Lords Chamber

Wednesday 23rd July 2025

(began 7 hours, 56 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: The jobs market and the wider economy
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords,
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Pension saving and adequacy for low-income and self-employed workers
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

going in the right direction, so under this government unlike the last, we are the fastest growing economy in the G7. Second Oral Question.
15:18
15:18
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lady will be very aware of the fact the Arts Council has pulled funding from the festival. The government believes in the power of sport to bring people together and it focuses on supporting activities that unite communities, not divide them, across Northern Ireland. With regard to the glorification of terrorism, prosecution is an operational matter for the PSNI, but let's be clear, community events should be about uniting the community and I had the opportunity to spend time with footballers from a youth leadership programme called Beyond the Ball supported by the Rio Ferdinand Foundation and they are from the Republic and Northern Ireland but came to play together against young people from Camberwell.

I think they were surprised that the somewhat challenging community tensions which can exist between Arsenal and Spurs who they visited yesterday. This can happen across football. I want to happen across football. I want to wish the Lionesses good luck for the wish the Lionesses good luck for the weekend. There I add my condolences to the family and friends of those injured at Maguiresbridge this injured at Maguiresbridge this morning. Sport can play a positive role in bringing communities role in bringing communities together and, in this regard, does together and, in this regard, does the Minister agree the Belfast Giants ice hockey team have done a Giants ice hockey team have done a great job of bringing people together from all communities in Northern Ireland? My official position, let's go, Giants.

The noble Lady is right. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met his hero, Pat Jennings, on Thursday, and said that sport has the capacity to bring people together, give joy, unite people, and cannot divide us. The Giants have got at the awake to work across communities, for sport and through communities, for sport and through sport in which to deliver that across the country.
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:53
15:53
15:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful for his question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for his question. Could I help him, Essex police have said and issued a statement, and I quote, "there are claims on social quote, "there are claims on social media that Essex police officers bust protested to the protests outside the Bell hotel on Thursday outside the Bell hotel on Thursday 17 July, this is category wrong. " I can only accept what Essex police have said, I'm not on the ground have said, I'm not on the ground there.

That is the statement. The noble Lord will also know because it is in the statement that Essex police also are aware and undertook and the rest of an individual who was subsequently charged whose trial was subsequently charged whose trial is due to start on 26th of August and who has been remanded in custody and who has been remanded in custody until that time. I'm therefore not able to comment on that issue any more Essex police have also arrested more Essex police have also arrested individuals in connection with the protests.

And again, even going back protests. And again, even going back to the previous debate we have just heard, peaceful protest is legitimate but if it crosses over into alleged violence or other activity, and the police have a activity, and the police have a right to do so, and they have made arrests in connection with that incident as well. So I would say to colleagues across the House, and colleagues across the House, and across the nation, peaceful protest is acceptable. Violent protest is not.

And the police are walking a very thin line to make sure they allow peaceful protests while ensuring that acts of violence or intimidation are not acceptable and are not undertaken. I look forward noble Lord's support in this House rises to ensure we maintain that message through the summer.
15:55
15:56
15:58
15:58
15:59
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
-
-
... I live very close to the town of Epping, having served as the Member of Parliament for the Epping Forest constituency for 27 years until last summer. It has long been recognised that the bell hotel is not a good place for asylum seekers to be housed. And I'm sure the Minister will recall that the Conservative Home Secretary closed the bell hotel in Epping in April in April 2024, and the asylum seekers were dispersed to other places.

The Minister's colleagues reopened the hotel without any consultation with the district council which is somewhat unfortunate. I do however join with the Minister in thanking Essex police for the way in which they are dealing with a very difficult concentration. It should be noted, amongst the misinformation that is out there, but both of the men who have been accused of serious crimes are now in custody awaiting trial. Our justice system is working. But does the Minister agree with me that it is the duty of elected representatives, all elected representatives, regardless of which party they represent, to do their best to encourage community cohesion and to calm down a potentially riotous situation.

The Minister has said just about that in these last few minutes. The considerable amount of misinformation that is being spread by particular political party is unfortunate and is working against community cohesion. Will the Minister join with me in calling everyone involved in the situation in the Epping Forest area and across Essex to stop inciting violence, to call for calm, and to think of that vulnerable people that we should all vulnerable people that we should all vulnerable people that we should all
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:06
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the government for making time to repeat the statement and I thank the Baroness for 11 me to speak on the subject which has become routine for me in previous years. We have made many contributions on this subject in the US approaching general election and we discussed the lack of control. The report by Sir Jon Cunliffe is lengthy and robust and is to be welcomed. We look forward to deciding how many recommendations will be taken forward.

Since 2022, the Liberal Democrats have called for the abolition of Ofwat. It is an organisation that is out of its depth and we have no way of dealing with water companies who seem to have forgotten the real remit was to provide a plentiful supply of clean water and dispose of sewage in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. The sanctions have no relationship to the number of policies and dividends which the executives and shareholders received for doing an abysmal job.

I welcome the ban on policies for executives who oversaw sewage discharge. At least one executive and his colleagues got around this by receiving an increase of 100% NP which was compensation for the absence of a bonus. Ordinary water users and taxpayers are footing the bill for this, just as they had to contribute with the increases in bills required to repair the system and your reservoirs. The government has said it will cut sewage pollution by 50% by the end of the decade.

This is to be welcomed but how will this be achieved? Bringing the oversight under a single regulator with the means to secure high standards is essential but I have some concerns. Previous, we have seen rotation of officers from water companies into Ofwat and from Ofwat into water companies and it is a merry-go-round. It is the Minister able to give the House reassurance that no existing or previous officer of Ofwat or any water company will have a role in the new regulators once it is established? It is essential that the incompetent are not rewarded with having a role in the new regulator.

A fresh start has to mean that cannot be tainted with previous failure. We look forward to the interim strategy policy statement giving directions to Ofwat and the Environment Agency. They are not without involvement in the debacle. They have been underfunded in recent years and with more responsibilities radical rethink of the way that they operate must be part of the solution going forward. Since Liberal Democrats have been raising this issue here and the other place, the EA found last year alone there was a 60% increase in serious incidents.

We are at the start of the school summer holidays. Children and families will be going to beaches and rivers to enjoy relaxation and the paddle as well as swimming to cool down in the heat which we hope will return. So many of these will be in water with raw sewage spills, discoloured and stinking. I would not want my grandchildren to swim in such water. Families should be able to take children for a day out at the beach without having to worry about whether the water is contaminated.

The sooner the government can bring them to book, the better. The lackadaisical approach to sewage discharge has to stop quickly. Last year, water companies reached permits over 3100 times. -- breached. They also predate £19.3 million in bonuses. No single million in bonuses. No single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health. No English weather is in good chemical help. Just 14% of English rivers are in good ecological health. This is a far cry from my childhood when there was clear water and I could see minnows swimming along.

I'm confident my honourable friend is as concerned about these issues as the rest of us. What is required is more access for communities and citizens to hold the companies to account, including representation on the boards. Improvement in how pollution is measured and struck targets are set using volume flowmeters and penalties for missing targets. Urging implementation of a social tariff on water bills to eliminate the poverty alongside legally binding targets on the quantity and quality of bathing water and the sensitive nature sex with independent and transparent testing of water quality.

-- Nature sites. Local authorities are overstretched and should have strengthened powers to monitor the health of rivers, lakes, coastlines, and restore the natural environment and help tackle change. I look forward to the response to this vitally important issue which affects every single one of the water users in the country. of the water users in the country.
16:13
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lord for the broad support for the recommendations that have come out of the Cunliffe report and I think it's an important step forward for cleaning up waterways. The statement talks about five recommendations that we are taking forward immediately and the new statutory water ombudsman, the self-monitoring, the new water regulator, I think they are has been consensus that Ofwat has not done its job effectively and I think that Baroness Bakewell makes important points when she says we should not reward incompetence.

I hope that will be fed through. Also, greater local involvement. The noble Lady talked about communities. We want communities to be more involved and we want customers to be right at the heart of this moving forward with the changes. That is one of the reasons for bringing this forward, in order to enable communities and consumers to be more central in water planning and managing pollution going forward and also in improved strategic direction because the strategy has failed abysmally over the last few years.

This is also not the limit of ambition and we will respond in the autumn to the recommendations and there will be a White Paper open for consultation and there will be a bill after that. Many questions that have been asked will be addressed once we see the white paper. The noble Lord talked about the funding and it is actually this government that security £104 billion of investment and it is importantly needed because of the lack of investment over the years and that will be critical to improving the leakage, for example, and providing better service for customers.

He asked to -- if the regulator would be responsible to the Secretary of State in Parliament and we will use the regulator through the White Paper and these kinds of questions will be debated as we move through that in order to advise further legislation when we come forward. Social tariffs was mentioned by both the Bulldogs and we want to put customers at the heart of the new model that we are developing. The recommendations made by the independent water commission talk about national and social tariffs and the introduction of compulsory smartm will stop these will be considered alongside the recommendations as we move forward.

Further information will come out in autumn, when we have developed the autumn, when we have developed the The noble Lord Lord Blencathra talked about the monitoring of overflows, and mentioned that in 2010, the 7% monitored by 23 at the end of the previous government was 100%. And I think, in answer to that, because of public pressure and because of the absolute horror at the amount of pollution that was going into our waterways. People had not been aware of that before.

So whilst obviously we increase monitoring, there is responsibility to be taken for the amount of pollution that had gone through into our waterways, and the complete incompetence of the regulators at that time which is what we are now trying to address. I think the noble Lady Baroness Bakewell asked about the target to reduce pollution, 50% by 2030 and how that was going to be delivered. We have combined this with existing commitment within the Environmental Improvement Plan to produce phosphorus from treated wastewater by 50% by 2028.

And together those targets from the pledge that we are making on this particular commitment. Ofwat and water companies did previously agree equipment for water companies for on the PR 24 agreement. Overexposed to reduce by 45% based on a 2021 baseline. And the date of between 2021 and 24 does not compare, because in 2021 only 88% of storm over the work monitored. So although it looks less, actually the amount has increased. Our knowledge has increased.

Our target. Overflows is based on a 50% reduction in schools from storm overflow is by the end of 2029, compared to 2024 levels. That is what the actual, what the figures and we can do that because of the fact we have now got 100% of storm overflow monitored. On just brought on communities, we are engaging for the first time on entire catchment, entire river catchment systems. And as part of that, we want to bring local people, we want to bring local authorities, important voices, businesses, and farming communities of course, into the work we are doing to improve illusion and systems in their local area.

I have said that can be done through regional basis and to the catchment model system and hopefully that will be more effective.
16:19
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it is crossbench turn. The noble Lord the Minister and I have a long and mainly happy history of trying to reform the water industry, including the replacement of Ofwat and I read with interest the 88 recommendations that this very timely and useful report. There's a lot to discuss. Much of it welcome. But for now I would like to focus on two questions. First, the report underlines the need to recognise the very long-term nature of water infrastructure investment.

It says that the strategic policy statements have been too short-term and that water company plans typically five years encourage short-term thinking. I have often asked successive ministers to make clear that there is no quick fix here. This is going to be very disruptive to consumers. It's going to cost millions of pounds. And crucially, it will take at least 25 years to implement. That's five parliamentary terms. The government need to be honest with the public on this. And so I asked the noble Lord the Minister to underline this and to make clear the likely timeline for this refurbishment of the water and sewerage infrastructure.

My second question is that the report summary on page 29 calls for more " senior engineering and financial expertise on export". I agree with that. But the key problem at Ofwat and in particular the water companies, actually Ofwat, was that they lacked the financial engineering skills to grasp what private equity investors were up to, which led to so many of the debt problems and other issues in the finances of the water companies that we see today.

So will the lady the Minister be pressing for expertise in financial engineering in this area to be included in any board?
16:21
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
I think in answer to that final question, any new board needs to have the right expertise if it is going to be delivering what we want for the industry. I think he makes a very important point, whatever that expertise is, we need to ensure that any future regulatory systems are set up to do the job they are supposed to do. And that they have the knowledge, skills and the ability to be able to do that effectively stopped otherwise we're just going to end regulation that is ineffective and that is not the way we want to move forward.

I think that he makes a good point that this is going to take a long time. I would hope that the general public would recognise that this is a long-term rebuilding programme, because we are rebuilding a lot of very old system and that we have to get it right. It is also why we are going to be bringing up the white paper in the autumn, as quickly as we can, following the publication of the committee. And from that, we will be doing that consultation, that consultation needs to also ensure that it is forming the public as to what we are looking to achieve, what the timescales are going to be, but again we want to bring in a piece of legislation as swiftly as practically possible following that white paper and again that will be part of the discussion as to how we bring people with us, because actually people want to see the water industry cleaned up.
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:38
16:39
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - report stage (day 4) - part one
-

Further consideration and report
16:39
16:40
None Portrait Amendment:147 Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-

that opinion, say, "Content." the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment proposes removing clause 50 down from the bill and clause 50 down from the bill and this will maintain current arrangements in terms of joining the arrangements in terms of joining the trade union since the passage of the act and this is only if they give act and this is only if they give active consent to do so. These existing arrangements are separate existing arrangements are separate from the compromised reached by the political party funding committee. political party funding committee.

The compromise was unions will not The compromise was unions will not lead to obtain consent from existing members and they will only be able members and they will only be able to do it with the consent of new members when they have made an informed choice to do so. All members are to be reminded annually they can change their decision. My they can change their decision. My involvement was not because of political funds but I was asked to political funds but I was asked to chair the committee.

There are chair the committee. There are arguments for and against the clauses when individuals need to exercise the choice. The 2016 compromise looked at the reduction in political funds which would severely damage finances. The then- opposition welcomed the compromise but many members in this House and the House of Commons were disappointed it was not extended to existing members as well. Consequently, I was taken back when the new government wanted to go back to the pre-2016 decision.

All new members are making contributions to political funds unless they choose not to, with reminders only once every 10 years. During the early stage of the bill, several arguments were put forward to justify the change. I find none of them convincing. The first argument is it was merely returning for an arrangement between 1945 and 2016 and many things have changed including review of how to treat customers fairly. It is recognised that in most circumstances customers remember should give consent, especially in situations with active and ongoing participation and we know individuals have been misled and what was acceptable in the past is no longer.

Automatically sailing people up to spend their money is no longer acceptable. Requiring members longer acceptable. Requiring members to act only if they don't wish to contribute is a decision which could skew the outcome in the favour of the union. Exceptions are usually limited to situations where there is clear public benefit people registering their consent and I don't think either situation applies don't think either situation applies here. Also, this was an issue between 1945 and 2016 and it was examined and there was agreement with the unions that they would provide more information about the choice.

During the committee stage of the bill, the second main argument was consideration by trade unions since the introduction of the requirement for members to expressly give consent. Contributions less than desired is not an adequate reason to withdraw the right to consent. It is temptation which will be resisted, as we seen in many areas. We are looking at improving presentation and spending more time educating members about benefits or areas where the financial commitment is not large.

The proposal automatically does not allow them to make contributions consent. To make matters worse, they will only be reminded of the right to reverse the decision every 10 years. Many of us have unwittingly been on the receiving end of this with things like insurance and the trade unions are viewed as collective entities relevant businesses and so the issue of mis-selling does not apply to them. This argument does not hold water either. Members of mutual organisation should be expected to be treated as the same standards as elsewhere and also this is expected.

In my view we should move away from the opt in or opt out language. It is confusing to members, and secondly it is language from a predigital era when paper-based decisions required postage stamps in order, and followed with burdensome obligations on members, given the small sums involved. As I argued at committee stage we should provide a simple digitally based arrangement where members are given an unbiased choice at the point of joining a union. Requiring either a consent box or a I do consent box.

Members consent to make a political contribution or they do not. I asked the noble Baroness the Minister to accept the amendment, to omit this clause and agree to find a solution that moves away from the language of opt out and opt in. I recognise the importance of consent and design look forms. I can't drop the solution myself but the government has the support of those who can. I thought we had put this issue to bed in 2016, little did I, one of the first things the government would do would be to ditch the compromise they readily signed up to under the previous government.

Are they content to see a change in these arrangements each time there is a change of government? For me that
16:47
None Portrait Senior Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

makes no sense at all. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, leave out
16:47
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 59. I rise to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lord Burns. Several noble Lords Lord Lord Burns. Several noble Lords including bespoke at committee stage so I will not repeat the powerful arguments in favour of maintaining the outcome agreed in 2016 that new members should be explicitly asked to make an active choice about whether they wish to contribute to the union's political funds. I agree with the noble Lord, what is it about moving away from the language of opt in and opt out, and moving to discussing the principle of making an active choice, so, but the principle of moving from the opting out and making such contributions to opting in was unanimously accepted by the report from the cross-party Select Committee on trade union political funds and political party funding in 2016.

Support for the principle of making such act of choice has only grown in subsequent years. Opt out has become a less preferred option as it relies on people's inertia and as such most companies and organisations offer their customers an active choice. Indeed noble friend Baroness Cash has highlighted the potential legal issues of an opt out policy. As such, it is astonishing the government would wish to revert to a policy of opting out and take such a regressive step. The compromise agreement in 2016 that subsequent would only work -- apply to new members was sensible and proportionate way of dealing with the potential cliff edge in the reduction of funds.

But importantly, it ensured that in the future members joining trade union will be asked to make an active decision whether they specifically wish the money to support the Labour Party or indeed other political campaigns. This was as the noble Lord Lord Burns has suggested supposed to be a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds. The 2016 Select Committee report warned of the risk to parliamentary democracy if the then government used its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties.

There is a danger now that the Labour Party in order to improve their own finances by seeking to unwind that unanimously agreed principle in new members making an active choice and that has been the case for almost 10 years, they could be potentially be open to the accusation of abusing a trusted accusation of abusing a trusted power for private gain. These are the compelling arguments to support the noble Lord Lord Burns's amendment but I will open another important observation. I listened carefully to the excellent speech of the noble Lord Lord Prentis who I do not know if he is in his place today.

At committee stage. And I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his tireless and renewed negotiations over many years on the behalf of the members of Unison. And the noble Lord Lord Barber who is in his place, were formidable in the defence of their members in the negotiations to reform public sector pensions in the coalition government. I totally understand the noble Lord Lord Prentis's concerned that unions need political funds to run their campaigns. However, and I think the noble Baroness Lady Fox made this point at committee stage, it is not right trade union leaders should be able to pursue their own ethical issues without the need to actively ask their members if they are willing to fund them.

People who join trade unions believe they are join trade unions believe they are running an organisation that exists to defend their rights in the workplace. Many are not paid large salaries. It is surely wrong not to ask those who can potentially least afford it to pay into a political fund without necessarily realising they are doing so. I would argue that the trade union leaders do their members a disservice by relying on their inertia and that they have a duty to make the case for the use of their money for political campaigns.

This is another reason why I support this amendment today which makes the case for retaining active choice so preferences of members can be reflected more accurately. reflected more accurately.
16:51
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
-
I would like to correct in a sense the impression given by Lord Burns of the activity of the Select Committee at the time. I was a member of the Select Committee along with my noble friend Baroness Drake, representing the interests of the Labour Party. Yes, we did agree on a compromise. But the compromise was not seen as a long-term compromise. It was seen as a holding position, until we had an overall review of the financing of political parties in general.

And we both my noble friend Baroness Drake and myself made that point clear, reflected in part on report, and we wanted to get away, as Lord Burns does, from the chances of a few years of a change of government who are actually switching, opting in and opting out option. And that needs to end. I would agree. But only at a time when we take account of the way in which other political parties and indeed the Labour Party itself can be financed by other organisations and institutions.

Unless we look at the financing of a political party as a whole, then any decision by blitzing government is likely to be biased towards the interest of its own political party's funding. I would hope that this government could set out a commission looking at political funding as a whole and until that point I think we should make sure that the long-running effect, as you recognise at the time, of removing the opt in decision, would be in effect to back Labour Party.

We need to look at the totality of political funding and not unravelling this proposition until we have done so. Because some of the ways the Conservative party accepts funds, without the consent of the shareholders of companies, and some of the ways in which individuals give contributions to all political parties, need examination. I would like the front bench to commit to this government and I hope the other parties to such a comprehensive review before we take the swing one way and swing the other an opt out as against opt in.

And I would hope the government can give me some comfort that sometime in this Parliament we will do just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. This is an issue with a long history. In 1909, at the Osborne history. In 1909, at the Osborne Johnston ruled that trade unions could not use the general funds for could not use the general funds for political purposes -- Osborne judgement. Subsequently the Trade judgement. Subsequently the Trade Union Act 1913 was passed by the liberal government led by HH Asquith, to allow trade unions to establish and maintain political funds. These had to be supported in a balance of their members.

