard to guidance”.
We tried to bring in an identical amendment on Report—my Amendment 111A—which mirrored the Government’s own amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but, at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, argued that it would be wrong to create a two-tier system. We actually have a two-tier system for teachers in maintained schools and in academies, but we are rejecting a system, proposed through my amendment, which would offer only upside to school support staff, so that we end up with a triumph of uniformity over innovation.
My Motion N1 aims to give the Government a practical way to deliver their objectives of consistency and fairness, without unduly constraining the judgment of school and trust leaders in managing their workforce. Without this amendment, employers in academies and maintained schools will lose their ability to design contracts which meet the needs of both the workforce and their pupils. That might include, for example, paying someone above the agreed pay scale if they agree to work towards a qualification or, in a trust which has schools in multiple local authorities, they may receive a higher salary in return for working across a wider geographic footprint. The Government’s approach removes the ability to do that; every individual element in an employee’s pay and conditions has to be above a minimum standard, rather than allowing an employer to pay someone more in return for greater flexibility or the commitment to a work towards a higher qualification.
The Minister wrote to me on 1 September. I will not detain the House by going through the examples, but all the examples in that letter were where this legislation will not apply. We are interested in and worried about where it will apply.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Motion N1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and declare that I am still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, east London.
In over 10 years of teaching, I have encountered tens—maybe not hundreds—of TAs, technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff who make schools function. My subject, product design, is entirely reliant on technicians. They set up and prepare materials, maintain equipment and teach skills to us and the students.
I have seen technicians who had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school’s 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 am to 3.30 pm job and are content to be paid for that, while others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.
I had one very fine technician who would not go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the Government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say that if he was not paid to do the job, he would not do it. I have also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools could see that they were irreplaceable; otherwise, their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.
At the moment, these decisions rest with heads of department, who can make them. Schools need that flexibility. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, as in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage, but those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. Should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, I will be with her.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on making progress, along with the cosignatories of that amendment. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson, who have realised a lifelong dream of putting children back to work on the railways.
Lord Fox (LD)
Less—or more—prosaically, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has set out the issues here doggedly and in detail. I still feel that we are in a “he said, she said” situation, and it is extremely difficult to unpick how this will work. I assume—I am sure—that the statutory instruments and the rules will probably fill in the detail. We on these Benches will wait to hear what the Minister says but we are not currently minded to support the noble Baroness.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the progress he has made on a very valid point he raised earlier in these debates. I also say to my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: my goodness, they must be chuff-chuffed with the result. It has been a major step forward.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Barran on making some compelling points. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to them and rethink the approach that he outlined earlier. We were greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing his personal experience to bear on this problem.
If my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, certainly, on these Benches, she will have our support.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s debate. The debate has been wide ranging, from special constables and heritage railways to the SSSNB. I am grateful for everyone’s valuable insight. I will address the points raised by all noble Lords.
On Motion C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for indicating his support for the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu.
On Motion K1, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association. I am grateful to him for working with the Government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him and my noble friend Lord Faulkner.
I will address Motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. First, I want to make one point absolutely clear: I can confirm that the Bill will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it sets a minimum standard—the floor—where all support staff are entitled to negotiated pay. When taken together, the SSSNB measures in the Employment Rights Bill, the teacher pay measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and subordinate legislation respectively will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer. All schools will be able to innovate with pay. No one is saying that they cannot pay more than the minimum pay offer; they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children.
We are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. School support staff have been without a school-specific national voice for far too long. It is right to establish a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives. As most noble Lords will know, roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established, so it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools.
As I said earlier, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions. The SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles and training, and no one is saying that staff cannot be accorded any training support and pay. It will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what the core offer will look like.
This can all be done by local arrangements. We want there to be a core offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond that in their respective local circumstances. Employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions than were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.
I hope I have answered some of noble Lords’ concerns. I urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the Government’s amendments and trust that Members will feel able to lend support to our position.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the noble Lord’s last point about employers being able to retain their existing contracts, in the letter I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on 1 September, she writes in relation to that specific point:
“As set out above, a term of an employee’s contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to the employee. This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions … provided”—
and I stress this point—
“all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums”.
If an employer today has an employee whom it is paying well above the statutory minimum but is requiring them to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue the same contract. It will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employee’s work and reduce their salary. Does the Minister think that is a good outcome?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I must admit that I have not had a chance to look at my noble friend Lady Smith’s letter. As far as I know and have been told, employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB. Basically, if they are offering more than what is negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it should not be less than that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry to intervene again on the Minister, but I asked this question specifically of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, because that is what employers are worried about: that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. I think the noble Baroness’s letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable. I believe that we will not vote on this Motion until a little later, so if the Minister is able to clarify things in the meantime, I would be grateful.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will make sure that I read the letter and will ask my officials to confirm in writing for her.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A and 22B.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Motions F and J. I first come to Motion D, on non-disclosure agreements, also known as NDAs. In the other place, the Government proposed two minor amendments to the clause on NDAs. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We are proposing this change following discussions with the parliamentary authorities. The second will extend the scope of relevant discrimination covered by the clause to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under Section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered.
Turning to Motion F, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her advocacy for reform of the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Whistleblowers play a critical role in shining light on wrongdoing, and the Government recognise that the framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has also championed the importance of whistleblowers, and the Government would welcome further engagement with her and others about their views on whistleblowing. The Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection would be pleased to extend an invitation for a meeting to the noble Baroness to discuss this matter further.
Motion J relates to Amendment 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. This amendment would require a formal consultation with at least 500 SMEs on the Bill’s impact, with a report to Parliament within 18 weeks. The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations, where due consideration will be given to views from small business organisations and their members. We will also look to arrange focused sessions with SMEs, specific to the practical implementation, to understand any challenges and ensure that we can target guidance where necessary.
We are proud to announce that the consultations for the duty to inform workers of the right to join a union, union right of access, enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and leave for bereavement, including pregnancy loss, are currently live. We encourage all interested stakeholders to respond.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 107A to 120A, do not insist on its Amendment 106, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 106.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A.”
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 46, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 46A.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions M and M1. In this group we will debate amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade union industrial action ballots. I will take these in turn, to outline the Government’s belief that these amendments are unnecessary.
I will first speak to Motion G, relating to Amendment 47, and Motion G1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter.
The Government believe that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or who have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend. This means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.
Employers are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they wish and deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions to the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu, which, instead of seeking to change the law on right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see whether any changes are appropriate. I am happy, today, to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the Government to consider this issue in further detail. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord and I ask him not to press his amendment.
I will now speak to Motion M, regarding Amendment 62, and Motion M1, insisting on this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are clear that we want to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more co-operation and less disruption. This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.
The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandate. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Some 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as was mentioned in the previous stages of the Bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament, and elections for MPs and local councillors, do not normally include any turnout threshold, but are not therefore considered less legitimate. Further, local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%.
Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations in future, with the intention, with good reason—I notice my noble brother opposite has made a comment—that this is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. I hope that that will encourage greater participation than that provided by the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates have broad and demonstrable support.
Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope your Lordships agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and the measures set out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree to the Motion before them. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
“Report on the right to be accompanied
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of expanding the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
(2) The report must consider in particular—
(a) whether the categories of individuals permitted to act as a companion under section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 should be expanded;
12 Employment Rights Bill
(b) the potential benefits and risks of such expansion for employers and workers;
(c) any safeguards that may be necessary in relation to confidentiality, independence, or professional standards of proposed companions;
(d) the impact on access to fair representation, particularly for workers not represented by a trade union; and
(e) the potential impact of any expansion on individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, which may include—
(a) representatives of workers and employers;
(b) professional bodies;
(c) legal and employment rights experts;
(d) organisations with experience of supporting workers in grievance and disciplinary processes;
(e) organisations representing individuals with protected characteristics.”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, but I will speak to this Motion a little, to set it in context and perhaps put down some markers for the discussions that will be happening with the Secretary of State.
Responding to the spirited work of my noble friend Lord Palmer, this House voted overwhelmingly on Report, with cross-party support, to expand the right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the Government in the other place because of concerns about potential increases to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Government’s position, because there is no evidence to support it; in fact, there is excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis, and we can see it in the research of ACAS and in other academic areas.
None the less, this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded. It would allow the Government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns could be properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we can now move forward on this and that, instead of frustrating this process, we can develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the Government to examine this issue properly and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country, who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.
I turn briefly to Motion M1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and spoken to by his colleague, which would reinsert a Report stage amendment requiring that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. We continue to support this amendment, which would maintain the status quo.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to support, from the perspective of teachers, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Of course, teachers and other front-line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, which brings with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. Employers in schools are rightly duty-bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded it may later prove to be. As a result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers.
The number of allegations is rising sharply, with data from Teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that, in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared with the previous year; that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals. As we have debated earlier, in this Bill and others, technology is changing the landscape, with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said already, this carries a human cost but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover. Some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.
The right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence but a practical safeguard. The strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous: according to Teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two-thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. This speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.
I hope very much that, when the Minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice, including teachers and other school staff within that to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness, dignity and compassion that they deserve.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government and the Minister for their comments. When we debated this earlier, we talked about who was going to represent and who was not. I felt at the time that there was an undue feeling that we were trying to get at trade unions. That is not the case at all. Trade unions have a really relevant part in this, but not everybody belongs to a trade union. Many people and firms are not trade unionised, and they therefore use the other course available, which is to have a co-worker there. That works very nicely—you have a good pal who comes along and represents you, but they are not trained to do so. All the amendment was doing was finding that, when and if a trade union is not representing them and can well do so, a trained person accompanies the person at a tribunal. I gather from what the Minister has said that there is some merit seen in this proposal; that is what I have read, and I hope the Minister will confirm that when he finalises. If my understanding is correct, will the Minister and his department keep us updated on what is happening on this issue?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the Minister’s response, I positively welcome the Government’s commitment to this review of the right to be accompanied, and I thank the Government in this instance for listening to the concerns raised at Report and Committee stages. On Report, I put forward an amendment that would have allowed workers to have a companion of their own choosing at disciplinary or grievance hearings—I felt it should be that open. I was happy none the less to support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which, as has already been noted, was overwhelmingly supported. I would still like it to be a statutory right for workers—as this is a workers’ rights Bill, as we are constantly told—to be able to choose who represents them when they face grievance procedures, but I am really pleased that the Government will look at this. I hope that they look widely and think about the issue and that we can resolve it.
I want to respond very briefly to the way the Minister talked about the decision on keeping the issues internal and to draw attention to one of the problems with that. Over recent years, sometimes the grievances that workers have been involved in have been quite ideologically contentious, and issues have been very difficult, so simply to call upon fellow workmates to come with you into the grievance internally has been difficult because of a nervousness about guilt by association. It is also the case that not everyone is in a union, so, when the union might be representing someone, that is the opposite of keeping it internal and informal, because the person in that grievance procedure does not even know who they are with.
I also want to draw attention to just one thing: I wish it were not the case, but sometimes trade unions’ own policies can see them at odds with their own members. There have been a few instances of that recently—see the case of Sandie Peggie, who is suing the RCN around the issue of single-sex changing rooms for nurses. These things have been well documented, so I will not go into them, but it is not always as straightforward as saying that the trade unions will be the best people to represent a member of staff.
