Lords Chamber

Tuesday 28th October 2025

(began 6 hours, 50 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

attack now on net zero is quite extraordinary, given the vibrancy of the net zero economy? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank my noble Lord for that question. I think he's absolutely right. I think what we we need to right. I think what we we need to remember about this is that the previous government's record on this, what we're seeing now because we're heading for net zero is massive investment in, in in clean energy industry, creating millions of jobs in the long term and investments of billions of pounds. It's the way forward for the for the country.

It's the way forward for the world. And we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue doing it. My Lord Lords Bishop Minister. The noble Lord. The minister has already mentioned the ageing infrastructure that we have. We have become a global outlier here in terms of leak detection and in terms of leak detection and repair to stop methane leakages. Norway has monthly checks, the US Norway has monthly checks, the US has quarterly checks. Canada's bringing in monthly checks. Can I ask the noble Lord, the minister, ask the noble Lord, the minister, what our policy is and if it will mandate these leak detection and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repair testing regimes? Thank you. I think the noble Lord for for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord for for his question. And just to point out that there is regular assessments in all of this. These are, as I've in all of this. These are, as I've said, published data publicly on our website, on their website, highlighting flaring and venting and methane performance of and methane performance of different assets. So we're well aware of the issues and we're keeping on top of it. And also of keeping on top of it. And also of these any issues around this that on venting for especially that on venting for especially that fines of over half £1 million can be can be what can be set against the
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Value of the built environment sector and its role in the national economy, following the New London Architecture report: 'The Built Environment Sector', published on 16 September
-

with it and we've signed up to the World Bank's zero routine flaring by 2030. And we intend to meet that target.
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
rich menu for schools? And how will the new standard be funded,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

monitored and enforced? Well. I'm sure I could fill up the whole of question time trying to address all those. What I would say as the noble Baroness I thank you for obviously for her interest in for obviously for her interest in the work that that she undertook with the committee. So many of the recommendations from that, from that report are being taken forward that report are being taken forward through the government's ten year health plan, and the plan set out action to tackle the obesity crisis with a broad policy package aimed at improving food environment and ensuring better access to everyone.

In terms of school food standards, In terms of school food standards, she indeed did. We are we are working on this, and we are coming up with standards that define food up with standards that define food and drinks that must be provided to school, what must be restricted. And those are particularly looking And those are particularly looking at foods that are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar, and including, of course, sugary foods. In terms, I think it's important to respond I think it's important to respond to noble Baronesses point on the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

Members have a duty. Members of that committee have a duty to act in the public interest in accordance with the Code of in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Scientific Advisory Committees, to be independent and impartial. The committee's code of impartial. The committee's code of Conduct. Code of Practice, rather, my Lords has been updated recently. Individuals are now only eligible Individuals are now only eligible to be members if they do not hold significant interests in relation to the food, drink, diet or supplement industry. So I think we can be assured that they're acting on impartial and independent grounds when they provide the government with with the device.

government with with the device.
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring employers are encouraged to support people with disabilities into employment
-

Lord Hall question Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order book and I declare my interest as
15:09
15:11
15:11
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
this cohort, whose lives would be transformed by being included in the workplace and in their the workplace and in their communities? My Lords I share the noble Ladies desire to find more opportunities for people with opportunities for people with learning disabilities and indeed, severe autism and other conditions to be able to get the benefits of work of which money is but one. And I pay tribute to the work she's done in creating Team Domenica and the work it has done in supporting the work it has done in supporting learning disabled people into work.

And I'm sure the whole House would want to share in that Lords having want to share in that Lords having said all of that, I think that successive governments have taken a view that that the best way to view that that the best way to support disabled people into work is not necessarily by changing the rules around National Insurance or rules around National Insurance or indeed minimum wage. But she is absolutely right that the level of employment for people, disabled people, is only around 50%.

For those with autism, it's around 30. And as you say, it's vanishingly small for those with learning disabilities. We believe passionately that people, disabled people, are vital to the UK's workforce. The way we've approached it is our priority is to provide opportunities and support for disabled people to thrive in work. That's why we commissioned the independent Keep Britain Working Review, which will be published shortly, to look at, understand how we can create and maintain the kind of workplaces that we want to support disabled people and be able to enable them to thrive.

It's also why we're reforming employment, health and skills support to tackle rising economic inactivity and get people into good jobs. We want the same thing. We're doing it in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different ways, but we are determined to make things better. My Lords my Lords my Lords.
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble. That's a really good question. We we have something called the support with Employee Health and Disability Service. Actually, I'm not great at names and DWP, but it does what it says on the tin and that was developed directly with input from smaller businesses and disability organisations. And the idea is it gives employers step by step guidance on how they can support employees in common workplace scenarios involving health and disability. So, for example, employers may they can simply use the resource.

It may ask them, have you got somebody you're working with now. Yes OK. What's the challenge. It can support them in understanding what the law says, understanding how to have difficult conversations. Because actually most people who are working or want to work, who want to move into a job, who have a health or disability, we're very happy to have conversations, to help the employer, to know how to go about it. In the Connect to Work programme I mentioned, one of the reasons it works so well is that the specialist advisers will work with the employer to help answer all those questions.

They'll work with the person who's trying to move into work, and they can help bring the two together. And the person I was talking to recently, who was a lead in one of these programmes said, especially with small businesses, they just don't have the resources. They haven't got a huge HR department. They don't know how to do that, but they're really up for it. Hiring people in local community, they just want to be supported in doing it. So I'm really looking forward it. So I'm really looking forward to seeing how that works out.
15:18
15:19
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled persons and ethnic minority females with disabilities? Well, my Lords, I mean, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I mean, if anyone is not paying the legal minimum, then then they're breaking the law, whatever the circumstances. And absolutely there should be And absolutely there should be taken to task for that. However, my noble friends making a broader point, which is that there are clear gaps in terms of employment for female employment, for the disability employment gap and for pay for certainly for pay rates for, for a number of different ethnic minorities, although the pattern is more varied there.

One of the challenges we've got in trying to move to a the whole strategy of trying to move to a more inclusive Labour market is not about trying to do something for its own sake, it's about recognising if we don't use the talents of all of our people, businesses are not getting the best people that they want to do the jobs, and we won't get the kind of growth we need and we won't get the kind of development in companies. So we're setting out one of the reasons we've had such a focus on working with combined rural authorities and local authorities is to try to make sure they have local Get Britain working plans, which reflect their local populations and can make sure that they therefore, as they develop them, everybody in the local area

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has a good chance to get into work. So that's our approach. My Lords that concludes our questions for today. Clerk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions for today. Clerk. This is from the Commons that they have passed the Victims and Courts Bill to which they they
15:20
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Courts Bill to which they they desire the agreement of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships. My Lords. Victim and. Courts Bill, I beg to move this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Courts Bill, I beg to move this bill be now read a first time. Read a first time. As many as are of that opinion say, content Of are of that opinion say, content Of the contrary, not content the The contents have it. Can any members who wish to leave the chamber now my my Lords my Lords my my Lords my Lords.

my Lords my Lords. We my Lords my Lords. We now my Lords my Lords. We now come my Lords my Lords. We now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Mutual Recognition Agreement Switzerland Regulations 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Lords. I beg to move that. The motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. Is that this motion be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the country not content. 'content' the country not content. The contents have it. Private international law. Implementation international law. Implementation of agreements act 2020. Extension of Operative Period Regulations of Operative Period Regulations 2025. Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I'd like to move the motion standing in my name on the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. Is that this motion be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content and the
15:23
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - consideration of Commons amendments
-

content. The contents have it consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Employment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rights Bill. Baroness Lloyd of Effra. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. The question is that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. As many as of that opinion will say content as the opinion will say content as the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a Lord Collins of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion a Lord Collins of Highbury. My Lords, I beg to move motion a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 1AI will also speak to reasons. 1AI will also speak to motions b, e, e1, h and h1. And can motions b, e, e1, h and h1. And can I start by thanking your Lordships House for the constructive House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage? The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration it received during consideration it received during earlier stages, and at this point I place on record my thanks to my Noble friend Baroness Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.

My Lords, I believe the employment Bill, the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons, strikes the right balance between
15:26
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers whilst providing the flexibility good employers need to flexibility good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success. By now, after the extensive debates we've had at each stage of the bill, we've had at each stage of the bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards improving protections and standards for workers.

These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them again today. However, repeating them again today. However, I will speak to motions A, B, E, and H, which address amendments and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the bill. For each of these, I will set bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the government cannot accept these amendments. In this group. We will amendments.

In this group. We will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero hour contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously, and we have had the pleasure to meet noble Lords Lord Fox Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Hunt of Wirral to discuss their amendments, and I will take these in turn, outlining why the government believes these amendments are unnecessary or disrupt the balance of the bill. Thank you. Right to request model for the the right to guaranteed hours.

And I will speak to motion A relating to amendment one and motion A1 relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining the workers right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. And I am grateful for the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The government fully shares the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.

Having discussed with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guarantees hours contract, as the bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should be then be a right to request or opt in to guaranteed offers after each reference period. Now, I do share the Noble Lords desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers, while seeking to carefully manage burdens place on business.

The government shares this intention and is committing to delivering the promises set out in make work pay and supporting businesses to drive the country's economic growth. I was certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters, but, my Lords, I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the bill's core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the government is committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.

Now I move on to motion B relating to amendments seven and eight on the right to payment and short notice definition, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for tabling these amendments originally for consideration, and I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leading the leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the bill in itself would pre-empt the government's planned consultation and limit our discretion.

Discretion to consider a range of options the government has chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation, whilst enabling the government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary regulation, there will be a familiarisation period so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations.

I hope this reassures noble lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled, with more than the period of the short notice to be set in regulations. Therefore, amendment seven is not necessary. Now I will speak to motion H relating to amendment 48 as well as motion H1 relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Exxon.

The amendment in lieu seeks to insert a new legal definition of seasonal work into the bill to which the Secretary of State would have the power to add certain sectors. It also inserts a new obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to the characteristics of seasonal work as newly defined when making regulations under part one of the Bill. And again, I do thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue of seasonal work. The government appreciates that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally.

That's why consideration of issues relating to seasonal work is built in to the provisions contained in part one. The bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of an offer to enter into a limited term contract if it is reasonable to do so. For example, a fruit picker could be engaged on a limited term contract to perform a specific task tied to the end of the picking season. Following the end of the initial reference period, the fruit pickers employer would only need to guarantee their hours for the duration of the limited term contract, not permanently.

The bill also provides the necessary powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve, and we will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making any regulations. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the government's approach will provide clarity and certainty, while maintaining the flexibility needed to support both workers and businesses. I now turn to motions e which address the amendments 23 and 106 120 on unfair dismissal tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of and motion E one, which insists on those amendments.

The amendments took to reduce the qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim from the current two years to six months. They also create a new initial period of employment, during which regulations can provide for a different test for unfair dismissal and set a lower compensation cap. My Lords, we remain committed to make work pay manifesto, pledge to introduce unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment. This will ensure the approximately 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are able to challenge the fairness of a decision to dismiss them.

Our intention is to ensure that employment can provide security and predictability, and we intend to deliver this from day one on the job. The government's approach provides for a statutory probationary period, during which we will set light touch standards to allow for fair dismissal for reasons relating to capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason which relates to employee to the employee. This approach recognises the importance of employers being able to continue to hire with confidence.

The government has been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. Contractual probationary periods are typically 3 to 6 months long, and nine months. Enables an employer to extend probation, to give a new hire a chance to improve their performance. We will ensure the framework is fair, workable and responses responsive to the needs of businesses and employees. I hope the noble Lords will feel reassured that the government's approach upholds fairness, whilst ensuring a balanced, evidence based framework that supports both employees rights and employer confidence.

My Lords, in conclusion, I beg to move the friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Lloyd question is that motion A be agreed to? Motion A1
15:36
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Fox. My Lords, I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion A at end insert quote and do propose amendment one B in lieu and quote. My Lords, I think I'm right to welcome the noble Lord Collins to this Bill. I myself missed all of the report stage and I thank very much my noble friends, Lord Goddard Lord Farmer and Baroness Kramer for picking up the pieces. But both of us find ourselves at this bill at an interesting point in its progression, essentially the sharp end where we've really come down to a small number of key issues, but they're crucial, key issues.

My Lords, the government has not been short of advice since the last time this bill was being discussed in your Lordships House. 13 major business organisations wrote to the the the Minister, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation, an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury, set out serious concerns for my Lords. These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling, where inflation continues to be worse than our international rivals or most of them, and where growth is stagnant at best.

None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. But actually we should leave it to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade who put it best when he said that Britain faces a, quote, growth emergency, unquote. Now, I'm sure that the noble Lord Sharpe will go into more details on some of these reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. But but the unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the bill is likely to, or will have, in most of their cases, a chilling effect on our economy.

My Lords, this is a bill that contains 173 statutory instruments. It's a bill that still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations. For example, the consultation that the minister set out on notice periods. We still await the conclusion of that. So even when this bill gains Royal Assent, assuming that it does, no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty. My Lords, uncertainty is the enemy of investment.

Uncertainty leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. So, my Lords, at a time when things way beyond the control of national governments are running amok, the this government is wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. Something it could control, but is actually adding more uncertainty. So that, my Lords, is at the heart of the concerns we have. My Lords, the noble Lord Sharpe, as we've heard, will introduce his motions E1 and H1 in this group.

And I will, of course, leave it to him to explain their intention. But I will say that the need to place a qualifying period, an initial period of employment on the face of the bill, is an important concern on these benches. The bill, as it stands, would remove this provision entirely. The noble, the noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote. When it comes to motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord Sharpe is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work that is organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights.

This is largely absent from the primary legislation of the bill. Once again, we're going to rely on statutory instruments. So we're not I'm not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lords wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support the noble Lord. But perhaps the Minister could take on board this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations will operate on this bill in order to manage the the the irregular irregularity of seasonal work.

While it's still, of course, making sure that that work pays for the employees. But turning to my the detail to my motion A1, our motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily, and I think our view is that this is an example of that. When trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the minister's aims on making sure that every employee has the right to guaranteed hours moving from zero hours to guaranteed hours, and nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.

My Lords, we support the aim that after a reference period, zero hours should be entitled to those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, the one which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate, to calculate and make that offer from the outset. And we understand and heard some of the issues that were raised that it is difficult, hard for some certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage and actually initiate the contact and make the comment and make the ask.

So rather than reassert and, and the bill that the amendment that we tabled before, we have amended that amendment amendment. And I have to say that the no. Noble Lord Collins did a better job of explaining it than I'm probably going to do now, which is essentially start off stays the same as the government requires. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain in zero hours, then the employer will not be compelled to have to keep Re offering.

Guaranteed hours. Time after time, as each reference period is passed, that process of calculating what those hours are has to be redone each time. And that may seem trivial. And certainly for large employers it probably is trivial. But for the smaller and medium sized employer it is an added burden that doesn't need to be there. If the employee does not wish to leave zero hours, the the the. The aim of this amendment is to to make sure that both sides are managed well and both sides have the opportunity to change the.

The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I'm happy that the the, the the Minister wants to continue to talk about that this. And I'm very happy to continue to talk. In order to continue to talk, we will need to have this this motion passed. So I beg to move a one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A be agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved as an motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A to insert and do propose amendment one B in lieu. do propose amendment one B in lieu. The question, therefore, is motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A1 be agreed to? My Lords. Firstly, can I start by saying I'm also very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and his his new colleagues for the time for their time over the course of the their time over the course of the past couple of weeks. And I'd also like to thank the noble Lord Lord Fox for his amendment, and if he Fox for his amendment, and if he wishes to test the opinion of the House, then we will be supporting him.

My Lords turning to motion E1 him. My Lords turning to motion E1 on day one. Unfair dismissal rights I am sorry that we find ourselves here again, given the overwhelming cross-party support this amendment received last time around. But I think it is right that we remind think it is right that we remind ourselves of the background making unfair dismissal a day one right will inhibit hiring, and this concern is heightened in the current Labour market context of falling jobs. The number of falling jobs.

The number of Payrolled employee jobs has fallen by 127,000 over the past year, and by 127,000 over the past year, and slowing hiring. The number of vacancies employers are posting has been falling for two years and is
15:46
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
now below pre-pandemic levels. The number of young people aged 16 to number of young people aged 16 to 24 not working or studying has risen post pandemic and is at the highest level in a decade, and young people's employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers because they are more likely to be because they are more likely to be looking for work, making dismissals as hard as the employment rights as hard as the employment rights bill does might also be for little obvious gain to workers.

Workers today are about half as likely to today are about half as likely to lose their job as they were 30 years ago. And unsurprisingly, workers are less worried about workers are less worried about losing their jobs. There is also a practical argument against day one unfair dismissal protection. The unfair dismissal protection. The employment tribunal system isn't in a fit state to deal with more claims. The claims backlog has been claims. The claims backlog has been growing and some claims are taking as long as two years to be resolved, long enough that some companies go long enough that some companies go out of business before workers receive their awards.

The government has suggested they will propose a new nine month legal propose a new nine month legal probation period. Indeed, the noble Lord minister has just repeated that there and where dismissals that there and where dismissals have to be fair. But where the bar that employers have to clear to demonstrate they have acted fairly demonstrate they have acted fairly is set lower, that my Lords is a messy compromise, and there is risk that is likely to be poorly understood by many employers, meaning that it may not fully mitigate any adverse effects on employers willingness to hire my Lords.

The government should change tack and opt for the much more straightforward approach of keeping the qualifying periods, but massively reducing them, and this needs to happen now. The government has pencilled in this change, this change in for implementation in 2027, and although many of the employment rights Bills reforms won't effectively be finalised until the secondary legislation is passed, scrapping qualifying periods is happening in the primary legislation itself, reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the government's manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers.