Maintained separately from the Maintained separately from the union's general funds. And with the right of members to opt out of contributing to the political front, contributing to the political front, without facing penalties or without facing penalties or disadvantages. Remarkably, apart from the period 1927 up until 1946, from the period 1927 up until 1946, the opt out rights of trade union members, rather than more onerous
16:55
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
members, rather than more onerous opt in requirements, persisted all the way up to 2016. When you trade union members were then required to decide if they want to be opted in -- new trade union members. This is a long way of explaining that for well over a century, the prevailing system of regulating union members rights in respect of that union's political fund has been through their individual to opt out right, if that is their choice. The variations to this dominant model came in 2016 as a result of the excellent work of the noble Lord burns ensuring a Select Committee of this convened to consider this gift you.

Under his skilful leadership, that Select Committee hammered out a consensus that a change should be made by moving to an opt in decision to be made by every new member of a union on the point of joining. In the noble Lord burns makes the argument today that the bill before us should not disturb that 2015 consensus. In particular, he fears that on change of government, to make a change now will provide an excuse for a new government to disturb these arrangements yet again.

I must say, I don't have the confidence to anticipate what the make up of that alternative government might be. That alone the inclination to tamper again with this issue. -- Left alone. It is no criticism of the 2015 report by the Select Committee or the decisions made by its members to note that the agreement that was made was forged in a particular political context, with the alternative to the compromise likely to be the declared intention of the Conservative government of the day, to go for opting in right across the board, including for that millions of existing members.

Not surprisingly, for trade unions, that was regarded as a highly threatening possibility. The political context today are very different opposing returning to the opt out model that has been so dominant for more than a century is reasonable and fair. Likening some of the administering burdens associated with the running of the funds is also desirable in this view Much of the debate on this part of the bill has centred on the role of political funds in supporting the Labour Party.

That is one issue, of course. But it is not the only issue. Only 11 of the TUC affiliated unions also affiliate to the party and make financial contributions to it. 10 other TUC affiliates have also decided to establish political funds, as the only way they can feel confident that they will be insulated against legal challenges. Just like Labour affiliated unions, that members see a host of issues in the political sphere in which they have an interest and want their voice to be heard.

With the views articulated decided through the union vote -- democratic procedures. They too will benefit from the provisions of this bill. Looking all the way back to 2013, where I started, I do wonder how I came to be decided to single out activity in the political world, for this complex set of arrangements around political funds. Unions have a host of functions. They support members collective bargaining, promote opportunities for skills development, represent individuals in grievance and disciplinary issues, provide legal representation when needed.

And naturally, they want to play their part in silver society in contributing to the debates in the sectors in which the members were, where they are deeply invested. And all the other issues that shape the world around us. While this area of work for democratic organisations has to be so closely and differently regulated, in an age now where people can choose to join or not, is to me something of a curiosity. But that is not the issue before us today.

And I hope that the noble Lord burns may be prepared to reconsider and not press his amendment.
17:00
Lord Monks Portrait Lord Monks (Labour)
-
-
I rise to oppose amendment 147. The compromised formula that might have a friend Lord Barber has just talked about was a very practical solution to a tricky problem in the period that Lord Burns and his committee did such good work. But I take issue with his claim that this take issue with his claim that this Any more than an agreement was reached by the factory 1984 and by Lord King of Bridgwater who I am sorry is not in his place today.

With the TUC. On contracting out. And the particular provisions of that were the unions would be obliged to notify people regularly about the right to contract out and the unions that unions communicate with members about. It is with just briefly dwelling on that, stipulated as served as an obligation on unions. We thought we had a lasting settlement then. And we were wrong wintry? In 2016 they come along with a bill to provide the general contracting in.

They did not initially mention the TUC. They did not give any initial examples of any union abuses of that agreement, they made no approaches to the TUC or to any unions about things that were not quite working. The Certification Officer was happy with what was going on. And it seemed to me the going on. And it seemed to me the government at that time was either forgetting about the agreement which they might have done in the time I guess.

The into holding between but also ignoring it as well. And only when I after giving notice to Lord King in this chamber that I was going to raise the question of the agreement and the debate, the initial debate on the bill the government embarked on a frantic quest to find examples of union non-compliance, examples which they did find which were later challenged by the TUC. Anyway the burns committee did its work and came up with a deal and it is a good deal.

But why should it be regarded as permanent any more than the TUC king agreement was regarded as permanent? There is another problem with the burns formula being regarded as permanent. Initially in 2016 the bulk of the union members remained contracted out only. So it was only the new members the unions had to actively recruit. Of course in the past nine years the relative proportions of the contracting out and the contracted in members has changed considerably. Give it another nine years, as it was since the 2016 agreement, there will not be many contracting out members left.

And in effect what will be seen is the burns formula in practical terms become a phased introduction of contracting in. That is just not acceptable. This is not an attack on the burns formula, far from it. But it is of its time, as was the TUC King agreement. The only permanent to this -- permanence to this and the historic issue, which my honourable friend has spoken about is a bitter one, will be a fair agreement on the fundraising of fair agreement on the fundraising of all of the political party as my honourable friend Lord Whitty has spoken about already.

So I oppose the amendment.
17:04
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
It will probably not surprise you I support the amendment. This situation, this cursed -- it has cursed all of the trade union movement's relations with the Labour Party for far too long. As some of you will remember, I am the President of the pilots union. A nonpolitical union that does not have a political fund. Insofar as it has ever been discussed in the union executive, the unanimous conclusion has been to have a political fund would be extremely divisive and not a path we should go down.

So the first point I would like to make is that some people the solution to this situation, all call it a problem, is to pass a simple law saying trade unions cannot make political donations. And that is the way, I mean if we are not prepared to accept this compromise, that is the way we are drifting. We are drifting towards that. Because if you look at the Labour Party accounts, they get far more money from non-trade union sources than they do from trade union sources.

There is one very rich lady who when I went through the accounts, appeared to give more to the Labour Party than all of the trade unions put together. I am not sure she was a British nationality either. -- Of British nationality either. That is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is political funding has got completely out of control. In both parties. We need reform. One of the interesting things is the arguments of the Labour Party appear to be very similar to the arguments of the very similar to the arguments of the diehard conservatives.

Let us wait for a comprehensive reform. Well you are probably not going to get a comprehensive reform. Of political donations. In this way. I would suggest the Burns compromise is a very good compromise. And it has worked and it kept the peace for a long time. There has to be a clear consent to my mind clear consent is a quite reasonable thing. Why should you not ask for a clear consent before you deduct money from people's contributions? It seems like a no-brainer to me.

So I would suggest we leave things in place and suggest we leave things in place and we adopt more Burns amendment -- we adopt Lord Burns amendment and we hope this matter will go to sleep for at least another 10 years. During which time the parties have as much time as they like to come up with reforms. I should remind you the beginning of the House of Lords reform act in 1911, with the historic words pending a full reform.

We are still told by the Conservative party members that what is proposed by the Labour Party for the House of Lords is not a full reform. And I have said and I will say it again, we will never get one. We will never get that agreement. Because I would also like to see a reform on the amount of money people can put into political party. I do not think the people with vast amounts of money putting it into the Conservative party do so because they have no expectation or any sort of reward.

-- For any sort of reward. I think they do it because they think the Conservative party will deliver what they want. Whether that has happened is for them to now judge. The fact of the matter is people do not support political party other than with the aim of changing power and of getting changing power and of getting changes in society. My union general Secretary, a certain Sharon Graham who has my full support. Because for the first time in what I still think of as the TNG that was my original union, AEW Tas.

We have a General Secretary who I think is fully behind the people who are paying his salary. This is something quite different that I think this demand is going to grow. I would say if there was an open ballot with a simple question should we construct and set up a political fund, we probably would not get 10% in favour. Because the whole way in which political funds have developed has not seen by the ordinary branch member as being something that they want to indulge in.

Most of them see it as a sort of slush fund. I am sorry we have to face that. We need to get away from that. So I would ask and hope Lord Burns amendment will be accepted and we will carry on with admittedly the unsatisfactory present system but we will carry on with the present unsatisfactory system until we get this full reform that we have been asking for, but it will be a long time after I have left this place.
17:11
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
The speeches which have been made in this debate about an important issue and they are clear and I strongly support those made on this side of the House. Because of the Constituencies of where the issue arises in the bill and because of the bill, I have a Manuscript amendments, 147 A. People may be scratching their heads but it is a manuscript amendment which has been circulated separately on a different subject comes up at this point of the bill.

It has been brought to my attention by my union, Unite Mac and I need to declare that. It is an issue to all unions. The unions strongly support the provisions in the bill which introduce paid facility time for equality representatives. This is important and it is something unions have campaigned for some years. However there is concern there are some technical problems with the revisions in the bill which is why I need to raise them at this stage.

We are looking at clause 62, which creates the right for paid time off for this new initiative of equality representatives in certain circumstances. And it appears to me there is a deficiency in the bill. In that it says they are entitled to this time off for the purpose of consultation. It is quite clear these representatives will be also involved in negotiation. So my manuscript amendment simply seeks to add negotiating in front of the existing provision of the bill that these quality reps -- quality reps are in the process of consultation.

I hope my noble friend, the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to what is essentially a technical issue but one which I needed to raise at this stage.
17:13
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. I feel like I am in a time warp because I was approached at Committee stage and I tried to get in fact clause 62 dropped. But I want to go back to the discussion we were having on amendment 147 A. I genuinely do not understand, I support this amendment. Because I feel there are very good reasons why the trade union movement should not be frightened of this amendment. And I do not understand the changes that are happening.

Because all the amendment does is it tries to retain at least notionally, control into the hands of trade union members. The decision about where they want their dues to go. Whether they want them to be in a political fund. What possibly could be frightening about that? It means the trade unions at least in theory will have to be kept on their toes and justify why members should opt in and therefore not assume or discern the union's political activity which to be fair is often far removed from workers interests, it is on behalf of their members.

It is simply putting unions into a position where they have to convince the members to opt in. The noble Lord, Lord Byrne reminded us... Sorry. I have been distracted. The noble Lord reminded us at committee one driver of this change or sorry reminded us that at committee one of the drivers that was posed for this changed was why we could not have this amendment and this was because there had been a decline in funds. And of Court -- in fact one of the noble Lord stood up and said since this came in our political funds have gone down.

I made the point and I think it is very important which is whose fault is that? That surely is the trade union leaders fault for not inspiring their members to sign up? I think that is very important. The trade union leaders who are represented on the opposite benches do not forget they have another negation and other trade unions have an obligation to be accountable to their members. This is an amendment I think retains control in rank of The final thing I wanted to say is that the noble Lord asked us to consider the political context of one the agreement came in in 2016.

I'd like us to consider the political context today, and that is that there has been a huge decline in trade union membership, which I would imagine that trade union leaders should be putting their attention to and trying to increase the number of emperors who join trade unions that is what the aim is. There is also within that decline been a shift in priorities that trade unions consider themselves with. -- Number of members. They are eliminated from the kind of political campaigning that trade union leaders are involving themselves in.

It seems to be obsessed, or many trade unions seem to be obsessed with the practice of equality, diversity and inclusion. It's much more akin to HR departments and corporate governments in lockstep with the trade unions over certain issues, much more like a student union than a trade union and so on. I'd like to recommend some recess reading to noble Lords. A new report entitled -- Shop Stewards written by... He -- Shop Stewards written by... He is completely pro-trade unionist, is Paul Embry.

He goes on to argue "I've watched with dismay over recent years as the trade union union movement detached itself. As membership continues to fall and fall, unions increasingly seem to be retreating to their public sector comfort zone and have adopted the ideology of radical progressivism." I think that trade union representatives on the other side of the house should really fight hard to ensure that the political funds of their unions represent their rank and file workers and go out and win the hearts and minds of those workers, rather than using a technocratic way of getting their money in in defiance of the choice of their union members.

The 2016 compromise was a democratic compromise that now trade unionist should be scared of. It should be a spare run rather than the complacency of saying "Fix it so we get more money and don't let the rank-and-file members decide." That is antidemocratic, and the trade union and the words of trade union bureaucrats, not members. bureaucrats, not members.
17:19
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
I raised to support the amendment 147 in the name of Lord Burns. I'm conscious of time passing this afternoon. We've got a lot to get through. I'd like to make a couple of points. We spoke at committee stage about this. Freedom of association under Article 11 which is now incorporated into our own law includes the right not to be forced into political association or compelled to subsidise political causes as well as the right to do causes as well as the right to do so.

The court found that even in direct, indirect compulsion, and that is a mechanism of opt out, as was found in one of those cases, where individuals are financially or contractually locked into supporting ideological activity, even temporarily, however short that period is is incompatible with Article 11. Worse than that, these principles have been shown under a lot of research to damage the well- being of employees. Union affiliation with a political party increases a perception of coercion increases a perception of coercion and that is a field study conducted by Taylor and Bain in 2019.

The intrusion of party political activism into the workplace, whether through political fund, visible partisan campaigns or even just union communications incidentally, has been shown to undermine employee well-being, trust and cohesion. It's impacting on mental performance and note already the problem this country has with sickness benefits. To do this and to regress to a position of opt out will have the most negative of effects and wide most negative of effects and wide reaching. I support the amendment.

reaching. I support the amendment.
17:22
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
The house heard the legal argument between myself and the noble Lady. Not again, that's right. At committee. I have to say those cases do not support the proposition that the noble Lady advances. The case of young, James and Webster concerned three railway workers who are compelled to join a trade union against their wishes. The European Court of human rights held they should not be compelled at the risk of losing their jobs. It had nothing to do with making political payments or being associated with a political I thank the noble Lord for giving way.

You're quite right that that is what the case was about. But one of the judgements in that case was the absence of a refund mechanism. I do recall a rather fun debate between the noble Lord and myself at committee stage which I will not repeat today. It is really important that this is clarified. Article engaged -- article 11 is engaged. The European Court found that it engages Article 11 where there is no refund mechanism. If the Labour Party or ability -- or a political fund retains the subscription for even a second, you have engaged unlawfully with Article 11.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The difference is that if you are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The difference is that if you are a member of a trade union, you can leave the trade union. There is no compulsion to remain a member of the trade union. If you don't like trade union. If you don't like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paying the political... I will intervene once more. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will intervene once more. I don't want us to repeat our ping- pong at Committee between the two of us. We can take it outside, as they us. We can take it outside, as they say. It is, of course, completely normal for peers, noble Lords in this house to disagree at times. What I'm not saying and I want to What I'm not saying and I want to clarify this, I'm not saying that this compel someone to remain a this compel someone to remain a member of the union.

That's not what is happening here. During the way that this bill is drafted, allows that this bill is drafted, allows the payment to be taken by the union and provides for no refund and provides for no refund mechanism. There is a minimum period mechanism. There is a minimum period of a month where the notification of the opt out is received, and there the opt out is received, and there is then a permissible further cycle of salary allowed before the subscription is stopped.

There is no mechanism for refund. So, in any opt out, the union keeps some money of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unlawful. I will try to finish the point in just a couple of sentences. The just a couple of sentences. The point is that somebody who doesn't like paying the political subscription can simply leave the subscription can simply leave the union. Of the object to it, that is what they can do. It is that freedom which is protected by Article 11 of which is protected by Article 11 of the European Convention and which is ratified in a whole number of cases.

I'd love to take it outside with the I'd love to take it outside with the noble Lady. I'd love to have a drink noble Lady. I'd love to have a drink and discuss these cases. I'd like to make one further point. That is that the suggestion was made by the noble the suggestion was made by the noble the suggestion was made by the noble Lord Lord Balfe that perhaps a trade union should be barred from making political payments at all. It's an political payments at all.

It's an interesting argument which nobody else has advanced, but it does remind us of the point that my noble remind us of the point that my noble friend, Lord Barber, made that the friend, Lord Barber, made that the requirement to have elliptical fund introduced in 1909 is a requirement which is imposed on no other organisation in this country. Companies do not have to have separate political funds. They do not have to ballot their members, the shareholders. They don't have to answer to anybody in making a political donation.

It's only trade unions that are required to hold political funds with all the paraphernalia of opting in or opt out. I must say I was contemplating but I never did it, perhaps I should have done. Moving an amendment that trading in should be relieved of having political funds at all. It was a requirement which answered the landlord's decision in 1909. Osborne and the amalgamated Society of Railway servants, eight years after the foundation of the Labour Party to bar trade unions from funding the political party that they had just launched.

If we got rid of trade union political funds, we wouldn't be having this argument at all.
17:27
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to Lord Burns amendment and to my own amendment. In so doing, I must congratulate Lord Burns on this amendment. I remember the date -- debate that we held at the time. There is no question about it. Every side of the debate compromise. I remember ministers from the other place telling us that we had to compromise and we had to make concessions that we did not feel were right. And the deal was done. And the deal still deal was done.

And the deal still holds. Rather than making this piecemeal change that this bill proposes, if there are to be dramatic changes, and I accept that times have moved on and funding for the Labour Party is largely from individuals rather than unions, but nevertheless, if we are to make changes, then let's look at them all round rather than in this piecemeal round rather than in this piecemeal way. Companies cannot make donations to a political party, any political party, without prior shareholder approval in the period of a year.

Not 10 years. When you're. That approval only lasts one year and has to be refreshed at the annual general meeting. Noble Lords can seek the counsel of any public company to see that that is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case. It is true but it does not require a ballot of shareholders, individual shareholders. It's a vote individual shareholders. It's a vote individual shareholders. It's a vote once a year when ever. It is not a ballot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ballot. Every shareholder gets a mailing, get a piece of paper with a box to tick, every single shareholder every year. If that's not a ballot, then I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't know what is. I wonder, do they get an opt out facility, shareholders, from political donations that the company

**** Possible New Speaker ****

political donations that the company is making on behalf of the owners of the company? They can certainly vote against it. Absolutely. Very much so. That happens, actually, quite regularly. The situation is exactly the reverse to the one put forward from the to the one put forward from the benches opposite. My focus is on benches opposite. My focus is on clause 77, which Baroness Fox has highlighted. It is a complicated highlighted. It is a complicated clause, clause 77, it refers as to the trade union and consolidations the trade union and consolidations the trade union and consolidations -- Trade Union Labour Relations Act.

This was set up to protect the unions because the law did not allow them to make donations directly. The political fund allows donations to political party but this clause requires details of any political expenditure to be disclosed in the annual return to the certification officer, and that is what the bill wants to get rid of. It was brought in as a section 12 of the trade unions act. And passing, I would say that personally I have no objection whatsoever to any union whose members and union wishes to give money to a political party.

Good luck to them. Why not? An earlier debate, on 10 June, my noble friend claimed that information was disclosed on union website and elsewhere. That does not seem to be the case at all. I've looked at the website of unions and I cannot find it. There is a requirement under section 32A to disclose information to members but does not include information on specific payments from the political fund. It simply from the political fund. It simply Baroness Jones, the noble lady of Whitchurch said, I'm upset you To include the little funds available to all mums in the usual way.

That is the usual requirement. And then moved on. I do not think that is quite right all the point. Indeed she subsequently wrote to my noble friend on 25 June, a copy of which is in the library. Correcting the impression given to the House. She confirms clause 77 will have the effect of removing the requirement for trade unions to include certain information about their political expenditure as outlined in section 32, Z, B. Removing them from the annual returns they submit to the Certification Officer.

It turns out the situation is exactly as set out in this clause 77 in front of us will mean payments out of the political fund wealthier running become hidden. -- Would hereon in become hidden. The payments I found looking in union accounts such as the payment to the Marx Memorial library the Palestinian solidarity campaign will be hidden from the people who provided those very funds. From union members let alone from the rest of us. I'm not sure if it is the noble Lady Baroness Jones or Lord Katz he was replying to this -- who is replying to this but I ask if they are happy that as union members money they have contributed to Minister for the Union are going to be paid -- money they have contributed to the union are going to be paid...

Lord Katz is wearing the yellow lapel like the yellow ribbon on his lapel but is it appropriate funds should be used to subsidise a cause they cannot avoid indeed any other cause? We know Unite for example wants to make all sorts of other payments. You know that from the material issue in May 23 by Unite Mac -- by Unite to ask its members to vote on the political ballot. It will not just be used to support labour which is perfectly proper but Unite selected executive Council has complete carte blanche as to where the money is to be spent.

If it gives money to a political party or to an MP that of course will be closed and Electoral Commission of returns. But if it gives it to other causes which many of its members may be uncomfortable with, they will simply not know. It is not just Unite of course, their accounts may not be typical because they are having issues in the connection with corruption to which their credit, their leadership has today recognised. But that sorry episode of the corruption reminds us disclosure is all.

It is the sunshine of disinfectant -- that sunshine is the disinfectant of disclosure for the before look at other unions like FBU, in 2023 we can see again expenditure on the Palestinian solidarity campaign and stop the War campaign. And the University and College Union for example is donating to the Cuba Solidarity campaign. And Justice for Colombia. I am not sure what they need but that is where they chose to spend their money. We will not know where they spend their money next time round.