To finish, I stress that, historically, trade union representatives have very often protected and represented brilliantly, and been brilliant advocates for many people facing difficulties at work. I sat in many grievance procedures, representing members of my own union when I was a trade union rep. That is an ideal. Now that only a minority are represented by trade unionists, and based on the aspiration of the Bill to represent all workers and give them more rights, I hope this review will broaden the rights that workers have through representation so that they can choose who represents them. In general, however, I am very positive about the Government’s decision.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.
Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?
It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.
They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.
It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.
In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.
I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.
Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.
I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.
We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H, that the House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 48B in lieu”—
“Definition of seasonal work
(1) In making regulations under Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the specific characteristics and requirements of seasonal work as defined in subsection (2).
(2) “Seasonal work” means work that—
(a) is performed during a particular period or periods of the year,
(b) recurs substantially in the same periods each year,
(c) is directly linked to a predictable and temporary increase in demand for
labour during those periods,
(d) is carried out in one or more of the following sectors—
(i) agriculture and horticulture,
(ii) the creative industries, including theatre and live performance,
(iii) retail
(iv) hospitality,
(v) tourism, leisure and events, and
(vi) construction and landscaping, and
(e) is entered into for a fixed duration not exceeding 26 weeks to meet the temporary demand.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument add further sectors to the list in subsection (2)(d), provided that work in those sectors meets the criteria outlined in subsection (2)(a) to (2)(c).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49A.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 60, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 60A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 60B and 60C in lieu—
“Restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings
The Secretary of State must, on the day this Act is passed, instruct the Office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to draw up guidance on the industrial undertakings which they consider are, and are not, appropriate for people under the age of 18 to carry out when employed by or volunteering for a heritage railway or heritage tramway.
(2) This guidance must take into account—
(a) the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920,
(b) the Children and Young Persons Act 1933,
(c) the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,
(d) the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968,
(e) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974,
(f) the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and
(g) other relevant legislation.
(3) The Office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive must publish this guidance within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
“(za) section (Restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings) (restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings);”
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 61A and 72A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 59 restores the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years—even during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major—before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. The Government believe, as I said earlier, that the 2016 Act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against trade unions’ core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it.
We seek to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not—and I make this absolutely clear—removing choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out. This same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatever on any other aspect of their union membership. Most union membership forms are now online and most of these details are contained in a highly accessible form. So we are not removing choice; people will be very aware of what they are doing.
It is important to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them; they are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby to decide how their political fund is used. Members who object to a union’s political fund can use the union’s democratic structures to close the fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice.
Political funds are one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties. Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaigns on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, UNISON operates two separate political funds, or two parts of one political fund, related to affiliation and to wider campaigning.
I also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions and that the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union and must have sufficient support from its membership to do so. These structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate. We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded.
I hope this reassures noble Lords that automatic opt-ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions while retaining members’ capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. Once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto, restoring the rights for unions that have existed for over 70 years. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Lord Burns
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 61 and 72.”
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, in July, this House agreed my amendment on trade union political funds with a large majority. The amendment would maintain a position where new members have to opt in to make a contribution to a union’s political fund. This was debated in the House of Commons and rejected. I have had a conversation with the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House about this, for which I am grateful— I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.
In the Commons, three reasons were given for rejecting my amendment; we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, make similar points. The first reason given was that it was necessary to lift the “burden” of the 2016 Act. I am sorry that giving members more autonomy and an active choice in the decision whether to contribute to a political fund is seen as a burden. If there is an administrative cost, surely the correct response should be to examine the procedures and methods within the unions that create this burden. My understanding is that today—we heard it repeated this evening—members generally communicate online with their union. This should be much more efficient than in the days of pen, forms and postage, and surely cannot be a decisive factor.
The second reason given was the familiar argument that the Government’s proposal simply returns to the long-standing precedent that has worked for 70 years. However, as I argued last time, using an arrangement whereby members are automatically opted in unless they take on the additional burden of opting out is no longer acceptable in most walks of life. In that case, members are not exercising an active choice; it is using passive inertia to reduce the likelihood that members will exercise their right to opt out.
The third reason given was that accepting the amendment would break a clear government commitment. I can find no reference to trade union party funds in the Government’s election manifesto—maybe I have missed something. I can find no mention of political funds in the paper Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay. That paper charges the previous Government with having “attacked rights at work” and says that Labour “will repeal” those measures, but in which universe is giving people the right to make a transparent and active choice about paying into a political fund attacking rights at work?
I recognise that since the 2016 Act came into force, the proportion of trade union members paying the political contribution has fallen. However, to examine the change and compare it with 2016, we have to omit the figures for Unite the Union, because it has not submitted figures for the past three years. Taking it out and making the comparison with the other unions with political funds, we see that 86% of members contributed in 2016-17 while in the most recent year for which we have numbers, that has fallen to 68%. I can understand the concern, but the real question is: what does this tell us?
For me, the most plausible explanation is that it tells us something about the decisions that members wish to make when faced with a clear choice. It is interesting that reduction in participation is not the same across all unions with political funds. I suggest that unions should ask themselves why they have failed to persuade those members to contribute to those funds, rather than relying on inertia and hoping that members will make their contribution without really considering the issue.
I want to address one further argument. Several times it has been suggested that trade unions are subject to constraints and regulations that do not apply to other organisations; for example, the National Trust. Some even question why they should be required to have a separate political fund. But to me, this overlooks a significant difference: trade unions are regulated bodies. They are protected against being sued for damages and have legal immunity for their funds in trade disputes and their core services. However, the law does not allow them to impose compulsory levies on all members to fund political representation. They are allowed to have a separate political fund but must have safeguards to protect individual members’ freedom of choice. Of course, the crux of the matter is: what do we mean by freedom of choice?
I would like to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice and avoids going through these arguments—rather bitter arguments, sometimes—with each change of Government. In my view, this means giving members a clear and equal choice when they join a union, or when that union votes to establish a new political fund. They should be required to choose between two options: do you wish to pay the fee to the political fund, or do you not wish to do so? This seems the only fair way to provide people with an equal choice.
I emphasise that I do not have a position on whether members should pay the political contribution. I am not trying to discourage them from contributing. All I am asking is that members be given a clear and equal choice that meets the transparent standards we expect today. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and of course I welcome the new team to the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit that we were facing in different directions.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced the debate on 23 July, which was day 4 of Report, about disclosure of payments made from a political fund. This is key, because if union members are going to have, in effect, an opt-in/opt-out arrangement changed, they need to know what the political fund is used for. When I pushed the Government on it, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said:
“My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000”.
I challenged her, and said:
“I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/25; col. 281.]
The noble Baroness ignored my comment, and we carried on to a vote on whether payments made by the political fund should be disclosed to the certification officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously been the case.
On 29 August, over a month later, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, while lacking in my opinion an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this Bill removes the duty of unions to disclose the detail of expenditure from their members or anyone else. Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members’ money from the political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, just said that political funds are controlled by their members; he then said that those funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that.
My concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships’ House at the Dispatch Box which the then Minister—not the current Minister, I emphasise—has now admitted were factually incorrect. It may well have swayed some noble Peers. This seems a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances.
In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 Peers’ votes cast. I ask the Minister to explain this situation from the Dispatch Box so that we have a clear record of what has happened and so that legislation may be revisited at a later date. I ask noble Peers to bear this in mind when considering whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am going to advance a different argument from that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is rather more philosophical and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He mentioned “inertia”, and inertia sells.
Right across this House, your Lordships have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the perils for consumers trapped in deals and situations which are too difficult to get out of. We have made it easier for people to change their bank and to switch utilities. Those of your Lordships who lived through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will remember clearly a big debate about the automatic rolling over of subscriptions. Rather than the arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I cleave to those that we heard from the proposer of this Motion. There is an element of liberalness and freedom about individuals choosing, rather than having to choose not to, which is what is asked by this change.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, because I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, seeks to test the opinion of the House, he will have the support of the official Opposition.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, context is of course all-important in this debate. An arrangement was made that lasted from 1945 to 2016, and the important thing to keep stressing is that this is about the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of a union involve all the members. The policy of a union is decided by the democratic structures that determine the outcome or objectives of those political funds.
There is no doubt that we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction in 2016 of something that changed a practice that had existed from 1945, and in 1945 the opt-out was introduced to replace what a Conservative Government had done in 1921. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said to me when we met, there had been a swing between two positions that could create uncertainty. But in 2016, everyone in this Chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 Bill would result in, and that it would have a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Does the Minister accept, in talking about the impact on trade unions, that the position is now very different in terms of the historical context, given that union membership has shrunk to such a degree in the workplace that it is now more dominant in the public sector than in the productive private sector? Does he accept that, under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, we are pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance over all sections, and it is rather undemocratic?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position at all. In fact, historically, a lot of public sector unions did not have political funds, and if they did, they certainly did not affiliate to any political party. I mentioned in my introduction that when NUPE merged with NALGO, they had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained.
I come back to the point that no one was expecting the arrangement that had existed since 1945—a highly regulated arrangement, let us not forget, around political funds—to suddenly change. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern was expressed across all parties that it resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Burns, organising a Select Committee that actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund. The noble Lord proposed a sort of soft landing, so that the measure would not impact on unions immediately, and it was introduced for new members. He has given us the figures about the new members, and certain unions have a churn.
I repeat: political funds are the funds of the whole union policy decision-making process. Individual members, whether or not they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union and can determine whether the union expresses support for one political party or another.
I come back to a fundamental principle, which I urge noble Lords to consider: that a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is where unions can have an important voice. On many occasions I do not agree with union policies, and on many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about those policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. What was decided in 2016 was to stop or hinder that voice, and we are trying now to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that they are not like the National Trust or other such organisations. They are democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation, and, of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer.
I urge noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate —to why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of those proposals, and to focus on why trade unions need to have a political voice. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about new members applying online. The old idea was that the contracting-out provisions were in a rulebook, a magazine published once every so often. Now, the Bill will make it clear to members when they join what they can do. That is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and to support the Government’s Motion.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I think it was suggested that it might be difficult, if not impossible, for members to find out how their political fund was expended. Does the Minister agree that Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union political fund or general fund? That means every receipt, bill and invoice. They can inspect those records, even accompanied by an accountant.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out and forgot to address his specific issue, which he raised with me previously. I have the letter that my noble friend Lady Jones wrote to him, and I am quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 Act for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016, with unions’ annual returns available for public inspection—an additional point my noble friend made—and they will continue to include information relating to governance and finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Repealing the 2016 Act is of course a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation.
Lord Burns (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection to how political funds are used. When the whole notion of political funds was established, it was clearly for the support of political parties—that was what the debate was back in 1910 and 1920 and that is not the issue at heart.
The issue is how people express their decision on whether they wish to join the political fund or not. I continue to hope I can persuade the Government there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issue which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. The Minister already outlined the procedures that will be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of telling people what the political fund is for and explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time they join with a clear choice. They should know exactly what is in front of them and what the options are. That is the way in which we can move this issue on; it has gone on, as we discussed when we met, since 1921. It has gone backwards and forwards. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 62A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 121A.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will confirm the policy in the letter sent by my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Jones, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred.
The purpose of the SSSNB is to ensure that school support staff are entitled to at least a statutory minimum level of pay and conditions that has been negotiated by the school employer and employee representatives, and is appropriate for the roles that staff are undertaking in schools. The SSSNB’s remit will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training and pay, and it will be for the SSSNB to agree how this is done and what the core offer looks like. Beyond this minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions where these are offered by the employer.