Reducing the qualifying period to six months would give protection from unfair dismissal to an additional 6 million employees. But it would do so in a way that doesn't needlessly put employers off hiring my Lords. That entire preamble was a direct quote from the government's favourite think tank, the Resolution Foundation, who topically entitled their paper on this subject day one frights. As noble Lords will know, the Resolution Foundation's previous Chief Executive was Torsten Bell, currently Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

So are we to infer that this report signals a split on this issue between the Treasury and the Department? Meanwhile, as noble Earl Lord Fox mentioned, noble Lords will have received a letter from 13 business organisations and I will read them into the record. The Federation of Small Business, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, make UK, the aerospace and Defence and Security Group, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Food and Drink Federation, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UK Hospitality my Lords.

It's difficult to be precise, but we believe that they represent more than half a million businesses. Yeah, certainly they represent the employers of many, many millions of workers. And the arguments that they make echo those of the Resolution Foundation almost to the word unamended. This bill would, as the Resolution Foundation has warned us, take us from being an outlier in one direction to the other extreme. My Lords, our amendment proposes a sensible compromise in line with the economies such as those of New Zealand and Korea and more importantly, a compromise which all sides, including both business businesses and left of centre think tanks, can live with.

The Lord. The minister talked about consultations and reviews and assured us that we can deal with all the detail in the secondary legislation. But in answer to that, I would repeat the Resolution Foundation's argument. Scrapping qualifying periods is happening in the primary legislation itself. Quite so. And as Politico mentioned yesterday, and I quote, one industry figure suspects some people are making noise about climb down now to get the bill through the Lords, only to close ranks again at a later date.

My Lord, that my Lords, that unnamed industry figure speaks for many of us. This motion offers to the new ministers an easy and elegant solution to a problem of the government's own making, which has zero support among the creators of wealth, including, we may infer, from the government's own Treasury team, they should accept it. My Lords, turning to motion H1 in my name. On these benches, we have repeatedly made the point that the government should not pursue a one size fits all approach to the Labour market.

For farmers in particular, the Labour force rises and falls with the season harvesting, planting, noble Lords own example of fruit picking and livestock management all depend on the rhythms of nature, not on the administrative convenience of Whitehall or indeed limited scope contracts. The reality is that a farm cannot simply hold on to a staff year round, when the work itself exists for only a defined and limited period. The same can be said for many other seasonal industries in and is in my amendment as defined in my amendment, and that is why 26 weeks has long been recognised across seasonal industries as the appropriate reference period.

My Lords, I would urge the government to protect our seasonal sectors by agreeing to this motion and I beg to move motions E1 and H1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay! Yay! OK. I think that motion E1 is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that motion E1 is the most important amendment that we will be debating today. The introduction of day one. Unfair
15:51
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
dismissal rates is the most damaging element in this bill in my opinion. Whilst I do think there are problems with much of the bill, there will be a lot of unintended consequences for most of the proposed changes to employment rights. The government is trying to solve genuine problems. Zero hours contracts can be abused, and the abuse of fire and rehire is well known. To give a couple of examples. But despite asking many times, no minister has yet provided any evidence that the current qualifying period is being abused or causing actual harm to employees and the noble Lord.

The minister has added nothing to that today. The impact assessment that accompanies the bill likewise provides no actual evidence of cost or harm, and we've already heard from the Resolution Foundation that agrees when it says making dismissals as hard as in the IRB might also be for little obvious gain to workers. So, uniquely among the employment rate changes in the bill, there is little or no evidence that there's really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here. But, my Lords, there are very real harms that will arise as a result of this policy.

The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees. The government's own impact assessment makes this clear, and it points out that the greatest impact will be on more risky hires. Young people trying to get that first, all important break, people trying to get off benefits, ex-offenders and so on. All people that the government keeps telling us it is trying to help to repeat. Don't take my word for that.

The government's own impact assessment confirms this. We've just heard about the business organisations. All that I've seen also point to these unintended consequences. But even if you think they would say that, wouldn't they? Then listen to the Resolution Foundation, not an organisation that's ever been accused of being in hock to employer organisations. They say, as we've heard, the government's plan of getting rid of qualifying periods entirely by making this a day one right, has the potential to inhibit hiring.

And it goes on to say, importantly, one group of particular concern at the moment are younger adults. The number of young people aged 16 to 24 not working or studying has risen post-pandemic and is at its highest level in a decade, and young people's employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers. End quote. Now, I think we can all agree that the current two year qualifying period is unnecessarily long, and that is why the amendments passed at the report reduced that to six months, which should be long enough for most employers to decide if the hire is working or not.

That would bring us into line with countries Foundation. Again, I think they're going to get quoted a lot today. Reducing rather than scrapping the qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the government's manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers. But it would do so in a way that doesn't needlessly put employees off hiring. But the government simply rejected this compromise, while providing no reason and no evidence whatsoever of a problem. What is needed for a probation period to allow an employer to give a potential new hire? The benefit of the doubt is for there to be no risk of being taken to an employment tribunal during that period, other than for the standard statutory reasons such as discrimination that already exist and before anyone suggests, as they have in the past, that there won't be an increase in tribunal claims, I remind noble Lords that the government's own impact assessment actually states that a benefit of the policy is that there will be an increase in tribunal awards actually in the impact assessment.

My Lords, we've heard that the government intends to consult on the matter and to create a nine month light touch probation period. Sounds good, but the bill prejudges that consultation new Subclause three of clause 98 sets out very clearly that certain fair reasons must be given to dismiss someone during a probation period, and unfortunately, those reasons are materially the same as the reasons that must be given after the qualifying period. Which means that as the bill is drafted, the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal will always remain.

It won't, in fact, be possible to create a genuinely light touch probation period after the bill is passed. Whatever the results of the consultation. So the government's suggestion that it will be OK because of the future consultation and regulations just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Now, we've often heard this as a manifesto commitment, but the government never mentions the other explicit manifesto commitment that it would consult fully with businesses, workers and civil society before legislation is passed. It's in the same paragraph, my Lords, it seems to be OK to breach that manifesto commitment.

My Lords, as I say, the government's own impact assessment clearly acknowledges the harm this policy will cause. If you know that your actions will cause harm and you go ahead anyway, that is a deliberate act. So if the government is not prepared to listen, including to the Resolution Foundation, the only conclusion that I think we can make is that the government intends, knowingly and deliberately, to damage the life chances of young and vulnerable people. Does it really want to do that? Please, Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take this seriously. , very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

, very good. My Lords, I rise to oppose amendment E-1, which is unnecessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment E-1, which is unnecessary. Under the Employment Rights Bill, employers can still dismiss workers
15:57
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
employers can still dismiss workers fairly, for example, if they're as they can now, if they're incompetent or there's misconduct or a redundancy situation, but without the day one protection proposed by this government, when workers move to a new job. Workers would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim. Now, I encourage my Lords to put themselves in the shoes of a worker who, in good faith leads, leaves a secure job where they have completed the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal, to take up a new post, and who then finds themselves sacked out on their ear, stripped of a livelihood for no good reason.

I would also remind my Lords that many groups of workers are already protected against unfair dismissal from day one, as their dismissal would be deemed automatically unfair, for example, if they are pregnant or they're on family leave, or they're a trade union rep, or indeed, if they're a whistleblower. This government simply intends to extend that protection to all workers. In addition, if someone who thinks they've been unfairly dismissed because of race or sex or another protected characteristic, this could be discrimination.

They could make a claim to an employment tribunal for both discrimination and unfair dismissal, and for that discrimination claim, workers do not have to meet that qualifying period of two years. Finally, so far, I've heard little mention of the thorny issue of job mobility in this country, which economists agree is a significant barrier to economic growth and productivity in the UK. Reports show that job mobility has fallen badly, according to one report, dropping by 25% over a period of barely two decades.

Poor job mobility is bad for workers. They have less chance of improving their wages if they stick in the same job, and it's bad for the economy because we are failing to move workers fast enough into areas of growth. Now, under the previous government, we saw insecure contracts at work soar. And in 2012, of course, the Conservative led government shamefully doubled the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal to two years, stripping those workers with less service of protection at the stroke of a pen I have.

I'm certainly very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. But frankly, when I look back on employers opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. Labour's manifesto commitment is clear to deliver day one rights in full. I hope noble Earl Lords will join me in opposing this amendment here.
16:01
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I just start by sort of referring to a point both noble Lords have mentioned? And that is the lack of detail on the face of the Bill. And as somebody that's been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I'm very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give that time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law on the face of a bill.

That's the practice that has, you know, from my experience, from the mid 80s. And can I also say, I mean, my noble friend just made the point noble friend just made the point about the. Business and trade discussions and can I just assure you know, particularly business groups have written to many noble lords urging them to support amending the bill, particularly in terms of the qualifying period. And can I can I say the Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives, organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal, and we will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees, civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect.

Adopting that very sensible approach in terms of proper consultation, any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer's favour, and I think my noble friend made this point. Repealing the two year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is, of course, most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair and certainly reducing the two year qualifying period. And by the way, I really welcome the noble Lord Lord Sharpe current journey because, as my noble friend pointed out originally when this protection was introduced, there was a six month qualifying period.

Then the Conservative government increased it to one year. Then they increased it to two years. So I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord Sharpe is now going on. I think if he goes from two years down to six months, it won't be very hard for him to accept day one rights. So we're on the right pathway, and I think we can very much welcome that. And I certainly, you know, I have of course heard the Resolution Foundation.

I welcome their contribution heard on the radio, read their contribution. I think it's important that employers can enforce their rights, employees can enforce their rights. We're certainly contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But our reforms to the Labour market and again, I come back to my noble friends point often, what constrains our economic growth strategy is the fact that many, many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they're currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades, new occupations.

That's what's happening to our economy at the moment. So actually, the sort of flexibility that we really want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day one, day one rise. And I think, you know, just coming back to and the other amendments, I do think that as the noble Lord Fox and the noble Lord Sharpe have made, we undetermined to address the issue of a one sided flexibility, and I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally.

But, you know which I mean, the current one sided flexibility can leave people unclear where they will be next paid get next paid paid work, and unclear how much time they need to keep available for work. And under the bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights depending on the circumstances, such as using limited term contracts or guaranteed hours in the various ways. So I think the bill absolutely covers that.

And I come back to the noble Lord noble Lord Lord Fox amendment. And I think, you know, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. And I think it's, you know, what we are trying to do in this bill. We want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, to create an economy that works for all. And we think employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. And this is best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that.

Right. And the provisions in the bill will apply to all employers, which will allow good employers to benefit from a level playing field. And I think that's the important point about this. And we do need to recognise most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. What this legislation is underpinning those good employers so that the Cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. So I think, you know, what we are trying to do is ensure that there is fairness at all levels.

And I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise that the order. Lord of the Minister for giving way. I was hoping to hear an answer to a question posed by the noble and learned Lord Phillips without a and learned Lord Phillips without a qualifying period, would employers take on people with a criminal take on people with a criminal record? And that question has not been answered. So I was hoping it would be answered. Secondly, would be answered. Secondly, section 23, as amended, it talks about right not to be unfairly about right not to be unfairly dismissed.

So this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying qualifying period is not quite wrong. So would the noble Lord the wrong. So would the noble Lord the Minister answer that really quite difficult question. Would you difficult question. Would you employ somebody without qualifying period who has a criminal record? period who has a criminal record?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

period who has a criminal record? Yes, I. Can see that. It's important for the member beat me to it. He hasn't addressed this point it. He hasn't addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against day one. The day one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders who were trying to get rehabilitated, and also many young people, young boys, young girls, 20 year olds who never had a job before. And the government's own impact statement seems to bear this out.

The minister hasn't even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly hasn't addressed it in his reply. And I think it's the best argument that's made against the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's proposals. Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, sadly, I haven't got through my contribution in got through my contribution in response to all the questions. So please do give me a bit of time and I certainly will address that specific question when I get to it. specific question when I get to it. But I do think, I mean, the general point we're trying to make on day one rights, and my noble friend one rights, and my noble friend made it very adequately.

Day one, day one rights do currently apply day one rights do currently apply in certain circumstances. So it's not a novel, innovative thing. And not a novel, innovative thing. And it has been a demand for some time. And actually, in terms of probation, most good employers do have probationary periods, and they do use those probationary periods for a purpose. The purpose they have is to ensure they can retain that employee, so that they actually can employee, so that they actually can offer opportunities to improve, address, you know, where there is address, you know, where there is an issue of competency or capacity for them to address.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss. They're an opportunity to dismiss. They're an opportunity to continue employment. And I think that's important to say that. And I do think that chilling effect is not correct, because all employers, good employers, have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within that probationary period. And that's what this legislation is trying to promote and ensure exist. I was looking for a particular page, which I've now found. I think there was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

Young people, ex-offenders. Yeah. Ex offenders. And I certainly did see a page on that. And we'll certainly get to it hopefully soon. But I think what the important point that I will repeat the point I'm making is that that probationary period is that opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job, although there we go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Inspiration lies. I knew I had the page somewhere,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I knew I had the page somewhere, but it didn't didn't and I had read but it didn't didn't and I had read it, but currently having a spent conviction is not a proper ground conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Well, I had two Offenders Act. Well, I had two questions that were posed proposed to me.

One was the issue about the to me. One was the issue about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answering the right question? I think I think we seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that if this day one point is that if this day one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person won't be employed in the first place. It's not that they first place. It's not that they will be fired afterwards, it's because the employer won't feel able to take the risk to take the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to take the risk to take the chance on them in the first place. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. You know, I you know, I mean, if you have a spent conviction, you don't have to disclose it. So I don't understand what the noble Lord point is making. I mean, I think it really is important. I think it really is important that we do see, I mean, you know, I challenge noble Lords that, you know, their experience. And the noble Lady sitting opposite me. Baroness Neville-Rolfe sorry to name her in person, but she and I worked together in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country.

They have very positive employment policies. They have very positive policies for flexible working and also proper disciplinary and proper grievance procedures. The simple fact is that what probationary periods provide for, and it needs to be understood, is when an employer spends a lot of money recruiting someone, they have the opportunity to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, a we need to consider the position of SMEs as well as big the position of SMEs as well as big employers like Tesco. But I suspect I can't speak for Tesco anymore. They will, they will. Part of the They will, they will. Part of the letter that was sent to us all and everybody is concerned on this point that unless you can write point that unless you can write some of this probationary stuff into the bill, or at least publish it before the bill is passed.

When it before the bill is passed. When I was a civil servant, you did the CIS at the same time as the bill, and we really got to have clarity here before we can pass the bill, because we cannot then you can't go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because we cannot then you can't go into reverse once the bill is passed. Yes. Yeah. Well, I wish I had the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I wish I had the noble Lady of Minister say that when many of the bills that were pushed through in recent years, and through in recent years, and certainly we did not have statutory instruments and a classic case, of course, and the noble Lords are course, and the noble Lords are here was the minimum service level bill that they pushed through this bill that they pushed through this Parliament, and there were no indication of statutory instruments indication of statutory instruments that came into and I repeat, I mean, the important thing to make here.

the important thing to make here. Is the opportunity to properly consult and properly actually agree a proper process for introducing the necessary secondary legislation. And so I think it's really important. And I you know, I come back to the point that noble Lord Lord Vaux made in relation to young people. I mean, we do want to ensure, I mean, this government is already providing support for young people, transforming the apprenticeship levy into new growth and skills levy. We're unlocking greater flexibility for learners and employers and aligning training with our new industrial strategy.

So I think what we can do is focus on the opportunities. Does this bill present an opportunity for creating stability, security, innovation in our Labour market? Well, I would argue very strongly it does. As I come back to the point, I come back to the point and I make this strongly. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe and his party increased that process of qualifying period. You know, it started at six months, then went to one year, then to two years.

Now he's saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one right at the beginning. That's what we we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need. My Lords Lord. Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foundation. Could I ask the noble Lord the minister what his answer to that is? Well, I thought I had raised the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thought I had raised the response. I think actually what we're trying to do, where there are specific concerns, we can address specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that probationary We have said that probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses that those companies and businesses have three months or six months can actually extend them to ensure that issues of capability and competency issues of capability and competency are addressed.

We are also ensuring are addressed. We are also ensuring that we actually look at all other opportunities. I mean, I think the point my noble friend made every change that we've made in terms of the Labour market to improve the the Labour market to improve the conditions and opportunities for workers and employees, has been workers and employees, has been resisted and resisted strongly, particularly from the party particularly from the party opposite. But we now have the situation under.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maybe the noble Lord could respond to this. There are more opponents to this, these parts of the bill than from the party opposite as you describe them. All opposite as you describe them. All of the opponent, all of the concerns that have been raised across the House, but outside of this House come from a wide range of organisations and interests who of organisations and interests who are actually interested in workers are actually interested in workers rights.

They're concerned that a lack of forethought about what day one rights mean will actually one rights mean will actually impact on some people who won't ever get the chance to have workers rights because they won't be rights because they won't be employed. It will lead to a risk averse employer. I think it is averse employer. I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers rights a Conservative, anti-workers rights view that is actually misinformation, not even reflected in the discussion we've had here in the discussion we've had here today.

So could the Minister actually answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation, but by a wide range of employers and by a wide range of organisations who are worried that even though you say this is for workers, that just because it says that on the tin is not actually in the tin, and that actually your consultation afterwards is going to not help a bill that is cemented into law, this government says it agrees with it constantly tells us about the rule of law.

We're worried that you're about to make a law that is unbreakable without any consultation afterwards, and that that will be bad for workers. That's the driving factor of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns. Well, I would argue very strongly that this is actually the focus of our efforts is about what's good for this country. And what's good for this country. And what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth. Now, stimulate that growth. Now, creating a a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I do admire the noble Ladies ability to sort of suggest she supports sort of suggest she supports workers rights, whilst then siding with people who oppose workers with people who oppose workers rights.

I mean, the reality is the reality is, and I'll repeat it, reality is, and I'll repeat it, where we have made progress in terms of employment rights, you terms of employment rights, you know, over the last 45 years, it has been resisted many times, has been resisted many times, resisted because people were fearful where it may lead. But the reality, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to rights have enabled people to prosper.