I remind noble Lords of the do not support this amendment all such payments from hereon remain hidden which is why I cannot understand the resistance to these amounts being disclosed and to my amendment. I note some of the payments from the fund are used on excellent campaigns like the fair tips campaign and from the hospitality sector but that could come out of the general fund. In June Baroness Jones said the political amount across the calendar year is a politically -- is a relatively small figure and I agree with her but I think there seems to be a confusion.

Section 32 allows for some below 32,000 not to be disclosed which I think is very. What we would expect to see and wish to see is disclosure of payment above £2000. And I think she has got this the wrong way round in her letter. By subsequent amendment 150 to Be refers to clause 78. Which removes from the Certification Officer the right to enforce annual return requirements. And that gave the Certification Officer the power to make a declaration that trade union has failed to comply with the Trade Union Act 2016.

Why the government want to do that other than blindly led by its paymasters or former paymasters to do the union's bidding. Given the confusion from her earlier letter and the arguments I have made earlier on, I very much hope this House will support my amendment and I intend to test its opinion. test its opinion.
17:37
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I stand to speak on the amendment 149 in my name regarding a broad workforce support. I was born and brought up in a working-class community specifically built to supply workers to build aircraft. It was a very large organisation employing thousands of people. As a teenager I was lucky enough to get a job there. But I worked for a contract which was not unionised. I remember going on the first day and going to the works campaign and I was asked two questions.

I am member of the union? And am I a Tory? The answer to that question was no to the first and to the second one I did not quite know because I was not sure yet and perhaps I did turn out to be a Tory. I was asked to leave if I was not a member of a union and I was asked to leave the canteen so I did leave. It was a time where a working-class community, I was asked later by family and friends and relatives who worked at this factory why I did not go to the canteen.

When I explained to them I was not made welcome on the first day, they asked who said you could not come in? And when I explained to them who it was they said go do not take any union -- any notice of him, he is the head of the union. And then I started to realise one or two things about trade unions. The noble Lord reminded me there was a pecking order within the workforce. What I learned there was different trade unions represent different skill sets.

I do recall because it was aircraft if you were an electrician you were a member of TAS and you were, they regarded themselves as superior trade unionists. Then you have the mechanical engineers and you have the aircraft engineers. Some things have not changed. Then you have the aircraft fitters and so on and so forth and several different unions representing members. They said some are more militant than others and so what I learned as a very young man was some unions are more militant than others and a very small group of people could bring a whole aircraft plan -- plant to a halt.

I remember crossing a picket line. I was not a member of a trade union but I was a contractor and a small group of trade unionists brought the plant to a halt and I turned up to work and wanted to go through the gates and I was barred. But I was always taught to stand up to bullies. So I insisted on going through the gates and I did indeed walk through the gates and I can remember to this day, it is 45 years ago, the abuse I received as I walked through those gates.

To work as a young teenager. I still recall because every time I go to Conservative party conference I get a very similar amount of abuse. Some things have not changed. Lord Barber, you rightly pointed out trade unions a force for good because they do look after their members in so many ways. Nobody across this House would argue with that. The point of my amendment is a small group of militant colleagues on the Trade Union Side can bring the whole factory to a fault or a whole organisation.

Throughout this debate we have talked about SMEs. In this case I am talking about very large organisations. It is the intimidation of the minority that affects the majority is the point I am making. Eliminating the 50% turnout threshold strike ballots would significantly lower the bar for industrial action. Allowing strikes to proceed if only a small minority of the workforce participates. This creates unpredictability, challenges the business continuity and planning. The substantial disruption could occur based on the votes of very limited number of employees.

In sectors where products are highly perishable, including distribution of medicines or those with just-in- time supply chains, ease of initiating industrial action increases the risk of industrial action supply chain interruptions and some products have a limited shelf life, strikes a disc centres could lead to critical shortages with direct consequences for public health. And patient care. The industries that rely on seasonal and production cycle such as money factoring just addition of vaccines removing the threshold affects the delicate timing and mandatory risk.

Even short periods of industrial action could jeopardise the ability to meet strict production targets and delivering their lines which would affect public security. Lowering the risk of strike action could deter domestic and international investment investors typically seeking business environments with stable industrial relation framework. The potential for unpredictable strikes may lead to perceptions of elevated operational risk, discouraging long-term commitment to cross multiple sectors -- across multiple sectors. A robust threshold may undermine in just relations by encouraging strike action like industry relations by encouraging strike action with broad support amongst colleagues.

It could reduce trust between managers and staff and ultimately affecting organisation productivity and the wider economy. I grew up in the 1970s. We do not want to go back to the 1970s. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly to talk to
17:42
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly to talk to amendment 149 A. And also 149, moved amendment 149 A. And also 149, moved very ably by my noble friend. He is absolutely right about the qualified percentage. Not long ago I was thumbing through my copy of the Labour Party rules as you do, the template rules of the Labour Party and I did notice that regional executive council meetings of that party have a quorum of 33% in terms of any decisions made in the deliberations of that committee.

It seems to me if the Labour Party is going to impose a less than 50% and certainly less than 33% marker for decisions being made internally, then I think it is odd it does not seem to take a similarly robust attitude towards important decisions made that affect many workers in industrial landscapes. And industrial relations. 149 A is an amendment that addresses a very perverse consequence, which is the decision to, in terms of clause 72, that is to remove proper organised supervision of industrial disputes.

In the industrial landscape that we have at the moment. It seems to me pretty odd there does not appear to be a rationale for this. It does seem sensible and prudent for us to be in a position where trade union officials are responsible for ensuring there is an orderly management of industrial disputes. And it does not seem to be that a case has been made by Ministers either at committee or in Second Reading as to why it is necessary.

Other than demands from the trade unions to remove that particular part of previous legislation. Because on this side of the House we have always taken the view as my noble friend has said and others have said and I know we have debated trade union activity right back to other eras previously but we have voice believes it is important for workers to be able to organise in their own interests, in order to improve their conditions, pay in particular. And working conditions.

It does seem odd to me that in its haste to support the demands of the trade unions this particular provision which is to remove proper well-organised trade union supervision of industrial dispute is going to be removed. And so I do support the amendment made in the name of my noble friend, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. And Lord Hunt of Wirral. Because the case has not been made, it will actually backfire. It will have disorder, you will have an acrimonious relationship in some of these industrial disputes.

I think the Minister should think very carefully about whether this is a sensible way forward in removing this in terms of clause 72. Removing the provision for proper, orderly well-organised supervision of industrial disputes and strike

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to support the
17:46
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
amendments in this group and I'd like to speak particularly to some of the amendments. On the amendment to remove clauses 59, Lord Byrne 's, I think people will ask how can it be that in a democracy a payment is automatically deducted from membership fees for a political fund? That is a democratic question. How is it that it can go to one political party, if it goes, and I take the point about affiliated unions and different purposes for which the political funds are used, but we are being asked, as a Parliament, to pass legislation which has a direct impact on the party opposite.

I can't think there is a similar arrangement by trade unions for any other political party. And willing to be put wise. It's a sectional problem as well. -- I am willing to be put wise. The whole group of amendments are amendments which seek to tackle workplace democracy under this bill, to use the law and promote powers and funds of trade unions, despite their shrinking membership. There are 11% of them in the private sector. Businesses which command practically the whole productive economy of this country and 30% in the public sector, so 20% in all.

Yet these unions are being pivoted into power with automatic funding from their members for political purposes and I think it is wrong that this should happen and be a matter of law for us to pass. In Lord Burns's amendment, to remove 59, we see the automatic payment deducted from the membership fees. It undermines any claim which the government makes that it is good for workers, this bill. It is the sort of sharp practice that is not only discredited in other walks of life but in this context, it brings disrepute on the unions, on the government, and on this Parliament, unless it emits clause 59.

Otherwise, people in the country will rightly feel that the Labour government has in the matter of so- called rights used these -- used this bill and other measures I hasten to add to pave it one minority in this country to a position of dominance in our economy and workforce. -- Pivot one minority. I also support Lord Leigh's amendment, to omit clauses 77 and 78, because I think in the interests of transparency, we need working people, trade union members, everybody, we need to see in the annual returns what the political funds are spent on.

Lord Leigh of Hurley has referred to some of them. Of course, there are other political purposes for which they are used. Surely, it is in everybody's interest that we have transparency on what, just as the Certification Officer should have enforcement powers. And in the same vein, Lord Mance's amendment -- -- Lord Evans 's amendment. Any decision on action should be retained. Without these safeguards for democracy in the workplace and for democracy in our economy, in fact, and in the whole country, we make a laughingstock of the idea if we pivot a minority into this false position of power over a majority of the people, either concerned in the ballot, concerned in giving money or concerned in having their returns properly transparent.

And I don't like the totalitarian thread of this bill. Times have moved on since the days of Henry Asquith and all the times when the trade unions represented working people when the industrial economy was at the heart of Britain's economy, but today, we have moved on. Times have changed. Working practices have changed. Safeguards for people who pay money have changed, and today we see a service economy of roughly 80%, a productive economy of roughly 20%.

In this way, I really do think that all of the amendments in this group matter and I particularly support those to omit clause 59, omit clauses 77 and 78, and remove the threshold, reverses the attempt by the government to remove the 50% threshold for decisive action.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise with some trepidation to follow that 70 minutes of riveting
17:52
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
follow that 70 minutes of riveting debate. Members may argue that's the point of this house. That's what we do. We could have just put on the tape recording from Committee Stage and pleaded for the same amount of time. It is the same views being expressed again and again. I will try to be as brief as possible. We will support the noble Lords amendment because the opt in system is the best because it maximises transparency.

Individuals need to understand what the funds are being used for. Amendment 148 in Lord Sharpe's name. The bill would remove this threshold entirely meaning that a trade union could vote on strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We discussed similar amendments at Committee Stage and we discussed democracy and the democratic validity of strike action. We also discussed when taking strike action is suitable, especially when risks are being put on public services.

Amendment 149 is a new amendment which removes clause 72 from the bill. We cannot support this because only on Monday I did support Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe when we were very critical of the government for bringing amendments government for bringing amendments to Report Stage. And yet, this amendment has been tabled today or yesterday. It had no time for discussion or debate. It had no time for people to understand the nuances of it. We do know it takes a big chunk out of the government's manifesto pledge bill and that does not seem fair to me.

In our view, legislation it should be done through constructive amendments. And if you do that, you end up with a compromise, whether it is through ping-pong or persuading the Minister to change their point of view. It's like a sledgehammer. Is some good politics, it's not good for the House, it's not good for members. Amendments come into the House all the time. When you hear an amendment like 149 which sounds reasonable but it is not reasonable. It takes an enormous chunk out of the government's bill.

That cannot be right for democracy. If it is in the manifesto, we should be mindful of that and move legislation via amendments rather than trying to remove chunks of legislation. On that basis, we will not be supporting 149 A.
17:56
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
On balance, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I rise to speak to my amendment 148, 149 A, 149ZA. Before I do that, can I thank Lord Burns for his commonsense amendment. We think political contributions must always be a matter of choice, not a default. That seems to us a fair and democratic principle. Really, the Government ought to listen. I was pleased to see the Attorney General was in his face to listen to the excellent argument advanced by my noble friend Baroness Cass which all pertain to international law.

I hope he was paying attention. If Lord Burns decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. Turning to amendment 148, Wes Streeting remarked ratted pointedly -- rather pointedly that despite the fact that the majority of doctors did not vote for strike action, the BMA are preparing for strike action and it is unnecessary. Who can blame them? Strikes are happening under the existing law and this government proposes to remove the 50% threshold, the very last democratic safeguard to make sure that strikes have substantial backing.

A small minority will be allowed to cripple public services. It is public services we are talking about because that is where the bulk of union members are. One has to wonder whether the government agrees with whether the government agrees with the Secretary. Will Mr stating be -- Streeting invited to correct his Streeting invited to correct his error in public? Turning to amendments 149A and 150A, and I'm grateful to Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his words.

Earlier this month, Lord Tebbit died after a long period of illness. One of his legacies was turning around an unemployment crisis that peaked at 11.5% in 1982. Thanks to the reforms introduced under his watch, the rate fell sharply thereafter. The success was later acknowledged, even by the Blair and Brown Romans who accepted the new consensus, a fair balance between workers right and the flexibility that businesses need. It was Lord Tebbit who warned us all that we do not intend to see again scenes of intimidation, of mass picketing and political strikes which disfigured a country in the 1970s.

That warning remains as relevant today as it was then. Supervision of picketing is an essential safeguard. It ensures that industrial action remains peaceful, lawful and accountable. Removing these provisions as the government proposes risks returning to chaos and intimidation of the past, as described so ably by Lord Evans. Turning to 149ZA. This is crucial from -- for protecting airlines from financial risk. Lord Furniss raised this issue. The committee debate was very related -- late and truncated in the Minister's response was Under current law, airlines must give at least 14 days notice to avoid costly compensation claims under passenger rights legislation, namely UK 261 unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

The ruling of the European Court of Justice made it clear that a strike by airlines on staff is not considered extraordinary circumstance. This amendment protects airlines from having to pay hundreds of millions in compensation for cancellations caused by strikes. Reducing the period to 10 days would expose airlines to up to four more days of compensation burden. This would be passed on to passengers, making family holidays even more expensive for working people. This amendment ensures the 14 days notice period remains for industrial action affecting airlines and it aligns industrial relations with passenger rights, protecting UK businesses Lord Lord Katz Lord Katz did Lord Katz did not Lord Katz did not have Lord Katz did not have a Lord Katz did not have a logical argument as this sector has a rule that does not apply to any others therefore it is entirely consistent with the level playing field.

It is the contradiction legislation that the contradiction legislation that puts it is a disadvantage. -- Them at a disadvantage. I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Lea seeking to remain a requirement for trade unions to support the political expenditures in their annual returns. I shall support him too should you wish to call a division.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have had an extensive debate which does feel a bit like another day at the bit like another day at the committee we all want to move on so I will try and be as brief as possible. If I first speak to possible. If I first speak to amendment 147 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I would like to thank Lord Burns for the ongoing engagement we had on the topic of engagement we had on the topic of the political funds throughout the progress of this goal.

In this House was -- of this bill in this House. In drafting this bill we have been mindful of the lessons learned by the conclusions of the Lord Burns committee on trade union political funds and political party funding. I am also grateful to my noble friend, am also grateful to my noble friend, Lord Monks, Lord Barber and Lord Whitty for reminding us that compromise at that time was not compromise at that time was not intended to be a long-term arrangement. Particularly because of the imbalance then which still exists in the political party funding.

It has yet to be addressed.
18:02
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
funding. It has yet to be addressed. In the meantime the government believes the 2016 act places an unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiating dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. So we are seeking to redress this balance and remove the burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. This is why the repeal of the 2016 act was a manifesto commitment. By reverting back to the automatic opt in for new members we have certainly -- we are simply returning to a long-standing precedent which was only altered by the previous government through the 2016 act.

Prior to this automatic opt in has been in place for 70 years. Even during the Thatcher and major administrations. The noble Lady, Baroness cash raised the issue of article 11 and I would say to her the government is confident our measures relating to the political funds comply with article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11 provides the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form a joint trade union for the protection of their interests.

Unlike subscriptions in the private sector, when we speak about unions and their political funds we are ultimately talking about voluntary organisations. Whose members have willingly come together to represent their collective interests. Political funds are one such mechanism unions can utilise to further their shared goals. I would say to noble Lords, the political funds are not just about affiliations political parties. They can allow unions to participate and campaign on a range of issues and members interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, product public campaigns developing policy ideas and travel expenses for members to attend Parliament give evidence on issues they face at work.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Union I am President of does all of those things without political funds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

political funds. I would say to the noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say to the noble Lord the political campaigning which he will know is very clearly spelt out already in the legislation does require some of these issues to be require some of these issues to be spayed for -- to be paid for out of political funds. My only union, political funds. My only union, Unison operates two separate political funds as my noble friend explained at committee stage. One explained at committee stage. One which was related to the party political affiliation and one to the political affiliation and one to the wider campaigning role.

Of course not all political party campaign and is deaf campaign payments have gone to the little party, they have gone to other candidates as well. The to other candidates as well. The payments must be established through the democratic structure of the union. These same structures make union. These same structures make unions accountable to their members who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape others democratic process to shape others political funds are utilised. -- How those political funds are utilised.

They are a joint decision where They are a joint decision where members will be allowed to opt out of political fund contributions. We have been careful to draft the bill to ensure new members will be able to notified and continue to be notified of the opt out on the membership form when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns committee the membership form will also make it clear opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership.

These changes should help to address concerns trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund under the system that existed pre-2016. If members wish to exercise this right to opt out they are free to do so at any time. We are not altering the arrangement for existing union members, if they decide to join a union with the knowledge they would be opting out of political fund contributions then they will continue to be opted out with the Employment Rights Bill passes.

As I hope I have explained automatic opt in will reduce administrative burden on unions and will still allow members to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. If I now speak to amendment 148 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and amendment 149 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold is not in line with the government intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation.

A framework that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respect unions democratic mandates. My Lords, the 50% threshold is a high bar which is not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in parliament, votes for MPs and local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold and are not thereby considered any less legitimate. Indeed most local elections are contested with the turnout below 50% and I am sure a number of noble Lords here have previously been councillors and have been elected on a less than 50% turnout.

For the most part the means general companies for meetings require a turnout threshold. So those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and they will have their voices heard in the normal way for. The government have been clear about intentions to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, including industrial action ballot thresholds. And these amendments will prevent the government delivering on this manifesto commitment and I have to say to the noble Lord, I was very pleased to hear his support for upholding our manifesto commitments and I would remind him of that when they come to vote on these particular matters and amendments.

The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulation at a future date. With the intention this is aligned with the establishment of eBay letting as an option McKee balloting as an option for trade unions. Together -- together with securing$$JOIN... It will ensure industrial action mandates have multiple support. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom of course as I would have expected talked about the Doctor strike and I would say the Secretary of State has held constructive meetings with the BMA resident doctors to try and avert strike action.

By discussing how we can work together to improve the working lives of resident doctors. However the BMA have refused to engage in further discussions and have instead chosen to proceed with their planned strikes. Our view is strikes have a serious cost to patients and so once again we urge BMA to call them off and instead work together to improve members working conditions and to continue rebuilding the NHS. My Lords, turning to amendment 149 Said A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe the government have made it clear it does not intend to make sectoral carve outs for the limitations and conditions that apply to industrial action.

This is demonstrated by our repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act act and the repeal of the 40% threshold for industrial action ballots will both of which would remove further conditions on industrial action in some public services. Ensuring statutory notice periods for industrial action are consistent across every sector will ensure the rules are straightforward and clear to all parties involved in industrial action in every circumstance. It is then for employers in each sector to be mindful of these rules and to manage the industrial relations and businesses accordingly.

I also want to make it clear repeal of the 14 day notice period forms part of our manifesto commitment to reverse the Trade Union Act 2016 for following the outcome of our public consultation on creating a modern framework for industrial relations we decided 10 day notice period the strikes was the appropriate balance between giving employers time to prepare whilst upholding the right to strike. 10 days notice is also a minimum notice, not a maximum period and employers will be able to plan for industrial action long before receipt of a notice.

Our approach is not an outlier. The UK will also provide one of the longer industrial action notice period in Europe. Many European countries have shorter or no notice requirements on industrial action. Asked also requiring airlines to comply with the EU version of regulation 261, 22 -- 261, 2004. We are aware this regulation 261 is where an airline may be payable to passengers compensation if they miss a flight two weeks before scheduled departure. Even under the current 14 day industrial action notice period, in practice airlines may still be liable to pay compensation if they need to cancel flights due to industrial action.

Turning to amendment 149 A and 150 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good faith negotiations with employers. This is why we are substantially repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 and fixing the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers employers or unions in the meantime. Legislation governing picket lines is of course essential.

Can I be clear we are only repealing those additional measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 26 team. In relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Substantially repealing this act is also a manifesto commitment. Other legislation relating to picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location, must be peaceful and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. The existing Code of Practice on picketing once updated to remove the requirement for a picketing supervisor will continue to support the legislation on picketing.

Together these are sufficient to ensure the operation of peaceful picketing. My Lords, the government impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 which was published in October 2024, set out the expected impact of the removal of the requirement for a picketing supervisor and is available for all to read. The assessment shows limited evidence of serious problems on the picket lines serious problems on the picket lines prior to the introduction of the 2016 act and there remains limited evidence of problems on picket lines in more recent years.

It concluded there is therefore unlikely to be a legal requirement of the point of picketing supervisor will have a noticeable effect on the impact of picketing during this dispute or future disputes. There is nothing more to add that assessment. We are simpler returning to the law on picketing -- simply returning to the law what it was on picketing prior to 2016 it was understood by all parties. Turning to amendments 152 A and 150 to Be tabled by the noble Lord and I think on previous occasions, the noble Lord has reminded us of his role as the Treasurer of the Conservative party although he did not on this occasion.