Furthermore, the SSSNB will receive a remit from the Secretary of State setting out what the body will focus on in a given year. In the first few years, the SSSNB will focus on terms and conditions that will most benefit school support staff, while giving the sector time to adjust to the new process. Where regulations make no provision in relation to particular terms and conditions of employment, the existing terms and conditions in the employee’s contract will remain unchanged, and schools continue to have flexibility to agree terms in local negotiations; for example, if a ratified agreement relates to minimum pay levels only, existing contractual provisions in relation to annual leave or another school that staff work in will remain unchanged.
I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Baroness Barran
at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 121B in lieu—
“(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms in aggregate meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB and are designed to—
(a) improve the skill levels of staff,
(b) ensure that staff can meet the needs of children,
(c) raise standards of support for children, or
(d) improve recruitment and retention of support staff.
(4) In determining whether the terms meet or exceed any minimum standards, none of the following conditions may be considered as breaching the minimum standards—
(a) CPD and professional development requirements;
(b) promotion dependent on securing particular qualifications;
(c) working patterns that have pay consequences;
(d) role-specific responsibilities including requirements to work with other employees in other schools or locations.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, add to the list in subsection (4).”
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I take little reassurance from it, in particular the idea of what will happen in the next few years to the focus of the SSSNB. In this House, we make legislation beyond the next few years. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-I(b) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open our first few hours of debate on Report. Noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill throughout our deliberations so far may recognise Amendments 1 and 2. At both Second Reading and in Committee, I said that this new commander was little more than a gimmick. I had hoped that, come Report, I would have heard more persuasive reasons to change my opinion of the Government’s policy. Unfortunately, I have not.
Since we finished Committee on the Bill, 589 people have entered the United Kingdom illegally via small boats. Since the start of this year, 36,954 migrants have crossed the channel. It does not take a genius to figure out that this Government’s policies are not working. The Government entered office with a promise to “smash the gangs”, end the use of hotel accommodation and prevent illegal crossings. They have done none of those things. In fact, the problems have exacerbated.
My Amendments 1 and 2 seek to make minor changes to the method of appointment of the commander. In my opinion, this is an important and strategic role. I will not pretend they are seismic alterations that will shift the dial demonstrably. They are, nevertheless, intended to make an important point that I genuinely hope the Government will take on board.
The point is that the whole of Chapter 1 of the Bill is essentially pointless. The commander is already in post and the Bill provides no substantive new powers. In Committee, when asked by my noble friend Lord Goschen what the commander will be able to do under the provisions of the Bill provisions that his office cannot do already, the Minister said:
“The clauses in Chapter 1—for example, ‘Duty to prepare annual reports’, ‘Duties of cooperation etc’ and ‘The Board’ overseeing all that—underpinned by statutory function give this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements”.—[Official Report, 26/6/25; col. 395.]
So it appears the Government believe that designating a civil servant as a commander and granting them the ability to prepare a report and to chair a board meeting every now and then is the solution to all our border security woes.
Noble Lords will be aware of the report into the operation of the Civil Service within the Home Office. How can we have faith that another civil servant in post as the commander would make any difference? Amendments 1 and 2 are intended to press the point that the commander, if their appointment is ever to be anything more than pure performance politics, needs to be more than simply a civil servant. It is wise, is it not, to have a guarantee in the Bill that the commander will be a senior law enforcement or military officer, so as to ensure the requisite competence, leadership and experience is brought to the role.
I have one question for the Minister. Earlier this year, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration investigated the Home Office’s operation to deter and detect clandestine entrance to the UK. The first recommendation of the independent inspector was to:
“Designate a Home Office-wide ‘owner’ for clandestine entry”.
In the Government’s response, the Home Office agreed with that recommendation and said that the
“Border Security Command … will ultimately provide the structure to support this role”.
However, it said that it will not implement that recommendation until October 2026. We have a Border Security Commander who the Government tell us is critical to co-ordinating our response to threats to border security, and yet they are not willing to make him responsible for tackling all methods of clandestine entry until next year. Why is this?
Does this not demonstrate the issue with this Government’s approach to the problem? Every can must be kicked down a very long and winding road. Why not designate the commander as the Home Office-wide “owner” for clandestine entry now? Why wait until next year? It is unfortunate, and we on these Benches will be pushing the Government to go much further over the course of Report. The British public want this border crisis solved, and they are watching. I beg to move.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Davies in his amendments. They seem to me to be eminently sensible. I wholly concur with him, as do most people increasingly in the country, that there is no sense of urgency, no sense of grip and a total lack of confidence when it comes to the Government’s handling of the immigration crisis.
The appointment of a Border Security Commander, and limiting that appointment to a civil servant, is a mistake, particularly when we look at other civil servants. When I was a Minister, I had excellent civil servants, and I have nothing to say against them. The great majority of them do an extremely good job. But when we have Joanna Rowland, the Home Office’s director-general for customer services, in charge of accommodating asylum seekers, standing down because of the failure of that, why should we have faith that someone just selected from the Civil Service should be appropriate to fulfil this role?
We are missing a huge mistake in this whole immigration debate. There is a huge backlog in the processing of asylum cases. Why have the Government not come forward with an idea of having an equivalent to Nightingale hospitals, which is what we had during the Covid pandemic, to process this? In my opinion, there is a whole raft of professionals in this country who are retired far too early. We in this House are the last vestiges of people who never retire, but there are an awful lot of people in this House who have retired, or been forced to retire, from their professions—be they judges, solicitors, army officers from the military or magistrates—who would willingly serve, if encouraged to do so, on a series of tribunals up and down the country, so as to better process the backlog in immigration cases.
If you look at the appointment of this incredibly important role, the Border Security Commander is in charge of liaising with Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the Immigration Service and Immigration Enforcement, and the goal is to deliver a safe and effective border. That has not happened to date. I just do not understand the rationale behind why this legislation is limiting the appointment of such a person, with the very narrow criteria that it has, to a civil servant. There must be plenty of other people out there who would be qualified to do this job who are not necessarily from the Civil Service.
I urge the Government to underline the sense of crisis there is in this country. It is benefiting parties and groups in this country that we would rather it did not, because there is a feeling up and down the country that the Government simply have not got control of our borders. There are those who may argue that the appointment of this individual is totemic, that they do not have sufficient power and that the powers will not kick in until later. Those are other arguments. My argument is that, if we have a national crisis which is set to get only worse, we should look at the whole cadre of recently retired professionals who would step up to serve, right across the board, in dealing with the backlog and this immigration crisis. We should look at the best candidates available to fulfil this particular job and not limit it to somebody from the Civil Service.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 26 in this group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German, on co-operation with Europol. I think the reason it has been grouped here is that it would help boost the effectiveness of the Border Security Commander.
The Government recently published the implementation report on the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. It was implemented in 2023-24, so this was a bit out of date by the time it was published just last month. Under the section on
“Law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters”,
there is a paragraph that says that:
“Under the TCA, the UK continues to co-operate with Europol and it continues to have a strong multi-agency liaison bureau at The Hague delivering operational activity against the most significant crime groups”.
There is one interesting reference in the trade and co-operation agreement—for the nerds out there, it is at Article 568, paragraph 7. It says that:
“Liaison officers from the United Kingdom and representatives of the competent authorities of the United Kingdom may be invited to operational meetings”.
That sums up the challenge that we have outside the European Union. We only “may” be invited. We have no rights. It is all grace and favour.
I watched the recent session of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place with the Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, and the National Crime Agency’s director general for operations, Rob Jones. Asked about European co-operation, Mr Hewitt said,
“we retained really good … law enforcement co-operation”.
However, Mr Jones amplified that by saying,
“we have mitigated the impact”
of Brexit and
“we have recovered those relationships in terms of law enforcement”
and have positive joint operations. He also said:
“We have more people in Europol than we have ever had”.
I assume he was thinking that the committee would be impressed by that, but I believe he was making the best of a bad job. I imagine that we have more people at Europol than ever before because, whereas in the past British police officers could access European databases from their desks in the UK, now we need a host of liaison officers attached to Europol HQ to handle the red tape of individual information requests and to run around seeing whether we might be invited to meetings.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will start my remarks on this group where the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, finished, since that seems the most convenient way to do it. I will not rehearse my arguments on Amendment 26 at length because I spoke to it in Committee.
On co-operation with Europol, which is very important, I shall make two points. First, the Government’s motivation to co-operate with Europol is because they want to deal with the problem, and I do not believe that the necessity to produce a report will change that dynamic. If the Government did not want to co-operate with Europol because they did not think it was important, I do not believe that having to prepare a report would change their mind either. I do not think it will achieve very much.
Secondly, as I said in Committee, the danger is that this then skews attention towards Europol. We know that border security is not just a European problem. Obviously, the small boats issue—the visible bit of it—is a European problem, because that is where the boats are coming from, but the people in them are not all starting off from France. This is a global problem, and these organised crime groups are global in nature. If we start putting legislation in place that forces the department to start overly focusing on one area to do bureaucratic tasks, we will skew its resources. I want the Home Office and the Government to choose which agencies they partner with, and the work they do, based not on the need to produce bureaucratic documents but on the security threat to our border. That is best left to the judgment of Ministers and those in post, so I respectfully suggest that this is not a wise amendment.
I turn to Amendments 1 and 2 tabled my noble friend Lord Davies. Unfortunately, I was not in the Committee stage debate when the Minister put this forward, so I had a look at the arguments. I confess that I am not entirely clear how designating a civil servant—or, indeed, anyone with this title—makes a meaningful difference, other than perhaps presentationally, to our ability to secure the border.
I pick up the point that my noble friend made about the pace at which the Government are giving this individual powers. Having looked at the Bill again, it is noticeable that this person does not have the ability to co-ordinate. The ability to co-ordinate or direct members of the Armed Forces is excluded—that power effectively remains with Ministers. In addition, the intelligence agencies of our country are not counted as partner authorities for the purposes of the Border Security Commander either, so those responsibilities effectively remain with the Home Secretary and other Ministers.
In terms of the role, and this is why who gets the role matters, effectively strategic priorities for government departments are set not by officials—well, they should not be set by officials—but by Ministers. I understand in one way why the Government are making sure that this person is a civil servant, because they are therefore clearly being directed by Ministers, which is right. However, if they are a civil servant being directed by Ministers, giving them a fancy title is basically just window dressing; it does not have any meaningful effect. My noble friend is therefore right to argue that this does not really have a meaningful role.
If we take the Government at their word, from the way it is presented as the starting point of this Bill—in that they want this individual to have a powerful role where they can make a meaningful difference—then Amendment 2 asks some good questions about whether the type of person we want doing this role and their previous experience should be in the nature of law enforcement or military command in some way. It may be that, over time, the Government can build this role —as well as the board that the Border Security Commander would chair and the structure they will put around them—into a meaningful law enforcement and crime fighting capability.
That seems to be the Government’s ambition, in which case Amendment 2 has quite a lot of merit, but making the person a civil servant does not achieve that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not in any way to denigrate civil servants; when I was in the Home Office, I was always very impressed by them. It is just making the point that in our democratic system, setting strategic priorities and co-ordinating between different agencies, some that are responsible to the Home Office and some that are not, is really a job for Ministers. In the end, the responsibility for securing the country’s border is the Home Secretary’s responsibility. You can appoint somebody with whatever title you like and whatever background you like, but, in the end, that is the fact. The strategic priorities for the department are set by the Home Secretary, and everything else flows from that.