They've enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges. They've enabled women to not suffer discrimination. They've enabled women to demand equal pay. I am determined that we actually stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive and forward looking economy that protects workers rights. I beg to move here.
16:21
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Pick the bones out of that if you wish. There's quite a lot to respond, which I will not completely respond to, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping pong. Usually most of it is cut and dried, and it's down to the tiny neurones. This is not the case in this particular bill. There is a lot of detail that has to be litigated in this bill, and part of the problem we come back to is virtually none of the bill is there.

This is paving legislation back in the committee stage, when the noble Lord didn't even dream that he'd be sitting, taking these these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with Baroness Coffey, and she and I were putting forward the proposal for a proper code of practice that was proposed prior to the the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that the noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not be there.

They would have been sketched out, put out into a code of practice. That didn't happen. Milk has been spilled and there's no point crying over it. But I would point out that in future there is stuff that can be done when you have bills that are packed full of of of of statutory instruments. And that was one thing we could have done which, which, which the government decided not to. The noble Lord talked, talked rightly about the majority of good employers.

He's right. The majority of good employers want to treat their workers well and do so. He described this legislation as underpinning good employers. I'm not sure how it underpins if the good employers are already doing what it can do and in some cases does do, which comes back to my point. It makes unnecessary work for employers to do when they when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic, but I want you to come back to the final point about the the the day one rights my Lords.

There are millions of people who are not working at the moment. The government is very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the government wants these people to work, they will require jobs and they will require jobs from businesses who have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives and certainly haven't worked for years and years. That is a risk with full day one rights that makes the risk even higher, because the employer has to take a punt.

They have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes it will win, sometimes it won't. And this whether the, the, the, the noble Baronesses opposite shake their heads or not, it will make employers reticent about making that move. And that is why the noble, the noble Lord is correct in his in his motion, however, returning back to motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. And on that basis I would like to test the will of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and put it to be decided. Yes. Question. Is that motion A1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. Is that motion A1 be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, content. Content to. The contrary, not. Content.
16:25
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Not content. The question will be decided by division I will alert.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be decided by division I will alert. Lord Barber. Did I miss something? My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did I miss something? My Lords, I think not. I will alert the House I think not. I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. My My Lords. My Lords, My Lords. My Lords, the My Lords. My Lords, the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, the question is that motion A1 be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' to the contrary. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My lords. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Stevens

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 302, not contents 159. So the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My lords. My lords. Motion My lords. Motion B My lords. Motion B Lord My lords. Motion B Lord Collins

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords. Motion B Lord Collins of Highbury moved formally. The question is that motion be agreed question is that motion be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' as many as for that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion C Lord Leong. My Lords, I beg to move motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment 21 and do agree with the comments in the amendments 21 A the comments in the amendments 21 A and 21 B in lieu. I will also speak
16:39
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
to motion k, k, I, n, and n one. In this group. We will be debating amendments made in the House relating to Special constables, relating to Special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school Support Staff negotiating body. The government have listened body. The government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by Noble Lords and concerns raised by Noble Lords and members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these have engaged extensively on these issues.

I will speak to Special constables first. I will speak first to amendment to motion C relating to amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees, who are special constables the who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Parekh and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say the issue.

I am pleased to say the government has tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter. This government recognises and values the role of Special Constables. Play an important play in keeping our communities safe, a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to Special Constables.

The government has existing powers to be able to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review by secondary legislation. As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already underway and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose, and whether any changes should be made, including the case of Noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to this list would deliver the intended support for public services and excesses, and assesses the potential impact on businesses.

I hope this provides reassurance to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables who we all want to see support to perform their important duties. I will thank I would like to thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in early debates, and I ask for support in this amendment. In lieu, my Lords, I now turn to motion K relating to amendment 50 to 60, sorry, and motion K1 relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

I would like I would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and my noble friend, Lord Falkner Worcester, for the continued engagement on this important subject. Whilst we recognise the important contribution these volunteers make, Noble Lords will know the government could not accept the original amendment as it risks creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work. I'm grateful that noble Lord Parkinson for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground.

Whilst we have concerns with the current drafting, the government consider that targeted guidance for Heritage Railway can address his practical concerns without the need for legislative exemption and support. The intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with Heritage Rail Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways.

We are grateful to the HRA for their prompt response in relation to this offer, and look forward to working with them on the guidance. This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both Or and HSC. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will also provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways could would be free to take other action, but if they follow the guidance, they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law.

The government is committed to this guidance. Both O, R, R and HSC agree that this work is a priority and our officials are ready to begin work with the RA on preparing the guidance, with the intention to publish it by 31st March 2026. As I mentioned, the Noble Lords Amendment does have some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the author, and on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA.

So, my Lords, at this stage there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The government will therefore not oppose the amendment today. My Lords, I now turn to motion N, which addresses amendment 121 on school support staff, negotiating bodies, or triple S and A and motion N1 relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Baron.

The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB, provided that the overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis. I understand this was a point the noble Lady wished to make at report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision the government had brought forward for the purposes of clarification.

This amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case by case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums, ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff, terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB. Such an arrangement would also cause uncertainty for employers who would face greater burden and legal risk in making their case by case determinations about the relative value of different terms.

All school support staff deserve to know what minimum levels of pay and conditions they will receive. My Lords. So, for example, where an employer provides lunch during a shift that may be regarded as a welcome benefit. However, it would be unlawful for an employer to deduct the cost of that meal from an employee's minimum wage. The law is clear that the minimum wage must be paid in monetary terms, and cannot be replaced or reduced by the provision of food benefits or other non-cash arrangements.

The government amendment. We make a report stage A secures protection for individual employees in that terms and conditions cannot be changed to their detriment. Following SSSNB negotiations. It provides ample flexibility for employers to innovate in response to local circumstances, circumstances and offer more favourable terms irrespective of their structure. Turning to subsection four of the amendment. Throughout the passage of this bill, we have been very clear that we will not impose a top down approach from government. It is only right that the SSSNB, which will bring together employee and employer representatives and sector experts, should negotiate on which minimum terms and conditions support staff should be entitled to.

It is not right to prescribe the terms and conditions to exclude in primary legislation, without the necessary consideration and consultation. The amendment would also allow employers to employ support staff on terms that are less favourable than the statutory minimum in those specified specified areas, without compensating staff through terms that are more generous than the statutory minimums. Section five would allow the Secretary of State to add to the list of areas to be exempt from the statutory requirements, which would further undermine the protections afforded to school support staff.

The bill already states that the SSSNB will have an advisory remit in relation to training and career progression, and therefore those areas would not be included in the minimum terms and conditions negotiated by SSSNB. My Lords are therefore asked the noble Baroness to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, in conclusion, I thank noble Lords for the valuable consideration contributions both during the passage of this Bill and in the course of today's debate across this House. We share a common commitment to ensure that this Bill achieves its full potential as effective legislation.

I beg to move the motion standing in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Lloyd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Christian motion C be agreed to. As I can be very brief, because the Minister has brought glad the Minister has brought glad tidings, and I thank him for that very much, and for the way that he
16:49
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
set it out. As noble lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this is a confusion which stems from a 1920 Act of Parliament and how it applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade it's been taken up by the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law. So I pay tribute to him for ten years of hard work and his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.

I'm grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness Lady Lord Hay, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting with them both last week. They were in listening mode and I'm glad they've taken this away and helped to solve it. The key issue. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting with, and I'm glad to report that the office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association.

As the Minister said, I'm delighted to hear the target for that to be completed by the 31st of March. I'm sure that work can indeed be done. The sticking point for us was that this needs clarifying in law, as well as in guidelines. In our debate on report, the noble and learned Baroness Lady Butler-Sloss and it said it is no use ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations such as this will not prosecute. The fact is that the law forbids it.

If the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That's why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table was to describe what the government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I'm delighted to hear that the government is happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept, I'm sure my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I'll be very glad to work with the government to clear up and I'll be very pleased next week.

I have a non-financial interest to declare. I'm the Unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. Very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up in order to become the rail Minister. Next week I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, who will be delighted to hear that this long standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved and I'm grateful to the government for their part in solving it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I'm. Almost lost. For words. As noble Lord Lord Parkinson has said, this Lord Lord Parkinson has said, this is it's been a campaign that's been running for almost 15 years. The
16:51
16:52
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
amendment C, sir. Thanks to the government for that amendment. Lord Katz in particular has been very patient, provided time, and has responded to an issue that's first raised by Sir Marcus Fox in the comments following one of his constituents, who was a special constable, who presented the unfairness of the fact that he couldn't get time off from his employer as a right. And that was the issue that was raised in his amendment, which was dismissed in the Commons. I was supported in the Lords by Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, which I appreciate.

Of course, I would have preferred that the specials were added to the list of those who do get a right, but the government responded by saying they'd have a review. I said often reviews don't happen and if they do happen, they don't get any outcomes. So in that case, then how about making a statutory one? That's time limited. Now what's your argument? Well, it's a fair point and I accept that the review will take place. Is time limited. And I look forward to its outcome, because the government's other point was that, of course, there are other groups who might want a similar right on a list that is waiting to be addressed, and it would be unfair only to consider the specials.

I think that's a fair point, but I'm glad for the progress that's been made and the support the government have shown.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I feel in a lonely. Position not to be able to thank the government for their comments the government for their comments on my amendment. I did feel sad on my amendment. I did feel sad that I would have to rise again, as I hoped the government would have
16:54
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I hoped the government would have talked to those running our schools and trusts and would have adjusted their approach, but they clearly haven't done that. So we're here again, and I have to say, I feel slightly sorry for the noble Lord the Minister, because. I think the remarks that he was given commenting on my amendment were, if I may, ill advised, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would have put would have facilitated contracts where someone was offered a free lunch and then to be paid below the minimum wage.

There is absolutely nothing in my amendment that suggests that, and both the noble Baroness, the Minister and the Department for education and his predecessor Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who I met with at the end of July, a very clear that there was nothing in that at all. And I will also challenge some of the other remarks that he made. But there is nothing in my amendment which would worsen the terms for my for employees. So I think it's unfortunate that that was the advice he was given on how to approach this by way of context before coming to my motion.

The just to remind noble Lords this is a very unlike heritage railways. With greatest respect to my Noble friend, this is a big issue. There are 800,000 support staff in our schools, about half a million full time equivalent employees. Half of them are teaching assistants and the other half are in a multiplicity. Literally thousands of different roles. So when the noble Lord says this is not a top down approach, I just my jaw hits the ground.

The the idea that the SSSNB is going to be able to create a full range role profiles, pay scales, etc. is just not realistic. We're going to end up either with a labyrinth or a straitjacket, and neither, I would suggest, are an ideal outcome. And despite having raised this at every point in debates on this bill, the government has not explained how it will address the multiplicity of roles that exist when the SSSNB was in existence previously, before 2010, we didn't have about 2500 trusts, each of different sizes, geographic footprints and organise differently with different roles within them.

The amendment also doesn't address the inconsistency in the government's approach between the school teachers pay and review body and the SSSNB, so in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the government accepted the principle of a framework that academies must have regard to in the Bill. In schedule three, the schools Bill schedule three, page 134, lines 27 to 32. It says academies must have regard to any provision of an order under section 122 that relates to conditions of employment, and it goes on to say they must also have regard to guidance.

We tried to bring in an identical amendment at report with my amendment 111A, which mirrored the government's own amendment in the children's Well-Being and schools Bill. But at the time, the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Whitchurch argued that it would be wrong to create a two tier system. So we do actually have a two tier system between for teachers, between maintained schools and academies. But we are rejecting a system which I'm proposing through my amendment, which would only offer upside to school support staff so that we end up with the triumph of uniformity over innovation.

So if we turn to my motion N1, it aims to give the government a practical way to deliver its objectives of consistency and fairness without unduly constraining the judgement of school and trust leaders in managing their workforce. The. Without this amendment, employers both in academies and in maintained schools will lose their ability to design contracts which meet both the needs of the workforce and the needs of their pupils. And that might include, for example, paying someone above the agreed pay scale if they agree to work towards a qualification, or if in a trust which has schools in multiple local authorities, they may receive a higher salary in return for working across a wider geographic footprint.

The government's approach removes the ability to do that. Every individual element in a employees pay and conditions has to be above a minimum standard, rather than allowing an employer to pay someone more in return for greater flexibility or the commitment to work towards a higher qualification. So, and the Minister wrote to me on the 1st of September, I won't. Keep the House by going through the examples, but all the examples in that letter were where this legislation won't apply.

But what we're interested in and worried about is where it will apply. So I feel this is a bit like Groundhog Day. We are back stuck with a model which will be either a labyrinth or a straitjacket. We're back with a model which will end up blocking innovation and ironically, will damage and hold back the earnings and prospects of the very staff that all of us in this House wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support. I beg to move. I rise to speak in support of
17:01
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of the amendment N1 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Baron, and noble Baroness Lady Baron, and declare that I'm still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, East London. In over ten years of teaching my Lords, I have encountered many tens, maybe not hundreds of Tas technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff that make schools function. My subject product design is entirely reliant on technicians.

They set up and prepare materials, they maintain equipment, they teach skills to us and the students. I have seen technicians who I had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school's 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 to 330 job, and I can tend to be paid for that, whilst others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.

I had one very fine technician who wouldn't go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say if he wasn't paid to do the job, he wouldn't do it. I've also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools, schools could see that they were irreplaceable. Their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.

At the moment. My Lords. These decisions are held by heads of department and they can make them. Schools need that flexibility. Lady Lea Barons amendment very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay as in the Children's Wellbeing Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage. But those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. And should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, then I will be with her.
17:03
17:04
17:05
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, sir, I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions in today's debate. Today's debate have been wide ranging, from Special Constable, Heritage Railways and SS SSSNB, and I'm grateful for everyone's valuable insight. Now I will address the points raised by all noble Lords here in relation to motion C. I'm grateful the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe for indicating his support of the government's proposed amendment in lieu in relation to motion K1. Firstly, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association, and I'm really grateful to him for working with the government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue, and also with my noble friend Lord Falkner.

My Lords Address motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness Lady Baron. First, I just want to make one point absolutely clear. I can confirm that this bill, this bill will not will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it does set a minimum standard the floor whereby, you know, all support staff is entitled to, to, to to that pay negotiated pay packet pay pay. Rather when taken together, I mean basically the SSSNB measures in employment rights bill and the teacher pay measures in the Children's Wellbeing and School Bill and subordinate legislation respectively, will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer, and all schools will be able to innovate with pay.

No one is saying that they can't pay more than the minimum wage, minimum pay offer, so they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children. What we are doing, my Lords, we are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. Now, school support staff have been without a school specific national voice for far too long. It is right we are establishing a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives.

My Lords as most noble Lords would know, I mean roughly half of the 22,000 state funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established. So it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the new SSSNB in a statement, as maintained schools my Lords I said earlier, I mean, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable favourable pay and conditions and the SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles training.

And no one is saying that they can't be accorded any training, support and pay and it will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what a Co offer looks like. And this can be all done by local arrangements. We want there to be a co offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond this in their respective local circumstances, so employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.

So, my Lords, I hope I've answered some of noble Lords concerns and I would urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the government's motions and trust that members will feel able to lend support to the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position. I beg to move. Before the noble Lord sets down. I just on the last point about I just on the last point about employers being able to retain employers being able to retain their existing contracts. In the letter I received from the minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on the 1st of September, of Malvern, on the 1st of September, she writes in relation to that specific point, as set out above, specific point, as set out above, the term of an employee's contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to where this is not detrimental to the employee.

This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions. Provided. And I'm and I'm stressing this point, provided all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums. So if an employer today has an employee who they are paying well above the they are paying well above the statutory minimum, but are requiring to work in more schools requiring to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue on the same contract.

They will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employees work and reduce their salary. Does the noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outcome? Well, I think that noble Lady for that. I mean, I must admit I haven't had the chance to look at my noble friend Baroness Morris letter, but as far as I know, and what I've been told is employers will be able to retain contracts will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior conditions that were agreed prior to SSSNB. So basically, if they're offering more than what's negotiated, they can keep the terms,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it shouldn't be less than that. Sorry to to intervene again on the noble Lord, but I think the I asked this question very, very specifically to Baroness Jones and specifically to Baroness Jones and Baroness Smith because that's what employers are worried about, that employers are worried about, that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. And I think the noble Ladies letter is absolutely noble Ladies letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes, but with the speaking notes, but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable.

I are the same or as favourable. I believe we won't be voting on this motion until a little later. So if the noble Lord is able to clarify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord is able to clarify things in the meantime, I'd be grateful. Thank the noble Lady for that, and I will make sure that I read the letter. And I also ask my officials to confirm in writing to the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, that motion be be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' and to the contrary not content. The contents have it very content. The contents have it very quietly motion d Baroness Lloyd of
17:13
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
quietly motion d Baroness Lloyd of Effra. My Lords, I beg to move motion d that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 22 A and 22 B, I will also speak to motions f and j. I first come to motion D on non-disclosure agreements, also known as NDAs. In the other place, the government proposed two minor amendments to the clause on NDAs. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of the Houses of Commons and Lords.

We're proposing this change following discussions with the parliamentary authorities. The second will extend the scope of relevant discrimination covered by the clause to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons in section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered. Turning to motion F, I would like to thank Baroness Kramer for her advocacy for reform of the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Whistleblowers play a critical role in shining light on wrongdoing, and the government recognises that the framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. Baroness Kramer is also championed. The importance of whistleblowers, and the government would welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness and others about their views on whistleblowing. The Minister for employment Rights and Consumer Protection would be pleased to extend an invitation for a meeting to the noble Baroness to discuss this matter further. I now move to motion J relating to amendment 49 by the noble Earl Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley.

This amendment seeks to require a formal consultation with at least 500 SMEs on the Bill's impact, with a report to Parliament within 18 weeks. The government has engaged extensively with stakeholders on its Make Work pay reform since August 2020 for a major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of the 15th of October, we have engaged directly with over 250 stakeholders. This includes 139 businesses, of which 75 SMEs. This. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations, where due consideration will be given to hearing views from small business organisations and their members.