Clause 77 and 78 of the bill which these requirements would remit -- would admit...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. As the noble Lady is aware, positions that do not require financial renumeration do require financial renumeration do not need to be declared but that I did in fact make that declaration at Second Reading. And at Committee Second Reading. And at Committee stage. Therefore the declaration is required. -- Therefore no further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declaration is required. I think that is the point I was making. I was just reminding the noble Lord and he could have reminded us I think on this occasion given I think his, a number of his points are very much party political points. Clause 77 and 78 of the bill which these requirements, these which these requirements, these amendments would emit removes burdensome requirements and implications on union imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. This redtape Trade Union Act 2016.

This redtape works against trade union core role of negotiating dispute resolution. of negotiating dispute resolution. Which is why we made a manifesto commitment to repeal the Trade Union commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. In relation to clause 77, trade unions will continue to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer. However the Certification Officer. However the amount of information required in that return will be less. The annual that return will be less. The annual return will continue to include information relating to the governance of finance of the trade union, including the management of their political funds as they have done for many years.

The Certification Officer will continue to be required to make this information available for public inspection. The requirement for unions to report specific details of political expenditure is unnecessarily burdensome. Unions are already accountable for their membership to political expert to. We are not changing the requirement on unions to provide an annual statement to members and specifiers amongst other things the total income and expenditure of the union's political fund. In relation to clause 78, there is no need for the certification Officer to retain powers to investigate requirements that no longer exist when this bill is passed.

The Certification

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She said unions will be required to report to the Certification to report to the Certification Officer gross amounts of income and expenses? Can she be clear that there will be no requirements to there will be no requirements to disclose expenses made within any organisation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organisation? My understanding is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding is that political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending their money but not for spending their money but not for sums under £2000. The certification officer will continue to be able to officer will continue to be able to enforce annual return requirements.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforce annual return requirements. I'd like to -- we don't want to have a record something that is incorrect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

incorrect. That's what I said. We are simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's what I said. We are simply returning to the situation as it was returning to the situation as it was before 2016. I would add that the unions are already specifically regulated in the requirement to have a separate fund for spending on political purposes that are subject to many roles. There is no such requirement in many other membership organisations. If I now turn to amendment in the name of Lord Davies relating to clause 62 on equality representatives. Trade unions have long fought for equality .Recognise that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members as well as developing collective policies and practices that enable organisations.

Subsection 2A provides for the purpose of equality representatives to take paid time off for carrying out duties for promoting the value of equality in the workplace. In addition, subsection 2C makes provision for providing support in relation to matters relating to equality. 2D Makes provision for consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace. Finally, equality representatives may also be eligible for time off under section 168 of the 1992 act which includes time off negotiations relating or connected to matters relating to section about collective bargaining.

We believe these measures are broad enough to include a range of activities which encompass collective bargaining, negotiating with employers and representatives -- representing members. That ends my dealing with the amendment and in the meantime I ask Lord Burns to withdraw amendment 147. 147.
18:19
18:21
18:23
None Portrait Division:Amendment:147
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The the contrary say, "Not content". The contents will go to the right of the contents will go to the right of the throne, the not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted There have voted contents, There have voted contents, 290.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents, 290. Not content, 143. The contents have Amendment 147 Amendment 147 A Amendment 147 A on Amendment 147 A on the Amendment 147 A on the supplementary sheet. Lord Davies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sheet. Lord Davies. Not move. -- Moved. Clause 63, amendment 148, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 63, amendment 148, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe of Epsom. We hear from workplace democracy from the government benches and then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we hear this. So yes I would like to test the opinion of the House. The question is the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The not contents have it. The question will be decided by division. I will
18:36
None Portrait Division
-

be decided by division. I will advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. My Order. My Lords. Order. My Lords. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords. Order! The question is the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted, There have voted, content There have voted, content to hundred and 71. Not contents 138. hundred and 71. Not contents 138. hundred and 71. Not contents 138. Amendment Amendment 149, Amendment 149, Lord Amendment 149, Lord Evans, Amendment 149, Lord Evans, not Amendment 149, Lord Evans, not moved. Amendment 149ZA, Lord Sharpe moved. Amendment 149ZA, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved.

Amendment 149A, Lord Sharpe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Sharpe. I would like to test the opinion of the house. The question is that of the house. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Those in the contrary say, "Not content". I think the contents have it. The question will be decided by division. I will notify the house when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords! The My Lords! The question My Lords! The question is My Lords! The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords! The question is that the amendment be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents will go to the right of the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have been My Lords, there have been an equality of votes which provides that no proposal to amend the bill shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such majority in favour of such amendment. I declare the amendment After After clause After clause 72, After clause 72, amendment After clause 72, amendment 150, After clause 72, amendment 150, Lord Hendy.
18:57
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hendy. This amendment is a reproduction of the amendment on the second reaction, which I moved in Committee. Your Lordships, of Committee. Your Lordships, of course, art -- are too polite to give expressions of the collective give expressions of the collective groan. I do move the amendment again for two particular reasons. One, because the issue raises an important factors of which I'll remind your Lordships briefly in a moment. Secondly, because support for it from various unions and the resistance to it by the Government in Committee and I surmise today in a report gives the lie to the repeated allegation that this government is a puppet manipulated by the trade unions.

This amendment contains six measures aimed at restoring statutory protection for solidarity action, which subsisted between 1906 and 1984. As before, I'm grateful for the support of various unions. Your Lordships will be pleased that I won't rehearse the arguments I made in the Committee. Save to remind the house of two. Firstly, solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association, which is the jurors production -- juris prudential of trade union freedom. It is the very essence of trade unionism.

Solidarity between workers is not confined to the happenstance of an employer identity, especially in the light of the fragmentation of enterprises in recent years. Secondly, the issue is one of the rule of law. Lord Bingham's eight principal requires compliance with international treaty obligations ratified by each state. Those obligations are elaborated by the supervisory bodies established by the relevant treaty to which the state adheres. Their decisions are as much part of international law as the treaty which authorised them.

The right to strike is guaranteed by ILO Convention 87 and by the European and Social Chart of 61. The decisions of the supervisory bodies of each hold that a prohibition on second reaction by a ratifying state violates these respective provisions. The United Kingdom, of course, has ratified both ILO Convention 87 and article 64 of the European Social Charter 1961. The UK is also represented on both the ILO supervisory committees, the committee of experts and the committee of association.

From time to time, it also has appointed a representative to the European Committee on Social Rates. -- This was endorsed at the conference in 2021-22 and it committed the party to the regulation of industrial action law which complied with international law. The with international law. The situation is that the supervisory bodies of the ILO since 1989, and the European social Charter since 1991, have repeatedly found the UK ban on secondary action is in breach of the respective cities I have mentioned.

The ILO most recently proclaimed this in 2020 with the Committee of Freedom of Association report on the PLO scandal. European social Charter most recently repeated the same conclusion in a cyclical report on the UK in 2023. In my respectful view, this situation of international law with the UK is simply not tolerable. For a country which purports to uphold the rule of law. Therefore, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed to insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed to insert the new clause with the right to take industrial action and the words are on the list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are on the list. I write briefly to oppose the
19:03
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I write briefly to oppose the amendment and, in doing so, I accept that he is very sincere and the argument that he makes. I do not wish to dispute his interpretation of ILO regulations or policies. Nevertheless, we are being asked tonight to accept the central premise of secondary picketing. I agree with the noble Lord and I think any reasonable person would that be P&O was incorrect with the management but it shouldn't be the basis in the employment act and, with all due respect, I think his argument is not very compelling because it's always better to work on the basis of unique circumstances and situations anecdote, notwithstanding we disagree with the way that P&O ferries handle that.

That said, in a situation like what we have in the economy now with pressure unemployment and rising inflation and we have difficulties in recruitment GDP growth, we are not achieving the growth levels that we need, frankly, the last thing we need is to make the employment market feature more dispute and litigation. That is what this amendment would seek to do, frankly. If one reads the amendment carefully If one reads the amendment carefully and looks at $A, the term 'connected witjh' could be subject to a lot of legal action.

In addition, the change in B from 'employed by that employer' to buy an employer', so employer' to buy an employer', so all employers, as carte blanche to going back to the bad old days of the 1970s when behaviour caused huge disputes and significant dislocation between the workforce and employers, across a wide range of industries. I think, and others have touched on this at the committee stage, notwithstanding what was said about the ILO, is almost from a different era and so no longer heavily mechanised and unionised manufacturing, or less so, let's be honest, where perhaps the central argument for having collective action between different groups of workers at different locations, so the court works, and more, I do not think we are in that situation because of technical change or communication change but because of the people work there.

Many more people work from home and many more work on a self-employed basis and they are not accessing unions as members and it's not necessary for them to have that collective action in physical terms. There are, very briefly, some big philosophical and ideological reasons why this is bad news if this amendment were to be appended to the bill. There would be a disproportionate impact of picketing which would undermine the confidence of employers, customers, suppliers, businesses not directly involved in the dispute.

It create economic damage which extends far beyond the scope of the workforce disagreement. It would unfairly target neutral parties. Secondary picketing affects businesses and workers with no direct involvement in the original dispute in the supply chain and they face disruption to operations despite being neutral and having no responsibility or control of the underlying concept. There would be Effect of multiplication in the economy. There were fearless arguments on contractual rights and the secondary picketing can interfere with relationships between mutual businesses and customers and this undermines the security of commercial contracts and business relationships.

The right to work. Workers at secondary sites have the right to work without interference and the secondary picketing would impinge on that right and effectively coerce them into supporting a cause they might not agree with or have a stake in. In terms of property rights, it often takes place on the property or businesses involved in the dispute and could potentially interfere with the rights of property owners to conduct business freely. The rule of the law is important as well and there was a reason that there was a consensus around voting public in the 1979 election and onwards with the continuing levels of legislation brought forward by the Conservative government.

The secondary picketing was, essentially, retrograde, a bad thing, not good for jobs and prosperity. There is a final point about legitimacy. Secondary about legitimacy. Secondary picketing can give you the power to do this and they are lacking the mandate and the workers have not chosen to join the industrial action. You have not gone through the democratic processes of the balance at the place of work and that has to be respected and it has to be within the rule of law.

By imposing that dispute on other people in terms of the secondary picketing, it is undermining democratic dignity. The government of Tony the -- Tony Blair was not perfect but it looked at this and it did not essentially move from this position on secondary picketing. For that reason, notwithstanding the great expertise of Lord Henley, I think this is an unfortunate reason.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak briefly for amendment 150 because I think it is amendment 150 because I think it is worth taking a moment to consider the impact of the reduction in union
19:11
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
the impact of the reduction in union bargaining power that we have seen ordinary people in this country and it will not take long because it is plain to see in stagnating living standards and the drag on for your growth. Also, to consider how the position of the party opposite has evolved over time. In April 1980, the then-Secretary of State for Employment, Jim Prior, introduced an employment bill which restricted secondary action. He certainly did not advocate that it should be banned altogether.

The position of the Conservative government at the time was secondary action should remain lawful if it related to a first customer and/or supplier that was of direct importance of the original dispute. Jim Prior said, "The only other position that we could take would be to say that there would be no immunity for anything other than primary action. I do not believe that that is either a practical or reasonable position to take." He also said, "By protecting the right to take secondary action with relation to a customer of supplier 'we are seeking to reach a position that is fair and recognises traditional rights of the trade union movement." Back then, a Conservative Party minister could acknowledge that the relationship between on the one hand and employer and on the other workers and unions is an inherently unequal one.

Of course, Jim Prior did not last long in that and there was the inequality of power between workers and employers and it was deliberately and repeatedly reinforced. Secondary action, or solidarity action, as it is commonly called, was effectively outlawed in 1990. Here is the problem I invite the noble Lords to reflect on when considering the arguments. Business was handed unilateral power to define what secondary action is. Unfortunately, that is an invitation to abuse of power.

This is not an academic point. It was only after a strike of six weeks in 1984 that they finally secured full equal pay. The victory was short lived. Ultimately, the company took the decision to outsource those jobs and avoid any need for pay parity, secure in the knowledge that solidarity action from workers at the customer company would become unlawful. Today, some companies continue to use long supply chains and complex outsourcing arrangements to effectively remove the bargaining power of workers.

Take a company that says to boost profit margins by targeting one part of the workforce for wage cuts. To prevent fellow workers participating in industrial action to resist those pay cuts, a company can simply divide itself in two. To paraphrase Jim Prior, is two. To paraphrase Jim Prior, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be very brief. I think amendment 154, again from the amendment 154, again from the legislation and for the arguments that have really been heard, we will that have really been heard, we will not be supporting any move on this
19:15
19:15
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Hendy and also to the Baroness Porter to think the argument fell rightly to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough because he explained why we could not possibly accept this amendment. So therefore I just rise briefly to speak to amendment 150, B, and others, with this bill, the government has chosen to make it easier to strike lowering thresholds, relaxing long-standing restraints on picketing and removing vital safeguards. It is inevitable then that businesses, especially small ones, will find themselves wearing even greater burdens as a result of what is anticipated will be a new wave of industrial action.

be a new wave of industrial action. This amendment, 150, B, gives employers a narrow and reasonable defence were a decision taken immediately after lawful industrial action was strictly necessary to keep the business afloat. It should not be automatically treated as unlawful detriment. So without this amendment, we risk a situation where businesses face paralysis, exposed to litigation on one side and operational collapse on the other. Turning to amendment 151, I believe this amendment is essential. It makes clear that intimidation, harassment, damage to property and other coercive actions dressed up as industrial productivity would not be protected under the law.

Workers have the right to strike, yes. But they do not have the right to bully, vandalise or threaten. And turning to amendment 152, the government may now claim that minimum service level act has proved ineffective. We don't agree. Not because we are either logically wedded to it but because it is simply far too early to make such a sweeping judgement. The actors barely had time to be tested properly. And therefore, if the government abandons the principle of minimum service, we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the Minister to explain what the government stands for instead.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Jackson Operation Brock about my noble friend Baroness O'Grady and
19:18
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
noble friend Baroness O'Grady and for contributing and followed Goddard for setting out the Lib Dem position. I will now speak to amendment 150 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy and amendments 150, 152 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Regarding amendment 150, we are clear that industrial action should only take place where there is a dispute between a group of workers and their direct employer. And will not change this position.

Secondary solidarity action has been prohibited for several decades and the government will not change this. My Lords, permitting secondary action will enable parties with no direct themes in the disputed take on record the action. And would allow industrial disputes to escalate beyond the original context and across different employers. The government is clear that we are compliant with this international obligations and the convention 87, article 11 of the ECHR, and article 6 of the European Social Charter.

All of which protect the right to strike but also permit restrictions on industrial action necessary in a democratic society. As noted by the European Court of Human Rights in the RMT case in 2014, there is a democratic consensus in the UK, in support of the prohibition of secondary action, and a broad acceptance of the public interest reasons for it, spanning the gamut of political opinion. Milos, furthermore, the UK is not an outlier. Similar countries such as Australia, Canada, Austria, France Australia, Canada, Austria, France And protects the ability And protects the ability to And protects the ability to strike while also protecting the rights of others.

The government has no intention of changing this. Moving on to amendments 150, A, and 151 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Rule 73 of the bill is required because the Supreme Court ruling in April 24, section 146 of the 1992 act, is incompatible with article 11 of the European Convention of human rights. That is because it fails to provide any protection against detriments, that is sanctions short of dismissal, intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union.

I have no doubt that your Lordship's House and many members agree that the UK cannot contain continue to be brief of -- continue to be in breach of our obligations. Inserting section 236, A, into the 1992 act to provide that a rug has the right not to be subject to detriment of a prescribed prescription by an act or any deliberate failure to act by the workers employers. If the act of failure takes place for the sole purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so.

Prescribed detriments will be set up in secondary legislation following a consultation. This amendments are seeking to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting up the circumstances in which the detriment protection, whatever the prescribed detriments will ultimately be, will not apply. Indeed as part of the consultation, we look forward to hearing the perspective of employers and why detriments could be considered in circle circumstances. I must also say that the protection from prescribed detriments only applies where the sole and main purpose of subjecting a worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise the worker from taking protected industrial action.

For example if a worker is subject to a detriments only or mainly because they have damaged property, this protection will not apply. Moreover, the criminal law still applies to pickets and others taking part in industrial action. Just as it applies to everyone else. And finally, turning to amendment 152, also in the name of noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom, 75 6 to repeal the strikes bracket minimum service levels act to G3. The repeal is a manifesto commitment, this government has amended to deliver, minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to withdraw labour and undermine good industrial relations and our plan to make workplace pledge to repeal the act.

No work notice has ever been issued by an employer to seek to meet the minimum service level during strike action and that legislation has never prevented a single day of strike action. Evidence suggests that this is due to employer concerns around busting industrial act 's and the complexity of appointing a minimum service level under that legislation. This demonstrates the futility of this act and why we intend to repeal it upon Royal assent. We believe that negotiation and cooperation are better ways to ensure essential services continue.

During any industrial action. While respecting workers rights. Evidence given at a time of the strikes was being introduced including by employers was that existing voluntary arrangements worked and ensure that vital services were able to continue during periods of industrial action. We are simply returning to this situation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve this through meaningful negotiations. Repealing the rights in the strikes act will help us to achieve that. I therefore ask respectfully my noble friend to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw amendment 150. I'm very grateful to all the lordships who have spoken in the lordships who have spoken in the debate on my amendment. Just a couple of words by way of reply as couple of words by way of reply as it were. The Lord Jackson, the P&O it were. The Lord Jackson, the P&O Ferries scandal was not the basis of the argument that I advanced to the the argument that I advanced to the House. But simply an egregious House.

But simply an egregious example of the effect, that case involved some 800 seafarers who were sacked instantaneously and replaced sacked instantaneously and replaced immediately with agents recruited in Third World countries. In doing that, P&O Ferries, knowingly and intentionally, broke the law but intentionally, broke the law but they could do it because they knew exactly how much compensation they were liable for and they paid it. The union, on the other hand, all The union, on the other hand, all the unions, were unable to call on fellow workers in the Port of Dover and other cross-channel ports to support them in an industrial dispute to reverse that decision.

And the seafarers themselves of course were on the stones. They were unemployed. There strike by the direct workforce would have been completely pointless. And the reason I mentioned it is because that is the last example of the ILO commenting on the UK bow on secondary action and what they said was that the government and the social partners should sit down together and endeavour to negotiate some form of permissible secondary action. The ILO has been consistent on the position since 1980, repeatedly, over and over again, saying that a law which my noble friend Baroness O'Grady refers to in 1990 was incompatible with convention 87.

Secondly, Lord Jackson points out various circumstances which I went to bed with him now, circumstances which would make return of secondary action in this country an acceptable. the point is special circumstances are not legitimate justification for a state not to comply with its international obligations. That point was made clear by the noble and learned Lord Attorney-General about a month ago. That is a fundable principle of international law. And finally, the comments on the suggestion that the phrase connected with or to be brought back, that phrase is the one that was deployed in the original drafting of the trade disputes act 1906.

I thank Baroness O'Grady, my noble friend, for her support and for reminding the House of the fragmentation of the employing enterprises often precisely to achieve and exploit the bar on secondary action to weaken workers. I thank the noble Lord Lord Goodlad and the noble Lord Lord Hunt for their comments and in relation to my noble friend the Minister, I make three quick points. First of all, I don't agree with his comparative analysis. I have done some work on this over the years.

It is not the case that the countries that he mentioned, part secondary action, at mentioned, part secondary action, at least not all of them,. Secondly, I accept of course is accepted at committee that we are not in breach of article 11 of the European Convention but I simply cannot see how it can be argued that we are not in violation of the European social Charter 64. And thirdly and finally, of course I recognise the government fourth position and my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I am not intending to test the opinion of the House and I respectfully ask to withdraw my amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a lot of pleasure that amendment 150 be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 150, A. Not moved. Amendment 150, A. Not moved. Amendment 150, A, A. 150, to be, not Amendment 150, A, A. 150, to be, not moved. Amendment 151, not move. moved. Amendment 151, not move. Amendment 152, not moved. 152, A,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 152, not moved. 152, A, We have debated this accolade and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have debated this accolade and I cannot find or see a reason why I cannot find or see a reason why parents should be hidden from members of the union. -- Payments. Wishing to test the opinion of the House and Abbott the clear I've House and Abbott the clear I've never received any financial remuneration from the Conservative remuneration from the Conservative remuneration from the Conservative party neither have I received a payment from the union. I wish to test the opinion of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be approved too. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." not of that opinion, say, "Not
19:32
None Portrait Division
-

content." The question will be decided by a division. Voting is now decided by a division. Voting is now The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 152 The question is that amendment 152 A be agreed to. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." is many as not of that opinion, say, "Not content." The contents will go to the left and the not contents will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted, contents, 171, not contents, 189. contents, 171, not contents, 189. The not contents have it. In clause The not contents have it. In clause 78, I meant 152B not moved and amendment 153, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 153, not moved. I think this would be a time to adjourn for the planned dinner break business. We are considering the business. We are considering the message on the armed forces appeal as for the report stage of the Employment Rights Bill will not Employment Rights Bill will not resume before 45 minutes time, that is 2027.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is 2027. The question is on further consideration be adjourned. As many consideration be adjourned. As many of that opinion, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Not content." the contrary, say, "Not content." The contents of a three the -- the contents habit. There they have disagreed to the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House of Commons reasonably

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered... The question is that the Comments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Comments reason on the armed forces bill be reason on the armed forces bill be considered forthwith. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." to of that opinion, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Not content." The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it. Here we go. I beg to move motion A that the house do not disagree A that the house do not disagree with the House of Commons and do not insist in lieu of the amendment to
19:44
None Portrait Legislation: Armed Forces Commissioner Bill - consideration of Commons amendments/reasons (day 2)
-

insist in lieu of the amendment to which the House of Commons have
19:44
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
which the House of Commons have disagreed for reason 2D. I should have said at the end of the Defence Review to the Bishop of Bristol, who has now left the House, and we wish well for the future and thank her for her contributions over many years. I know the noble Baroness Bull also say that it is our last opportunity to note VJ Day on August 5 and we know the nation will commemorate that in the appropriate way.