It seems to me that the Border Security Commander as set out in the Bill is really neither one thing nor the other. Either the Border Security Commander is effectively the Home Secretary and sets clear priorities, setting a very clear direction in the department and delivering on what we are led to believe is the Government’s or the Home Secretary’s number one priority, or that is not the case, and you try to create a meaningful role that people understand has that important focus in the same way that people can see that the heads of the Armed Forces or Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police have a very important leadership role—but in which case that person probably should not be a civil servant and should come with a different type of command experience. So it seems to me that the role set out in the Bill is neither one thing or the other.
My noble friend’s amendments test that point, and I would certainly like to hear from the Minister about which direction this role is going to go in. Is it effectively just going to be working for the Home Secretary, which is perfectly fine, in which case a lot of this is just window dressing, or is it really intended to make it a meaningful, authoritative, powerful role in Whitehall, in which case the person’s qualities need to be somewhat different than is set out by making them a career civil servant?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am not quite sure where the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is ending up in his consideration of Amendments 1 and 2. On any view, the crisis has got worse and worse with regard to the arrival of masses more immigrants coming across in small boats and the inability to identify and arrest these criminal people-smugglers. I am afraid I cannot give examples because I have not had time to think about it, but I do recognise one example: the modern slavery commissioner is completely free from the Civil Service, as indeed was her predecessor. This suggestion advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seems sensible, and therefore I want to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will first address Amendment 26. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I would say that the reason we have this particular amendment before us is because of the harness which was left by the Conservative Government in the arrangements that they made with Europe in the TCA relating to Europol. I do not want to go through the five or six pages in that heavy white tome—I photocopied those pages to make it lighter to carry—but in the whole remit of the way in which the relationship with Europol is stated it is quite clear that we “should” do something and the European Union, through Europol, “may” do something. I think we are trying to address that sort of relationship.
The core objective of the Bill, which I think unites the House, is clear. We must strengthen our borders and effectively identify, disrupt and dismantle the criminal gangs engaged in people-smuggling and human trafficking. To achieve this, international co-operation is paramount, especially in addressing the complex international and cross-border nature of these challenges.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments to allow us to have this discussion again on the Border Security Commander. Let me lay to rest one allegation straight away. This is not a gimmick. This is a serious piece of government policy to put in place a co-ordinating Border Security Command designed to co-ordinate activity across the board, including relations with our security services.
In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Harper and Lord Swire, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, to date it has secured £150 million of funding; has improved the number of Border Security Command officers to 227; has brought together world leaders from over 40 countries to mobilise the international fight on immigration crime; has disrupted criminal networks; has improved intelligence and strategic coherence; has led an international effort on an anti-smuggling action plan; has signed a proposal with Germany and the Calais Group in France; has launched a new sanctions regime focused on organised crime; and has supported the development of the plans that are being put into the Bill for the Home Secretary.
To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on the functions of the commander, Clause 3(4)(b) states that the commander must
“obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to issue the document”.
There is obviously some discussion with the Secretary of State. Ministers set their priority. If the Secretary of State does not agree with the proposed plans, potentially that consent will be a matter of discussion and arrangement. The key point is that there is an official appointed by the UK Government to co-ordinate those important Border Force control issues on border security, to tackle organised immigration crime and to end the facilitation of dangerous small boat crossings.
Yes, it is a difficult task. As the noble Lord, Lord German, has said, it has been inherited from the previous Government. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, asked why we did not employ people to tackle the backlog. Well, let me inform him that we are: we have put about 1,000 extra staff into doing what he has suggested the House does today. The allegation that I want to nail down is that this is a gimmick. It is not a gimmick. It is a serious piece of work that requires an important role in government to secure that work.
Amendments 1 and 2 relate to the Border Security Commander and seek to remove the requirement that the Border Security Commander is a civil servant. With due respect to noble Lords, there is a slight misunderstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, argued that we should potentially be drawing on somebody from a wider background. The current Border Security Commander was a senior police officer in the Metropolitan Police and, if this Bill is passed, he will be a member of the Civil Service. The Bill does not require that the post of Border Security Commander be reserved for existing civil servants. Indeed, the current officeholder was recruited externally.
Ultimately, given that the role sits within the Home Office and given that the commander leads a directorate in the department, the commander is a civil servant by that position: it does not mean that they have to be a civil servant by recruitment. There is no requirement that any future recruitment exercise would not seek to identify the most suitable candidate, irrespective of background. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 2 seeks to specify the prior experience required to be eligible to be appointed as Border Security Commander. It is important that we have the best talent. There are no limitations on that talent. In the event of a vacancy arising—at the moment, there is no vacancy—the Government have been clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for requiring step change in the UK’s approach to border security, providing a long-term vision, bringing together those individuals, providing leadership and maintaining the integrity of our border and immigration systems, domestically and internationally. That role is reflected in the Bill. The Bill puts the commander on a statutory footing and gives that legal back-up. It has been crafted to ensure that we have the best possible candidate for the role.
The noble Lord, Lord Swire—
Lord Harper (Con)
I have a very short question. I have listened very carefully and the Minister has been very clear about the nature of the role. What powers will the Border Security Commander have when this Bill becomes law that they do not already have by virtue of being a civil servant reporting to the Home Secretary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I think the noble Lord misunderstands the focus of the Bill. The Bill is giving statutory footing to what is now happening. There is a Border Security Commander in post. That Border Security Commander has the roles that we have outlined here, but this puts the post on a statutory footing.
Lord Harper (Con)
Can the Minister just set out clearly what difference that makes in the real world to dealing with any of these problems? Otherwise, it is just a piece of window dressing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Lord that I have been through a list of things that the Border Security Commander is doing now—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Without legislation, but the statutory footing is there to put that position on a statutory footing and to put in place the statutory requirements to produce an annual report, to have the consent of the Home Secretary and to have some accountability to this House. The noble Lord can press the Minister as much as he wishes. I have set out the concrete things that this Border Security Commander has done in the 15 or 16 months that we have been in office and since we appointed Martin Hewitt to the post. It is a good record. These things would not have been done without his activity. The French agreement, the German agreement and the work in Iraq have been done because the Home Secretary enabled them. This was done without statutory backing, but it will be stronger with that statutory backing on the issues of the report, et cetera, to allow the Border Security Commander to do those things. I hope the noble Lord welcomes that but, if he does not, he can vote accordingly, as I always say. Vote accordingly and we will see what happens with those issues. But, ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Swire, made an important point about Jo Rowland. I place on record my thanks to Jo for the work that she has done. She has left not through the factual issues that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, mentioned, of failure, but through personal choice to pursue another job outside the Civil Service. That happens all the time with individuals. She has chosen to do that. The Home Office thanks her for her contribution during her time as a civil servant. She was not a civil servant before she came to the Home Office: she worked in the private sector. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and we should not let it lie that she has left because of any failure in that position.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am reflecting on the Minister’s remarks in answer to my noble friend Lord Harper’s earlier point. If the current situation is that the border commander is operating anyway, without the statutory footing, under whose authority is he currently acting?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
He is acting under the authority of the Home Secretary. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill, he will see that the statutory functions that it provides set out the terms of appointment and designation, as well as the functions, reporting mechanisms and responsibilities of the commander in relation to things such as the intelligence services—which, just for the record, are themselves employing world-class capabilities. Those capabilities, and the people behind them and their operations, are necessarily secret. However, I can confirm that, where it is appropriate, the agencies will be supporting the Border Security Commander in their work, and that they will be subject to the same authorisations that exist currently within a robust oversight regime. There is a whole range of things going on. The Bill is a focus to put them on a statutory basis. I do not think that the amendments, helpful though they are to tease out this discussion, are necessary for us to achieve our objective.
Lord Harper (Con)
The Minister just said something that I do not think is in the Bill. He talked about the security services. In Clause 3(3), on the functions of the commander, the Bill says:
“A partner authority must have regard to the strategic priority document in exercising its functions”.
Later, in Clause 3(6), the Bill specifically says that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ are “not partner authorities”, so they are not obligated to follow the strategic priorities set out by the Border Security Commander. That is correct, because they should be following the strategic priorities set out by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary respectively. I am not sure that what he said about their working together is quite right.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
By his own admission, the noble Lord did not attend Committee. It is the pity that he did not, because he could have raised some of these questions then. If he chooses to raise them now, on Report, I will give him the same answer. The Border Security Commander is working closely with the security services, and they have authorisation directly from the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. Quite evidently, when they—or in this case he—are drawing up a plan to examine what needs to be done to solve the common issue of reducing small boat crossings, bringing criminals to justice and helping to speed up the asylum removals that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, referred to, then they are going to discuss and work with the security services. I am straying into a Committee-type session, which the noble Lord did not attend. I would rather stick to Report, which the noble Lord has attended. I think I have answered the questions that he has put before the House.
Turning to Amendment 26, if we return to the position we were in in 2016—which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord German, would have wished we maintained—we would still be a member of Europol. On a personal note, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 I argued that we retain the capability of Europol and CIS as part of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement. That did not happen. But it is important that we ensure, post-Brexit agreement, that we have as close co-operation as possible with Europol on information gathering and criminal justice delivery capabilities—which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned. That is important. As we said in Committee, we have a strong existing relationship with Europol. We have around 20 permanent members of staff who work at the multi-agency liaison bureau at the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The noble Lord asked whether we should have some Europol people here. We currently do not. That is a matter for discussion. Where we are now may be a matter for regret. I voted to remain, but we are where we are. Europol remains an independent organisation. It is accountable to the members of the European Union, and it produces its report to the European Union.
I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Lord who supports her, that the proposed new clause in her amendment would require reporting on all aspects of our co-operation with Europol. Ministers, including me, will regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including with Europol. We publish annual minutes of UK-EU specialised committees that monitor and review our trade agreements, including with Europol.
I am mindful that Europol is not a UK body. It answers to the European Commission and its member states, so bilateral co-operation may sometimes be something that we cannot publicly report on. It is not for us to report on some of the issues with Europol, because that is what Europol does. As the noble Baroness mentioned, once upon a time, in days gone by, we did have a British senior official leading Europol. That has changed; we are in a different world now. I assure her that the focus remains on disrupting organised crime, protecting vulnerable people, securing our borders and working in co-operation with Europol to achieve those objectives. To go back to the role of the Border Security Commander, one of his key roles is to oil the machinery of that operation, and work with colleagues who are directly operationally responsible, to make sure that we engender co-operation at a European level.
I therefore respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that Amendments 1 and 2 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them. Amendment 26, from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is asking for things that we do not need to do, because we in this House are, in a sense, accountable for that relationship. I cannot report on all matters, but I get the spirit of what she is trying to say. On behalf of the UK Government, I want to have the closest co-operation possible with Europol and the European agencies, because we have a joint interest in tackling the criminal gangs and stopping individuals being exploited in those crossings.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate. I thank all those who have participated.
I will say a few words on Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. In addition to the noble Baroness’s comments, I would say that we should be co-ordinating with our European allies on tackling the border crisis in any case. We need to stem the flow of illegal migration through Europe and across the channel, and to disrupt the criminal gangs that operate the smuggling network. However, we should be careful not to see this as some form of silver bullet. The problem cannot be solved simply by striking agreements with other European countries. We know the limited impact that the Government’s so-called “one in, one out” deal has had.