We will also look to arrange focus sessions with SMEs specific to the practical implementation, to understand any challenges and ensure we can target guidance where necessary. We're proud to announce the consultations for duty. The duty to inform workers of a right to join a union, union, right of access and enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and lead for bereavement to include pregnancy loss are currently live and encourage all interested stakeholders to to respond as set out in our roadmap implementing the Employment Rights Bill.

We will continue to consult during 2026 on exploitative zero hours contracts, flexible working and industrial action, including the introduction of E balloting. Each phase will be shaped by the voices of businesses of all sizes, ensuring reforms are practical and fair. In addition to this, our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Bill and its secondary legislation following standard government practice. I won't Labour the point further. Small businesses remain at the forefront of our minds as we move closer to the implementation phase of this bill.

We're committed to full consultation, including with SMEs. I hope this reassures the noble Lords of our serious intent to consult thoroughly and responsibly. And I thank the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley for drawing attention to the importance of SME perspectives. I thank noble Lords once more for their engagement on this Bill. We all share a commitment to producing legislation that is effective and practical. I therefore invite the House to endorse the government motions before you. Question is that motion D be agreed to? The question is that motion be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not content.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it motion e Lord Collins of Highbury. My Lords, I have already spoken
17:17
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have already spoken to motion e that this House do not to motion e that this House do not insist on its amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 23 A and 107 A to 120 A do not insist on its amendment 106 and do agree with the Commons in their amendment 106 a to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 106. I beg to move. The question is that motion E be agreed to? Motion E one Lord Sharpe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? Motion E one Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I beg to move motion E one. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion E be agreed to. Since when motion E one has been moved as an amendment to motion E leave out amendment to motion E leave out from House to end and insert do from House to end and insert do insist on its amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 106 a the question, therefore, is that the question, therefore, is that motion E be agreed to.

As many as of that opinion will say content. of that opinion will say content. Thank you. Content to the contrary, Thank you. Content to the contrary, not content. Motion e the the the question is that motion E one be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that motion E one be agreed to. Yes. Content consent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content consent. And to the contrary not content. Not content. The question will be decided by
17:19
17:32
17:32
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion g that this House do not insist on its amendment 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 40 7AI will also speak to motions m and m one in this group. We will be debating amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade Union Industrial Action ballots. I will take these in turn to outline the government's belief that these amendments are unnecessary. I will first speak to motion G relating to amendment 47 and motion G one relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fox.

And I would like to thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter. The government believes that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend, and this means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.

Employers, of course, are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they so if they wish and they deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed. For instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity. I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu which, instead of seeking to change the law on the right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see if any changes are appropriate.

And I'm happy today to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the government to consider this issue in further detail, and I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lord, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will now speak to motion M regarding amendment 62 and motion M1, insisting on this amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The government is clear. We want to foster a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers and government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more cooperation and less disruption.

This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016, an act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the government's intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles, and respects unions democratic mandate. I think as the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from the 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest number highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as I think in the previous stages of this bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar, not consistent with other Democratic decision making. Votes in Parliament. Election for MPs. Local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold and therefore not considered any less legitimate.

Furthermore, local elections are contested with turnout below 50%. Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for the repeal of the 50% threshold will also be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention, and there is a good reason for this. And notice my noble brother, sitting opposite has made a comment, but the intention is that this will be aligned to the establishment of balloting as an option for trade unions, thereby encouraging greater participation hopefully, than the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots provide, together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting.

The intention is that this will ensure industrial action mandates will have broad and demonstrable support. So once again, I am grateful for noble Lords contributions they've made throughout the Bill's passage, and I do hope you would agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and measures set out in this bill. So I hope noble Lords will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree to the motion before you. I beg to move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to? Motion G one Lord Fox. My Lords, I beg to move motion G

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion G one as an amendment to motion G at the end. Insert quote and do
17:39
17:41
None Portrait Amendment:G1 Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-

by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the government at the in the other government at the in the other place because of concerns about potential increase to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats are disagree with the government's position because there's no position because there's no evidence to support it. In fact, there's excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis and can see it non-statutory basis and can see it in the research of Acas and other academic areas.

Nonetheless, this academic areas. Nonetheless, this this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded, it will the Minister has conceded, it will allow the government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns can be properly examined. In the spirit of properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we we can now move forward on that we we can now move forward on this and instead of frustrating this process, we can actually develop one that is a proportionate develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the government to examine this issue properly and and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.

Turning briefly, very briefly to to motion M1, tabled by Lord Sharpe and I think spoken to by his his colleague this reinserts the report stage amendment requiring industrial action can only proceed at at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. My Lords, we continue to support this amendment, which maintains the status quo. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion be agreed to? Since when motion G1 at end insert and do propose has been motion G1 has been propose has been motion G1 has been moved as an amendment to motion G at end insert and do propose
17:42
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
at end insert and do propose amendment 47 B in lieu. The question therefore, is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

G1 be agreed to. I'd like to just stand and speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to just stand and speak very briefly to support the noble Lord Lord Fox comments. From the Lord Lord Fox comments. From the perspective of teachers, of course, teachers and other front line teachers and other front line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, and that brings with it considerable legal with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. And employers in schools are rightly duty bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded, every allegation, however unfounded, it may later prove to be, and as a result, teachers are far more result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers, and hearings during their careers, and the number of allegations is rising sharply with data from teacher Tapp, sharply with data from teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared to the previous around 35% compared to the previous year, and that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals.

And as we have debated earlier in this bill and in others, technology is changing the landscape with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence. And as the noble Lord Lord Fox said already, this carries a human cost, but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover and some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed claims, flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.

So the right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence. It is a practical safeguard and the strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous. 97% of teachers, according to teacher TAC, believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. So this speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.

So I hope very much that when the minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice and including within that teachers and other school staff, to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness and the dignity and the compassion that they deserve.
17:45
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My my Lords, first of all, thank you to the government and the Minister for their comments. The when the debated this earlier earlier we talked about who is going to represent and who is not going to represent. And I felt at the time that there was an undue feeling that we were trying to get a trade unions, and that is not the case at all. Trade unions have a really relevant part in this, but not everybody belongs to a trade union.

Many people and many firms do not are not trade unionised, and therefore they use the other. Of course, available. We should have a co-worker. Now that works. Very nice. You have a good pal who comes along and represents you, but they are not trained to do so. And what all the amendment was doing was finding that when, when and if a trade union is is not representing them and they can well do so that it's a trained person who who accompanies the person at a tribunal, I gather from what the noble Lord the minister said that there is some merit seen in this proposal.

That is what I've read, and I hope the Minister will confirm that when he when he finalises. And I can say that if that if my understanding is correct, could the noble Lord the Minister and his department keep us updated on what is happening on this issue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords in relation to the noble Lord, the Minister's response noble Lord, the Minister's response to G1, can I just positively welcome the government's commitment to this review of the right to be to this review of the right to be accompanied and thank the government in this instance, for listening to the concerns raised at listening to the concerns raised at committee, at report and committee stage and at report stage? I put stage and at report stage? I put forward an amendment that would have allowed workers to have a companion of their own, choosing a companion of their own, choosing a disciplinary or grievance hearings.

I felt it should be that open. I, I I felt it should be that open. I, I was happy nonetheless to support the noble Lord Lord Farmer amendment that, as has already been noted, was overwhelmingly supported. I would still like it to be a I would still like it to be a statutory right for workers, as it is a workers rights bill. As as is constantly, we're constantly told constantly, we're constantly told to be able to choose who represents them when they face grievance procedures.

But I so I'm really pleased that the government will look at this, and I hope that they look widely and think about the look widely and think about the issue and we can resolve it. I did want to just respond very briefly want to just respond very briefly to the the way that the noble Lord, the Minister talked about the decision in relation to keeping the issues internal and just to draw attention to one of the problems with that, which is that over recent years, sometimes the grievances that workers have been involved in have been quite ideologically contentious and issues have been very difficult.

So simply to call upon fellow workers to come with you into the grievance internally to get one of your workmates has been difficult because of a nervousness about guilt by association. It's also the case that not everyone is in a union. And so when the union might be representing someone, it is the opposite of keeping it internal and informal, because actually the person being in that grievance procedure doesn't even know who they're with. I also want to draw attention.

Just just one thing. I wish it weren't the case, but sometimes trade unions own policies can see them at odds with their own members. And there's been a few instances of that recently. See the case of Sandy Peggy, who is suing the RCN around the issue of single sex changing rooms for nurses. And these things have been well documented. I won't go into them, but it isn't always a straightforward as to say the trade unions will be the best people to represent a member of staff, but to finish, I also want to stress that very often, historically, it has been trade union representatives who have indeed protected and represented brilliantly and been the brilliant advocates for many people facing difficulties at work.

I myself sat in many tribunals and sat in many grievance procedures, representing members of my own union when I was a trade union rep. So that is an ideal. But when so few, when now only a minority, are represented by trade unionists and based on the aspiration of this bill to represent all workers and to give them more rights than, I really hope that this review will broaden the amount of the rights that workers have through representation, that they can choose who represents them.

But in general, I'm very positive about the government's decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise quickly to congratulate Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for having introduced a really Hill for having introduced a really important issue, because undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any can be a huge setback for any individual. And they do need, as my noble friend Lady Baron pointed out, noble friend Lady Baron pointed out, they they do need to be accompanied, they they do need to be accompanied, and I do therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this.

And I agree with his Noble friend Lord Fox I with his Noble friend Lord Fox I also agree with Baroness Fox Buckley in the comments she made, Buckley in the comments she made, and I very much hope that the noble Lord the Minister will respond in a Lord the Minister will respond in a very positive way to the points that have been raised in this that have been raised in this debate. But turning to motion M1 in the name of my noble friend Lord the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, I really must express my disappointment at express my disappointment at Brother Colin's at the noble Lord.

Brother Colin's at the noble Lord. His whole attitude that you no longer need 50% in order to call a strike to dismiss this, what sort of message does it send? And I just say it's now over a year since this government came to power, and in that time they have proceeded and presided not over progress, but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations. A new partnership was on the horizon. And what what we've had instead is a government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it reform.

And they're great ideas to repeal the Minimum Service Levels Act, removing that last protection the public has when vital services just grind to a halt, and for them to have handed out no strings attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. And what happened? It's it's spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, then the Secretary of State for health, admitted that the majority of BMA, BMA members didn't even vote for strike action.

Yet this government's answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust, but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption. Hospitals, stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark. The very arteries of our public life clogged by chaos. And it doesn't stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, Labour shortages, regulation will now face inspectors at their doors refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines.

What a message to the entrepreneurs, the builders, the wealth creators who keep this country moving. So I urge the country moving. So I urge the government to accept this amendment to respect to protect our small to respect to protect our small businesses and our entrepreneurs and our public services, I beg to. and our public services, I beg to.
17:54
17:56
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which in turn is employers, which in turn is beneficial for business as well as working people. And I would point out that, you know, believe it or out that, you know, believe it or not, my noble brother strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool as a last resort to help are a tool as a last resort to help bring people together, to negotiate bring people together, to negotiate and reach a settlement.

And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the minimum Service Levels Act? Did the 50% threshold Levels Act? Did the 50% threshold result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in less strikes? The simple answer is no, it hasn't. In fact, our focus should be on good industrial relations, proper collective relations, proper collective bargaining, strengthening the tools to deliver on that to improve to deliver on that to improve conditions, legislating to prohibit things actually has proved not to work.

And our intention has been very clear that in relation to the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e balloting, which, of course, we debated during the 2016 act and also in the minimum services levels debate. So I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very, very committed to good industrial relations, to strong collective bargaining, to good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy.

Simply legislating in the way that the Conservative government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives it set itself in reducing the number of strikes. It had the complete opposite effect. What we want to do is ensure that where instruments like industrial action is taken, they're a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart, and simply imposing the thresholds that have been done before, and particularly with the Minimum Service Level Act, has had the complete opposite effect.

So I hope noble Lords will agree that that is not the way, and that the government's proposals are the best way of doing it. Can I just say that in relation to Lord Farmer? I mean, as I've said in my opening remarks, the government commits to reviewing the functioning of section ten of the Employment Relations Act 1999, in its entirety, which includes who can be a companion on the right to be accompanied, and certainly as part of that review, will will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders.

And in conclusion of the review, publish our report on findings in Parliament. And just to answer Baroness Barons point, this will include the points that she has raised. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord and hope he will withdraw his amendments. My Lords, I hope that noble Lords can reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position that actually see, the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. And what we want to do is focus on improving industrial relations, improving good employment practices.

And that's what this bill is intended to do. So I hope they will reflect on what I've said and will be minded to support the government's approach. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the Minister
18:00
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review or this section of a larger review from the despatch box.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

larger review from the despatch box. And we're very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw motion G1. All right. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. I do beg the noble Lords pardon. I'm afraid I wasn't concentrating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid I wasn't concentrating and I didn't hear what he just said. Would he like to repeat it? Change your mind?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Change your mind? Not for the first time of people not listening when I speak. It's all right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's all right. I beg, I beg, leave to withdraw motion G1. Well, my Lords, it's just as well I didn't get that wrong. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this motion be withdrawn? The motion is motion be withdrawn? The motion is by leave withdrawn. Er motion H Lord Collins of Highbury.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have already spoken to motion h that the House do not insist on its amendment 40. I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry. This is a this is a hazard of coming onto the woolsack just as things are coming to their head. I things are coming to their head. I should have asked whether motion G should have asked whether motion G be agreed to. I believe the question is that motion G be agreed question is that motion G be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it motion h Lord Commons Commons Harding my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Harding my Lords. I've already spoken to motion h that this House do not insist on its amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 40 8AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons. 40 8AI beg to move. The question is that motion are motion h1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion h1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom I will give my lords. To move motion h1. Does the noble Lord wish to test

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the noble Lord wish to test the opinion of the House on motion H1? The question is that motion H1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

H1? The question is that motion H1 be agreed to as many as are of that opinion, say 'content' to the contrary. Not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by division. I will alert the House
18:01
18:14
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
already spoken to motion J that this House do not insist on its amendment 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 40 9AI beg to move question is that motion j be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' to the contrary not content the contents have it motion k1 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords, I beg to move motion k1. Question is that motion k1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that motion k1 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content content to opinion will say content content to the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion l Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Collins of Highbury. My Lords, I beg to move motion l that this House do not insist on its amendments 61 and 72 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 61 a and 72 A my their reasons. 61 a and 72 A my Lords clause 59 restores the long Lords clause 59 restores the long standing practice that existed for 70 years before the passage of the 70 years before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016.

Even during the Conservative governments of the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out, the government believes that the 2016 act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role as, as I said in some of the groups earlier on, their core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving voice to working people.

And we have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it. And we are seeking to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not, and I make this absolutely clear. We are not removing choice at the point of joining. Every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out, and this same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of their union membership.

Most union membership forms are now online. Most of these details are contained in the form that is highly accessible. So we're not removing choice. People will be very aware of what they are doing, and I think it's really important, my Lords, to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them. They are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby therefore decide how their political fund is used.

Members who object to a union's political fund can use the union's democratic structures to close the political fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of the political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice. Political funds are not one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties.

Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaign on a range of issues in their members interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I've repeatedly said, unison operate two separate political funds or two parts to one political fund related to affiliation and wider campaigning.

I would also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions, and the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union, and must have sufficient support from their membership to do so, and these structures make unions accountable to their members who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate.

We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded. I hope this reassures the noble Lords that automatic opt ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions, whilst still retaining that members capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. So my Lords once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto in storing the rights for unions to have existed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for over 70 years, I beg to move. Question is that motion be agreed to motion L1 Lord Burns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to motion L1 Lord Burns. My Lords, I beg to move motion. L1 as an amendment.
18:20
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

L1 as an amendment. To motion L leave out from House to the end and insert to insist on to the end and insert to insist on its amendment 61 and 72. In July, this House agreed my amendment on trade union political funds with large majority. The amendment maintains a position where new members have to opt in to make a contribution to a union's political fund. This was debated in the House of Commons and rejected. I have had a conversation with the Minister and the deputy Leader of the House about this, for which I am, I am grateful.

I would also like to welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities in the Commons. Three reasons were given for rejecting my amendment, and we've heard from Lord Collins of Highbury similar points being made. The first reason given was that it was necessary to lift the burden of the 2016 act. Now, I'm sorry that giving members more autonomy and an active choice in the decision whether to contribute to a political fund is seen as a burden. If there is an administrative cost, surely the correct response should be to examine the procedures and methods within the unions that are creating this burden.

My understanding is that today, and I heard it repeated this evening, members generally communicate online with their union. This should be much more efficient than in the days of pen forms and postage. And surely this cannot be a decisive factor. The second reason given was the familiar argument that the government's proposal simply returns to the long standing precedent that has worked for 70 years. However, as I argued last time, using an arrangement whereby members are automatically opted in unless they take on the additional burden of opting out is no longer acceptable in most walks of life.

In that case, members are not exercising an active choice.
18:23
None Portrait Amendment: L1 Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-

This is using a passive inertia to reduce the likelihood that members will exercise their right to opt will exercise their right to opt out. The third reason given was that accepting the amendment would that accepting the amendment would break a clear government commitment. I can find no reference to trade union party funds in the government's election manifesto. Maybe I've missed something. I can find no mention of political funds find no mention of political funds in the paper. Make work pay. That paper does charge the previous government with attacking rights at government with attacking rights at work, and says that it will repeal those measures.

But in which universe is giving people the right universe is giving people the right to make a transparent and active choice about paying into a political fund? Attacking rights at political fund? Attacking rights at work. I recognise that since the 2016 act came into force, the 2016 act came into force, the proportion of trade union members paying the political contribution has fallen. To examine the change, has fallen. To examine the change, I have to say that and compare it with 2016. We've got to admit the with 2016.