I am delighted the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned ahead of the summer recess. I thank our members for the expertise, insight, and time they have generously given in critiquing the landmark bill. Given the consideration of amendments, the amendments tabled by Baroness Goldie on Pushilin will be put to a vote and was disagree too. We have debated the work in the We have debated the work in the legal function at length and it's clear orthoses agreed on the importance of a transparent process for service personnel to raise concerns and blow the whistle.

We want Armed Forces and families to have confidence and trust in the system and feel empowered and protected to come forward with concerns. We have actively engaged in hard valuable contributions in the chamber and outside and in particular I expressed my sincere thanks to Baroness Goldie, Baroness Smith, Baroness Kramer, who's been generous with their time. As a result of the discussions, the government has decided to initiate I would like to read into the record the letter dated 9 July that the Minister for the Armed Forces and I sent a Baroness Goldie copy to others, detailing our commitment to undertake this review and I hope the House will bear with me it's important to read this.

As you powerfully raised in Grand Committee and in the proceeding to rates, defence personnel must feel empowered and protected to come forward with their concerns and defence needs to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in the armed forces. We could not agree more. The government has initiated out raising standards work stream to direct and enable behaviours and culture across the whole of the defence. The programme has been allocated £100 million of funding over the next three years. The planned work includes but is not limited to original hub providing support for victims of violence against women and girls, a complaints unit and piloting an initiative to provide independent legal advice to victims of sexual assault.

To further strengthen this programme of work, we will initiate a whistleblowing and defence review by the veteran minister for veterans and people. This will allow us to look up whistleblowing in a broader context rather than solely in a general service welfare sphere. Of course how the Armed Forces Commissioner fits into this landscape will be an important part of the review. The review will assess whether the current raising of concern policy is fit for purpose, how we communicate our policy to service personnel, whether personal understand the processes for raising issues and the protections they are afforded.

The consistency between the application and accessibility of military and civilian whistleblowing procedures and crucially whether legislation is needed to implement any changes. Further details of the review will be published for a written ministerial statement in due course. ministerial statement in due course. The review will produce initial findings by the end of this year and a final report and recommendations by springs 2026. Should any agreed measures require changes to legislation we will look to do this in a suitable vehicle as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Whilst it would be premature to commit to a specific bill at this stage, you will be aware that the Armed Forces Act requires reviewing via primary legislation before the end of 2026. As we have made clear in respect of debates, we want this to be a substantive meaningful process with tangible outcomes to improve the lives of service personnel. To that end we are keen to hear the views and perspectives of you and your parliamentary colleagues and will hold consultation sessions to facilitate this.

The noble Lady Baroness Goldie kindly responded to this letter earlier this week stating her support for a proposed review and suggested a number of areas it should focus on. First and foremost she advocated providing clarity, simplicity and effectiveness for all personal. I entirely agree this should be a central focus of the review. The noble Lady has made several other suggestions and the MoD ministerial team, especially the Minister for veterans and people, who I agree is the perfect choice, as someone who till recently was in the arms forces and understands military life, I look forward to working with her to understand the scope of the review is fit for purpose.

We are keen review takes place and any recommendations are implemented as soon as is practical. Will conduct work over the summer and in turn to publish written ministerial statement after the summer recess setting out the scope of that review. I'm pleased we have reached an amicable and productive consensus with the whistleblowing and defence review. I'd like to invite Baroness Goldie and Baroness Smith and bonus Kramer and others to meet at a later date to update them on the progress of the review along with any other noble Lords who would like to attend.

I hope this provides the necessary reassurance that the House needed to support the bill's passage through to Royal assent so we can move closer to the delivering commitment we have and supported It It has It has been It has been a It has been a pleasure It has been a pleasure to
19:52
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
participate in our debates on this bill and now first of all echo and endorse the sentiments put forward by the noble Lord the Minister at by the noble Lord the Minister at the start of his speech. These benches made clear from the outset benches made clear from the outset we supported the bill and an independent presence in the form of the new commission is an important and welcome development. It was that and welcome development. It was that independence that suggested that the Commissioner would be well placed for whistleblowing complaints and for whistleblowing complaints and any of those who have armed knowledge knowledge will know that knowledge knowledge will know that the command structure that produces such exemplary service men and servicewomen is also a very closed environment which can make it difficult to seek help when something goes wrong.

Sadly we know something goes wrong. Sadly we know all too well that things can go wrong. That may be in the life of an individual or it may be the is a more systemic wrong, the burning question is how is Redress obtained question is how is Redress obtained and that is why it seemed to me we needed an avenue over and above the needed an avenue over and above the existing procedures. And while allowing the Armed Forces Commissioner to investigate whistleblowing whilst the particular whistleblowing whilst the particular granite boulder which I have been chipping away.

I have been greatly assisted with the expertise of noble Baroness Lady Kramer who was so supportive of my efforts and so helpful to the House and explaining the particular virtues of whistleblowing. I was encouraged when the House showed powerful support for our efforts in amending the bill as we suggested. Although the bill returns to us with the amendments stripped out and the granite boulder there's a new inscription entitled from the government, we are prepared to carry out a review of whistleblowing and defence.

I'm very pleased that that progress because as the noble Lord the Minister indicated he and his colleague wrote to me confirming this was the government's proposal. I want to thank the noble Lord the Minister, these are not easy cosmetic words from the Dispatch Box. I absolutely mean it. I think the way in which the noble Lord the Minister has engaged the way his colleague has also engaged has been immensely helpful to our efforts to improve the situation for our armed forces personnel. Above all else, I want to thank them both for listening.

I have accepted the offer in good faith, have agreed the bill should now pass on the progress can be made for this important appointment but before I lay down my masonry chisel, there are a few further inscriptions I wish to add so that we all know where we are. Noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to reference a few of these extracted from the letter which I wrote to him. As I have previously argued, more than one route for making a complaint is not a weakness.

Anything which civil -- which facilitates accessibility is that strong. It can be a stock-take of the current procedures, and it can assess whether these need to be simplified and if so how it can be done. I think the review should also recognise key distinctions between recognise key distinctions between simply raising a complaint and blowing the whistle on serious wrongdoing and as the noble Lord the Minister has kindly indicated I think it should take place in close consultation with the Armed Forces Commissioner whoever he or she is appointed.

It is very welcome that Mr Al Carns be proposed to either of you. If the review was to gain the trust of seven personnel, you must have someone who has the respect of the forces and experience of life in the services. I have a small number of specific questions about the review, how will the consultation take place and the timescales, how will the views of service personnel be sought? And will the interim or final findings published to enable full scrutiny of the findings? There is a reference to the phrase consultancy...

I wasn't entirely clear what -- but I'm sure the noble Lord the Minister will clarify in his closing remarks. Further details of the review are to be published via written ministerial statement in due course. And that review will produce initial findings by the end of the year and a final report and recommendation in spring 2026 May I asked the noble Lord the Minister when will the written ministerial statement be published, approximately, and will this written ministerial statement contain the terms of reference for the review.

In conclusion I look forward to that noble Lord the Minister's response process. The common name in the noble Lord the Minister and myself and our colleagues across the chamber is to improve life for our service personnel. I support the government motion and I support the
19:57
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Back I will be brief but firstly we join with the Minister in stressing the importance of remembering the JD the importance of remembering the JD we on these benches share his view. I want to then follow by I want to then follow by congratulating both Baroness Goldie congratulating both Baroness Goldie and the Minister Lord Coaker, the team that he stands with including team that he stands with including Luke pollard who had the privilege of meeting with. The outcome that of meeting with.

The outcome that has emerged now at the end of this process is frankly better than anything I had ever hoped for. Because what we have been promised by the Minister, and it's only by the Minister, and it's only because of the persistence of Baroness Goldie in raising and pressing the issue, but the pressing the issue, but the willingness of the government to listen, that we will now have this much broader review of whistleblowing in the defence sector, led by the Minister for sector, led by the Minister for veteran's and people.

I think that is exceedingly important because it underscores, if you like, a changing underscores, if you like, a changing cultural attitude that within the whole defence sector and within the whole defence sector and within the government, which means that in the future we can look forward to much greater transparency and much more effective whistleblowing right across the piece. So let me again at across the piece. So let me again at my congratulations to those that have been expressed earlier. We also will no longer attempt in anyway to impede the passage of this legislation.

Its content is very positive and we supported that underlying principle and it's been a privilege to be part of this discussion. In this process. We do accept, accept on behalf of Baroness Smith, the opportunity to meet in the future. We will put various thoughts in writing in order to assist the process.
19:58
19:58
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to join in welcoming not only the review into whistleblowing but also the movement on this bill because it is an on this bill because it is an important bill. I just want to ask a few questions about the whistleblowing review. Not to be cynical, but we know that in the good old yes Minister parlay is that if you want to kick something into the long grass you can set up a review. It is important that the terms of reference are correct and that there is an indication of the commitment of the Department in terms of implementing the review, and I think the Minister suggested the Armed Forces Act would be a good way of doing it.

But as Baroness Goldie said, this is going to be a major issue for defence. Because frankly, defence needs to be secret at times, it needs also to have a chain of command in place. But I don't see this as a threat to defence, I see it as an opportunity for defence because some of the best companies and others adopted, open access, whistleblowing methods, have actually added to their capabilities by learning the lessons so I think if we are going to do this, the terms of reference are going to be very important.

Trying to get that cultural change which I think Baroness Goldie referred to is going to be important and I don't think the problem necessarily is in the the problem necessarily is in the armed forces. Part of it will be in the idiots. And I think we see that the fiasco of the last few weeks in terms of the Afghan data leak. My experience has been the stock thing is to protect the organisation and I think what we should do is turn this on its head a bit and see if we do this properly we can have a situation whereby if somebody comes forward with a whistleblowing issue, don't see it as necessarily attack on the Department of the institution, it could be seen as an opportunity to learn from that.

And the important thing in terms of any whistleblowing type of change is that there has to be a commitment to implement what is found because so often nothing changes. There is going to be a huge cultural issue within the MoD and that would be welcome not just in terms of the general public and the armed forces but actually need to efficiencies It should not be seen as a threat. It's important to protect the department at all costs. In terms of the review, I would say it is important to involve both the House of Commons Defence Committee and also the Lord's International Defence Committee because, on both, there is a wealth of experience and I think feeding into the process would help in terms of that.

If we are not careful, the government will have to be forced to do this because there is a major inquiry at the moment and even if you read the, what is in the public domain, something clearly went wrong. If people did know things, they did not have a method of being able to articulate them within the organisation to actually get change or the outcome required. Finally, on the bill itself, I think that this is a major step forward and I have been reminded to read the bill, having been affection for the last 20 years in the other place, this is another attempt to get it right.

That is the challenge, to ensure that this works. If it doesn't, people become cynical. They have got to have the space and support to get on with the job and to embed the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue then it is within Defence. I thank everyone who's
20:03
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank everyone who's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank everyone who's contributed to this short debate. On the points that were made, on the point on the written ministerial statement, we expect to do that in terms of this when the terms are concluded and we consult and some of the detail that she asked for would be in the process of setting up the review and some of it will have to come back to her and others to make sure that we've got that and we will seek the views of service personnel in different ways and it will be essential to seek the views of essential to seek the views of service personnel, regardless of where they are and give them the confidence to come forward and be part of that and we will communicate the service personnel and there is a new panel as well as existing and I think one of the options is good and it gives him an advantage it gives them the advantage.

This will be published and put before Parliament. We intend to do this as quickly as possible. Therefore, any interim parts, in terms of when we reach the findings, we will publish it and it will be laid before Parliament. I thank the Baroness for the comments and support and the contributions. They have been very worthwhile and helpful to all of us. Also, to my noble friend the Viscount, he has been here a lot through the been here a lot through the different debates and I'd be pleased on the report.

Can I thank Lord Beamish? It's very important and I think one of his amendments at the committee stage we did this with We will of course involve them. Lord Beamish was right to say it is an opportunity and with the brief remarks, some of the details we will have to firm up and we do that in have to firm up and we do that in negotiation across the House and I'm pleased that this has come to the point where we are in the position to pass it.

It will make a very real difference. In closing my remarks, I will say that we do not intend this review to be something which governments sometimes do. It is something to kick it into the long grass. It's an important issue and I'm sure many in the House will hold us to account if that is the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With that, I beg to move. The question is the motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion be moved to. The contents have it. Another short break before we call Another short break before we call Questions in a statement made Questions in a statement made on Wednesday, 16th of July, on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday, 16th of July, on financial services reforms. Speak about the proposed changes
20:08
20:09
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
economic growth and competitiveness and it is right to take steps to facilitate the financial services sector which contributes 9% of sector which contributes 9% of economic output. I have to take some issue with the tone that the issue with the tone that the government have adopted introducing government have adopted introducing proposals. They are thriving and the statistics tell a different story. statistics tell a different story. The ONS reported last week that the rate had increased to 4.7% in the rate had increased to 4.7% in the three months, up from 4.6%.

Average earnings growth had slowed to 5% in earnings growth had slowed to 5% in the period until May, the lowest level for almost 3 years. GDP level for almost 3 years. GDP contracted by 0.1% in May and 0.3% in April. Inflation has risen beyond in April. Inflation has risen beyond all expectations, 3.6%. Industry all expectations, 3.6%. Industry experts have said the UK economic situation is simply staggering. They have said the government's management of the economy has been management of the economy has been dire and the Chancellor has to seriously rethink policies.

Perhaps seriously rethink policies. Perhaps most worrying of all, yesterday we saw the second highest June saw the second highest June borrowing figure since records began the spending exceeding income by £20 million and debt interest of 96% of GDP. Turning to the reforms, the hard-hitting recent support by the financial services regulating committee which was chaired by Lord Forsyth outlined how the government can support the FCA in meeting vital secondary objectives which is supporting the international competitiveness of the UK and Mitcham- the long term draw.

I'm pleased -- medium to long-term growth. I'm pleased to have looked at the improved authorisation rates including those for tax and in the Senior Managers Certification Regime. These improvements are too slow in my experience. Moreover, the truth is that firms are inundated by information request from the FCA and PRA and the burden is perceived to be disproportionately high in the UK. These are welcome steps and we agree that things must change. Either the Minister will not be surprised to know that my first question is how quickly these changes will take place.

I cannot hope to cover all of it that was announced last week in the other place. We need a proper debate for that. I would like to tease out some detail. First, we were told the government were considering reforming the individual savings accounts system. We have already said that they will allow long-term asset funds to be held in stocks and shares licensees next year. Is this only one of the changes under review? How will the government support funds to invest in such projects? How will be relevant information be communicated? Can the Minister confirm what the government plans are for cash licence? Clarity on the question, the government risks undermining efforts to promote homeownership and hitting customers who rely on cash items for investments.

Secondly, financial education. Both the government and the Opposition are clear that we must stimulate investment and support the financial services sector. These reforms take us a long way but there remains the question of how we create a culture of investment in the country. We've seen an uptick in the rates of investment stimulate it in part by online trading platforms. For many people, the idea of investing money is uncertain languages dense, technical, confusing. People must understand the risk better and actively invest money across a wider range of products and not let it sit largely dormant.

Education must start in schools. Children can be taught about savings, investment, pensions, and how to make best use of their money. The report from the financial services regulation committee, which I mentioned earlier, highlights the poor financial literacy prevalent in the UK. Can the Minister outline steps the government is taking to support people across the UK? How is it educating this? This education has to start in school lives. What steps they take with colleagues to do this more effectively? Third and finally, with more clarity on pensions.

Since last week, a revival of the Pensions Commission has been announced and will involve Lady Drake, whose expertise on pensions is appreciated. There is a risk to delay an actionable risk and uncertainty for businesses and services. There are urgent questions alongside this and the OBR has forcibly reminded us of this on 8 July. What is a government going to do, and to do soon, to capture those who do not benefit from auto enrolment and are saving too little for retirement? What is the timing of the plans to encourage pensioners to use more capital to support growth and infrastructure at home? The clock is ticking.

To sum up, the financial services reforms are in the right direction but the financial position of the UK is troubling and may be deteriorating. I'm sure we will return to the concerns soon.
20:14
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I spent two years on the Parliamentary commission on banking standards following the 2008 crash. We were all aware of the financial sector and the city would, over time, work hard to erode the protections we recommended to prevent an issue with financial instability and casino -like risk- taking and abuse. The financial sector plays a long game and inch by inch this is underway and the government is seen as eager for growth and too eager to resist erosion.

Let me give a shortlist of the erosion. The competitiveness and growth objective for regulators, the changing two matching adjustment in services UK, increasing the quality of the insurance sector, the removal of the cap on bankers bonuses, the permanent permission for pension funds to transact derivatives without using counterparties and holding collateral. Also, the watering down of the senior managers regime with Key to accountability and the weakening of the financial ombudsman. The pressure on pension funds to invest in high risk and liquid assets, and the beginning of bank ring fencing which was at the heart of the recommendations, removing the incentive to take free deposits and rule them in the deposits and rule them in the The less I have just given is what springs immediately to mind and it will be very far from complete.

Of course regulation cannot be written in stone and adjustment and streamlining are always necessary. But will the government now issue a compendium of all the changes along with a proper assessment of the humility of shift in risk? And I mean those changes not just by the government but by the various regulators. Because their parliament will be in a position to make a proper judgement. My Lords, the financial sector has approved this move back towards what they see as a return of the light-touch regime.

The regime which makes them very rich. But remember my Lords, when the inevitable crash came, leading financiers were pretty much untouched. Ordinary people for the brand and it is crucial that that is not repeated. -- Ordinary people bore the brunt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to both noble lady's Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Kramer for their questions Baroness Kramer for their questions and their comments. I will do my best to address all of the points that both noble lady's raised. The that both noble lady's raised. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe spoke about the economy in general.
20:17
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
spoke about the economy in general. She will be aware we have had to take difficult decisions on the economy to generate the stability that we all want to see not least to restore stability to the public finances in the budget last October. The stability we have restored though is already delivering, we have seen cuts in interest rates reducing the cuts of mortgages and business lending, real wages have risen more in the first 10 months of this Labour government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative government and investment is returning to our economy, and that spending review set out in billion of additional investment that the IMF has long identified as a barrier to growth.

Insufficient amount of investment in our public sector. And the UK has attracted £120 billion of private sector investment in just the last 12 months. The noble Lady mentioned recent growth figures and of course those figures were disappointing but determined to go ever further to deliver on our growth promise. That deliver on our growth promise. That is why we are doing all of the reforms that we are embarked on, not least the Spending Review increased investments, increased investment in better city transport, record funding for affordable as well as backing major infrastructure projects such as Sizewell C so we are investing in parts of the economy that genuinely will be growth generative.

The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe also talked about the importance of Financial Services Act to the economy and clearly the financial services sector is critical to our growth ambitions for our country, it's one of the largest and most productive sectors in the UK, worth around 9% of total economic employing 1.2 million people in clusters right across the UK. London is the financial centre of the world and holds the deepest equity market so it is right we support the sector in the way we have, in the strategy we have set out to see the growth we want to see, and for that growth to feed through to the real economy.

I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe or welcoming what we have said about rebalancing between risk and growth, and competitiveness. The noble Lady Baroness Kramer had a very different to that. I don't intend to doubt the expertise she has 90 she played a huge role post-financial crisis in really putting together much of the architecture that is in place. I do though disagreed with the way she characterises our reforms and she asked for a compendium of those reforms.

I think the financial services growth strategy is the opinion of those reforms, I think the total of the other forms that she was identifying, but I do disagree with the way that she characterised those reforms. We are not removing the regulatory architecture that was put in place, and that she played a major role in, after the global crisis, as the Chancellor specifically has said the protections that were put in place were the right thing to do, with better protection for consumers and more credibility in the system.