There is so much more that the Government could and should be doing to tackle the fully blown crisis at our border. They need to eliminate the pull factors and implement an effective deterrent. We had hoped the Government would take a long, hard look at their current policy, implement a serious and credible deterrent to prevent people crossing the channel in small boats, and present us with a commander with authority, rather than a commander with nothing to command. Evidently, that is not the case. We will watch very carefully and scrutinise the role of the commander. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also include possession with intent to supply in the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Minister knows that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 are ones that I support, and he will remember my defence of them in Committee. During our Committee proceedings, I raised two important issues relating to what I consider to be gaps in these two new offences.
The first was the omission of “possession with intent to supply” from the offence of supplying an article for use in immigration crime. My argument here is that the possession of sufficient quantities of such an article is not an innocent act; it is a precursor to the commission of the offence. By failing to criminalise the preparatory acts, I feared that we would not be including within the offence everyone that we wish to capture.
The second gap I identified is that the offence in Clause 14 does not include a person who arranges for two third parties to exchange articles for use in immigration crime. Once again, this is an essential preparatory act whereby one person is facilitating the exchange of goods that will later be used in the commission of the new offence. The problem here is that we know that organised crime gangs are always concocting ever more ingenious methods of circumventing the law, often by removing themselves from the criminal acts and organising exchanges.
In this regard, I am very pleased that the Government have listened and tabled Amendments 4 and 8. It is genuinely welcome that they have listened to the concerns that I raised in Committee, taken those suggestions away and come back to this House with a solution.
The Minister’s amendments would create two further offences within Clauses 13 and 14; in effect, by expanding their reach. Included within the scope of these offences is a person who is concerned in the supplying or the receiving of an article. The second aspect of these new offences is that the person has to know that the relevant article is to be used in connection with an offence, under the relevant sections in the Immigration Act 1971. It is my understanding that those two aspects of the new offences in Amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the Government, would cover possession with intent to supply and the arranging of the exchange of an article between two third parties. I ask the Minister to give me his cast-iron assurance that the Government’s amendments include the gaps that I have identified. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I start from the position of being very unhappy with Clause 13 in any event. The term “intent” in Amendment 3 is certainly familiar, but it is really quite hard to prove. We should not be in the business of creating offences where it would not generally be realistic to prosecute.
On government Amendments 4 and 8, the term “concerned” is very broad. I think it is used in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; I do not know how that came into my mind, but I found it. In any event, it is so broad as to be questionable. This clause would criminalise people and, as we said many times in Committee, we see a danger of criminalising asylum seekers by regarding them as doing things that we do not want smugglers to do. We do not want smugglers, but we are sweeping them up in that net.
I have rather the same point about new subsection (1A)(b) in Amendment 4 and the term “in connection with”, which again is very wide. Surely the criminal law covers being an accessory, aiding and abetting, and so on, so I am also concerned about that.
Amendment 6 includes the term “arranges”. How is this not covered by Clause 14(1)(c), which uses the term “assists”?
Overall, we are concerned about the breadth of these amendments. The extension of the offences concerns us—if I can use that word without punning—in any event.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his Amendment 3 and the amendments that the Government have brought forward to try to make Clause 13 more effective and appropriate.
I have a broader question for the Minister. I suspect that many of the people who may be caught by this are already committing all sorts of other offences, either provisions within the scope of the Bill or those under some other relevant legislation, such as the Immigration Act 1971. My question to the Government is: how effective do they believe Clause 13 will be? What sort of a difference do they believe it will make? They have brought forward legislation and asked this House to pass a Bill containing Clause 13; they must have a view, whether from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or other arms of government, on how effective they believe this measure will be, given that many, perhaps even the majority, of people committing these offences will not be resident in the United Kingdom, but will be elsewhere as part of the broader supply chain.
Therefore, I am broadly supportive, but I would appreciate the Minister answering my question when he sums up the debate.
Lord German (LD)
I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee and will ask a couple of questions about the “concerned in” area. The Government’s Amendments 4 and 8 further expand the scope of offences in Clauses 13 and 14 by introducing this liability to be “concerned in” the supply or handling of articles. I understand that some of this phraseology is also in some of our counterterrorism laws, and I wonder whether it has been drawn from those very serious laws and just put in this in the moment.
The original intention of Clauses 13 to 17 was to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs. As my noble friend says, the worry is that the expansion of the offences risks inadvertently criminalising people who should be protected and providing unintended harms to those who are most vulnerable.
I have one other point about criminalising non-criminal actors. Perhaps the Minister could say a little word about legal practitioners. There is a certain ambiguity created by these broad offences which might risk affecting legal practitioners who provide legitimate services. Perhaps he could tell us whether that can be explicitly put into the Bill or explicitly ruled out of the amendments that the Government have put before us today.
In summary, these government amendments are seeking to widen further the extraterritorial counterterror-style offences. In turn, that requires statutory guardrails to prevent them targeting vulnerable individuals, and legal representation and legal practitioners, instead of solely the organised crime networks. I hope the Minister can put that matter to rest.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but worthwhile debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling Amendments 3 and 6, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to them. These seek to criminalise possession with intent to supply and to ensure that those who arrange for a relevant item to be received by a third party fall into the scope of the offence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, acknowledged, in response to the debate that we had in Committee on these amendments, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 5, 8, 9, 16 and 17. These build on proposals advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, in Committee and, indeed, this evening on Report.
In refining the approach, we have tabled amendments that ensure that individuals who are concerned in the supply chain can be held accountable where they know that their actions are enabling criminal activity, and that those who are knowingly concerned in supplying articles for use in immigration crime fall in scope. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, noted, criminals are always developing new ways to pursue organised immigration crime, and we have to stay on top of them. These amendments are part of the package of measures in the Bill, and that is why we have tabled these government amendments, to address the concerns around third-party supply that were noted in Committee.
I believe that this matches the intent in the noble Lords’ amendments, both on Report and in Committee, by ensuring that those who are concerned in the supply of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article for use in immigration crime, and those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime, are in scope of this offence. As such, I hope that noble Lords are content with the government amendments and will not press theirs.
This is a proportionate and necessary step, one that targets the infrastructure behind the wicked trade of organised immigration crime. It allows us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. As we have already heard tonight, organised immigration crime works internationally, through networks of facilitators and organisers. This new offence, strengthened by this amendment, is about acting before the facilitation offences have happened, to prevent crossings and the risking of life, and everything that goes with it.
These amendments have safeguards in place, reflecting our wider discussion on this aspect, in that the individual must be knowingly engaged in facilitation to fall into scope, and law enforcement must be able to prove that knowledge, protecting those who act in good faith from these offences.
I turn to some of the questions and points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord German, raised concerns about the language in the Bill and its precision.
First, on how “concerned in” is any different from the “handling” wording in the Bill—as Lord German asked—the Bill equips law enforcement with counter- terror-style powers to disrupt and dismantle smuggling operations far earlier, well before a boat is launched from the French coast and lives are put at risk. The amendment strengthens these powers, setting out that someone does not need to smuggle people into the UK themselves to face jail time. Law enforcement can also use these powers to go after people playing other roles in smuggling operations. This may include, for instance, providing a lorry to try smuggling people into the UK, sending money to buy small boat parts, or storing dinghies in warehouses knowing full well that they are being used for channel crossings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the breadth and vagueness of the use of “concerned in”. Would it, for instance, capture those who are selling boat equipment to sailors? To be clear, that is not the intention here. All that is changing with this amendment is setting out that someone involved in people-smuggling operations can face jail time, not just those smuggling people into the UK themselves.
To go to the heart of whether this is an overreach, which I think is the concern coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches, let us be absolutely clear, and I think we can all agree on this: vile people smugglers are wreaking havoc on our borders and are putting lives at risk to line their own pockets. None the less, law enforcement must follow a strict legal test and prove that someone knew the activity was part of smuggling operations. As with any criminal offence, independent prosecutors will look at all factors when considering prosecution and judge every case on its merits. Indeed, the officers who are carrying out potential seizures and applying for arrest warrants will bear in mind the usual high bar of evidential standards that prosecutors require for a successful prosecution. Nothing changes there.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the impact on legal practitioners. To be clear, this is about supplying goods, not services. There is a clear difference between people who want to supply dinghies to get people across the channel and those who are supplying people with legal services to defend an appeal claim for asylum, for instance.
Lastly, I turn to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who asked for the bigger picture. This Bill is about making it harder for vile smugglers to operate. The new counterterror-style powers equip law enforcement with the tools that it needs to act earlier against the smugglers. I would say to the noble Lord that even one prosecution that stops a smuggler in their tracks could save countless lives. We have seen over many summers the number of people who are crammed on to those boats. If we can stop any single boat launching, through getting those dinghies seized earlier, that will have a material impact in saving lives.
This is tough legislation that builds upon the surge in operational action against people-smuggling networks. The National Crime Agency carried out around 350 disruptions on organised immigration crime networks—its highest level on record and a 40% increase on the previous year. Through these amendments, we send a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences. This aligns with the Government’s broader commitment to stop the boats and dismantle the nefarious networks that profit from the evil of human exploitation, and reinforces our resolve to tackle every link in the chain of illegal migration.
The Government’s approach has been clear from taking office: to go after the gangs. We need these offences enacted to allow operational colleagues to do their jobs. They will strengthen our ability to prosecute facilitators and reinforce our stance that nobody concerned in the supply of articles for use in such offences should be beyond the reach of the law.
Having said that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw his amendment. We shall then formally move the government amendments in this group.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short group. I have just one observation on the comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, around the phrase “concerned in”, which appears in the amendments. He stated that it appears in counterterrorism law. It also appears frequently in the criminal law around misuse of drugs. I would suggest that the criminal courts are well used to both interpreting and applying that phrase; there is a wealth of case law on it. I would also suggest that it is not unusual, difficult or exceptional phraseology.
I am very grateful for the assurances from the Minister. It is very welcome that the Government have listened to our concerns and addressed them with these amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) A person (“P”) commits an offence if—(a) P is concerned in the supplying of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article to another person, and(b) at any time when P is concerned in that act, P knows that the relevant article is to be used by any person in connection with an offence under section 24 or 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the offence in clause 13 to cover being concerned in the supplying of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article for use in immigration crime.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 13 at page 7, line 12.
Baroness Hamwee
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before we get going on Amendment 7, I want to comment on government Amendments 10 and 11. I thank the Minister for responding not only to the amendments in Committee but to my request for a meeting, and holding that meeting during a week when he had so many—I think he can barely have had time to breathe. It was extremely pleasing to be able to pursue a matter on which we both understood what we were aiming for, even though we could not quite find the words in Committee.
My amendment then was about hygiene kits. From the slightly delicate terminology used by some noble Lords in Committee, I think we had different ideas in our minds. I understand that the Government’s approach to items to assist with cleanliness and hygiene is to take care not to enable items that could be weaponised; hence the different approach to this, which I think is quite ingenious. However, I am left with a question and a bit of a concern about shaving items. I could not come up with an alternative way of expressing it, which would have met the Government’s point, but underlying my concern at the last stage was allowing asylum seekers in a very difficult situation a degree of dignity.