We've got to admit the figures for the Unite union because they have not submitted figures for the past three years, but taking the past three years, but taking them out and making the comparison with the other unions with political funds, 86% of members political funds, 86% of members contributed in 20 1617, in the most recent year for which we've got numbers, that has fallen to 68% and I can understand the concern. But the real question is what does this tell us? For me, the most plausible explanation that it tells us something about the decision members wish to make when faced with a clear choice.

It is interesting that reduction in participation is not the same across all unions with political funds. I suggest that unions should ask themselves why they have failed to persuade those members to contribute to political funds, rather than relying on inertia and hoping that members will make their contribution without really considering the issue. There is one further argument I'd like to address several times. It's been suggested that the trade unions are being subject to constraints and regulations that do not apply to other organisations, for example, the National Trust, and some even question why they should be required to have a separate political fund.

But maybe this overlooks a significant difference. Trade unions are regulated bodies. They are protected against being sued for damages and have legal immunity for their funds in trade disputes and their core services. However, the law does not allow them to impose compulsory levies on all members to fund political representation. They're allowed to have a separate political fund, but have must have safeguards to protect individual members freedom of choice. And of course, the crux of the matter is what do we mean by freedom of choice? I very much would like to find a solution that provides a genuine freedom of choice, and avoids going through these arguments.

Rather bitter arguments, sometimes with each change of government. In my view, this means giving members a clear and equal choice when they join a union on whether the union or when the union votes to establish a new political fund, they should be required to choose between two options. Do you wish to pay the fee to the political fund, or do you not wish to pay the fee to the political fund? It seems to me that this is the only fair way to present, to provide people with an equal choice.

I emphasise I do not have a position on whether members should pay the political contribution or not. I am not trying to discourage members from contributing. All I'm asking is that members be given a clear and equal choice that meets the transparent standards we expect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. I beg to move. My Lords the original question was that motion be agreed to? Since one motion L1 has been moved as an amendment to motion L leave out amendment to motion L leave out from House to end and insert do insist on its amendment 61 and 72. The question, therefore is that motion L1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion L1 be agreed to. As I rise to support Lord Burns amendment. And of course, welcome the new team to the front bench. the new team to the front bench. Lord Collins of Highbury will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit we were
18:26
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
same debate in 2016, albeit we were facing in different directions. It's Lord Burns referenced the debate on in July 20th. On the July 23rd day four of the report, and there was a debate at that time about disclosure of payments made from the political fund. And this is key, because if.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Union members. Are going to effectively have an opt in, opt out arrangement. Changed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Changed. They need to know what the political fund is being used for. And I pushed the government on it. And I pushed the government on it. The then minister, the noble Earl Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, said, I quote, my understanding is that I quote, my understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000. I challenged her and I said, quote, I'm sure the Minister would not I'm sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct.

I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed. Baroness Jones ignored my comment Baroness Jones ignored my comment and we carried on to a vote on whether payments paid made by the political fund should be disclosed to the Certification Officer and to the Certification Officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously their own money, as has previously been the case, on August the 29th, over a month later, Baroness Jones over a month later, Baroness Jones wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, whilst lacking in my opinion, an whilst lacking in my opinion, an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this bill removes assertion that this bill removes the duty of the unions to disclose the detail of detail of expenditure from its members or anyone else.

Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members money from this political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. Lord Collins of Highbury just said political funds are controlled by their members. And he then said political funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that, and my concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships House at the despatch box, which the then Minister I emphasise not the current Minister has now admitted was factually incorrect and may well have swayed some noble peers.

And this seems to me a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances. In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 peers votes cast. So I would ask the noble Lord the Minister, to explain this situation from the despatch box so that we have a clear record of what has happened, and. Legislation may be revisited at a later date. A noble peers bear this in mind when considering whether or not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support Lord Burns. My Lords. I'm going to advance a different argument rather than the different argument rather than the the one that we've just heard from the noble Lord Lee. And it's, it's it's rather a more, more of a it's rather a more, more of a philosophical one and one that was touched on by the noble Lord Burns. And he mentioned the word inertia, And he mentioned the word inertia, and inertia sells. Your Lordships right across this House have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the the the perils of remove the the the perils of consumers, people trapped in deals, trapped in situations where it's too difficult to get out of.

We've too difficult to get out of. We've we've made it easier for people to change their bank. We've made it easier for utility switching. Those easier for utility switching. Those of you who've who who lived through the digital communications the digital communications competition and Markets bill will remember very clearly a very big debate around subscriptions and the
18:30
18:31
18:31
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
an arrangement was made. And, of course, the important thing is to keep stressing this is the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which was the noble Lord Burns highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of the Union involve all members. So it's the policy of the Union, despite decided by those democratic structures that determine the outcome or the objectives of those political funds. And of course, in 2016, there was no doubt we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction of changing a practice that existed from 1945, which actually in 1945, the opt opt out was introduced to replace what a Conservative government had done in 1921.

So there had been, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, expressed to me when we met, a sort of. A a swing between two positions that could potentially create uncertainty. But I think in 2016, everyone in this chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 bill would result in, and it would be a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions, I strongly believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That in talking about. The impact on trade unions. He would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recognise, would he accept that the position now is very different in terms of the historical context,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in terms of the historical context, shrunk. To such a. Degree in the workplace, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Degree in the workplace, and it's now more predominant in the. Public sector rather than the Public sector rather than the productive private sector? And for that reason, it seems, would he accept that we are under the Noble accept that we are under the Noble Lords proposed amendment, pivoting Lords proposed amendment, pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance, really over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all sections, and it's rather undemocratic. I don't accept the noble Ladies position at all. And in fact, position at all. And in fact, historically, of course, a lot of public sector unions did not have public sector unions did not have political funds. And actually, if they did, they certainly didn't affiliate to any political party. And I mentioned in my introduction the fact that when Nupe merged with Nalgo, they actually had two Nalgo, they actually had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained on an ongoing basis.

But I do want to come back to this point because, you know, no one was expecting that. The arrangement for 1945 that, you know, that was a highly regulated arrangements on political funds. Let's not forget that an arrangement that existed from 1945 would suddenly change, in fact, concern. And I know members of noble Lords on the opposite benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern across all parties was expressed that resulted in the noble Lord Lord Burns organising a Select Committee which actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund because noble Lord Lord Burns proposed a sort of soft landing so that it wouldn't be something that would impact on unions immediately.

So it was introduced for new members, and he's given us the figures about the new members. And there are certain unions that have a churn. But I repeat, political funds are the funds of the whole union policy, decision making processes, individual members, whether they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union that can determine whether the union actually supports one, or expresses support for one political party or another.

I come back to a very fundamental principle, and I urge noble Lords to consider this, that in a healthy democracy, a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. And I think that is what unions can play an important voice. Many occasions. I don't agree with union policies. Many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about union policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. And actually, I think what was decided to be put in 2016 was to actually stop that voice, to hinder that voice.

And I think what we are trying to do now is to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with noble Earl Lord Burns. They're not, you know, a national trust. They're not other organisations like that. They are democratically or democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation. And of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer. So I am urging noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate.

Think back about why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of that, and actually focus on why trade unions need to be able to have a political voice. And I do come back to this point now, as the noble Lord Lord Burns made new members now applying online there must, you know, the old idea that the contracting out provisions were in a rule book, in a magazine that was published once every so often. Now we have a situation in the Bill that will clearly make it obvious to members when they join what they can do.

And I think that is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's motion. Before the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble. Lord sits down. I think it. Was suggested. That it might be. Difficult. If not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If not. Impossible. For members to. Find out how their political fund was expended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fund was expended. I wonder if the noble Lord, the Minister, would agree with me. That section 30. Of the Trade Union.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect, not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union, political fund or general fund. And that means every receipt, every that means every receipt, every bill, every invoice. And they can bill, every invoice. And they can inspect those records even in the being accompanied by an accountant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being accompanied by an accountant. I thank my noble friend for that, and I apologise to the noble Lord, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lee. I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out, and I forgot to address his specific issue, which he had raised with me previously. And of course, I have the letter that Baroness Jones wrote to him, and I'm quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the requirements.

That additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 act to for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual return certificate. Certification Officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016 unions annual returns available for public inspection. Additional point to the point my noble friend made and will continue to include information relating to governance, finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds as they have done for many years.

So, you know, repealing the act is of course, the act 2016 act is a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that the accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation. provided for already in legislation. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. I thank the Minister for his response. I'm. I'm disappointed, but not entirely surprised. I can
18:40
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection at all to how political funds are used when the whole notion of political funds was set up and they were established, it was clearly for the support of the political parties. That was what the debate was back in 1910, 1920. And that is not the issue at heart. The issues about how people express their decision as to whether they wish to join a political fund or not, join the political fund.

And I continue to hope that I can persuade the government that there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issues which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. He already outlined the procedures that are going to be required under the government's proposals, in terms of telling people what the political fund is for, explaining to them fund is for, explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time, that they join with a clear choice, that they know exactly what is in front of know exactly what is in front of them.

They know exactly what the options are. And I think that is options are. And I think that is the the way in which we can move this issue on, which has gone on, this issue on, which has gone on, as we discussed when we met since 1921, and it's gone backwards and 1921, and it's gone backwards and forwards, I would like to to move and test the opinion of the House.
18:42
18:42
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, Oh, no Oh, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. By Lord. My Lords. The question is that motion L1 be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary. Not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not My Lords. The question is that motion Lords. The question is that motion My My Lords My Lords I My Lords I have voted contents 249, not contents 142. So the contents have it. 142. So the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords motion My Lords motion m1 My Lords motion m1 Lord My Lords motion m1 Lord Collins of Highbury moved formerly. My Lords I have already spoken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I have already spoken to motion M that this House do not insist on its amendment 62, to insist on its amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 60 2AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Question is motion m be agreed to motion M1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to motion M1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I beg to move motion m1. The question is that motion M1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion M1 be agreed to? As many as have that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. Lord contrary, not content. Lord question will be decided by a division. I will alert the House division. I will alert the House when voting is open. My Lords when voting is open. My Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. My Lords. The question is that amendment A that motion m1 be agreed to. As that motion m1 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents will go to content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is that motion. M1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For For the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the. My Lords, there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have voted contents 240, not contents 143. So the contents have it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.
19:05
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, motion n. Lord Leong my Lords, before I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Leong my Lords, before I move motion. And may I just confirm the policy that was in my noble the policy that was in my noble friend Baroness Smith and Baroness Jones letter that noble Baroness Lady Barran referred to? My Lords, the purpose of the SSSNB is to ensure that school support staff are entitled to at least a statutory minimum level of pay and conditions that has been negotiated on by school, employer and employee representatives and is appropriate for the roles staff are undertaking in schools.

The remit of the SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationships between roles, training and pay, and it will be for the SSSNB to agree how this is done and what the core of it looks like. Beyond this minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from a more favourable pay and conditions where this is offered by the employer. Furthermore, the SSSNB will receive a remit from the Secretary of State, setting out what that body will focus on in a given year.

In the first few years, the SSSNB will focus on terms and conditions that will most benefit school support staff, whilst giving the sector time to adjust to the new process. My Lords. Where regulations make no provision in relation to particular terms and conditions of employment, that existing term and condition in the employee's contract will remain unchanged and schools continue to have flexibility to agree terms in local negotiations. For example, if a rectify agreement relates to minimum pay levels, only existing contractual provisions in relation to annual leave, or the number of schools that staff work in will remain unchanged.

My Lords. With that, I have already spoken to motion and that this House do not insist on its amendment 1 to 1, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 1 to 1. Aye. I beg to move. The question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. Is that motion n be agreed to? Motion n one Baroness Baron.
19:07
19:08
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that motion n one be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that motion n one be agreed to as many as of that one be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not to the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm I'm going I'm going to I'm going to say I'm going to say something I'm going to say something.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion n one be agreed to. one be agreed to. one be agreed to. Point Point of Point of order Point of order. Point of order. Alright, Point of order. Alright, so Point of order.

Alright, so the Point of order. Alright, so the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 184, not contents 195, so contents 184, not contents 195, so the not contents have it. My Lords, the question is that motion N be agreed to? As many as of that agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I think we will allow a moment for the House to rearrange itself before the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hewitt, Hewitt, I Hewitt, I do Hewitt, I do think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hewitt, I do think. Yes. Hewitt, I do think. Yes. What
19:20
19:20
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
recognise amendments one and two at Second Reading and Committee on this Bill. I said that this new commander is little more than a gimmick. I had hoped that come report, there would have been more persuasive reasons to change my opinion of the government's policy. Unfortunately, I have not since we finished committee on this bill, 589 people have entered the United Kingdom illegally via small boat. And since the start of this year, 36,954 migrants have crossed the channel. So it does not take a genius to figure out that this government's policies are not working.

The government entered office with a promise to smash the gangs, end the use of hotel accommodation and prevent illegal crossings. There have done none of those things, and in fact, the problems have exacerbated my amendments. One and two seek to make minor changes to the method of appointment of the commander. In my opinion, this is an important and strategic role. I will not pretend there are seismic alterations that will shift the dial demonstrably, but they are nevertheless intended to make an important point that I do genuinely hope the government takes on board.

That point is that that the point is that the whole of chapter one of this bill is essentially pointless. The commander is already in post, and the bill provides no substantive new powers at committee. When asked by my noble friend Viscount Goschen what the commander will be able to do under the provisions of the bill, that is office cannot do already the noble Lord, the Minister said the clauses in chapter one, for example, duty to prepare annual reports, duties of co-operation, etc. and the board overseeing all that underpinned by statutory functions gives this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements.

So it appears, my Lords, the government believes that designating a civil servant as a commander, granting them the ability to prepare, report and to Chair a board meeting every now and then, is the solution to all our border security woes. Noble Lords will be aware of the report into the operation of the Civil Service within the Home Office. How can we have faith that another civil servant in post as the commander would make any difference? And so amendments one and two are intended to press the point that the commander, if it is ever to be anything more than pure performance politics, needs to be more than simply a civil servant.

It is wise as it not to have a guarantee in the bill that the commander will be a senior law enforcement or military officer, so as to ensure the requisite competence, leadership and experience is brought to the role. So I have one question for the noble Lord the Minister, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, investigated the Home Office's operation to deter and detect clandestine entrants to the UK. Earlier this year, the first recommendation of the independent inspector was to designate a Home Office wide owner for clandestine entry.

In the government's response, the Home Office agreed that with that recommendation and said that agreed with that recommendation and said that the the border security commander will ultimately provide the structure to support this role. However, they said they will not implement that recommendation until October 2026. We have a border security commander who the government tells us is critical to co-ordinating our response to threats to border security, and yet they are not willing to make him responsible for tackling all methods of clandestine entry until next year.

Why is this? Does this not demonstrate the problem with this government's approach to the problem? Everyone, every one, can and must be kicked down. Sorry. Everything must and can and must be kicked down a very long and winding road. Why not designate a commander as the Home Office wide owner for clandestine entry now? Why wait until next year? It is unfortunate that we in these benches will be pushing the government to go much further. Over the course of this report stage.

The British public want this border crisis solved and they are watching and Lords. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page one. Line six leave out. Designate a civil servant as the and insert a point a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert a point a. My Lords. Can I arise very briefly to support my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

briefly to support my noble friend Lord Davis in. His amendments? They seem to me to be.
19:25
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

They seem to me to be. Eminently sensible. I wholly concur with him, as do most people increasingly in the country, that there is no sense of urgency, no sense of grip, and a total lack of confidence when it comes to the government's handling of the immigration crisis and the appointment of a border security commander, and limiting that appointment to a civil servant is, I think, a mistake, particularly when we look at other civil servants. And I have to say, when I was a minister, I had excellent civil servants.

I have nothing to say against them. The great majority of them do an extremely good job. But when we have Joanna Rowland, the Home Office director general for customer services in charge of accommodating asylum seekers standing down because of the failure of that, why should we have faith that someone just selected from the civil service should be appropriate to fulfil this role? My Lords, I think we are missing a huge mistake in this whole immigration debate. There is a huge backlog in the processing of asylum cases.

Why has the government not come forward with an idea of having the equivalent of Nightingale hospitals, which is what we had during the Covid pandemic, to process this? These could be staffed. There is a whole raft of professionals in this country who are retired far too early, in my opinion. We are the last vestiges in this House of people who never retire. But there are an awful lot of people in this House who have retired or been forced to retire from their professions, be they judges or solicitors or army officers, or from the military, up and down the country, magistrates who would willingly serve if encouraged to do so on a series of tribunals up and down the country so as to better process the backlog in immigration cases.

And again, if you look at the appointment of this incredibly important role, the border security commander is in charge of liaising with Border Force, National Crime Agency, the Immigration and Immigration Enforcement. And the goal is to deliver a safe and effective border. Well, that has not happened to date and I just do not understand the rationale why this legislation is limiting the appointment of such a person to, with the very narrow criteria that they have to be a civil servant.

There must be plenty of other people out there who would be qualified to do this job, who are not necessarily civil from the civil service. So I would urge the government to underline the sense of crisis there is in this country is benefiting parties and groups in this country, which we would rather it did not, because there is a feeling up and down the country that the government simply has not got control of our borders. So there are those who may argue that the appointment of this individual is totemic.

They do not have sufficient power. They are not. The powers won't kick in till later on. But those are other arguments. My argument is that if we have a national crisis, which is only set to get worse, we should then look at the whole cadre of recently retired professionals who would set up, set up to serve right across the board in dealing with the backlog and this immigration crisis. And we should also look at the best candidates available to fulfil this particular job and not limit it to somebody from the civil service.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I wish to speak to the amendment in this group. That's in my name and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's in my name and. That of my Noble friend Lord German on. Cooperation with Europol, namely,
19:29
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 26. And I think the reason it's. Been grouped. Here is because it would help boost the effectiveness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would help boost the effectiveness of the border security commander. Now, we recently had published

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, we recently had published by the government. The implementation report. On the Trade and Cooperation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, the implementation in 2023 four. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implementation in 2023 four. So it's a bit out of date. By the time it was published just last month. Anyway, on under just last month. Anyway, on under the section on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, there's one paragraph which says under the TCA, the UK continues to cooperate with Europol and it continues to have a strong multi-agency liaison bureau at The Hague, delivering operational activity against the most significant crime groups. One interesting reference in the trade cooperation agreement, and it's for for nerds out there.