The core elements of that adherence to international standards, we remain committed to ring fencing, despite what the noble Lady said, the structure to the regulatory system. The tour remains in place. But we do believe that in doing so the pendulum did swing too far in the opposite direction, the balance of regulation has gone too far towards regulating forex cannot stop migrating for growth and clearly this is a highly competitive sector and no other globally competitive financial services hub imposes such bureaucracy on its businesses and I think neither should we, if we want to be competitive.

So we are recalibrating, we are rebalancing the approach to risk so that it is more proportionate and so in the right places consumers and industry can take informed risk and create the space for the innovation and growth in the sector that we want to see. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe mentioned the financial Services Committee of this House and the fact that they did identify many of the issues that have been addressed in the strategy and obviously I pay tribute that committee and the work that they have done and look forward to debating their report in due course.

I do think it points to a degree of cross-party consensus in some of the challenges that we face are some of the challenges we want to address. She specifically mentioned financial education and that was one of the key recommendations that was made in that report and I hope that we can find consensus on that if nothing else. The importance of that. What we need to do, as noble Lady spoke about, we need to build confidence for retail investment amongst the public, on a platform of greater education so I think that as part of these reforms were looking to take forward a series of measures to give consumers the confidence to invest their can grow their savings and access the long-term benefits that investing can bring.

Three specific measures, new target support framework enabling people to access the help they need to make the right financial decisions for them. A cross industry initiative to reframe how firms talk about investing, so little about the great benefits and not just the risk of that and not just warning people off, and then I think there is an industry led multi-advertising campaign to showcase some of the benefits of investing for the general public as the noble Lady Baroness Neville- Rolfe said, of course that has to come on the basis of greater financial education.

We discussed this previously and I have had a tinted, -- I have looked into it, financial education does form part of the curriculum, a compulsory part of the curriculum for mathematics at Key Stages 1 and 2 for. In citizenship three Defra Key Stage 3 in full. These, financial risk, managing credit and debt and captivating interest. But the noble Lady is right, we should go further, the government has averaged an independent Curriculum and Assessment Review covering ages 5 to 18 in England, the views considering the quickly provide sufficient coverage of key knowledge and skills in reading financial education to prepare young for future life and thrive in a fast changing world.

Reviews final report recommendations will be published in the autumn with the government response. Nobody also asked on that note about the timescale for a lot of what we announced. Many of the reviews that we have announced as part of these reforms will report in the autumn, so I think at that point we will see a lot of the things that the noble Lady spoke about coming to fruition. She also asked about ices. The government will continue to talk about the potential for isoform back a form.

-- ISAs. Although there are different views we are all united in wanting better outcomes for savers and the UK economy. Finally the noble Lady asked about pensions. And she quite rightly paid tribute by noble friend Baroness Drake which I would like to do so as well, I can't think of anybody better equipped to take part in that reform, in that review. Many of the questions she asked will be answered in phase 2 of the pensions review and so I shall wait until that is in place before commenting on the points the noble commenting on the points the noble
20:27
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you for the statement. The government wants to reintroduce informed risk-taking back into our informed risk-taking back into our financial services system to deliver prosperity for working people. As my prosperity for working people. As my noble friend Baroness Kramer pointed noble friend Baroness Kramer pointed out, the last time we had risk- taking in the Financial Services Act, in the context of global Act, in the context of global competitive to regulation, in 2008, created a crisis which meant that created a crisis which meant that the taxes of working people bailed the taxes of working people bailed out the bankers.

How confident is the government that we are not going the government that we are not going down that path again and in that context what is the chance to disagree with the governor of the Bank of England who says, we can't compromise on financial stability, compromise on financial stability, and notably failed to endorse the route that the Chancellor was route that the Chancellor was taking. And secondly, on what is taking. And secondly, on what is called performing the ice or system, I agree with the comments made about the need for more financial education and it may be that reforms of this type can be discussed but I do question the weight the Chancellor went about this.

She created a scare story about how cash ices would be abolished. And this care story has run for several months but that surely discourages the normal punter who is not confidence of a retail investment, it might discourage them from saving at all. Shouldn't the Chancellor sack this bad speech right to who is encouraging her to kind of shoot from the hip, but she seems to have a tendency to do, and take the better route of launching a reasonable debate instead of letting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these issues float and scare people. $$CAPITALISE-Grateful to the
20:28
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
noble Lady for her contribution. There was a, of truth the things she was saying but I don't accept the characterisation of any of the three points that she made. She started by talking about risks, do we want informed consumers to be able to take risks in order to get better returns, yes we do. She talked about how just that alone would take us back to the situation at the time of financial crisis, I think I have ready set out the fundamentally do not accept that point.

We are not removing any of the regulatory architecture that was put in place after the global financial crisis and as I have said already the charter said clearly the protections that were put in place where the right thing to do, with better protections for consumers and marketability in the system. But does the noble Lady think it is right that if the consumer has a large amount of cash sitting in the bank account that the banks, that money is with, can't say to them there be better ways to invest their money? That is the core, she talks about, she started her remarks, with we are talking about better returns for consumers, that's exactly what we're talking about, getting better terms for consumers and that is why I think introducing greater level of risk is important.

She talked about the Chancellor being at odds with the government of the Bank of England. I don't think that is the case at all. I have read his comments, is talking about the things we are doing. That is true, I don't think they are toads. I think I may have already addressed the question on ISA reform. The government will continue to discuss the options for ISA reforms. We surely we can all agree with that and getting better returns for the UK economy and I think we can all agree with that.

McKay three shows the infatuation with the regulation --
20:30
20:32
20:33
20:34
20:34
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
It is worth reminding the House that I spent my entire working life within the financial services industry and that was in one form or another and I'm afraid to say that my practical experience of the industry has made me a sceptic of much of the promotion provided by the industry, telling us how it would do the economy a favour. I would ask my noble friend to agree that there are potential downsides of the financial isation of the economy which seems to lie behind these proposals and we have to realise that, in itself, there is a form of resource curse in this and there is also a dynamic within the industry, due in large part to the inevitable asymmetry of information and you can provide all the information and explanation that you wish but there will still be asymmetric information which leads to a succession of scandals.

There is the parent -- personal pension, Northern Rock scandals, many have to be recognised. There is a concern that I have, particularly apparent from the statement that the gunman appears to be giving people financial advice and I'm sure my noble friend will not deny that but when it says they will give better financial returns, that is a dangerous path to go down. I question... Does my noble friend the Minister accepts that there are needs for robust safeguards for ordinary investors and press him to accept that they appear to be contemplated by some of those commenting on these proposals and a significant weakening is of grave danger to the economy and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individuals. I'm grateful to my noble friend
20:37
20:39
20:40
20:41
20:41
20:43
20:44
20:46
20:46
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
hour at Commons report. And gives the Secretary of State the power to bring legal proceedings in the employment tribunal. And to do so not because the Secretary of State is directly affected by what the employer is doing but rather in place of a worker as if the proceedings had been brought by the worker. This is whether or not the worker and sent and even if they worker and sent and even if they strongly object. -- And sense. It is legally bizarre and unworkable and totally unnecessary.

It could well destroy the relationship between employer and worker and indeed any future employment relationship since remarkably clause also applies to individuals who are seeking work. So I'm going to focus on three things. The legal implications, the clauses workability and its policy floors. Let's start with the legal ramifications. It is unprecedented as far as I can see for a Secretary of State to be able to institute employment tribunal proceedings or any legal proceedings in place of someone who does not want those proceedings to take place.

The Secretary of State says the provision is modelled on the Equality and Human Rights Commission. But apart from the very different public context of judicial commission has never instituted a private law action in place of another individual, place another individual as the clause envisages for the Secretary of State. The case of Will Stone to which the Secretary of State referred in her letter to noble Lords seventh of July was not such a case, since the commission did not act in place of another person.

It's inconceivable the Equality and Human Rights Commission would initiate proceedings in place of a worker in the employment tribunal, let alone where that person did not consent. For the Secretary of State to be able to do so goes against the long-standing principle that in order to instigate sophistication, a claimant should have a sufficient interest, that is to say we directly affected by whatever issues being mitigated. Exceptions to this general principle have occasionally been made for pressure groups acting in the public interest but as the High Court reaffirmed in 2022, not where there is a more appropriate potential applicant who is chosen not to bring proceedings which is the type of case we are envisaging.

Moving onto the workability of clause 113, the debate activity showed that one reason there is no precedent for what is proposed is precisely because any litigation lawyer will tell you it cannot work. If a worker does not consent, then how will the Secretary of State acquire the evidence to bring a claim? The Secretary of State objected at committee and eminently sensible amendment tabled by the noble Lords Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, which would have required the consent of the worker before proceedings could be brought.

This would have made a major difference but the government objected it, which shows that the government envisage the power being used even without the consent of the worker. Without that consent, one can see the possibility of a worker disgruntled with a claim trying to invoke rule 25 of the employment tribunal rules to withdraw the claim, and the Secretary of State resisting that attempt. Hardly a great use of taxpayer money. And even if the proceedings continue, with the worker who did not consent to the claim really be liable for the costs if the claim fails which could amount to thousands, yet extraordinary as it is, thus the effect of clause 113, subsection 6.

Provides that "the Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done or admitted to be done in connection with the discharge of the Secretary of State 's functions under clause 113". This immunity from liability applies irrespective of how incompetently the claim may have been handled. Furthermore, as the noble Lord Lord Murray so graphically articulated in committee, since it is a powerful Secretary of State to bring proceedings, then the unions could judicially review the Secretary of State for not exercising power.

Meaning there could be in his words litigation to require the Secretary of State to litigate in behalf of someone who does not want to litigate. As he said, we are in Alison Wonderland here but it is where clause 113 takes us and all at taxpayer's expense of course. Finally the policy floors, clause 113 is unnecessary. The laws committee stage of this bill brought out the extraordinarily wide scope of the powers the Secretary of State will acquire via the so-called Fair Work Agency which is of course just the Secretary of State under different names.

These include the power to summon people to give information, to enter any premises to inspect seized documents and examined computers. Even lease cameras to search, arrest and interview suspects in relation to labour market offences. Most people assume these sweeping enforcement powers are more than enough to crack down on labour market abuse, without power to bring legal proceedings in the name of a worker who may not want those proceedings to be brought. This is especially so given 114 provides that the Secretary of State can give legal assistance to a worker who wants to bring legal proceedings against the employer.

This is surely the way this should be handled rather than the Secretary of State unilaterally launching such proceedings in the belief that this is in the best interests of the worker, or perhaps it's in the best interests of the Secretary of State. What happened to personal autonomy? Especially the basic right to decide whether not to bring legal proceedings in one's own name. It could, as a bit of a shock for a worker who might know nothing about proceedings received in the morning Post a summons to court, especially when they realise they are treated at having brought the proceedings themselves and against their own employer to boot.

Talk about choking on complex. It takes -- talk about choking on cornflakes. It takes mental agility to imagine how somebody who is not a worker but is likely to be employed, it is hardly likely to endear them to their prospective employer. And when they don't get the job they will have no remedy against the Secretary of State for ruining their chances. This fails on legal incoherence, practical and workability and policy floors. The deeds to come out. I beg -- It needs to come out.
20:54
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
I write is that the amendment in the name of Lord Carter of Haslemere. He has spoken with great eloquence and call arguments and I agree with him, so none of us need to speak for very long. As he has said, this clause was added late in the day in the other place and there is one aspect which particularly appalls me. The clause provides that the Secretary of State, or rather in practice there Civil Service agents in the new enforcement body, or any other enforcement officer, subsection 7, B, of 113, will be able to take an employment tribunal where an employer is unable to pursue their own complaint.

That is without consent. Consent being such an important principle. And subsection 6 makes it clear that the Secretary of State or enforcement officer is not liable to any lawyer of anything done or omitted to be done, error, or reputational damage or personal damage stock clause also risks putting further pressure on the hard-pressed tribunal system. The government's recent imitation plan seeks expert help in getting plan seeks expert help in getting the detail of the professions right.

I have worked for small companies, I've worked for a company with 500,000 people, I have worked with our store, been a member of two civil unions, and I believe the lack of consent will cause untold trouble. The clause must be dropped and I hope colleagues across the House will vote for Lord Carter's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. High-rise first to declare an
20:56
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

High-rise first to declare an interest in the barrister deaf as a interest in the barrister deaf as a barrister. Secondly, to note that during the committee stage, of this bill, on 18 June, Hansard records that I described this bill as a complete Horlicks, totally bizarre, and absolutely the unbelief. -- Beyond belief. I am amazed at my moderation. Nothing I have heard since addresses my concerns. Let us remember that this provision, as ably outlined by the noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere, with whose clause stand amendment are entirely agree, as he ably outlined, this measure allows the Secretary of State to bring any complaint in tribunal without the consent of the complainant.

Have these people ever been to and implement tribunal I ask you my Lords? -- Have they been to an employment tribunal. This is absurd. Is it proposed that in the invent that the claimant has the temerity to disagree with the statement that they have a valid claim, is it proposed to witness summons the claimant on pain of arrest if they don't, and give evidence in support of their claim? And if they have the temerity while giving evidence to give evidence against their claim, brought by the Secretary of State on their behalf, unwillingly, will they apply to the judge to treat their witness as hostile? Does permitting them to cross-examine them on the basis that the really were badly treated by their employer? This is palpable nonsense.

And I really cannot stand of this bill. I also would like to draw the House attention to the fact, as raised by the noble Lord cut-off Haslemere that this is an exercise of discretion on the wording of the provision in the bill, so it is therefore capable of judicial coup so there can be a judicial of the decision both to bring proceedings on the part of the unwilling claimant and the judicial to decide not to bring proceedings. This is going to be marvellous for those of us who are both at the employment bar under the public law bar.

There will be endless litigation and all at public expense on every side. It is absurd and I invite the House to remove this possible.
20:58
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
I do agree with the thrust of the remarks. Noble Lords often propose clauses in government bills, sometimes noble Lords are alarmed by such clauses but very occasionally it is appropriate to say that a clause in a government bill simply bonkers, technical term, appropriate in this context. That is the appropriate time, in respect of a proposal that the Secretary of State should be given power to ring proceedings and employment tribunal, in place of a worker, as employment rights, were it to peers the Secretary of State that the worker is not going to bring proceedings -- where it appears.

This is quite an astonishing provision for the reasons given by others, in particular because the bill does not require the Secretary of State, even to consult the worker whose rights are to be pursued by the Secretary of State, far less to obtain their consent. Of course, the worker may have good reason not to want to bring proceedings. Not everyone wishes to spend more time with their lawyers. Not everyone wishes to have the finer details of their conduct picked over in public by lawyers for the employer.

And to be the subject of a public judgement. I declare my interest as a practising barrister occasionally in employment law cases and I spent much of my time advising clients in all areas of the law that litigation is not necessarily the answer to their problems. The idea that the Secretary of State should decide whether to bring proceedings and not the work themselves could only appeal to those who believe in a state which is ever expanding to take more and more responsibility take more and more responsibility So what is the mischief which this vision is designed to address? The Minister very clearly said that out at committee stage.

Following 2052 on 18 June. She said and I quote, " Vulnerable workers, especially migrant workers are reluctant or unable to bring their case to the tribunal to enforce their employment rights." Can I first asked the Minister where is the research which supports this assertion? Especially when trade unions do provide legal advice and often representation to their members. And can I suggest to the noble Lady that by far the most substantial reason why vulnerable workers are unwilling to bring proceedings to vindicate their rights in an employment tribunal is the absence of money.

It's the absence of legal aid. There is no legal for unemployment claim unless it alleges discrimination, and even then, the legal aid does not cover representation in the employment tribunal. That's why people are reluctant to bring claims. Clause 114 will certainly assist in that respect as Lord Carter pointed out. But the idea that money should be spent by the Secretary of State bringing proceedings in his or her name is a remarkably inefficient and unsatisfactory way to proceed.

There are three other objections to clause 113 which I want very briefly to mention. The first is that this clause is so far as I'm aware unique in our legal system. I can think of no other context in which the government has power to bring proceedings to vindicate the legal rights of an individual who has chosen not to see. No other context in this country at least. The second point is that if the Secretary of State is to have such a power in employment law, why not in landlord and tenant law? Why not in proceedings for debt? Why not in family law? There are many areas of the law where vulnerable individuals have rights which they do not enforce.

And the final point which I want to mention and don't think has been mentioned yet concerns the financial cost of implementing clause 113. Can the Minister tell the House what is this going to cost? And this is important because there are so many urgent needs for funding in our legal system. The government cannot afford to pay for more sitting days in the Crown Court. And so rape trials, rape trials are being listed for 2029. And because there is no money available, courts up and down the country are in a state of disrepair with some judges conducting hearings in courtrooms where the roofs are leaking rainwater into buckets.

The legal aid system has been drastically reduced in scope. Legal aid lawyers are not properly paid. And the government has not yet brought forward the much-needed Hillsborough legislation to protect victims of major tragic incidents because the Lord Chancellor has made clear that she does not have the funding to pay for lawyers to represent those victims at inquiries. It is quite simply a disgrace that instead of meeting some of these urgent financial needs of the legal system, money is to be spent on this ill-conceived unprecedented and inefficient scheme for the Secretary of State to become a professional litigant on behalf of workers.

I very much hope that Lord Carter will divide the House. He Carter will divide the House. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will certainly have my support. There are several styles of
21:05
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
advocacy, and we've had a good experience of some of them this evening, but in every way those who have spoken before me have been devastating in there and picking of the ludicrous nature of the clause that the Noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere is seeking to have removed from the bill. And I cannot improve on the gentle forensic approach that he took to the ludicrous nature of this particular clause. The legal ramifications, its workability, and its policy defects are just plain on the face of the bill.

And I'm amazed that any sentience minister, amazed any sentience member of any legislature could come forward with a proposal in the form of clause 113. It is manifestly absurd. And as the Noble Lord Lord Pannick again very thoroughly pointed out, the implications of this particular clause are so obvious for us all to see that it's even surprising that the government has the nerve to come forward with it. And to maintain its support for it. One thing that this clause brought me, and now I will get into my anecdote, yes I too remember the barber and I confess I have never once at least not numbingly been in an employment tribunal.

What I do remember is about 40 years ago, I was asked by some visiting Chinese judges to this country to explain to them the English law of defamation. Which I did. And after I'd given what I thought was a pretty uncontroversial explanation of the law of defamation in this country, one of the Chinese judges said to me, just Hang on a minute, teaming to say that an individual has a reputation which can be injured and if injured, he can receive compensation for it for that injury in the courts of England? I said yes they can.

It's funny isn't it? And no no, surely no individual citizen if there is such a thing as a private reputation. It is subsumed in the interest of the state. It is subsumed in the interest of the Communist Party of China. And so the possibility of bringing a libel action as an individual was just foreign to him. And quite puzzling. So if your entire personality is a creature of the state, while then I suppose you would support clause 113 because it is the state which takes over as the Noble Lord said your personal autonomy.

And makes all the decisions about whether to sue or not to sue, whether to bring proceedings or not, whether to give evidence as my Noble Friend Lord Murray so graphically explained a moment ago. Why should we on behalf of the people of this country tolerate what is little more than an Orwellian intervention in the private lives of the citizen? I can't believe the government has any decent excuse or explanation for this, use the technical term that my good friend the Noble Lord law panic introduced into this debate a moment ago, this bonkers piece of legislation.

The bill has got plenty wrong with it as it is. If we are not to laugh at the government, if we are not to ridicule the government, if we are not to lose such little respect as many full still have the government, I do really suggest they remove this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ludicrous clause. The devastating interventions we've heard so far, I hopeful make
21:10
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
we've heard so far, I hopeful make the government really rethink again because you deserve the ridicule being poured on you. Only just want to make two additional points. I do think that clause 113 completely undermines the governments idea that this bill is all about enhancing workers rights by empowering them to have more control over their employment protections. When we scratch further, the real power is being accumulated by agencies and quangos, and in this instance, the Secretary of State disguised as the Fair Work Agency.

It's an indication that workers almost a stage army to BQ nation and power in the centre. I do really worry that the government is using workers rights to colonise more and more aspects of peoples lives on the basis that the government thinks it can act on behalf of workers because they know better. That is outrageous. I just wanted you to consider what this would mean for an individual woman. An individual woman at work, a female worker says no.

And the Secretary of State comes up and says I don't care, we don't need your consent. You don't want to go to a tribunal, we are not interested in what you as a woman want or think. As a worker. We are going to act on your behalf because we know better than you. It's an absolute flagrant and outrageous attack on workers autonomy for top the only other question I have is the Noble Lord Lord Katz in response to discussion at the committee about the overt burgeoning employment tribunal actually said well, I think that we are going to find that the Fair Work Agency will pick up a lot of the work of the employment tribunal is.