I confess that I asked the Red Cross, from which I received a list of the items that it normally supplies to refugees, and it could not come up with an alternative way of expressing it. I have its crisis and emergency response team’s list, which includes razors and shaving lubricant, while the standard hygiene items that the Red Cross Hackney destitution centre gives out include shaving kits. However, we are where we are. Unless the Minister has anything more that he can explain to me in responding, I want to put my thanks on record.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to support government Amendments 10 and 11 and pick up a couple of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made. I think we kicked the first point around a bit in Committee so I will not overly repeat my points from then. We said then, and I think it has come out in the debate so far, that the point of this legislation, which I strongly agree with, is very important. The substance of a lot of the Bill is about increasing the deterrent effect of the law, although I may not have agreed with what I continue to think is the rather cosmetic Border Security Commander.
We want the offence here. I want it to be quite broad because I want it to put off people helping to facilitate offences and then pretending that they are not. I think the noble Baroness or somebody else gave a similar example in Committee. I do not want people assisting people to commit immigration offences. In this case, it is helpful for it to be a broad offence. We are trying to deter people from helping people.
My reading of the case that the noble Baroness set out is that an offence would be committed only if the person supplying the article, the phone in this case, had a reasonable suspicion that an immigration offence was going to be committed. If they did, then I want them to be concerned that they would be committing an offence and therefore not supply the device. That is the point of the exercise. If it is not going to do that, there is really no point in passing this legislation. It is supposed to be setting out tough offences that deter people from such activity.
I would make a similar point on Amendment 12, about lawyers. First, I do not know whether the position has changed enormously—I suspect not given some of the other things the Minister has said—but I had not noticed any shortage of people providing immigration advice when I was Immigration Minister. There seemed to be a never-ending supply of people who would assist people to breach our immigration rules and outwit our Home Office lawyers and so forth. There may have been a massive drying up of such people, but, based on the number of cases and the battles that the Home Office undertakes, that is highly unlikely. I do not think there is a shortage of lawyers who provide advice for people in this area.
Secondly, if someone is providing legal advice about what somebody has done and their legal position, then they are not going to be caught by this offence. This offence is about people providing advice that will facilitate immigration crime. It is not the function of a lawyer following the professional standards that lawyers are supposed to operate under to provide legal advice that enables people to commit crimes. If this clause as drafted by Minister’s officials and draftsmen stops a lawyer providing advice about how to commit a crime, I am very pleased, because they should not be doing it.
I do not see any legitimate legal service that a lawyer should professionally be providing that will be caught by this clause. It seems to me that it will catch only people operating on the margins and pushing the envelope about what they are doing and what they are facilitating. It is not the lawyer’s job to help people commit criminal offences. That is absolutely not what lawyers are supposed to be doing, so the clause as drafted in the legislation is fine as it is with its breadth. I know that the noble Baroness said she would not press them, but I would oppose the two amendments from her and think the Bill is better without them.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rise to defend lawyers. I do not why I should be doing this, but it struck me to do so here, as it did on the previous set of amendments.
In Committee, the Minister assured us that
“the list of reasonable excuses in this clause is non-exhaustive””—[Official Report, 8/7/25; col. 1287.]
and that legitimate activity should not be captured. However, relying on ministerial assurances of the good sense and discretion of the CPS is insufficient when it comes to framing criminal law. That is why it has to be represented in the Bill or by regulation, or some other way, that we are not talking about that here.
I advise the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that it is very difficult to find sufficient lawyers to deal with the case load that is before us, which is affecting the backlog as well, of course. I will not go into the reasons why that has happened, but it is certainly not easy. The actual penalty would be 14 years’ imprisonment, if a lawyer was caught in it, so it is a very serious matter. If we fail to include explicit protection, we risk imposing deterrents on the exercising of proper legal practice in this field of the law. I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee in that objective in her amendments.
I want to speak to government Amendment 11 because while we may have had a different agenda of items, which my noble friend was talking about, at least I think I know what I am talking about here. I know that razor blades on safety razors are particularly dangerous. There are ways in which you can deal with that matter but there is also the alternative of some form of electric device, which can do the job as well, as we know. You might need a wire, but you can also operate them by battery; those ones are much cheaper. I can assure the House that that is my personal experience in this Palace, when you come from a different part of the country from London. However, I would like to know what explanation there will be for how people can shave. The Red Cross has raised that issue and I am sure that the Government have an answer.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Minister for tabling these amendments. I say at the outset that I am content with the government amendments in this group, but perhaps a little less so with the noble Baroness’s.
Amendments 7 and 12 would create gaps in the new offences that would be susceptible to abuse. Those who enter the United Kingdom without valid leave to enter are committing an offence. Those who handle articles which are to be used to facilitate a person’s unlawful entry, contrary to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, will be committing an offence. That is right, but the exception created by Amendment 7 would mean that a person entering the country illegally could not themselves be found criminally liable for the handling of such articles. If that person intends to use that article themselves to enter illegally, I cannot possibly see why they should be excluded from the commission of the new offence in Clause 14.
Amendment 12 raises a question about the “reasonable excuse” defence under Clause 16 and whether it would extend to those carrying out legitimate legal services. I am sure that the Government have no intention of criminalising legitimate legal activity but, at the same time, we know all too well that there is an army of lawyers working for so-called human rights charities and non-governmental organisations who indeed seek to use ever more ingenious legal methods to circumvent legitimate deportations and removals.
Amendments 10 and 11 concern the offences relating to prohibited items in accommodation or transport facilities. Government Amendment 10 proposes to exempt items
“designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or personal hygiene”
from the relevant offences, and Amendment 11 sensibly limits that exemption so that dangerous articles, such as blades, glass or aerosols, are not inadvertently permitted.
These amendments appear to be a reasonable and pragmatic attempt to ensure that the legislation does not extend beyond its intended purpose. We do not want to see a situation in which a detainee or asylum seeker could be criminalised for possessing a bar of soap or toothpaste, and the carve-outs in Amendment 11 should ensure that safety is not compromised.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 7, and I shall speak to it in a moment. First, I shall speak to Amendments 10 and 11 in my name. I hope, for all the difficulties about some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord German, has raised in relation to shaving, it is an attempt by the Government to meet the objectives of the noble Baroness’s original amendment in Committee as well as the report on the Bill from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised this as a matter of some importance.
I reflected on it after Committee and asked officials to draw up amendments, and amendments have been drawn up that allow essential items such as soap, tooth- paste and sanitary products to be used. Amendment 11 is there because there are things such as razor blades, or things such as a glass container that could be broken and be available as a weapon, and things such as aerosol cans that can be sprayed in people’s faces, which have to be exempted.
I confess that the question of shaving is one that might be worthy of further reflection and discussion, but we are where we are. This is not a pejorative statement, but some people who arrive will have beards; the ones who do not can wash with soap, use toothpaste and do all those things. Potentially, at some point, they can shave in a more controlled circumstance at a later date. Let us just reflect on that. It is an interesting point for debate but, ultimately, we have tried to settle on a reasonable compromise to meet the objectives of the Committee’s pressure on the Government and the Joint Committee report. I commend Amendments 10 and 11 to the House as they stand.
I have more difficulty with the noble Baroness’s Amendments 7 and 12. I appreciate that the intent of Amendment 12 is to safeguard legitimate legal professionals. I stress that the clause already provides a “reasonable excuse” defence, as she knows. The amendment, by explicitly referencing Section 12(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007, on the very points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Davies—narrows that defence rather than strengthening it.
Clause 16 is designed to target those who collect sensitive information for the purpose of facilitating immigration crime. It is not in any way, shape or form aimed at those who want to provide bona fide legal advice who are acting within the law. The offences will be intelligence-led and focused on organised criminal activity, not on those providing lawful counsel. For legal advisers to fall into scope of this clause, they would have to be, for example, gathering or providing information or advice to clients on how to make a clandestine crossing to the UK. That is not what legal advice is supposed to be in this circumstance. For once, I find myself in compadre with the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Harper, on that point, and I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press that amendment.
Amendment 7, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to exclude from liability those who handle articles likely to be used in immigration crime, if the intended user is themselves or a member of their immediate family. If I wanted to help to support somebody, I might well claim that I am a member of the immediate family and have an immediate family member supplying me with information—and there might well be organised criminal gangs which exploit family ties by pressure or other means to ensure that they mask that facilitation.
Clause 14 already requires that the article is “likely to be used in the course of immigration crime”. This threshold ensures that only those knowingly contributing to criminal activity are captured. I reassure the noble Baroness that I have been clear throughout the Bill’s progress that this House has a reasonable excuse on the face of the Bill, which is non exhaustive. Given the intention of this offence, and while respecting that the decision to prosecute is made entirely independently of government, I would expect that it would not generally be an operational or public interest matter to pursue people handling items in genuine pursuit of asylum or on behalf of family members. The CPS or any other legal entity that wishes to examine this matter would look at the intent behind the clause. The reasonable defence we have in Clause 14 is one I would refer the noble Baroness to and would hope to have her support on.
The law must remain clear and enforceable. The current drafting provides flexibility and discretion without compromising the clause’s intent. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will both withdraw Amendment 7 and not move Amendment 12 when it is reached. I commend Amendments 10 and 11 to the House as meeting the objectives the House ordered me to look at—in a nice, friendly way—in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to go over points that have already been made and which were made in Committee at greater length. However, I think it notable that work done by lawyers cannot, in the Government’s mind, be explicitly referred to. Perhaps I am particularly influenced by the work the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is doing on the rule of law, or maybe not.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that a lawyer should not set out—I am paraphrasing—to support a criminal activity by his client. I do not think things are that black and white. Everyone is entitled to a defence. With items such as the documents and information referred to in Clause 16, the client is entitled to have the reason for having those argued, or to argue whether they fall within Clause 16(1). It is a case of blame the lawyers again—“let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is a point of considerable principle to me that the rule of law should be upheld, and that includes citizens being entitled to be supported by lawyers. However, I beg leave to withdraw—
Lord Harper (Con)
The noble Baroness implied that I am being pejorative about lawyers; I am not. If lawyers are doing what they are supposed to do, there is no problem at all. This clause specifically states that the person would be committing an offence only if they were collecting the information or using it in order to prepare for an offence. Somebody doing legitimate legal activity is not committing an offence. I strongly support the rule of law and lawyers doing legal work, just not lawyers who think their job is to facilitate immigration crime. I think the clause is therefore very well drafted.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that concluding speeches to press or withdraw an amendment should be brief and should not be subject to intervention. That is a normal courtesy of the House, according to the Companion.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
If I may stand up, not having sat down, I do not think the noble Lord would argue that somebody who has beaten a person up, for example, should not be entitled to a defence because it is an offence. We do not know the position until that person has been through the process. However, we should not weary the House—I do not want to imply that the noble Lord is wearying the House—by taking this further, so I again beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) A person (“P”) commits an offence if, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2B), P is concerned in—(a) the receipt of, or the arranging to receive, a relevant article from another person, or(b) the removal or disposal of a relevant article for the benefit of another person.(2B) Those circumstances are where, at any time when P is concerned in an act as mentioned in subsection (2A), P knows that the relevant article has been, is being, or is to be used by P or any other person in connection with an offence under section 24 or 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the offence in clause 14 to cover being concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 14 at page 8, line 11.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(ca) any thing or substance designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or personal hygiene,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt products designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or hygiene from the offences in clauses 13 and 14.