It's article five, six, eight, paragraph seven, and it says that liaison officers from the UK and representatives of the competent authorities of the UK may be invited to operational meetings. And that sums up the challenge that we have outside the European Union. We only met, we have no rights. It's all grace and favour. I watched the recent session of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place with the with Border Security Commander Martin Hewitt and the National Crime Agency Senior director for operations at Rob Jones.

Asked about European cooperation, Mr. Hewitt just said we have retained good law enforcement cooperation. But Mr. Jones amplified this. We've mitigated the impact of Brexit and recovered those relationships in law enforcement and have positive joint operations. We've got more people at Europol than we ever had before. Now, I assume he was thinking we'd be. They would be impressed by that. But I think he was making the best of a bad job generally. And I imagine that we have more people at Europol than ever before because whereas in the past, a range of police officers, British police officers could access European databases from their desks, sitting in the UK.

Now we need a host of liaison officers attached to Europol HQ to handle the red tape of individual information requests and and sort of run around seeing if we might be invited to meetings. And of course, we lost access to the key database syst two and, and though we have re-established some access to the so-called Prüm system of access to fingerprint and DNA data, access to the successor Prum two is, as I understand it, not yet pinned down. Brexit cost us access to the ACRS system, which carries criminal records in the EU of, among others, third country nationals.

And Robert Jones of the National Crime Agency told us that it would also be useful to be able to exchange larger data. Told the sorry the. He gave evidence to the European Affairs Committee that would be useful to be able to exchange larger data sets of the EU more easily in order to be better able to tackle criminal networks rather than merely individual. That's an absolutely key point relevant to this bill, because it would, of course, include organised immigration crime.

And when when the European Affairs Committee heard evidence from a range of witnesses from the criminal law enforcement sector, including Rob Jones, and they explained how new working arrangements in the post-Brexit environment were being developed. But they told us that these were slower, more cumbersome, cumbersome, more requiring of human input, in other words, more clunky than those that had applied when the UK was an EU member state. So at the moment, our reliance on for UK EU cooperation, on law enforcement, it depends on the pragmatism and goodwill of individual law enforcement professionals, which is not the best, most solid basis.

So what is needed is formal UK EU agreements on cooperation in order to ensure legal certainty and consistency in the UK's law enforcement relations with the EU. So, since the reset has not so far produced much in the law enforcement field, the purpose of amendment 26, with a requirement to produce an annual report on cooperation with Europol, is that this obligation might encourage the government to to to pursue more formal relationship with Europol and focus mind and effort in years to to come.

And I did have another bit and I've lost it. Sorry. No, I think I think I think I've some up there just just to perhaps highlight one point in amendment 26, not only is it asking for reporting on what cooperation has happened in the previous year with Europol, but also on planned activities for improving future cooperation with Europol, and I think that is a key point. We don't only want to know what's happened in the past year, but also what lessons have been, have been learned and how to improve activities in the future.

You know, we can't wave a magic wand and get back to the days when for ten years, we actually had a British director of Europol. Those were the those were the good days. They were. Anyway, there we go. But we can at least do better than make the best of a of a bad job that we have at the moment. Try and make this a priority. And by imposing a requirement on the government to report, hopefully that would provide an incentive to pursue more structured, more formalised relationship with Europol in order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to catch more organised criminals. I'll start off.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll start off. In my remarks on this group, just where the noble Lady Baroness Ludford finished, since that seems
19:35
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
Ludford finished, since that seems the most convenient way to do it, I won't rehearse my arguments on amendment 26 at length, because I recall I did so at committee. All I would say is I think in terms of cooperation with Europol, which I believe is very important, I'd make two points. First of all, I think the government's motivation to cooperate from Europol is because it wants to deal with the problem. And I don't think the necessity to produce a report is going to change that dynamic.

And if the government didn't want to cooperate with Europol because it didn't think it was important, I don't think having to prepare a report would change its mind either. So I don't think it's going to actually achieve very much. And as I said at committee, I think the danger is it then skews attention towards Europol. And the thing that we know about border security is it's not just a European problem. Obviously, the small boats issue, the the visible bit of it is a European problem because that's where the votes are coming from.

But the people in them are not all coming from, they are directly coming from France, but they're not starting off there. This is a global problem. These organised crime groups are global in nature. And if you start putting legislation in place, which forces the department to start overly focusing on one area to do bureaucratic tasks, I think you skew the resources I want the department, the Home Office and the government to choose which agencies it partners with and the work it does not, based on the need to produce bureaucratic documents, but based on the security threat to our border.

And I think that is therefore best left to the judgement. Both of ministers and those in post. So I respectfully suggest that this that isn't a wise amendment. Let me pick up on amendments one and two that my noble friend Lord Davis put forward. So my starting point here, I wasn't, unfortunately, in the committee stage debate when the minister put this forward. So I went and had a look at the arguments. And I still have to confess, not entirely clear how designating a civil servant or indeed anybody with this title makes a meaningful difference other than perhaps presentationally to our ability to secure the border.

And I pick up the point that my noble friend made about the pace at which the government is giving this individual powers. But I'd also say, having looked at the bill again, it's quite noticeable what this person doesn't have the ability to coordinate. So first of all, the ability to coordinate or direct members of the armed forces is excluded. That power effectively remains with ministers and also the intelligence agencies of our country are not counted as partner authorities for the purposes of the Border Security Command either.

And so those responsibilities effectively remain with the Home Secretary and other ministers. And and in terms of the role, and this is why matters about who gets the role in terms of setting strategic priorities effectively, strategic priorities for government departments are not set by officials or they shouldn't be set by officials. They're set by ministers. And so I sort of understand in one way why the government is making sure this person's a civil servant, because they're clearly they're being directed by ministers, as is.

Right. But of course, the reality then, if they're a civil servant being directed by ministers, then it giving them a fancy title is basically just window dressing. It doesn't have any meaningful effect. So I think my, my, my noble friends right in his arguments about this not really having a meaningful role. If we take the government at its word or the or the way it's presented in the bill, the way it's made the starting point of this bill and that it really wants this individual to actually have a really quite powerful role where it can make where they can make a meaningful difference.

Then I think amendment two ask some really good questions about whether the type of person you want doing this role and their previous experience should be in the nature of law enforcement or military command in some way. And then it may be that over time, the government can build this role. And the board that the person the Border Security Commander would Chair and the structure they put around them into a really meaningful law enforcement and crime fighting capability, that seems to me the government's ambition, in which case I think amendment two has, has, has quite a lot of merit.

I think making the person a civil servant, I don't think achieves that. And just for the avoidance of doubt, this isn't in any way denigrating civil servants. I was always, when I was in the Home Office, very impressed by civil servants. It's just making the point that in our democratic system, setting strategic priorities, coordinating between different agencies, some some that are responsible to the Home Office and some that are not, is really a job for ministers. And in the end, the responsibility for securing the country's border is the Home Secretary's responsibility.

And you can appoint somebody with whatever title you like and whatever background you like. And in the end, that is the fact. And the strategic priorities for the department are set by the Home Secretary. And then everything else flows from that. So it seems to me the Border Security Commander as set out in the bill is really neither one thing nor the other. It's either. It's either. Effectively, the Border Security Commander is the Home Secretary and sets clear priorities and sets a very clear direction in the department and delivers on what we're led to believe is the government's or the Home Secretary's number one priority, or that isn't the case, and you try and create a meaningful role that people understand has that important focus.

In the same way that people can see the heads of the armed forces or commissioners of the Metropolitan Police have a very important leadership role, but in which case that person probably shouldn't be a civil servant. They should come with a different type of command experience. So it seems to me that the role set out in the bill is neither one thing or the other. My noble friends amendments, I think, test that point, and I'd certainly like to hear from the Minister about which direction really this role is going to go in.

Is it effectively just going to be working for the the Home Secretary, which is perfectly fine, in which case a lot of this is just window dressing, or is it really intended to make it a meaningful, authoritative, powerful role in Whitehall, in which case, I think the person's qualities need to be somewhat different than is set out by making them a career civil

**** Possible New Speaker ****

servant. Yes. Not quite sure where the noble
19:43
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not quite sure where the noble Lord Lord Harper is ending up in his consideration of amendments one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his consideration of amendments one and two. My Lords that. On any. View the crisis has got worse

**** Possible New Speaker ****

View the crisis has got worse and worse on the arrival of masses, more immigrants coming across in more immigrants coming across in small boats, and the inability to identify and. And arrest the the criminal smugglers, criminal people, smugglers, smugglers and my Lords that in the past. And I'm afraid I can't give examples because I haven't had time to think about it. But I do recognise one. The Commissioner, for example, for modern salary slavery is somebody who is completely free from the civil service, as indeed her predecessor was as well.

My Lords, I merely wait for my learned friend at the minister to reply, but it does seem to be advanced by the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower. It seems to me that this is a sensible suggestion, and I want therefore to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, I'd like to. Address amendment 26. And I think I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think I. In reply. To the. Noble Lord Harper, I'd just like to say that the reason that we're having this the reason that we're having this particular amendment before us is because of the harness which was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

left by the Conservative government in the arrangements. That they made with. Europe in the TCA relating to. Europol.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Europol. And I don't want to go through the six pages.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the six pages. Or five pages that there are in that. Heavy white tome which I. Photocopied to make it. Lighter to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carry. But in the whole. Remit of the. Way in which the relationship. With Europol. Is stated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is stated. It is quite clear. That we should do something. And the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should do something. And the European Union, through. Europol may. Do something. It's that sort of
19:45
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do something. It's that sort of relationship which I think we're. Trying to address. So the core

**** Possible New Speaker ****

objective of this bill, which unites, I think the House is clear. We must. Strengthen our. Borders and effectively.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Borders and effectively. Identify. Disrupt. Dismantle the criminal. Gangs engaged in. People smuggling. And human

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People smuggling. And human trafficking. To achieve this, international cooperation is paramount,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

especially in addressing the complex international and. Cross-border nature. Of these challenges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of these challenges. I saw these challenges when I. Visited the French forces in. Calais very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Calais very. Recently. Where a vehicle from Germany. Had been. Caught with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People carrying. Underneath a blanket with children's. Teddy bears. On top. The dinghies, which were going to be used to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be used to. Cross the. Channel, and those international. Boundaries between what happens. In Europe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are very. Important. They told us quite clearly what happens if these these boats are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happens if these these boats are somewhere. In the. Middle East and then. Imported into. One of the European

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Imported into. One of the European Union countries and then transported. It's like a spider's web that. Happens around us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happens around us. So that's. Why relationships with European

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why relationships with European police and. And enforcement forces is so important during the. Committee stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee stage. I think two important intertwined issues have emerged. there's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's. Agreement on the need for effective. Cooperation. The border security. Commander is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commander is. Explicitly tasked with working. With a range of international bodies, including Europol, to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deliver border security objectives. Europol is critical for disrupting. Trafficking operations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Trafficking operations. Enhancing law enforcement capabilities and providing. Necessary specialised training. To Necessary specialised training. To officials involved in importance. The government's approach, which is quite different from the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quite different from the. Previous government, has been to encourage and engage in this cooperation and. The noble Lord. The the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord. The the. Minister described how important it was in the committee stage, and that's why. The UK. As I understand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I understand. significant. Permanent presence at the. Agency's headquarters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In The Hague. So this. Continued engagement. Is considered. A key. Element for working.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Element for working. Across national boundaries. And is vital. For national security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For national security. However, the TCA this document. previous. Government. Offered the opportunity. For Europol.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Europol. Officers to be embedded inside the UK. It says. We should embed in the UK. It says. We should embed in Europol in The Hague. But they may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

embed in the UK. And obviously. At this moment. That hasn't. Happened and I would like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like. To. Ask the noble Earl or the Minister if he would encourage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Europol to embed officers inside the police services in this country as well. And largely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And largely. The reason is about transfer of information. Some of the things which are we we know about the which are we we know about the people engaged in these criminal gangs. Are contained within databases to which we do not have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

databases to which we do not have access. But a. Europol officer sitting alongside another officer may well have that access and may. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. If interpreted correctly or given sympathetic correctly, an given sympathetic correctly, an interpretation rather of the TCA would be able to get that information and move it forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information and move it forward. Secondly. The concerns. Were raised in this House that. While the government undertakes extensive European liaison, this arrangement remains operationally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

arrangement remains operationally cumbersome. And it was acknowledged. That. Post-Brexit arrangements. Are sometimes viewed as. More sometimes viewed as. More cumbersome, clunky and process heavy, and commentators suggest that our current success amounts to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that our current success amounts to merely mitigating the impact and recovering relationships. There is still.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A little too. Much at the level. Of pledges, aspiration and intent rather than demonstrable intent rather than demonstrable product. So amendment 26 is not a bureaucratic nightmare. This is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report which actually will help us us. In the, in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the, in. In, in, in Parliament to be able to understand and and to understand to understand and and to understand how that would move forward. It's designed to bridge the gap between designed to bridge the gap between assurances of cooperation and operation and results on the ground. It's a necessary mechanism for It's a necessary mechanism for parliamentary accountability, given the frail harness which has been provided by the previous government. As noted in committee, reliance solely on the word of ministers or the discretion of operational the discretion of operational leaders is not sufficient.

When addressing matters of such high public salience, which I think public salience, which I think everyone in this chamber agrees this matter is. So we need Parliament to have the duty to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

receive data and to show us the work that has been done to smash the gangs. So we're.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not tying this requirement merely to activity, but to also progress in measurement of progress in measurement of reduction, reduction in crime. So collaboration with our European partners is, as a result, partners is, as a result, rigorously monitored for its effectiveness in achieving the stated objectives of this bill, stated objectives of this bill, which is to disrupt criminal networks and secure our borders. I am afraid at this stage, I do not think we on these benches can support amendments one and two.

Amendment one seeks to remove the requirement for the Border Security Command to be a civil servant. And I would be grateful if my noble Lord, the noble Lord, the minister, could tell us and tell the House whether the requirement, as it says in the bill for the commander to carry out sorry service as the commander is service in the civil service of the state, which is the line which which is under question here. Is that if you appoint anybody to this post, could they then enter the civil service, or could they be entered into the civil service as a, as a, as somebody who is just joining because of their function, would now be a member of the civil service? In other words, is the operational advertisement and the search for the right candidate one thing.

And then then when they when you appoint someone, can that person become a person in the civil servants of the state. And on on appointment? I think also that the definitions which are listed in amendment two are really too precise, because actually, if you look at what this role is, it's much more strategically coordination than what I would call somebody who is actually there to wave the, the, the rod, the to make things, to make, to make things happen.

So I think these amendments introduce constraints, potentially compromising the flexibility required to appoint the best person to lead the strategic coordination efforts aimed at tackling border security threats and cracking down on illegal entry.
19:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments to allow us to have this discussion again on the Border Force commander, and let me just lay to rest one allegation straight away. This is not a gimmick. This is a serious piece of government policy to put in place a coordinating Border Force commander, Security Command, which is designed to coordinate activity across the board, including relations with our security services. And to date, in answer to the noble Lord Davis Lord Harper my Noble friend Lord Hacking and indeed the noble Lord Swire has already secured £150 million of funding, has improved the number of Border Security Command officers to 227, has brought together world leaders from over 40 countries to mobilise the international fight on immigration.

Crime has disrupted criminal networks, has improved intelligence and strategic coherence, has led an international effort on anti-smuggling action plan, has signed a proposal with Germany and with the Calais Group in France, has launched a new sanctions regime focussed on organised crime and has also supported the development of the plans that have been put into the bill for the Home Secretary. And to answer the noble Lord. Harper's point self-evidently, if he looks at functions of the commander. Clause 342 obtain the Secretary of State's consent to the document.

There's obviously some discussion with the Secretary of State. Ministers set the priority. And if the Minister Secretary of State doesn't agree with the plans proposed, potentially, that consent will be a matter of discussion and arrangement. But the key point is there is an official appointed by the UK government to coordinate those important border Force control issues on border security, to tackle organised immigration crime, to end the facilitation of dangerous small boat crossings. And yes, it is a difficult task.

It is a difficult task. It's one, as the noble Lord German has said, has been inherited by the previous government. The noble Lord Swire said, why don't we employ people to tackle the backlog? Well, let me inform him. We are we put around 1000 extra staff into doing what he is suggested the House does today. So the allegation I want to just nail down is that it's not a gimmick, it's a serious piece of work that requires an important role in government to secure that work.

Now, the amendment one and amendment two in the group relate to the border security commander and seek to remove the requirement. The Border Security Commander is a civil servant. I think in a sense there's with due respect to the noble Lord themselves, there's a slight misunderstanding. The noble Lord Swire pointed to the fact that we should be drawing on somebody, potentially with wider background. The current Border Security Commander was a senior police officer in the Metropolitan Police is now, if this bill is passed, a member of the civil service there doesn't require in the bill that the post of border security commander reserved for existing civil servants.

Indeed, the current officeholder was recruited externally, but ultimately, given the role, sits within the Home Office and given the commander leads a directorate in the department. Therefore, they are a civil servant by that position. But it doesn't mean they have to be a civil servant by recruitment, and there's no requirement that any future recruitment exercise would not seek to identify the most suitable candidate, irrespective of background. Therefore, the amendment I think is is unnecessary, and also amendment two seeks to specify the prior experience required to be eligible to be appointed as Border Security Commander.

I think it's important we have the best talent. There's no limitations on that talent. And in the event of a vacancy arising, which at the moment there isn't one, then the government's been clear. The border security commander is responsible for requiring step change in the UK's approach to border security, providing a long term vision, bringing together those individuals, providing leadership and maintaining the integrity of our border and immigration systems domestically and internationally. Now that role is reflected in the bill. The bill puts the commander on a statutory footing, gives that legal back up for that.