In this instance... Did I say... Yes. Sorry. Getting by agencies and quangos muddled up. The Noble Lord cats implied that the employment rights tribunal's which were clogged up, a lot of their work could be picked up by the agency. And there would be fast tracked routes used. I cannot understand therefore why in this instance the government is piling on more work onto the employment tribunal. It seems to me to be wallowing in this law fair, and I really do think if you don't want this bill to be exposed as not in the interests of workers but more in the interest of quangos, that this clause is dropped before we come back.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've not spoken on this bill before and I apologise for entering these debates at this late stage. And indeed I start by saying I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the Noble Lord amendment moved by the Noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere and others to leave out clause 113. Because as to leave out clause 113. Because as he and others have said, it will
21:13
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
enable the Secretary of State to take proceedings without the consent of the worker concerned. Even against that workers will, which I agree is a very odd position. And I have considerable hesitation in doubting the analysis of all those who have spoken before me, eminent lawyers and colleagues among them, and I'm bound to say that I do take issue with the categorisation of this clause is bonkers. And the reason I take that view is because on reflection I can see circumstances where the Secretary of State might legitimately wish to take proceedings before an employment tribunal where the worker concerned didn't want to do so.

That might be because the worker was concerned about the risk of losing. Didn't have the time or the resources, or simply the inclination to become involved in contested seedings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps the new blog could explain how it's envisaged that this explain how it's envisaged that this active state will know that such a -- that the secretary of state will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- that the secretary of state will know that a worker should have that? I don't understand why a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't understand why a Secretary of State should not have Secretary of State should not have that information on the record. They don't have the faintest idea about the case, they are unlikely to the case, they are unlikely to invoke clause 113 and bring proceedings on that basis. However, given the knowledge, is for the Secretary of State to make a Secretary of State to make a decision. And in very many cases I would suppose that the secretary of state will make a decision against state will make a decision against intervening.

But another possibility intervening. But another possibility is that a worker might not be proud of their own conduct, and might not want it publicly ventilated. Now these are all reasons that the Noble Lord Lord Pannick effectively covered in considering why litigation might not be an litigation might not be an attractive option for the worker concerned. The Secretary of State has to make or would have to make a decision about whether the private right of the worker not to sue is outweighed by the public interest in Is it really appropriate for a Secretary of State to insist that the circumstances related to an individual publicly exposed, subject to cross-examination, subject to a publish judge and -- public judgement when the individuals whose private rights of the subject of those proceedings would wish for good reason it is not so exposed.

Is it really appropriate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I venture to suggest that in some circumstances it might be, but I would add an important point, which is that my party have been involved in discussions with the government in discussions with the government about protection of such a worker but nothing secret about any such discussions, relating to anonymity discussions, relating to anonymity for such a worker and the restrictions on publicity that might protect such a worker from exactly the dangers and difficulties that the dangers and difficulties that Lord Pannick suggests and envisages.

Lord Pannick suggests and envisages. But the Secretary of State might But the Secretary of State might take the view that an issue of law principle was involved in a case principle was involved in a case with wider ramifications going beyond that particular case, and that the public interest required that the public interest required the issue to be determined. With the issue to be determined. With respect to all the arguments that are being put by those that have spoken before me, I'm not sure that spoken before me, I'm not sure that any of those arguments met that possibility, certainly not in the terms, in the way in which Lord Murray expressed it, even Lord Murray expressed it, even Lord Pannick's moderate tones undertones of a colleague of mine, I am going to give way, failed to deal comprehensively with that suggestion.

Sorry to take it to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end of my sentence. It's a very important matter here. Surely the answer to his here. Surely the answer to his concern is that the individual case may raise wider border issues that may raise wider border issues that it is absolutely inevitable in those circumstances that there will be other affected workers, one of whom other affected workers, one of whom no doubt will bring proceedings. You don't need the Secretary of State to don't need the Secretary of State to bring proceedings in those circumstances, inconceivable.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances, inconceivable. There might be others. Then again there might not. I do quite accept there might not. I do quite accept that a Secretary of State would have to weigh up very carefully competing considerations in favour of the considerations in favour of the public interest in having a point determined against the private interest of the worker concerned in interest of the worker concerned in not being involved in any way the litigation, of course the worker litigation, of course the worker concerned doesn't have to be concerned doesn't have to be involved.

They are brought as if they were involved but the point made need determination in any case. Think I have covered the point which Think I have covered the point which I suspect is the argument we will hear from the government about the public interest. Nevertheless and on public interest. Nevertheless and on the point made by Lord Carter, in a case where section 113 is invoked I suggest that it would be utterly wrong for such a worker to be exposed to risk by the Secretary of State proceedings such a case.

I've dealt with the point about anonymity and circumscribing publicity, and I do suggest that this must be addressed before this becomes law. However my point, my further point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to the noble Lord. I apologise for interrupting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord developing argument. He talks about anonymity, that is presumably so the individual can have his case subsumed by the government without his name being government without his name being known. But is he then going on to known. But is he then going on to suggest that he will have to give evidence behind a screen? Or using all the other witness protection all the other witness protection measures that we use in for example measures that we use in for example cases of rape so the complainant is not seen.

Has he thought through to the end of his argument the the end of his argument the practical consequences of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anonymity argument? Such protections as would be afforded would depend on the individual case, would depend on such measures as a tribunal thought such measures as a tribunal thought appropriate and they might indeed include anonymity in witness protection in an extreme case. I don't believe that is likely but I do believe that the right of the do believe that the right of the worker to some sort of privacy in the case where he positively didn't want to be identified would have to want to be identified would have to be protected.

Going onto my point about the risk in costs, I suggest that it would be simply unconscionable if the decision of the Secretary of State to take proceedings could expose the worker to costs. But there is no protection in the bill for a worker on this point, indeed in subclauses three and six in particular there is the clear suggestion that there would be a risk for an unwilling worker claimant of a risk in costs. Specifically subclauses three would provide that if the Secretary of State ring such proceedings, they are to be proceeded with as if they have been brought by the worker.

That needs addressing. Subclause six as Lord Carter pointed out would provide Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done or omitted to be done in or in connection with the discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State's functions by virtue of this section. Thus in my submission renders the worker vulnerable to an order in costs and there ought to be an indemnity against any such order.. I am accepting that isn't the question is whether that can be addressed by the government or not, it's not a question which leads to a standard part decision that this clause should be left out of the bill altogether.

Because of that vulnerability, but we will of course hope that no employment tribunal would make a costs order against a work in such circumstances, this house should not proceed on the basis of hope alone, the possibility remains, particularly if a tribunal took a dim view of the worker's conduct. That we should remember maybe the conduct, exactly the conduct that sensibly dissuaded the web from launching proceedings in the first place. I would invite the government to bring an amendment forward hopefully by agreement at third reading whereby protection from this risk in costs could be given to a worker either by way of indemnity by the Secretary of State or by a prohibition on a costs order.

I also urge the government to look at the other protections that the worker might have an alternatively the government might consider giving solid assurances.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He mentions subclause three, the proceedings are to be proceeded with proceedings are to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker. Does the noble Lord think worker. Does the noble Lord think that means that if the worker decides to withdraw the proceedings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are to be treated as withdrawn? The noble Lord plainly has given the government solid cause for thought on that point but of course thought on that point but of course any proceedings put before a any proceedings put before a tribunal in first instance can be withdrawn by the litigants. The litigants in this case would be the Secretary of State and the other Secretary of State and the other party, presumably the employer. If section 3 subsection 3 has given the interpretation that the noble Lord Pannick suggests might be given to Pannick suggests might be given to The worker would be treated as the litigants.

That is a difficult point for the courts to resolve, is a for the courts to resolve, is a point that at third reading the government really must resolve and
21:24
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that I entirely accept.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I failed my exam at 11 and never retook it so I am at a disadvantage retook it so I am at a disadvantage to the House to try to sum up on my to the House to try to sum up on my groups amendment. I think Lord Marks groups amendment. I think Lord Marks just makes the case that this is not as an open and shut bonkers piece of legislation and there's more to it last week I went for my health check last week I went for my health check and had my blood pressure cholesterol, I recommend Lord Murray cholesterol, I recommend Lord Murray keep away from his doctor until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep away from his doctor until probably next Wednesday because I will come down there. I'm going to need mine after that. That is in good spirit because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is in good spirit because you believe you expand it but for me there is a different question here there is a different question here because this got a real one over on Committee stage as well and all got Committee stage as well and all got a little bit contentious over lawyers, Lord Pannick rises lawyers, Lord Pannick rises carefully and slowly and makes a forensic examination unfortunately forensic examination unfortunately Lord Marks tries to challenge that and Lord Pannick has to have three or four more goes but we not in the High Court however when the House of Lords so we listen to the exchange.

Point that I'm trying to make tonight is that we have spoken to the government, that's the point. The point of this is there is the bill, talk to the government. Raise those concerns to the government, see what the government has to say. You don't do that because this is a good open goal. This is one we can really embarrass you with. You can't and you know why you can't? Because the Secretary of State will have the power to look after somebody who needs looking after.

All those years ago when we had slaves it wasn't Trying to beat freed, it was liberal minded people who thought it was wrong that they should have no say and have no place. That's what happens. The Secretary of State here because it does happen, it does happen. Workers get jobs, they may be illegal, they may be migrants, whatever they are there human beings and they deserve support, and yes the state is the last resort. The state ultimately is the last resort, when everything else fails, the health, the sickness, the drug addiction, whatever it is, the state is the ultimate provider of care and the cradle.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the state saying I need to apologise to the House because I haven't intervened previously in the spell therefore required to add a few seconds of tedium in declaring my interest as chair of the equality commission, I must emphasise I am speaking in a personal capacity tonight. I would just like to ask Lord Goddard if others who referred to the government's desire to protect those people who are vulnerable, who might be migrants, who might be new arrivals, who might not know their rights under the law.

And of course that is a laudable aim, but as one, who is a migrant first-generation migrant, I came here to this country in my own capacity, and who have slowly learnt of my rights and my ability to exercise them, I can say to Lord Goddard that there is very good reason why those people need autonomy and privacy, so the idea that they may not wish to be the subject of litigation is a very palpable safety, economic, familial and other concern for them, particularly in a world where we have social media and high levels of media attention.

If you are exposed to have done anything at all these days, the reason that migrants and vulnerable new arrivals in our country keep a low profile when they choose to do so, is very understandable. The idea that the state should pluck them, decide that they have been badly treated and use them as the example, is actually pretty shocking and is deleterious to their interests. It won't help them. They will hide under cover

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even more than they already do. I accept her premise. By the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I accept her premise. By the same rule that premise then those people rule that premise then those people suffer, are treated badly until they become accepted in society and then to raise their heads above the parapet. If that is the logic of the parapet. If that is the logic of the argument you are trying to make to me. Why should, why shouldn't the government, in extreme circumstances, and Lord Marks makes circumstances, and Lord Marks makes Squaring this that the media doesn't get hold of it, that it doesn't get hold of it, that it doesn't appear on the networks and make things difficult.

But where are case end up with the Secretary of State where the evidence is there that somebody is in such a situation, why shouldn't the government intervene and say actually, you've been and say actually, you've been treated so badly, we are going to stand up for you in a tribunal we are going to try and do something. I just think if you look at the bigger just think if you look at the bigger picture rather than the individual pictures, I just think that there is a way through this without thinking a way through this without thinking that it is, the last time I will say it, a bonkers spell.

It isn't bonkers, the actual theory behind it is sound, perhaps it's not been explained clearly enough and I've explained clearly enough and I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How does he envisage the Secretary of State knowing which cases to bring?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cases to bring? Well that's the point I said at the beginning, I am not a legal person, but there must be something person, but there must be something that will happen or somebody will inform somebody of someone's condition that the find intolerable. condition that the find intolerable. That ends up with someone and That ends up with someone and someone has to deal with it. One person says they don't get involved. The person is frightened, unsure, they don't know their rights for top who skips that person up and just ask the question? It may be that it's not worth pursuing, but what is wrong with just asking the question? And I said and I'm going to say now that I will ask the Minister that I will ask the Minister basically to confirm his flexibly that we need to understand the that we need to understand the powers, will they be used proportionally and transparently? And we need to hear that.

The government needs to tell us how this so-called power of legislation will work practically. And if they can explain and perhaps not allay all the houses fears but begin to give some clarity into the thinking behind it, because this is something that's been thought out quite seriously, and I just think the House should listen to that instead of this constant...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is not report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is report stage. I was going to ask a question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was going to ask a question. It's a genuine question as to the genuine question is as we are genuine question is as we are passing law, is it not the case that...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I think it's worth as it is quite late and we still have got a lot of business to do to respect you point out not just to the noble Baroness but other lords it's pretty clear on but other lords it's pretty clear on rules of report, no member may speak rules of report, no member may speak to her more than once except to move to her more than once except to move an amendment. So I would just caution with got a lot of business going through, people have had the opportunity to state their case and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perhaps we should proceed to Frontbench winders. Frontbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frontbench. Well my Lords, that was a fascinating debate. I'm not a lawyer fascinating debate. I'm not a lawyer either but I was very taken with the arguments made by the neighbour Lord Carter of Haslemere which I thought Carter of Haslemere which I thought were quite superb. And also those of my Noble Friend Lord Garnier and Lord Murray of Bedworth. Have to say to Lord Murray I thought he was displaying exemplary what's the word, moderation I think was this
21:35
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
word in his delivery. And I can't improve on the legal arguments that were made by the Noble Lord Pannick were made by the Noble Lord Pannick and my two Noble Friends. I did for a moment wonder whether the Noble a moment wonder whether the Noble Lord marks of Henley to use my Noble Friend Lord Garnier's phrase, had subsumed his legal personality to be a creature of the state for a moment. But it did seem to come back fighting, so I can applaud him for that.

In our opinion, clause 113 is Frankie one of the most chilling and illiberal proposals in this entire bill. And there is competition for bill. And there is competition for that accolade. Let us also consider somebody who hasn't been considered in this particular debate so far and in this particular debate so far and that is employers. What sort of message does that send to them? Your employees silence cannot be taken as peace or resolution rather as a vacuum which the state may fill with litigation, and I have to say to the Noble Lord Goddard has a rather more Noble Lord Goddard has a rather more touching faith in the state than I do.

How does that promote trust or fair resolution in the workplace? fair resolution in the workplace? Because I can't see how it does. It would fuel paranoia, invites conflict and certainly undermines conflict and certainly undermines mediation. And if a worker might feel intimidated employer as has been claimed before in these debates, they really imagine that an employee will feel less intimidated by the prospect of the secretary of state -- marching into their dispute? And does the Noble Lord Carter stated, without any liability and then turning it into a tribunal case in the name.

That's not empowerment. That's political theatre at the expense of personal agency. We should not accept that. We should not normalise it. I have a question to those who have been pushing the argument about anonymity. I do not a defendant, I may be. I'm not a lawyer, so I may have phrased this slightly incorrectly but the defender presumably will be known in these cases, and if the defendant is known, is not especially difficult to find out who the plaintiff is. I think that's the correct terminology.

How on earth would granting an individual anonymity achieve the purpose that is desired? I don't get there. Somebody will have to explain it to me. This clause wraps a fundamentally dystopian instinct that the state can somehow supplant the will of the individual and act on their behalf without their active participation or consent. I would say to the Noble Lord Goddard this is paternalism which is being taken to an authoritarian extreme. In this debate we heard the words ridiculous manifestly absurd, ludicrous and bonkers which I think one on a split decision, but there's one last point.

The tone of this debate has been to invite both horror and ridicule in equal measure. Is that really what the government wants to achieve with this piece of legislation?
21:36
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Well I would say to the Noble Lords that I think comments like the Noble Lord was just saying come from the opposition benches, and it's not what we are intending by the bill or indeed with these particular clauses. But I would first speak to the government amendments in this section, government amendments 156, 157 and 158 which are tabled in my name. These are minor but important technical amendments to schedule 10, amendment 156 makes a small correction to paragraph 36 makes a small correction to paragraph 36.6 replacing the phrase that subsection with the references there to subsection 3 of section 15 of the gang Licensing Act 2004.

Amendment 157 ensures that schedule one to the Immigration Act 2016 is repealed following the abolition of the director of labour markets enforcement. And in 158 removes specific reference to paragraph 9 and 11 of schedule three to the Immigration Act 2016. The purpose of these changes is to ensure provision functions as intended and provides legal charity, clarity. They do not alter the policy or substance of the bill in any way but ensure the schedule functions as intended. If I now turn to amendment 154 tabled by the Noble Lord Lord Carter, the government were selected on a manifesto pledge to deliver the Plan to Make Work Pay.

This sets out that the new employment rights enforcement agency would have the power to bring civil proceedings to uphold compliance with employment law. This clause delivers that pledge. The Noble Lord Lord Carter referred to the precedent, and yes, the precedent that we are quoting is the example of Equality Act 2006 sections 28 to 30 of that act which the precedent for clauses hundred and 13 to 115. Section 28 of the Equality Act enables the Equality and Human Rights Commission to assist an individual who is or may become party to legal proceedings.

And section 30 of the Equality Act which is the precedent for clause 113 EHRC the capacity to institute, intervene in legal proceedings, including for breach of the EHC are rights, even though it is not a victim. Then open Lord Carter said there wasn't an example where the EHRC had taken over a case. However in the case of MS Pakistan the secretary of state for the department, the EHRC in fact substituted itself once the original appellant withdrew from the proceedings.

This was a substitution with the consent of the Supreme Court by the EHRC in the same way Fair Work Agency could substitute itself in place of a worker with out their consent. The EHRC uses section 30 strategically to clarify the law and act where there are egregious breaches. We envisage the Fair Work Agency rather than the Secretary of State as such we use this power in clause 113 similarly. I have to say the Noble Lords have misrepresented what is intended by this clause.

What is intended is to address some of the worst employment practices which current regulations do not adequately cover. And I agree with the Noble Lord Lord Marks that there are of course cases where the individuals or groups of workers are unable or reluctant to take a case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the case should not be taken because there are wider issues at stake. For example, the Fair Work Agency could use the power to clarify entitlements to holiday pay where enforcement officers do not have enough information to confidently issue a notice of underpayment.

Or the Fair Work Agency could exercise the power to clarify the employment status of a group of individuals. Currently employers classify work as a self- employed to get out of the individual rights that they are entitled to. Without this power, the Fair Work Agency has no ability to challenge such claims. To give a specific example on the possible application of clause 113, the director of labour market enforcement has flagged endemic bad practice in the hand car wash sector.

A particular challenge in this sector is misclassification of workers which stymies HMRC's efforts to enforce the minimum wage. Currently if a hand car wash claims their workers are self-employed, HMRC has no means to test this in the courts. It must go through the full notice of underpayment process and wait for the employer to appeal against the notice of underpayment. This can lead to negative rework if the appeal is upheld and otherwise delay workers getting their due rights. This is a gap in the existing system of state enforcement this powerful go some way to remedy.

Just as how the current system works, the Fair Work Agency will take a whole employer approach to enforcement. This is the advantages of a resolution for more workers than individual cases against the employer. In such circumstances, where the Fair Work Agency may be taking action for hundreds or thousands of workers, it is simply not practical to get consent from every individual concerned. As a strategic approach, this power will be used when acting in a worker's best interests to clarify the law.

As with the EHRC's powers under the Equality Act, the Fair Work Agency will not lead the consent might need the consent of each individual to take on cases. The Fair Work Agency will therefore be able to decide when to steer clear, when to seek clear neutral and authoritative guidance from a tribunal on the application of employment legislation. And as we know, in the worst cases of serious exploitation, workers may be reluctant to give their consent due to fear of retribution from the employer.

And Noble Lord Gothard was quite right to say that there are certain circumstances in which we have the responsibility to look after the individuals who are suffering at the hands of rogue employers and feel powerless in those circumstances. We know that many migrant workers with legal rights to work in the UK, particularly low-paid workers are reluctant or unable to enforce their employment rights. These workers have understandable concerns, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness or language barriers. The legal migrants, employment is their prerogative, and for those workers there are wider implications in challenging an employer that could bring about repercussions for their employment or potentially their impact on their visa.

And we believe that requiring consent from workers would make it easier for employers to attribute blame to individual employees, and they would individual employees, and they would suffer as a result. I'm going to carry on. When exercising this power...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords, we have had advice already about what the companion says about this and the Noble Lord says about this and the Noble Lord has spoken ones. I think the companion overrides anything that I companion overrides anything that I have to say. When exercising this power, the Fair Work Agency will of course act in accordance with the rights and the European Convention rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, including article 8 and comply with data protection and comply with data protection legislation.