(a) paragraph (ca) does not include—(i) anything which is or includes a blade or sharp point,(ii) any thing or substance in a glass container, or(iii) any thing or substance in an aerosol container;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude certain articles from the exemption in my amendment to clause 15 at page 8, line 35, so that these articles are covered by the offences in clauses 13 and 14.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Online advertising of unlawful immigration services(1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person creates, or causes the creation of, material whose purpose is, or effect will be, to promote an unlawful immigration service, and(b) the person knows or has reason to suspect—(i) that the material will be published on an internet service, and(ii) that the material has that purpose or will have that effect.(2) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person publishes material on an internet service or causes the publication of material on such a service,(b) the purpose of the material is, or the effect of the material will be, to promote an unlawful immigration service, and(c) the person knows or has reason to suspect—(i) that they are publishing the material or (as the case may be) that they are causing its publication, and(ii) that the material has that purpose or will have that effect.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person’s action was for the purposes of—(a) carrying out, or facilitating the carrying out of, work as a journalist, or(b) the publication of academic research.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(5) In this section “material” means anything which consists of or includes—(a) text or moving or still images, or(b) speech or music.(6) In this section—(a) “unlawful immigration service” means a service whose purpose is to facilitate the commission of—(i) an offence under any of the Immigration Acts,(ii) a breach of immigration law (other than such an offence), or(iii) an offence under section 4, 5 or 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 in relation to an identity document within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 7(1) of that Act,whether by providing goods or services, or both, or anything else;(b) “immigration law” has the meaning given by section 25(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.(7) In this section “publish” means make available to the public at large or any section of the public, whether or not in return for payment or any other form of consideration.(8) In this section “internet service” means a service that is made available by means of—(a) the internet, or (b) a combination of the internet and an electronic communications service (as defined by section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003).(9) This section is subject to section (Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause creates offences relating to the creation and publication of material promoting unlawful immigration services.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is important to outline to noble Lords the policy objective underpinning this measure, which is essentially to give us a further measure to tackle the facilitation of organised immigration crime online and to ensure that law enforcement agencies have appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online market, including social media.
Online platforms are exploited at scale to promote unlawful immigration services such as small boat crossings and the provision of fraudulent travel documents, and they allow organised crime groups to generate significant profits at the expense of vulnerable migrants. Approximately 80% of migrants arriving via small boats who have been debriefed by Home Office officials have stated that they used social media at a point in their irregular migration journey to either locate or communicate with an organised crime group or its agent. It is therefore essential that we take steps to put pressure on this by providing legislative back-up to the objective of reducing migrant crossings facilitated by social media.
Amendment 13 introduces an offence that criminalises the creation or publication, or indeed causing the creation or publication, of material whose purpose is or has the effect of promoting an unlawful immigration service. Such material will be considered criminal where the person knows or suspects that the material will be published on the internet, or that it has the purpose or will have the effect of promoting unlawful immigration services. There is a clear difference, if we look at the matters before the House today, between legitimate immigration and advice services, and those which offer unlawful services that facilitate breaches in the law of this land and risk our border security. Only online material that clearly has the purpose and intended effect of promoting unlawful immigration is in the scope of this offence, and I think it right that it should be. Exploitation of the online environment is something that organised crime groups are very familiar with and use to promote their services. I think it is widely known and discussed in the public domain, and this Government intend to do something about it.
The amendment will provide law enforcement with another offence to prosecute this type of online activity and will enable easier intervention compared to existing legislation. Under this offence, online material will not need to be linked to a specific instance or attempt of unlawful immigration, as is the case with existing legislation such as Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1971. Specifically criminalising the promotion of unlawful immigration services may lead to better prosecution outcomes, potentially including additional counts on indictment and longer sentences for facilitation of organised immigration crime. I think the whole House will welcome that.
Facilitation tactics have evolved, and it is right that we evolve in response. This complements illegal content duties for online companies under the Online Safety Act—which had its genesis under the previous Government, with opposition support, and the passage of which was completed by this Government—by explicitly criminalising the act of creating or publishing this type of content. Our determination to disrupt organised crime groups is clear, and that is why we are looking at this offence on Report today.
There are intermediate liability protections in place for online platforms, including social media, under Amendment 15, to emphasise that the focus is on those who are creating and publishing the content. Platforms will remain subject to existing duties relating to the management of illegal content, including that relating to organised immigration crime.
Online facilitation or organisation of immigration crime has no borders and therefore the majority of related online material identified is assessed—sadly—as posted overseas. It is therefore important that, through Amendment 18, the offence has extraterritorial effect and can be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world, or by a person of any nationality. That is an important safeguard; again, it will take some work, but it is important that we put that down as an appropriate tool for those who operate from abroad. When we have those arrangements, we can in some cases extradite individuals to face justice in the United Kingdom if we have the relevant agreements.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support what the Minister said and this group of amendments. I have a couple of questions, but he set out clearly for your Lordships’ House the scope of the use of online tools by organised crime groups to facilitate these offences.
I think that the Minister touched on the gaps in the law around having to be specific about certain offences. It would be helpful—either when he sums up, or perhaps he could write to us—to give us one piece of data on the interviewing of those who committed offences in scope. It would be useful to know about the existing scale of the use of this type of material, or the extent to which it facilitates immigration crime. I do not know whether it is that easy to set it out, but I am keen to understand, when these offences become law, the potential reduction in the crime committed as a result of it. He may be able to help us now.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said in my introductory remarks, from debriefing, around 80% of people say they had an initial contact, inquiry or facilitation via social media. In essence, that means that potentially 80% of initial migrant crossings are generated through contact via social media. As with any crime, it is difficult to say what the target for reducing that would be, but the point is that it is not currently an offence. If this legislation is passed, it will be, and that gives us scope, in co-operation with partners, to go upstream. If those individuals are abroad, as the amendments later in the group suggest, then in countries where we have extradition agreements, and if we can find the individuals, we can bring them to justice.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. I did listen and—he should not worry—I am not trying to pretend that he thinks that therefore we can reduce offences by 80% overnight. It would just be helpful to have a sense of what impact this might have. I also welcome the extraterritoriality clauses, because he is right that it means that we can use extradition offences, but we can also use some of the other tools that we have at our disposal once we can demonstrate that there are offences.
My specific question picks up Amendment 14. I agree with the Minister that there should be defences, or carve-outs, for internet service providers that are carrying out their lawful activities. I want to probe him specifically on subsection (1)(b)(ii) of the new clause inserted by the amendment, which states:
“An internet service provider does not commit an offence … if the provider does not … select the recipient of the transmission”.
I want to probe this a bit. If the algorithms or techniques used by service providers or social media to push messages at people are set up so they push some of these unlawful messages, is that activity—because they are in effect selecting the recipient of those messages—potentially an offence? By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, if their algorithms are pushing messages that facilitate crime at people, then, arguably, they probably should be falling foul of this, because we want them to then take steps to make sure that their algorithms are not pushing these messages at people. I just wanted to test the extent to which they would be liable.
I have a final comment. The noble Lord is right to distinguish between those creating this material that is facilitating offences, but what liability is there if those providing those internet services are involved in this activity? The offences at the moment include imprisonment, which can be used on people but not on corporate bodies. There are also fines involved in this.
One of the debates we had on what became the Online Safety Act, which the noble Lord mentioned, is that, to get these offences to bite on large global corporations with turnovers and profits of many billions of pounds, there must be quite draconian financial penalties to get them to sit up and take notice. There was a big debate about that when the Government of which I was a Member, and the subsequent Government, were passing the Online Safety Act and the subsequent legislation.
I therefore want to understand this: if there were social media or internet service providers who were helping this, or not taking steps to mitigate this, what offences would they potentially be guilty of? Does the Minister think the potential sanctions are sufficient that those organisations, particularly those based overseas and not easily reachable by our legislative tools, would be sufficiently able to be reached by them?
Just so the House is not in any doubt, I say that I strongly support this range of amendments to create these offences. It is quite clear that, in all the coverage you see of all the people coming into the United Kingdom illegally, they all have phones and electronic communication devices: it is a key part of how these crimes are committed. I strongly support the law being strengthened to deal with it and the Minister has my support.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I also commend the Government on bringing forward this suite of amendments. My remarks will follow and parallel quite closely those of my noble friend Lord Harper.
This is a very difficult area of the law. Social media and the internet are very fast-evolving and extremely difficult to define. So the approach that the Government have taken recognises that this is essentially criminals advertising criminal services—theirs over the next gang’s—and it ought to be addressed. We ought to focus on it, for two reasons. The first is to try to tackle the individuals and organisations behind these activities. The second is to try to get them taken down as soon as possible. We know that is extremely tough to achieve—we have seen it in other pieces of legislation—but that does not mean that we should not try. I certainly think we should.
I am also with my noble friend Lord Harper on his applying a modicum of pressure on the Government by asking how effective they believe these provisions would be. When I asked that very question on a previous amendment, I was given an answer which essentially said, “Well, even if they save one crime, that’s good enough”. The Government should really come forward with a slightly more comprehensive argument. Although, on this suite of amendments, I am less bothered by that, because it is perfectly obvious that what we are talking about here is a large-scale, international, very sophisticated criminal enterprise.
One of the things we have not talked about that much in the House during the passage of this important Bill is the fact that people coming here through these means are very often paying very considerable sums of money indeed: these are not trivial sums. We tend to lump people into groups or buckets and forget that they are often making a very conscious choice, looking at the price and the chance of being either diverted or sent back when they arrive in the UK. From the information that the Minister provided to me by way of a letter, we know that the chances of being removed are around 4%— there is a 96% chance of being successful in remaining—so we have a huge prize for people who wish to come to the country through illegal means and we need to do everything possible to disrupt that. So I hope the Government have got more or less the right approach and I wish them every good fortune in the effectiveness of those amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Viscount has just referred to illegal means, so let me just get into Hansard “safe routes”, if they are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, presents a very intriguing scenario. If he or I went on to the internet to look up information about any of these issues, would we find an algorithm identifying us as being interested and trying to push unwanted information at us, in rather the same way as, if you buy a lawn-mower, algorithms seem to think that you might want to buy further lawn-mowers, and so on? I had not really thought of that, but I take the point.
On Amendment 14, perhaps I can ask the Minister a couple of questions. New subsection (2)(a) uses the terms “automatic, intermediate and transient”. In the next subsection, the words are “automatic, intermediate and temporary”. Are they different? If they are not different, why is the same term not used?
On Amendment 13, on the underlying offence, it is a very broad offence with a very narrow defence. Of course, I understand why the Government are looking at this. I do not suppose there is any way of not being left with a feeling that, in this area, one is always playing catch-up. I said it is a “broad offence” because
“the person knows or has reason to suspect”.
That is pretty difficult. It is certainly something that might be the case without reaching “recklessness”, for instance. It is another of these offences where there is a defence to prove the purposes of your action. I do not know what the standard of proof is for that. The purposes referred to include work as a journalist, which is not just carrying out work but facilitating it, and the publication of academic research. Why is “facilitating research” not included as well, replicating the first paragraph?
It has been put to me that the proposed offence will place a real burden on small organisations, which will have continuously to investigate the activities of their staff and members to ensure that, through the organisation, material is not posted online that might be construed as having the effect of promoting these services—I am sure that would be a dismissible offence, but even so.