And I think is has been crafted in a way to ensure that we have the best possible candidate for the role. Could I also just in passing the noble Lord Swire? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very short question. So I've listened very carefully to that, and he's been very clear about the and he's been very clear about the nature of the role. So what powers does the Border Security Commander does the Border Security Commander or will they have when this bill becomes law that they don't already have by virtue of being a civil have by virtue of being a civil servant, reporting to the Home Secretary?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary? Again, I think the noble Lord misunderstands the focus of the bill. The bill is giving statutory bill. The bill is giving statutory footing to what is now happening. There is a border security commander in post. That border security commander has got the security commander has got the roles that we've outlined here, but this puts it on a statutory footing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this puts it on a statutory footing. What can you just set out clearly, what difference does that make in the real world to dealing with any of these actual problems?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with any of these actual problems? Because otherwise it is just a piece of window dressing. Let me just say to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me just say to the noble Lord, I've been through a whole list of things that the border security commander is doing now that well, without legislation, but that well, without legislation, but the statutory footing is there to put that position on a statutory footing and to put in place the statutory requirements to produce an annual report, to have the consent of the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary, and also to the Home Secretary, and also to have some accountability to this House now.

You know, the Minister, the you know, the noble Lord, compress the minister as much as he wishes. I've set out the concrete things that this border security commander has done in the 15, 16 months that we've been in office since we've appointed Martin Hewitt to that post. I think that's a good record. It is things that would not have been done without his activity the French agreement, the German agreement, the work in Iraq. Those things have been done because the Home Secretary has enabled without the statutory backing, but it will be stronger with that statutory backing on the issues of the report, etc.

to allow the border security commander to do those things. I hope he welcomes that. But if he doesn't vote accordingly, as I always say, vote accordingly and we'll see what happens with those issues. But ultimately, that's what I think we are trying to achieve. May I just say, in regard to the noble Lord Swire, it's an important point. He did mention Joe Rowland and I just want to place on record, if I may, my thanks to Joe for the work that she's done. She has left through, not through the factual issues that the noble Lord Swire mentioned of failure.

She's left with personal choice to pursue another job outside of the civil servants service. That happens all the time with individuals. She's chosen to do that herself. The Home Office thanks her for her contribution during her time as a civil servant. She wasn't a civil servant. Before she came to the Home Office, she worked in the private sector. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and I don't think we should let it lie that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she's left because of any failure in that position. I should also give way. On an earlier point. I'm just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On an earlier point. I'm just reflecting on the minister's remarks, answers to my noble friend, remarks, answers to my noble friend, Lord Harper. If the current situation is the border commander situation is the border commander is operating anyway, but without this statutory footing, under whose

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this statutory footing, under whose authority is he currently acting? He's acting under the authority of the Home Secretary. The of the Home Secretary. The statutory functions that are there. If the noble Lord looks at the the If the noble Lord looks at the the bill before them, the statutory functions this bill gives give the functions this bill gives give the terms of appointment, give the terms of designation. Give the functions of the commander. Give the reporting mechanisms of the the reporting mechanisms of the commander.

Give the responsibilities of the commander in relation to things like the intelligence services, which again, intelligence services, which again, just for the record, I say they're employing themselves, world class capabilities, those capabilities capabilities, those capabilities and the people behind them and their operations are necessarily secret. However, I can confirm very secret. However, I can confirm very clearly that the agencies will be supporting the Border Security Command in its work, where it's Command in its work, where it's appropriate and are subject to the same authorisations as currently with a robust oversight regime.

So there's a whole range of things going on. This bill is a focus to put that on a statutory basis. And I don't think that the amendments, helpful, though they are to tease out this discussion, are necessary for us to achieve the objective that we've got. Well, OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it was something the the minister just said, the noble Lord the minister just said, which I the minister just said, which I don't think is what the the bill says. So he just talked about the security services and in the security services and in the functions of the commander, it says in 33A partner authority must have in 33A partner authority must have regard to the strategic priority document in exercising their functions. And the bill later, at functions. And the bill later, at three six, specifically says that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ are not partner authorities, so are not obligated to follow the strategic obligated to follow the strategic priorities that are set out by the Border Security Commander, which, by the way, is correct because they should be following the strategic should be following the strategic priorities set out by, respectively, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary.

So I'm not sure what he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary. So I'm not sure what he just said about their working together is quite right. But by his own admission, the noble Lord didn't come to the noble Lord didn't come to the committee stage. It's a pity he didn't, because he could have raised some of these questions in the committee stage. If he chooses the committee stage. If he chooses to raise them now and report, I'll give you the same answer. The border security commander is working closely with the security services.

They have the authorisation directly to the Foreign Secretary and to the Home Secretary. But quite evidently, Secretary. But quite evidently, when he is drawing up or he in this case is drawing up a plan to examine what needs to be done to help reduce the common issue we have of reducing small boat crossings, bringing criminals to justice, and helping to speed up the asylum removals that the noble Lord Swire referred to. Then, self-evidently, he is going to discuss and work with the security services.

I think I'm straying into a committee session, which the noble Lord wasn't at, and I think I'd rather stick to report which the noble Lord is at, and I think I have actually answered the questions that he has put before the committee today. If I may turn to amendment 26 again, if we return to the position we were in in 2016, the noble Baroness Ludford and noble Lord German would have wished to have maintenance of Europol. Let me just say that on a personal basis.

When I was a member of the House of Commons in 216, 217, two, 18 to 19, I argued to make sure that we retained the capability of Europol and Sis two in our United Kingdom withdrawal agreement. That hasn't happened, but it is important that we ensure that we have as close cooperation with Europol now as possible post the Brexit agreement, that we have as close cooperation on the information gathering and criminal justice delivery capabilities that the noble Baron and the noble Lady have mentioned, and that is really important.

Now, we do have a strong existing relationship with Europol. As we said in the committee stage, we have around 20 members of staff who are permanent multi-agency liaison bureau at the agency's headquarters in The Hague. The noble Lord mentioned whether we should have some Europol people here. We don't. Currently. That's a matter for discussion. Again, it may be a matter for regret. Where we are now, I voted for remain, may be a matter for regret, but where we are is where we are and where we are is that Europol remains an independent organisation, accountable to the members of the European Union, producing its report to the European Union, being accountable to the European Union.

And what I would say to the noble lady in her amendment and to the noble Lord German in his support for that amendment, is the proposed clause would require reporting on all aspects of our cooperation with Europol. Ministers I me will regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement cooperation, including Europol. We do publish annual minutes of UQ specialised committees which monitor and review our trade agreements, including with Europol. I'm mindful that Europol is not a UK body. It answers to the European Commission and its member states.

So public reporting on bilateral cooperation may actually be sometimes things that we can't report upon. And it's not for us to report on some of the issues with Europol, because that's what Europol does. Now, we did have, as the noble Lady mentioned, once upon a time, in the days gone by, a British senior official leading Europol. That that has changed. And, you know, we're in that different world that we're in now. But I would give her the assurance that the focus remains on disrupting organised crime, protecting vulnerable people, securing our borders and working in cooperation with Europol to achieve those objectives.

And if anything, again, going back to the role of the Border Force Border Security Commander, one of his key roles is to oil the machinery of that operation and to work with colleagues who are directly operationally responsible to make sure we engender our cooperation at a European level. So I would respectfully say to the noble Lords Davis that amendments one and two, I don't think are necessary, and therefore I'd ask them to withdraw them. And I would say to the noble Baroness Lord Offord that amendment 26 is asking for things that that we don't need to do, because in a sense, we are accountable in this House for that relationship.

And I can't report on all matters. But I get the spirit of what she's trying to say and I want to have, on behalf of the UK government, closer cooperation as possible with Europol and with European agencies, because we have a a joint interest in tackling the criminal gangs and stopping those individuals being exploited in those crossings.
20:07
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate and I thank all but useful debate and I thank all those who have participated. I will say a few words on amendment 26, say a few words on amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Ludford. What I'd say in addition Ludford. What I'd say in addition to the noble Ladies comments, is that on tackling the border crisis, we should be coordinating with our we should be coordinating with our European allies in any case, and we do need to stem the flow of illegal do need to stem the flow of illegal migration through Europe and across the channel, and to disrupt the criminal gangs that operate the smuggling network.

And we should be careful, however, to see that this as some form of which it should be as some form of which it should be careful not to say this as some form of silver bullet, the problem cannot be solved. Simply striking agreements with other European countries. And we know the limited impact, indeed of the government's so-called one in, one out deal has had. Now there is so much more that had. Now there is so much more that the government could and should be doing, and to tackle the full blown crisis at our border, they need to eliminate the pull factors and implement an effective deterrent.

implement an effective deterrent. And we had hoped the government would take a long, hard look at its current policy. We had hoped they would implement a serious and credible deterrent to prevent people from crossing the channel in small boats, and we had hoped they would present us with a more than with more than a commander, with nothing to command, but a commander with authority. That is evidently not the case. So what I will say to the government is that we will watch very, very carefully and scrutinise the role of the commander.

But for now I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendment. Is it your amendment? I leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Amendment two. Lord Davis not moved. An

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Davis not moved. An amendment three in clause 13. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davis. My Lords. The noble. Lord, the minister knows that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, the minister knows that the new offences in clauses 13 and 14 are ones that I support, and he 14 are ones that I support, and he will remember my defence of them at committee. During our committee committee. During our committee proceedings, I raised two important issues relating to what I consider to be gaps in these two new offences. The first is the omission of possession with intent to supply of possession with intent to supply from the offence of supplying an article for use in immigration crime.

And my argument here is that
20:10
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
crime. And my argument here is that the possession of sufficient quantities of such an article is not an innocent act. It is a precursor to the commission of the offence, and by failing to criminalise the preparatory acts, I feared we would not be including everyone we wish to capture within the offence. The second gap, my Lords, that I identified, is that the offence in clause 14 does not include a person who arranges for two third parties to exchange articles for use in immigration crime.

Once again, this is an essential preparatory act whereby one person is facilitating the exchange of goods which would later be used in the commission of the new offence. And the problem here is that we know organised crime gangs are always concocting ever more ingenious methods of circumventing the law, often by removing themselves from the criminal act and criminal acts and organising exchanges. And in this regard, I am very pleased that the government have listened and have tabled amendments for an eight, and it is genuinely welcome that they have listened to the concerns that I raised at committee stage and have taken those suggestions away and come back to this House with a solution.

The noble Lord. The Ministers amendments would create two further offences within clauses 13 and 14, effectively by expanding their reach. These would include, within the scope of these offences, a person who is concerned in the supplying or the receiving of an article, and the second aspect of these new offences is that the person has to know that the relevant article is to be used in connection with an offence under the relevant sections in the Immigration Act 1971. That's my understanding, my Lords, that those two aspects of the new offences in amendments four and eight brought by the government, would cover possession with intent to supply and the arranging of the exchange of an article between two third parties.

And I would like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if, when he comes to respond to this group, he could give me a cast iron assurance that the government's amendments do include the gaps that I have identified. And with that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 13,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 13, page seven, line eight after supply, insert or has in their possession

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with intent to supply. My Lords, I start. From the position. Of being.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of being. Very unhappy with clause 13. In any event. But in amendment. Three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three. The term intent, it's. Certainly a. Familiar one, but it seems to me
20:13
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Familiar one, but it seems to me it must be something. That's really think. That we should, in the business

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we should, in the business of creating. Offences where it. Generally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Offences where it. Generally would be not realistic to. Prosecute on two. Of the. Government amendments. First of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government amendments. First of all, amendment four, the term concerned. I think this is in eight concerned. I think this is in eight as well, is a very broad term. I think. It's in. The it is used in the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. I don't know how that came into my mind, but I did find it. But but in any event, it seems to me to be so broad as to be questionable. This clause is a clause which is criminalising people, and as we said many times at committee, we see a danger of criminalising asylum seekers regarding them as doing things that we don't want smugglers to do or we don't want smugglers.

But but sweeping them up point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In 1AB in clause four, the term in connection with, again, that's in connection with, again, that's very wide. And surely there are. very wide. And surely there are. The criminal law covers being an accessory, aiding and abetting and accessory, aiding and abetting and so on. So again, a concern about so on. So again, a concern about that in amendment Government that in amendment Government amendment six, we have the term arranges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

arranges. How is. This not covered by little C

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This not covered by little C which uses the term assists. So in which uses the term assists. So in taking the point overall we're concerned about the breadth of concerned about the breadth of these amendments and the extension of the offences which concern us, of the offences which concern us, if I can use that word without concern, as in any event.
20:15
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

concern, as in any event. My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support my noble friend in his amendment three and also. Support the government's amendments that they've brought forward to try and make. Clause 13 more, more effective, more appropriate Lords. I have one sort of rather broader question for the Minister that I suspect that many of the people who will who may be caught by this, are already committing all sorts of other offences, either provisions within the scope of this bill or some of the.

Other relevant pieces of legislation, such as the Immigration Act 1971. So my Lords my my question to the government is how effective do they believe that clause 13 is going to be? What sort of a difference do they believe they've brought forward legislation? They've asked this House to pass a bill containing clause 13. They must have a view. And whether that's from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, other arms of government as to how effective this they believe that this measure will be, particularly given the fact that many of the people, or perhaps even the majority of the people committing these offences, won't be resident in the United Kingdom.

They'll be elsewhere as part of this broader supply chain. So, my Lords, broadly supportive, but would appreciate it if the Minister could answer my question when he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comes to sum up the debate. I would just like to rise to support my noble friend Baroness
20:17
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
support my noble friend Baroness Hamwee and to ask a couple of questions about the concerned by area, because, of course, the government's amendments four and eight further expand the scope of offences in clauses 13 and 14 by introducing this liability for being concerned in the supply of handling of articles. I understand that there's some of this phraseology is also in some of the counter-terrorism laws which we which we have, and I wonder whether it's been drawn from those very serious laws and just put in this, in this at the moment, the, the original intention, of course, of clauses 13 to 17 was to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs.

There was my noble friend says the worry is that the expansion of the offences risks inadvertently criminalising people who should be protected and providing unintended harms to those who are most vulnerable. Just one other point about the criminalising non-criminal actors. I wonder if the noble Lord could say a little word about legal practitioners. There's a certain ambiguity created by these broad offences which might risk affecting legal practitioners who provide legitimate services. And I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us whether or not that can be explicitly either put into the bill or explicitly ruled out of the of the of the of the amendments that we have put before us today.

So, in summary, these specific government amendments are seeking to further widen the extraterritorial counter-terror style offences, in turn, that I think requires statutory guardrails to prevent them from targeting vulnerable individuals and also legal representation legal practitioners, instead of solely the organised crime networks. And I hope the the noble Lord, the minister in replying, can put that matter to rest. matter to rest.
20:19
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this in this short but I think worthwhile debate. And I'm particularly grateful to Lord Davies of Gower and indeed, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling amendments three and six, and to Lord Cameron for speaking to them, which seek to criminalise possession with intent to supply, and to ensure that those who arrange for a relevant item to be received by a third party, forced into the scope of the offence, and as to be fair to the noble Lord.

Lord Cameron acknowledged in response to the debate that we had previously had at the committee stage on these amendments, the government has tabled amendments four, five, eight, nine, 16 and 17, and these build upon proposals advanced by the noble Lords Lord Davis and Lord Cameron, both committee stage and indeed this evening in the report stage debate in refining the approach, my Lords, we have brought forward amendments that ensure individuals who are concerned in the supply chain can be held accountable where they know that their actions are enabling criminal activity, and that those who are knowingly concerned in supplying articles for use in immigration, crime Fall in scope.

As Lord Cameron himself noted, speaking this evening, criminals are always developing new ways to to pursue organised immigration crime. We have to stay on top of them. And these amendments are part of the package of measures that we have in the bill. And that's why bringing these government amendments forward, to address the concerns around third party supply that were noted at committee stage. I believe, my Lords, that this matches the intent of the noble Lords intent, intentions in in their amendments, both at report and committee stage, by ensuring that both those who are concerned in the supply of or making of an offer to supply a relevant article for use in immigration, crime, and those who are concerned in the handling of relevant article for use in immigration crime are in scope of this offence.

As such, I hope the Noble Lords are content with the government amendments and will withdraw these. Apologies. We'll withdraw theirs. My Lords. This is a proportionate, necessary step, one that targets the infrastructure behind the wicked trade of organised immigration crime. It allows us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but also those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. Organised immigration, crime. My Lords, as we've already heard tonight, work intent, work internationally through networks of facilitators and organisers and this new offence, strengthened by this amendment, is about acting before the facilitation offences have happened, to prevent crossings and prevent the risk of life and everything that goes with it.

These amendments have safeguards in place, reflecting our wider discussion on the on this aspect in that the individual must be knowingly engaging in facilitation to fall into scope, and law enforcement must be able to prove that knowledge, protecting those who act in good faith from these offences. Turning to some of the questions and points that were raised, both Baroness are Hamwee and from the frontbench noble Lord Lord German raised concerns about the language in the Bill and indeed the, the, the, the, the precision of the language.

Excuse me in the bill, firstly, in terms of how concerned with, as Lord German asks, is any different to handling wording in the bill? The bill equips law enforcement with counter-terrorist style powers to disrupt and dismantle smuggling operations far earlier, well before boat is launched from the French coast and lives are put at risk. The amendment strengthens these powers, setting out that someone does not need to smuggle people into the UK themselves to face jail time. Law enforcement can also use these powers to go after people playing other roles in smuggling operations.

This may include, for instance, providing a lorry to try smuggling people into the UK, or sending money to buy small boat parts or storing dinghies in warehouses, knowing full well they are being used for channel crossings. The noble Lady Baroness Hamwee talked about the breadth with, and kind of the vagueness of the use of concerned with would it, for instance, capture those that are selling boats equipment to sailors? To be clear, my Lords not the intention here. All that is changing with this amendment is setting out someone involved in people smuggling operations can face jail time, not just those smuggling people into the UK themselves.