In doing so it must act in accordance with the law and for a legitimate purpose. The Noble Lord Lord Marks raised the issue of Lord Marks raised the issue of anonymity. In appropriate cases the Fair Work Agency will consider Fair Work Agency will consider applying under rule 49 of the employment tribunal is procedure employment tribunal is procedure rules 2024. Rule 49 allows the tribunal to restrict public disclosure of aspects of the proceedings. That means workers names can be kept from the public domain. domain.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord the Minister as I can see in a conflict between the advice she is getting from her advice she is getting from her weight and the need to answer Would Would you Would you not Would you not agree Would you not agree that Would you not agree that the Would you not agree that the simple thing to do rather than government bringing proceedings through its agency in the name of the worker, for the government to pass a law which simply allows the government to bring proceedings in its own name and to bear the risks and burdens of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to bear the risks and burdens of bringing litigation in its own name and bearing the costs if it fails? I think the point we were making is this is about test cases which as we know is a frequent way of clarifying legislation rather than primary legislation. Lord Marks primary legislation. Lord Marks raised the issue of anonymity. Inappropriate issues they will consider applying under rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal procedures the Employment Tribunal procedures laws 2024 stop rule 49 allows the laws 2024 stop rule 49 allows the tribunal to restrict public disclosure of aspects of the proceedings, this means workers names can be kept from the public domain to protect their anonymity and protect them from any reporting in the media.

Where it's necessary to do so in the interests of justice or to protect their convention rights. Just to make it clear that when making a decision whether to , the tribunal must give way to the principles of open justice and the convention's right to freedom of expression. The tribunal can do this on us own initiative or the Fair Work Agency could apply for such an order. The Fair Work Agency must also comply with Convention rights and data protection legislation ensuring appropriate protections for individuals and fairness of proceedings.

I do understand noble Lords interest in how this power will operate and I therefore can confirm to the House that the government will publish guidance on how the Fair Work Agency will exercise this power in practice. We will develop detailed guidance following deep and extensive engagement with social partners and the Fair Work Agency's advisory board. It will then be for the Fair , to determine which cases it brings to the tribunal. This will ensure this power supports those who play by the rules. This approach enables the Fair Work Agency to protect workers rights and tackle injustice and abuse against legitimate workers.

This clause presents an opportunity to make a genuine difference, to tackle the scourge of labour exploitation in the UK. Unchecked labour exploitation is unfair on the individuals being exploited. It's unfair on the majority of employers who want to do right by the staff, and it's unfair on workers were denied jobs by employers exploiting loopholes. The new power will complement the existing powers of the Fair Work Agency such as the powers to issue notices of underpayment while enabling the Fair Work Agency to act where these powers cannot be accessed.

The Fair Work Agency will exist to enter labour exploitation and create a fair level playing field for employers and for workers. Fair Work Agency with any less power to act for these most vulnerable would be an unacceptable failure for workers rights. Two Lord Carter I Your views on how best to deliver this power and to ensure it's appropriately safeguarded. However in the meantime I must reiterate that this power is neither noble nor unprecedented and it delivers a manifesto commitment. I must therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw amendment 154 and back to move the amendment tabled in my name.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to get up again but I wondered whether the noble Lady would like to say something about would like to say something about the issue of adverse cost orders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against workers. I think when we were debating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think when we were debating this at Committee stage we made it clear that there wouldn't be any clear that there wouldn't be any cost to workers. Lord Carter cost to workers. Lord Carter suggested that the worker would be liable to costs where they had not consented to the Secretary of State taking a case on their behalf, let me be clear that the worker will not
21:50
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
be liable for the costs in the circumstances.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for the powerful interventions with her this evening from very eminent speakers indeed Lord Garnier, Lord Murray, indeed Lord Garnier, Lord Murray, Lord Pannick, Baroness Fox, Baroness Lord Pannick, Baroness Fox, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Falkner. Some really powerful points have Some really powerful points have been made around personal autonomy, the importance of that, the unworked the importance of that, the unworked ability of this clause in terms of witness summonses and adverse witness summonses and adverse witness results and a duty to consult I thought was a powerful consult I thought was a powerful point that Lord Pannick made.

Lord point that Lord Pannick made. Lord Marks referred to the fact that the worker might not want to bring worker might not want to bring proceedings and therefore would be happy for the Secretary of State to happy for the Secretary of State to do so in his or her place. That really misses the point which is that the worker might actually that the worker might actually object to legal proceedings being brought in their name, that is really, they might not give their really, they might not give their consent.

That is fundamental for me in this whole clause. I believe this in this whole clause. I believe this is legally unprecedented and we can have further discussions about that. I think it's unworkable, I think it's completely unnecessary even the Secretary of State can support a worker to defend proceedings themselves. I did read the manifesto and all I saw was make work pay, those three words cover a multitude, there was no mention of a power to bring proceedings on behalf of the worker, I read it very carefully.

I feel there has been enough power and passion in this debate to warrant seeking the opinion of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I now do. The question is that amendment 154 is agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of
21:52
None Portrait Division
-

that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a division and I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 154 is agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne, the Not-contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is this The question is this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contends There have voted contends 85, There have voted contends 85, not contents 127. So The not contents In In schedule In schedule 10 In schedule 10 amendments In schedule 10 amendments 156 In schedule 10 amendments 156 to In schedule 10 amendments 156 to 158 In schedule 10 amendments 156 to 158 Baroness Jones move formally? The Baroness Jones move formally? The question is amendments 156 to 158...

question is amendments 156 to 158... Sorry, apologies. Lord Lee of Hurley, Amendment 155 not moved? In Hurley, Amendment 155 not moved? In schedule 10, amendments 156 to 158 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch move Baroness Jones of Whitchurch move formally? The question is amendments 156 to 158 be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In clause 10, Amendment 150 8A Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Lord Hunt.
22:03
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
We now move to consider the employment tribunal system, but first of all, I would like to move Amendment 158 .A and 158B. The government is extending the time limit for individuals to bring claims to an employment tribunal, but if that is the case, and if as the government has repeatedly said, it values early conciliation, and the vital role that ACAS plays in resolving disputes before they reach litigation, then surely the same principle must apply to the conciliation period itself.

So extending the early conciliation period from six weeks to three months would provide claimants and employers alike with more breathing space to resolve matters amicably. Reducing the burden on the tribunal system and promoting quicker, less adversarial outcomes. I would also like to speak to amendment 180 and 186. I will not repeat the arguments that I and many Noble Lords across this House have already made about the state of the employment tribunal system. But let us be clear, the situation is now dire.

We have spoken to a range of people involved in the system, and we hear the same message. Employment tribunal are in disarray with claimants waiting for up to two years for their cases to be heard. And we believe justice delayed is justice denied. The government says it is investing in tribunal's, pledging to hire more judges and provide additional funding, but I do hope the Noble Lord the Minister will be able to answer these questions. First of all, how many new judges have been appointed? Secondly, what is the scale of the funding, and how will it be allocated? Thirdly, will the government also commit to hiring more administrative staff to ease the backlog, and if so how many? Until we have clear credible answers to these questions, we believe it is simply irresponsible to bring forward clauses in this bill that will replace even greater strain on a system which is already buckling under pressure.

I just hope that the Noble Lord the Minister will have answers to these and other questions. I also want to refer to amendment 186 and 187 and 188. If we do believe that there is this difficulty with the existing system, we have already seen the government push back implementation of parts of this legislation to 2027. I don't know whether this is because the government has at last had a moment of clarity and realised just how damaging some of these measures could be in practice.

So we now have an amendment asking to delay further until 2029. Frankly this isn't just reasonable. We believe it's necessary. A four-year delay might be the bare minimum to avoid the disasters which would otherwise be presented by this legislation. So let's not pretend this delay is some kind of political foot dragging on the part of the government. To seek to delay implementation of what was said to be a vital bill until now, 2027 is an admission that this legislation is deeply flawed and that rushing it through risks wreaking havoc on businesses, workers and the tribunal system alike.

What's more, with the government and the unions now seeming less like allies and more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like weary rivals, -- wary. This delay might be something the government is willing to accept so I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 149,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 149, page 149 line 32 at the end insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. marshalled list. I'm pleased to have a contrast in terms of the debate length. It's good to hear from the Noble Lord good to hear from the Noble Lord Lord Hunt of Wirral. I will return to speaking to this quite large to speaking to this quite large group amendments. I will try to cover as much ground as I can in time.

Turning first to amendment 180
22:09
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
time. Turning first to amendment 180 and 186, we recognise the Noble Lord Lord Sharpe of absence concerns and the concerns over the tribunal system. I like to reassure Noble Lords referred the concerns in the other place as well as broader stakeholders from representing employers, and this includes recruiting more judges, legal caseworkers and providing significant funding to ACAS 425/26. ACAS annual report shows that of the approximate 125,000 of early conciliation notifications received by ACAS, approximately only 33% to employment tribunal claims.

I can try and answer some of the Noble Lord Lord Hunt's direct questions on the increased resources for the system. On new judges, we have 15 new fee paid part-time employment judges appointed in 2024/25 and there are a further three recruitment exercises to increase capacity which are being undertaken in 25 and 26, and I will reflect if there are any other questions on this which I haven't covered, I will of course write to the Noble Lord. We are also and this has been pointed out earlier in the debate considering other areas such as the expanded Fair Work Agency could play where this would reduce the costly and lengthy tribunal claims for we are happy to receive further ideas from Noble Lords on the reform but we are of the view that the disproportionate to make the vital improvement rights contained in this bill, dependent on the kind of review the opposition propose.

Turning to amendment 158 and 15.B also moved by Nova Lord Hunt of Wirral, the suggestion about increasing the time of early conciliation is indeed constructive, as we've said previously on a number of occasions we are engaging with businesses and unions to consider the ways to address growing demand, improve the efficiency of the employment tribunal system, and part of this work involves looking at how we can improve the already good work that ACAS is doing to help parties reach mutually agreed outcomes without the need of stressful and expensive litigation.

The six-week early conciliation period takes place prior to acclaim being brought the employment tribunal and provides an opportunity for employers and employees to try to reach an agreement without having to go to tribunal. Increasing time for early conciliation could provide some benefits to parties but we need more time to consider how this would interact with other reforms and identify potential unintended consequences. Changes to the period of early conciliation can be made using secondary legislation and therefore it is not necessary to use primary legislation for this purpose.

So perhaps the compromise like to suggest is we are happy to reflect on suggestion that's been made as part of our wider work and indeed thank the Noble Lords and other colleagues there amendments. Turning next to amendment 185 which was tabled by Noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the strikes minimum service levels out 2023 unduly resist the right to strike and undermines good industrial relations for the bits proven to be ineffective and has contributed one might argue to industrial unrest. And it's worth pointing out again as before here this evening no employer has ever issued a work notice under the act and not a single day of strike action has been prevented since it was introduced, indeed reflecting on question time earlier today, I will repeat that we lost a record number of days to strike action in 22 and 23.

The highest number since 1989 if I recall correctly. That bill definitely didn't prevent more industrial action from taking place. Rather we believe negotiation of cooperation are better ways to ensure essential services continue during strikes were respecting workers rights. And for these reasons we are committed to removing this legislation as soon as possible. I would say that our community repeal the legislation has been trailed for every year and was reiterated in our manifesto and we announced it again in August last year, so it won't come as a surprise to any employer, and as I said in any event employers are using the legislation anyway.

Turning very briefly to amendments 187 and 189 and one and one tabled by the Noble Lord sleeve Hurley who is in his place and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, we've always said we would engage and consult competitively on imputation to ensure strength and imputation to ensure strength and rights, protections to work for all. We want employers, workers, trade unions and others to have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure with us. On amendments 187 and 189, my Noble Lords our roadmap which we have, the Noble Lord Hunt of Wirral referred to sets out our plans for consulting on key provisions in parts one and for this awesome my autumn and will publish our response to each consultation in line with published guidance for so this will include a summary of responses received and a breakdown of the type of respondent.

This reflects will be 40 done in published consultation responses. For these consultations we will continue to engage with SMEs to ensure their vital perspectives are fed into policy development and provide sufficient support to prepare for these reforms. We value the constructive feedback and insights that businesses and organisations give and will continue to prioritise engagement moving forward. Regarding amendment 190, forward. Regarding amendment 190, but remind the Noble Lords that since 2016 there have been 33 reports and strategies about the effectiveness of labour enforcement.

I would also remind Noble Lords that the single enforcement body regardless of the name was a policy proceed -- pursued by both the opposition and Liberal Democrats commended the proposal was under different titles in all three manifestoes at the general election I believe. So whereas previous governments have dithered until late in taking action, we are indeed taking action to tackle the fragmented and ineffective enforcement system by bringing it Turning lastly to amendments 188 and 192 about commencement tabled by the noble Lord.

We have always said this bill was working practice not just on paper that's why we are committed to consultation and taking a staggered approach to implementation, as per our roadmap. These timelines been carefully considered to ensure the implementation works for employees and businesses of all sizes and all sectors. We taking a measured and phased approach to implementation to ensure they are practical, sustainable. I therefore ask Lord Hunt on behalf of Lord Sharpe of Epsom to withdraw amendment 158A.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the Minister for his response. I believe he accepts the fact that there is grave accepts the fact that there is grave concern across-the-board about the state of our Employment Tribunal state of our Employment Tribunal system today. That concern is amongst workers, employers, and especially employment lawyers. I do especially employment lawyers. I do welcome the fact that he accepts there is a need to extend the early conciliation.. He said it could be done by secondary Lodge, well let's done by secondary Lodge, well let's reflect on that.

It certainly would help to reduce the pressure on the system that is already under immense system that is already under immense strain. But we do lack clarity on strain. But we do lack clarity on strain. But we do lack clarity on some of those basic questions. How well Employment Tribunal is be funded? There are so many questionmarks now about hammy questionmarks now about hammy further judges are needed, how many administrators will be appointed, and what is the plan to bring the backlog under control.

It is very serious at the present time. If rights cannot be enforced in court, they effectively just don't exist. I do urge the government to take these concerns seriously, and bring forward proper solutions but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 158B Lord Sharpe not Amendment 158B Lord Sharpe not moved.. Amendment 159 not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 160 The Earl of Clancarty. Although I support all the other amendments in this group I declare an interest as self-employed visual an interest as self-employed visual artists. Amendment 166 to establish artists. Amendment 166 to establish a freelance Commissioner and is closely tied to consequential closely tied to consequential amendments 161 and 162 in the name of Lord Clement-Jones. Which both seeks to define what a freelancer is and gives the freelance Commissioner and gives the freelance Commissioner greater teeth. I'm very grateful for greater teeth.

I'm very grateful for law climate change in support of this and welcomed the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg and Lord noble friend Lord Freyberg and Lord Sharpe of Epsom as well as that of Lord Colville who I know will have signed this amendment if there had signed this amendment if there had been to do so. The first thing to say is that the creative and welcome the appointment of a champion for the appointment of a champion for the sector has announced in the industrial strategy and that happened after Committee stage.

And
22:20
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
are pleased that champion will be a member of the creative industry member of the creative industry Council, thinks the creative industry have been asking for for a long time for top there is appreciation that the government have listened in this respect. Had site to yesterday the draft terms of reference which is of course interesting timing. Those terms of reference result of conversations to be relevant organisations and the DCMS within the framework of the DCMS within the framework of the Good Work Review are an impressive if not comprehensive and yet if not comprehensive and yet entirely comprehensive tasks and concerns.

It is important to stress concerns. It is important to stress this also illustrates the immense challenges of freelance champion challenges of freelance champion will have. Nevertheless I applaud the government for opening the lines of communication between the DCMS and other organisations and may that and other organisations and may that long continue. Concerning the long continue. Concerning the champion there remain questions however. What powers will the champion really have any significant powers at all is this to be a salaried position? How much in practice will the champion be able to cut across different departments? Is this role going to be more about guidance for the sector rather than guidance for the sector rather than the necessary action freelances in terms of those many rights which standard employees have until Lodge extent take for granted but which freelances like.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could fill in some of those gaps if she is able to do so. There are broadly two reasons why should we should have a statutory and independent freelance Commissioner. The first is that we urgently need someone to the whole landscape of freelance and self- employed work which constitutes a not negligible 15% of the workforce will top this is a sector that is growing. As Lord Londesborough pointed out Committee stage this includes not just the creative industry but construction workers, agricultural workers and others as well my amendment covers that landscape and this is a landscape this bill which is supposed to be Employment Rights Bill, not an Employment Rights Bill, not an employee rights bill does not cover.

Instead freelances are always be asked to do, we are told to wait in line. This of course happened during COVID was only freelances fell through the gaps in support. Even looking at creative industry there is a question as to whether the whole of the creative industry themselves would necessarily be In whatever guise that comes. The DCMS's current understanding of these industries may be narrower than the reality and this is certainly true of those crafting the industry is hugely important for our economy which may not fall within the champions remit.

Because of the manner in which parts of the creative and the currently defined. This is something the government to look closely at. I know Lord Freyberg intend to flush out some of the details this very real concern about invisibility in both this and the debate that follows. Second crucial reason having a statutory appointment is not just that role would have the requisite powers to argue for and affect real change with the necessary authority to do so, but that is the long-term position that cannot be rescinded easily because we are in this for There is no doubt that the concerns freelances have and this is certainly true of the creative industries have grown more critical in terms of rights, in terms of income, in terms of the problems of late payment, in terms of Brexit which is affected and continues to affect so many creative industry not just music in terms of AI of course, and crucially to the downturn in the funding of the sector.

All of these things have become immense pressures which demand the appointment of an independent commissioner with the requisite powers to effectively address all of these concerns and influence government policy. I talked at some length that Committee stage about these increasing pressures as they affect the crater in the and I will not repeat those arguments accept ads some conclusions from a survey to be published tomorrow by the organisation freelances make theatres work. I'm grateful for their permission to do so, as they say and I quote.

The striking headlining this year's data is that 44% of respondents earned less than the 2024 UK national living wage in the 23/20 point tax levels up significant worsening of the already critical situation from the previous year where the equivalent figure was 34%. They go on to say these levels of pay will be illegal in salaried of pay will be illegal in salaried positions. I was worried by Chris Bryant recent evidence that the culture media and support committee when he says he wants to see a reduction in the number of freelances over the next 10 years.

My understanding was he thinking about those workers such as his Artists Artists for Artists for the Artists for the BBC Artists for the BBC who Artists for the BBC who lost Artists for the BBC who lost their salaried jobs and were pushed into becoming freelances. However this is but one part of the landscape in this exclusive emphasis ignores all the other freelancers, many of whom are creators, artists writers, composers and many others for whom there never has been any option other than being freelancer for the work they do.

Again we need to understand the whole landscape, the reality of that landscape ecology of that landscape. It becomes difficult to imagine how effective a champion with pro- close proximate you to the DCMS is going to be if the DCMS is actively trying to reduce the tape total number freelances. Something they take ought to be agnostic about. We need an independent commissioner, someone in other words in a position of authority who will support and importantly promote the practice of freelance work. We need it in law, we need this in the bill.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maanum proposed of the clause 150, insert the new clause the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

150, insert the new clause the words as printed on marshalled List. -- Amendment. Extremely disappointing we are debating something of this order of debating something of this order of importance at this time of day and importance at this time of day and that the fag end of this bill. But usually -- unusually am going to try
22:25
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
usually -- unusually am going to try and ingratiate myself with the House by being as brief as possible. First of all I want to thank Lord Katz for his letter of 30 June and for the publication of the draft terms of reference of the freelance champion referred to by noble Earl Lord Clancarty who I think are set out the store for these three amendments extremely cogently. I don't need to go over the ground that he has really explained extremely well.

It's the lack of a single clear voice representing the interests of freelances to government which is what this is all about. A clear definition of what a freelancer is unclear duties for the freelancer commissioner. The freelance champion does have some similar characteristics to the freelance Commissioner but there are significant differences from the independent freelance Commissioner. It is not going to be a statutory office unlike the freelance Commissioner. The structure proposed in our amendments would be more permanent and more independent of government.

The terms of reference explicitly state that the champion will focus on freelancers working in will focus on freelancers working in the creative and only so it won't be cross sectoral, as we heard from Lord Londesborough he is absolutely Lord Londesborough he is absolutely clear that freelancers are not only extremely and in the creative in the, but in many other industries as well. Those include construction professional, scientific and technical activities, business support, Health & Social Care, IT, digital services, education and training.

So the freelance champion were welcome for the creative industry under the sectoral creative and sectoral plan is welcome, doesn't really go nearly far enough across-the-board in terms of making sure that there is a real advocate and an advocate with teeth that is able to influence policy towards freelances across all of those different sectors. I suppose the question is really why the government have failed to grasp the urgency and widespread nature of the challenges faced by freelancers across all the sectors.

It is not very unclear that it covers much more broadly than the great of industry. These amendments will offer recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our workforce and cultural life in this yet too often unprotected and unheard of in legislative terms. So I do urge the government even at this time of time -- day in this time of the bill that they can't really change their approach, to really think about this, we've heard so much whether it was on AI all going to hear on dependent contractors, that the government is considering these things.

It really needs to shape up in terms of the modern economy stop freelancing is on the increase and they need protection. The freelance Commissioner would be by far the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best way forward. It is a pleasure to follow The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow The Earl of Clancarty and Lord Clement- Jones who have each set out the case Jones who have each set out the case for a more coherent and strategic
22:29
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page