Lord German (LD)
I shall add one more difficult question to the lump sum of woes that the Minister has just received, and that is in respect of the most used platform in this area, which is Telegram. Telegram is a company based in the British Virgin Islands, but the people behind it are a moveable feast and very secretive. As the Minister will know, of course, formerly VK sprang out of Russian influence, but Telegram is the biggest alt messaging platform in the world and the one that is more frequently used by people in the world in the area that these clauses are meant to deal with.
Having spent the best part of two years in developing the Online Safety Bill, we know that the question is how you make sure you get at a body such as the people who own Telegram, who will obviously be among the most important people in respect of these new clauses. It is not that it is not worth trying, but I query how easy it is going to be and whether there is—I do not expect a detailed answer because otherwise that will be giving away the processes—a way in which this particular platform would be caught by this and would be able to be tracked down and held to account.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Government have tabled a raft of amendments criminalising the online advertisement of unlawful immigration services. We know that this is a major source of business for the trafficking gangs and, as such, if the advertising methods can be targeted and disrupted then this should go some way to removing a key part of the business model.
The Government’s impact assessment on this new policy acknowledges that
“it is expected that there will be a small number of arrests under this offence, as the majority of activity is assessed to take place overseas”
The key to the success here will, therefore, lie in enforcement and international compliance, so what steps have the Government taken to push other countries to take action and remove online posts and sites that publish this sort of material? How are they supporting the National Crime Agency to go further with its investigations and campaigns? I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that I can try to reflect on the serious questions posed about the implications of the legislation proposed before the House today on Report. I will try to answer as best I can, but I hope that the broad thrust of what we are trying to achieve, which is to make life harder for criminals to use social media to recruit migrants to cross the channel on dangerous journeys, is accepted by the House as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned a number of points that we would like to reflect on before giving him a definitive answer. He supports the broad purpose of the legislation, but I will make sure that we write to him to cover some of those points.
The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised legitimate issues—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench—about the difference that the offence will make, its impact and how we deal with people to ensure that it is put in place overseas. The noble Viscount said that if it helps one person, it would be a good thing to do. That remains true. We hope it will disrupt significantly more than that. We have not put a figure on that, but the principle is that it is an additional tool for police and enforcement agencies to take criminal action where other areas are potentially not currently open.
The enforcement of that means that, for countries with which we have extradition agreements, if we identify someone and they are arrested, they can be brought back to the UK for justice. Alternatively, an individual who is resident in the UK could be arrested once our intelligence services and others—including the National Crime Agency—track them down. Alternately, they could be individuals of a foreign nationality who are behind some of these websites or social media channels and visit the UK, and who might accordingly find themselves arrested in the UK for those crimes. So we have a range of extra tools.
With due respect to the noble Viscount, I cannot quantify that in a way that says we will reduce it by 10% or arrest 50 people on the back of that. What we can do is to put another tool in place to help disrupt those criminals. This goes to the point that the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned. The Home Office is working closely with the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement partners to ensure that they focus their funding on some of the new tools that they need to use in order to help crack down on this type of crime.
I know from talking to the National Crime Agency—without putting in the public domain confidences that would help criminals—that it is looking at how we can support more officers while also using smarter intelligence gathering and utilising different skills in officers to focus on this emerging market for immigration and migration crimes. All those things are important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a number of points about Amendment 14. I draw her attention to the opening line of the proposed new clause in that amendment:
“Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers”.
The key point I want to put to the noble Baroness is about “unlawful immigration services”. She asked whether people would be hit by this proposed new clause in the event of them writing about their experiences. No, they would not, because they are not advertising unlawful immigration services. The purpose of this provision is to focus specifically on the criminals who are organising immigration crime. It will not be used in isolation; it will be part of the measures both inside and outside of the Bill, and we are looking to criminalise the critical component of the people-smuggling gangs’ business model.
The noble Baroness also pointed to a number of parts in the legislation. She asked whether Section 2 automatic, intermediate or transient and whether Section 14(3) is automatic, immediate or temporary? I can say to her only that I have described the policy objective that we have set, and the wording we have is the wording that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has brought forward to help us achieve that policy objective.
I will reflect on what she said—if there are areas of interest, I will write to her—but I hope that she can look at the bigger picture, which is that is not about criminalising people who do not deserve to be criminalised. It is about criminalising people who are using social media platforms, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or X—whatever you want to call it these days—to promote their business and to encourage people to undertake illegal crossings. I go back to the initial point in my opening speech: 80% of individuals debriefed by us who have crossed said that their initial contact was via social media. That is the key point that Clause 14 intends to grasp, so I commend it, as well as Clause 13, to the House.
Lord German (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, is it possible, whether by letter or verbally, to know whether this clause will affect the biggest online platform—the one which is doing all the damage that this refers to?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
This is the guarantee that I give all noble Lords. It is right that I am questioned on these matters. It is right that we poke around and look at the detail in the woods—the big picture that I have established. But, ultimately, this is legislation. I have given the assurances that I can. I will look at the comments from all noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who have spoken in this debate. If there are point on which they are not satisfied, I will write to them in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned internet service providers and a number of the bigger players, such as Facebook, TikTok and Telegram. The clause expressly provides intermediate liability protections for internet services such as social media companies, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence. It will be the individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online who are targeted. I will look again at the noble Lord’s comments in the cold light of day. If I need to write to reassure him, or to provide clarification, or because he has suggested items that we should look at further on another occasion, it will be important to do so.
I hope that, with the assurances that I have given and the case I have made, the House can agree to the new clauses before us today.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if— (a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, material whose purpose was, or effect would be, to promote an unlawful immigration service, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, such material, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) Section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services)(5) and (6) applies for the purposes of this section.(7) In this section—“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet;“user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision about the liability of internet service providers under my first new clause to be inserted after clause 16.
“Liability for offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) committed by a body(1) This section applies where an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of a person (“P”) who is—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,P (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this section—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means— (a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision about the liability of individuals for offences committed by bodies under my first new clause to be inserted after clause 16.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 13 at page 7, line 12.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 14 at page 8, line 11.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the offences under my first new clause to be inserted after clause 16 apply to things done anywhere in the world, by a person of any nationality.
(b) whether they are done by a body formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or the law of any other country or territory.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that an offence under clause 13, 14, 16 or my first new clause to be inserted after clause 16 apply to things done by a body regardless of the country or territory under whose law the body is formed.
Member's explanatory statement
This is amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 17 at page 10, line 33.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the requirement, imposed by section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878, for Secretary of State consent for certain prosecutions under my first new clause to be inserted after clause 16.
Lord Davies of Gower
“(c) the vessel in which the person travelled could not reasonably have been thought to be safe for the purposes of reaching the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an unseaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a short and simple group with one simple amendment, so I will speak briefly. I moved this amendment in Committee to highlight that, as drafted, I suspect that the offence might not be utilised as much as it could be. This amendment is intended to apply the new offence of endangering another to any individual who makes a sea crossing with the intent of gaining unlawful entry in an unseaworthy vessel. This would remove the requirement for an individual to have done a particular act to create risk of death or serious injury.
The principle here is that if a person has crossed the channel in a small boat or dinghy then they have, by definition, created a risk of death or injury. No small boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. By being in that boat, you are endangering the lives of all others in that boat. The Minister said in Committee that the reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means that the amendment would capture all those making a journey. I agree with the Minister that these journeys cannot be considered safe. Surely if this clause is to have any meaning at all, it must be expounded to capture those who are making these journeys unsafe. This amendment seeks to make that completely clear and, as such, ensure that the offence in Clause 18 can be applied to those it is intended to target. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would significantly alter Clause 18 and capture all people in these boats. Every one of them would come under the power of this clause. It treats the vulnerable asylum seekers as criminals and is inconsistent with targeting specific criminal behaviour.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, as I hope everyone in your Lordships’ House knows, the Government are absolutely committed to action to prevent illegal migration, dangerous crossings and—specifically in relation to this amendment—fatalities at sea.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who also proposed this in Committee. The noble Lord has been consistent in wanting to ensure that the scope of these provisions does the job of breaking up these criminal gangs, and the smuggling. I think we are all on the same page on that.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. This is about preventing fatalities at sea and, as I said in my opening remarks, no boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. However, I hear what the Minister says, so for now I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a specific data protection legislation override which has become redundant as a result of the enactment of the general data protection legislation override by section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Amendments 23, 24 and 25 in my name amend the text of Clause 32, which relates to general provision about disclosure with respect to Clauses 27 to 31, and the specific application of the data protection legislation in the Data Protection Act 2018.
I hope that noble Lords will recollect that it was but a few months ago when we considered the Bill that went on to become the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Section 106 of that Act came into force on 20 August 2025. From that date, provisions in Acts that require or authorise the processing of personal data are automatically read as being subject to data protection law.
In practice, this makes express reference to data protection legislation unnecessary in statutes subsequently enacted in Parliament. That means that, in effect, the protections afforded by the Data Protection Act 2018 continue to apply to these clauses, which relate to the disclosure and sharing of HMRC’s customs and the DVLA’s trailer registration information.
It is not necessary or good lawmaking to duplicate these protections by placing unnecessary words on the statute book. These three amendments ensure that we are tying up and tidying up the issue. Amendment 23, and the two consequential Amendments 24 and 25, are technical in nature.
I want to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has to say on Amendment 62, which he will address very shortly, but, while I am speaking—potentially to save the House time—I will reiterate my previous reassurances to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, that using personal data for legitimate purposes such as immigration control is already permitted under data protection law. It would therefore be not only disproportionate but unnecessary to disapply data protection rules in a blanket fashion for certain groups that include some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including victims of trafficking. I will listen to what the noble Lord says, but I gave reassurances in Committee and now is an opportunity to repeat them. Obviously, the noble Lord will speak to his amendment and, if he wishes to discuss it further, we can, but I ultimately hope that he will not move it.
Lord German (LD)
Just before the noble Lord speaks to Amendment 62, I want to say that these Benches support the Minister.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 62 was also tabled in Committee. Its intent is to disapply data protection laws and regulations for a data subject who has entered the UK illegally or who is a foreign national offender.
The purpose here is, in essence, the same as in Clauses 27 to 31: it is intended to reduce the barriers to data sharing between the relevant law enforcement and immigration services. We feel that data protection legislation should not stand in the way of our ability to protect our borders; it should act as a block on action, not as a shield behind which those who have committed immigration offences can hide. In the same manner as human rights legislation, data protection legislation is not meant to be used to protect those who have broken the law, who have entered illegally or who are trying to prevent their lawful deportation. I will not be pressing this amendment to a Division, obviously, but I hope the Minister has listened to what I have to say.
I understand the purpose of the government amendments in this group, which are removing provisions that are now redundant due to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As such, I take no issue with them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister use the phrases “vulnerable group” and “blanket fashion”. I think I have quoted him more or less correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to alter the Data Protection Act by creating the possibility of the Secretary of State making an immigration exception decision. The noble Lord would take out of the list of circumstances to which the Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard all the rights and freedoms of the data subject, including the subject’s convention rights, and the UK’s obligations under the refugee and trafficking conventions. We are not on the same page.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and, again, think we are on the same page on this point. As I have indicated already, the key thing about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is that it would disapply data protection rules in, as I was quoted, a blanket fashion for certain groups that include some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the victims of trafficking. Therefore, it is too wide, and I ask him not to move it.
However, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the changes in these technical amendments to the legislation, which needs updating since it began its passage in the House of Commons some time ago. I beg to move Amendment 23.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my first amendment to clause 32.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my first amendment to clause 32.