And to go to the heart of whether this is an overreach in which I think is the concerns that are coming from the Liberal Democrat benches. Firstly, let's be absolutely clear, and I think we can all agree on this. Vile people smugglers are wreaking havoc on our borders and are putting lives at risk to line their own pockets. Nonetheless, law enforcement must follow a strict legal test and prove someone knew the activity was part of smuggling operations. And as with any criminal offence by Lords, independent prosecutors will look at all factors when considering prosecution and judge every case on their merits.

And indeed, the officers who are both both carrying out potential seizures. Applying for arrest warrants will bear in mind the the usual high bar of evidential standards that prosecutors require for a successful prosecution. Nothing. Nothing changes there. The Lord German asks about the impact on legal practitioners, and to be clear, this is about supplying goods, not not services. So I think there is a clear. Difference between people who want to give want supply dinghies to get people across the channel and those who are supplying legal legal services to people who want to defend an appeal claim for, for asylum, for, for instance, well, I assume what he's getting at.

Lastly, in terms of comments, I'll turn to the noble Lord, Lord Goschen, who asked for kind of the the bigger picture. This bill is about making it harder for smugglers to to operate, and they'll equip the powers that are being given our new counter-terror style powers to equip law enforcement with the tools they need to act earlier amongst them, against them. Rather, I would say to the noble Lord, even one prosecution that stops a smuggler in their tracks could save countless lives.

And we've, we've, we've, we've seen over many summers now, the number of people who are crammed onto those boats to think that we can stop any single boat launching through getting those dinghies seized earlier, that will have a material impact in saving countless lives. This is tough legislation. It builds upon the surge in operational action against people smuggling smuggling networks. The National Crime Agency has carried out around 350 disruptions on organised immigration crime networks, its highest level on record, and a 40% increase on the on the previous year.

Through these amendments, my Lords, we send a clear and unequivocal message those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences. This aligns with the government's broader commitment to stop the boats and dismantle the nefarious networks that profit from the evil of human exploitation, and reinforces our resolve to tackle every link in the chain of illegal migration. The government's approach has been clear from taking office to go after the gangs, and we need these offences enacted to allow operational colleagues to do their job.

They strengthen our ability to prosecute facilitators and reinforce our stance that nobody concerned in the supply of articles for use in such offences should be beyond the reach of the law. Having said that, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw his amendments and I suppose I would also move formally, move the the government amendments at the same time.
20:26
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short group. Just one observation on the comments from Lord noble Lord Lord German around the phrase concerned with which appears in the amendments, and he stated, I think that it appears in in counter-terrorism law. It also appears frequently in the criminal law around misuse of drugs, and I would suggest that the criminal courts are well used to both interpreting and applying that phrase.

There's a wealth of case law on it, and I would also suggest that it's not unusual or difficult or exceptional phraseology. My Lords, I'm very grateful for the assurances from the noble Lord, the Minister. It is very welcome that the government has listened to our concerns and addressed them with these amendments. And therefore, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment three. The Lordships amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by withdrawn. withdrawn. Amendment by withdrawn. Amendments four and five Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. The question is that these amendments question is that these amendments be agreed to. En bloc as many as are of that opinion, say 'content' to the contrary, not content with to the contrary, not content with the contents, have it in clause 14, amendment six. Lord Cameron not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment six. Lord Cameron not moved, and we now come to amendment seven. Baroness Hamwee my Lords. I beg to move amendment seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment seven. But before we get going on that, can I comment on government can I comment on government amendments ten and 11 to thank the amendments ten and 11 to thank the Minister for responding to not only to the amendments at committee to the amendments at committee stage, but also to my request for a meeting and holding a meeting during a week when he had so many. I think he can barely have had time I think he can barely have had time to breathe, but it was extremely pleasing to be able to pursue a pleasing to be able to pursue a matter on which we both understood what we were aiming for, even what we were aiming for, even though we couldn't quite find the words at committee I.

My amendment then was about hygiene kits from the slightly delicate terminology
20:30
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
used by some noble lords during committee stage. I think we had committee stage. I think we had different ideas in our minds. I understand that the government's understand that the government's approach to. Items to assist with cleanliness and hygiene is to take cleanliness and hygiene is to take care, not to enable items to be care, not to enable items to be weaponised that could be weaponised, hence the different approach to hence the different approach to this, which I think is quite ingenious.

I am, though, left with the question and a bit of a concern the question and a bit of a concern about shaving items. I couldn't about shaving items. I couldn't come up with. An alternative way of expressing it, which would have met expressing it, which would have met the government's point. But what was underlying my concern at the was underlying my concern at the last stage was allowing asylum seekers a degree in a very seekers a degree in a very difficult situation, a degree of dignity.

I, I confess I asked the Red cross, from whom I'd got a list of their the items that they normally supply to refugees. They couldn't come up with an alternative way of expressing it. Their crisis and emergency response teams. I've got the list of items include a razor, razors and shaving lubricant, and the standard hygiene items that the hack, the Red cross, Hackney Destitution Centre gives out. It includes shaving kits, but we are where we are.

Unless the minister's got anything more he can explain to me in responding. I do want to put my thanks on on record. I have amendment seven and 12 in this group. They don't challenge clauses 13 and 14, but they do seek to ensure that we don't sweep up people who are not smugglers, along with the smugglers at whom the clauses are aimed. Clause 14 two makes it an offence where there's knowledge or suspicion that items are to be used in connection with an immigration offence.

My drafting of this, I'm sure other noble Lords have experienced this. On the day when you're about to debate something that you've drafted a few days ago, you think I could have done that better, but it's that. Amendment is. I say that to pre-empt critics, and we're not going to divide on it anyway. But I do want the Minister's comments on what is frankly precarious in many ways, position of asylum seekers, especially given the limitations of the reasonable excuse defence which we debated at committee stage and which pretty much amounts to proving that you're not a criminal.

The. An example which has been given to me is of a mother handing a mobile phone, or a SIM card or a battery pack to her daughter in France, and the mother may be prosecuted for having supplied a relevant item under clause 13, which doesn't come with any within any of the exemptions. That mother and daughter would both be exposed to a possible 17 years of imprisonment if convicted on indictment, even if they claim and are granted asylum in the UK.

So it's not only the smuggling gangs who may be caught by the breadth of the offences. The Law Society has pointed out that the clause may criminalise victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, or asylum seekers who are forced to help smugglers, and they are concerned that the provision risks incompatibility with article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which prohibits penalties being imposed on refugees who enter or present in a country without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum.

Turning to amendment 12, clause 16, eight of the Bill provides reasonable excuses, including some which are connected with a person's occupation and the objective of his or her activity. And my point here is legal advice. I take the point made by the noble Lord Lord Katz that the previous clause we were debating was about articles. If it's not too flippant, it could be said that lawyers do sometimes provide lifeboats for their clients.

There is a framework for lawful immigration advice provided by authorised professionals. It's really hard enough to practice in this field, or indeed to become a client, because you can't find anyone to act for you on legal aid terms, adding a risk for lawyers is surely not the sort of deterrent that the Home Office has in mind, especially when it affects access to justice and therefore the rule of law. I know the Minister will say that the government is not going to target individuals who are acting professionally, as he did at committee.

This government won't. Another government might. And I'm sure he said that in the years when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he was in a position. I beg to move. Amendment seven. Clause 14, page eight 910 leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 14, page eight 910 leave out by P or another person and insert by a person other than P or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert by a person other than P or a member of P's immediate family. My Lords, I must to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I must to speak briefly here, support government's amendments ten and 11, and just pick up a couple of the points that pick up a couple of the points that the noble lady Baroness Hamwee made there on. On the first point. I
20:36
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
there on. On the first point. I think we did kick this around a bit at committee, so I won't overly repeat my points then, but I think we do want we did say then, and I think it's come out in the debate so far. The the point of this piece of legislation, which I do strongly agree with, I may not have agreed with what I continue to think is the rather cosmetic Border Security Commander, but actually the substance of a lot of the bill, which is about increasing the deterrent effect of the law, is very important.

And actually we want the offence here. I do want it to be quite broad, because I do want it to actually put off people who are helping to facilitate offences and then pretending that they're not. And you know, that specific example that the noble lady gave, which I think she gave a similar, either the similar or same example at committee stage, either she or somebody else did. I don't want people assisting people to commit immigration offences. And actually, I think in this case it is helpful for it to be a broad offence.

We are trying to deter people from helping people. In that case, she sets out my reading of it. Is that an offence would only be committed if the person supplying the article, the phone in this case had a reasonable suspicion that an immigration offence was going to be committed. Well, if they did, then I don't want them. I do want them to be concerned that they would be committing an offence and therefore not supply the device that's going to be used to commit the offence.

That's the point of the exercise. If it's not going to do that, there is really no point in passing this legislation. It is supposed to be setting out tough offences that deter people from from doing this activity. And and I'd make a similar point on, on amendment 12 about lawyers. First of all, I don't know whether position has changed enormously. And I suspect, given some of the other things that the noble Lord, the minister, says, I hadn't noticed when I was immigration minister, there was any shortage of people providing immigration advice, and there never seemed to be seemed to be a never ending supply of people who would assist people to try and breach our immigration rules and outwit our Home Office lawyers and so forth.

Now, it may be that there's been a massive drying up of such people, but I based on the number of cases and the the battles that the Home Office undertakes, I think that's probably highly unlikely. So I don't think there is a shortage of lawyers at all who provide advice for people in this area. The second thing is that there is a clear if someone's providing legal advice about what somebody has done and their legal position, then they're not going to be caught by this offence.

This is offence is about people who are providing advice that's going to facilitate immigration crime. It is not the function of a lawyer who is following the the professional standards that lawyers are supposed to operate in. They're not supposed to be providing legal advice that enables people to commit crimes. And if this clause, as drafted by the Ministers officials and draughtsmen, stops a lawyer providing advice about how to commit a crime, if it does stop them doing that, then I'm very pleased it does because they shouldn't be doing it.

I don't see any legitimate legal activity that a lawyer should professionally be providing. That is going to be caught by this clause. It seems to me it's only going to catch people who are operating on the margins and pushing the envelope about what it is that they're doing and what they're facilitating. It isn't the lawyer's job to help people commit criminal offences. That is absolutely not what lawyers are supposed to be doing. And so I think the clause as drafted in the legislation is fine as it is with its breadth.

And I therefore I know she says she's not going to move them. But the the two amendments the noble Lady suggested I would oppose them and think that the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is better without them. Yeah. I'd just like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'd just like. To defend lawyers. I don't know whether I should be doing this. It whether I should be doing this. It does strike me that in the previous set of amendments and this one here set of amendments and this one here in the committee stage, the minister assured us that the list of reasonable excuses in clause 16 of reasonable excuses in clause 16 is non-exhaustive, and that the legitimate activity should not be legitimate activity should not be captured.

However, relying on ministerial assurances of the good
20:41
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ministerial assurances of the good sense and discretion of the CPS is insufficient. When you come to framing criminal law, and it has. That's why that has to be represented on the in this bill or by regulation or some other way that we're not talking about that for here and for the advice of, of Lord Harper, that is very difficult indeed to find sufficient lawyers to deal with the caseload that's before us. And that's affecting, of course, the backlog as well. I won't go into the reasons why that's happened, but it's certainly not easy.

And here we are where the the actual penalty if, if, if a lawyer was caught in it was, you know, 14 years imprisonment. It's a very serious matter indeed. So if we fail to include explicit protection, we we risk imposing deterrence for legal exercising proper legal practice in this field of, of the law. And I and I support my my noble friend in in that objective in her amendments. I do want to talk to amendment 11 and the government's name because whilst we may have had a different gender of items, which my noble friend was talking about, at least I know.

I think I know what I'm talking about here. I know that razor blades are on safety. Razors are particularly dangerous. There are ways in which you can deal with that matter. But there's also, of course, the alternative of some form of electric device which can can do the job as well as we know. Well, the you might need a wire, but you can also operate them by battery and they're much cheaper. The ones that buy battery, I can assure him of.

That is my personal experience for this. In this palace, when you are from a different part of the country than than than London, however, I'd like to know what the explanation is going to be for how people can shave. That's obviously an issue which the Red cross have raised, and which I'm sure the government has got an sure the government has got an answer. Lords I'd like to thank the noble Baroness lady Hamwee and the noble Lord the minister, for
20:44
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
bringing these amendments. I will say at the outset that I'm content with the government amendments in this group, but perhaps a little this group, but perhaps a little less so with the noble Baroness, lady Hamwee my Lords. Amendment lady Hamwee my Lords. Amendment seven and 12 would create gaps in the new offences that would be susceptible to abuse. Those who enter the United Kingdom without valid leave to enter are committing an offence. Those who handle articles which are to be used to facilitate a person's unlawful entry, contrary to section 24, the entry, contrary to section 24, the Immigration Act 1971 will be committing an offence that is right, committing an offence that is right, but the exception created by amendment seven would mean that a person entering the country illegally could not themselves be found criminally liable for the handling of such articles.

If that handling of such articles. If that person intends to use that article themselves to enter illegally, then I cannot possibly see why they I cannot possibly see why they should be excluded from the commission of the new offence. In clause 14. On amendments 12, this clause 14. On amendments 12, this raises a question about the reasonable excuse defence under clause 16, and whether this would extend to those carrying out legitimate legal services. I'm sure that the government have no that the government have no intention of criminalising legitimate legal activity, but at the same time, we know all too well that there is an army of lawyers working for so-called human rights charities and non-governmental organisations who do indeed seek to use ever more ingenious legal methods to circumvent legitimate deportations and removals.

Turning to amendments 1011. These concerns are. These concern the offences relating to prohibited items and accommodation or transport facilities. Government amendment ten proposes to exempt items designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or hygiene from the relevant offences, and amendment 11 then sensibly limits that exemption so that dangerous articles such as blades, glass or aerosols are not inadvertently permitted. My Lords, these amendments appear to be reasonable and pragmatic. Attempt to and a pragmatic attempt to ensure that the legislation does not extend beyond its intended purpose.

We do not want to see a situation in which a detainee, or indeed an asylum seeker, could be criminalised for possessing a bar of soap or toothpaste, and the carve outs in amendment 11 should ensure that safety is not compromised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for an amendment seven, and I'll speak to that in a seven, and I'll speak to that in a moment, if I may. But first of all, let me just speak to amendments ten
20:46
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
and 11 in my name, which again, I hope for all the difficulties about the some of the issues that the noble Lord German has raised in relation to shaving is an attempt by the government to meet both the objectives of the noble Ladies original amendment in Committee, but also the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the bill, which raised this as a matter of some importance, and I reflected on it. After committee, I asked officials to draw up amendments. The amendments have been drawn up that allow essential items such as soap, soap, toothpaste, sanitary products to be used.

But amendment 11 is again there because there are things such as razor blades, things such as things in the glass container which can be broken and be available as a weapon, and things such as aerosol cans, which can be sprayed in people's faces, which have to be exempted from that. Now, I confess that the question of shaving is one that might be worthy of a further reflection and discussion, but we are where we are many people, and this is not a pejorative statement.

Some people who arrive will have beards. The ones that don't can wash with soap, can use toothpaste, can do all the things, and potentially at some point can shave in a more controlled circumstance at a later date. So, you know, let's let's reflect on that. It's an interesting point for debate. But ultimately I think we've tried to settle on a reasonable compromise to meet the objectives of the committee's pressure to the government to meet the joint committee's reports.

And I would commend ten and 11 to the House as they stand. Amendments 12 and indeed, the amendment seven that the noble Lady has produced. Again, I have had more difficulty with. I appreciate with amendment 12 that the intent is to safeguard legitimate legal professionals. I must stress already the clause does provide, as she knows, a reasonable excuse defence the amendment by explicitly referencing section 12 three of the Legal Services Act 2003, for the very points that the noble Lord Harper has mentioned, and indeed the noble Lord Davis narrows that defence rather than strengthens it.

Clause 16 is designed to target those who collect sensitive information for the purpose of facilitating immigration crime. It is not in any way, shape or form aimed at those who want to provide bona fide legal advice. Acting within the law. The offences will be intelligence led. The offences will be focussed on organised criminal activity, not those providing lawful counsel and for legal advice is to fall into scope. In this clause they would have to be, for example, gathering or providing information or advice to clients on how to make a clandestine crossing to the UK.

And that's not what a legal advice is supposed to be in this circumstance. So for once, I find myself in compadre with the noble Lord Davis and the noble Lord Harper on that point. And I would respectfully ask the noble lady to withdraw amendment 12 when the time comes, or at least not move. Amendment 12, amendment seven, again tabled by the noble lady, seeks to exclude from liability those who handle articles likely to be used in an immigration crime if the intended user is themselves or a member of their immediate family.

Well, I'd just have to say that if I wanted to help support somebody, I might well claim I'm a member of an immediate family. I might well have an immediate family member who supply me with information, and I might well have organised criminal gangs who exploit family ties by pressure or by other means to ensure that they mask that facilitation. Clause 14 already requires that the article is, and I quote from the clause likely to be used in the course of immigration crime.

This threshold ensures that only those knowingly contributing to criminal activity are captured. And if I can reassure the noble lady. I've also been clear throughout the Bill's progress that this House has a reasonable excuse on the face of the bill, which is non-exhaustive and given the intention of this offence, and while respecting the decision to prosecute, is made entirely independently of government, I would expect that it would not be generally be an operational or public interest matter to pursue people handling items in genuine pursuit of asylum or on behalf of family members.

The CPS stroke any other legal entity that wishes to examine this matter would look at the intent behind the clause and the reasonable defence that we have in the clause. 14 is, I think, one. That is what I would refer to the noble lady and hope to have her support on the law must remain clear and enforceable. The current drafting provides flexibility and discretion without compromising the clauses intent. Therefore, I would hope that the noble lady would both not move or at least withdraw amendments 12 and seven.

And I would commend amendments ten and 11 to the House as meeting the objectives. The House ordered me to look at in a nice, friendly way in the committee stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I don't want to go over points that have already been made
20:51
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page