Lords Chamber

Tuesday 16th December 2025

(began 2 hours, 37 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring schools' core budgets in more deprived communities are not disproportionately used to meet the costs of providing free school meals Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-

My Lords, the government already
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Expanding the use of large-scale sites for asylum accommodation Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-

Second oral question Lord German.
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
None Portrait Oral questions: Improving women’s healthcare as part of the Women’s Health Strategy for England Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-

One question Baroness Stowell. Standing in my name in the Order Paper. My Lords.
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:15
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I Lord Austin July, I formed the house of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the government's manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the Hereditary Peers Bill, and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door.

I know to other noble Lords with some constructive and at times very creative suggestions for reform of the House. In listening to that debate and the presentations, I formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership on how these issues can be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I now propose the Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement, on participation, and to consider what steps can we take on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation? The motion gives effect to my commitment that I made to your Lordships House, and I'm pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels, and I hope this is self-explanatory, but I'd like to just stress three points, which I think might be helpful.

First, the committee is time limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate, and since Lords Reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly, I've therefore sought to give the committee a tight. But I believe we listic timeline for their work. Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of the House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.

And finally, the motion specifically asked the committee to look at non-legislative solutions as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. My Lords, I look forward to hearing the committee's recommendations. My Lords, I beg to move EA.
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: United States’s National Security Strategy and its implications for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States
-

My Lords, the new US strategy makes it even more vital that the UK remains a key part of European
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Rise in flu and RSV admissions and the Government’s preparations for winter pressures on the NHS
-

My Lord Austin. I thank the Minister for the statement and ask the Minister about two cohorts in particular where there are concerns
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Labour)
-
-
disagreed with their reason. 120 t. I will also speak to motion A1 I will also speak to motion A1 throughout the passage of this bill, which arrived in your Lordships House nine months ago yesterday, we House nine months ago yesterday, we have scrutinised, deliberated and debated all areas. Once again, I would like to thank noble Lords for would like to thank noble Lords for fulfilling their scrutiny role and in the course of doing so, providing their invaluable insight. providing their invaluable insight.

But my Lords, we are now in round four of ping pong for a bill. The government has a clear electoral mandate to deliver. We cannot be accused of attempting to push the bill through without listening to the concerns raised by my noble Lords. We are immensely grateful for the more than 60 occasions on which noble Lords have engaged with us, offering rigorous scrutiny and thoughtful challenge. It's because of this valuable feedback that the government has been able to act and make changes where appropriate, including through technical amendments at committee and report and the publication of an implementation roadmap outlining what the government will consult on when and at what point your rights are expected to go live.

The government is pleased to have found commonality in the three previous rounds of ping pong. On 11 of the 12 issues the House asked the government to look at again, the contributions of noble Lords across the House have helped bring forward solutions on a range of specific issues, from heritage railways to paid time off for special constables, and on a number of other issues such as the right to be accompanied. The government has made non-legislative commitments which noble Lords have recognised as important progress, and most recently, during ping pong, the government has brought forward amendments to the bill on zero hours contracts, seasonal work, trade union ballot thresholds and trade union political funds, which will help ensure stakeholders views and insights are represented in the final policy outcomes.

As we shift into the implementation phase for this bill. On the final issue of unfair dismissal in the face of successive Lords votes against day one rights to protection from unfair dismissal, itself a manifesto commitment, the government took the extraordinary step of convening a series of constructive conversations between business representatives, representative organisations and trade unions, which reached a workable agreement on the unfair dismissal provisions. And yesterday those representatives from the British Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, stating that the outcome of the dialogue represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.

The Commons amendments in lieu return to us for further consideration today. After being debated and scrutinised in both houses last week, directly delivered the agreement reached between business representatives and trade unions. They will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections from 24 months to six months, ensure that the qualifying period can only be varied by primary legislation, and remove the compensation cap for unfair dismissal claims. This will remove both the 52 weeks gross pay and the £118,223 cap.

We have heard the House's concerns around the compensatory cap, and I think it's important to reiterate what was said in the last debate that in practice, few awards get anywhere close to these caps, with a median average award for unfair dismissal being £6,746 in 2324. Employment tribunals will also continue to assess compensation based on evidence of specific losses when determining awards. And furthermore, as I mentioned in your Lordships House last week, the government stands ready to continue working with businesses and other stakeholders as we implement this change.

I was pleased to see this sentiment reciprocated. In the letter to the Secretary of State from Business Representatives, and I reiterate the commitments I made from the Dispatch Box last week. The government will publish an enactment Impact assessment as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent and before commencement, regulations on the unfair dismissal package are brought to Parliament. This assessment will be public and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap. We will also convene meetings early in the new year so stakeholders can share their views on the impact of this measure.

Based on the outcomes of these discussions, I can confirm the government will consider what additional dedicated support or guidance might be appropriate as we implement these measures. The unfair dismissal package should also be seen in the context of wider work to improve the employment dispute system, particularly through the new Dispute Resolution Task Force set up jointly by my department and the Ministry of Justice. The task force will take into consideration the government's Enactment Impact Assessment, which will be published upon Royal Assent and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the cap.

It will also examine the stakeholder perspectives of the impact of removing the cap, the task force's expertise, business trade unions and other experts will help support government to develop reform measures to to that promote prevention and resolution of workplace disputes. As we develop policy to ensure the current system, including Acas and employment tribunals, are more efficient and resilient, and the system works better for both workers and business. My Lords, I repeat that the government's amendments adhere to the negotiated outcome between trade unions and business representative organisations and celebrate a successful tripartite agreement.

The noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom will, I'm sure, disagree with my characterisation of the agreement when he moves his amendment, and I am grateful to him and the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral for our further engagement. Earlier today, I would once again draw his attention to the assurances given in another place by my ministerial colleague, Kate Dearden. The government wants to continue using the tripartite model going forward, as the positive contributions from business representative organisations and trade unions helped create a practical, proportional and workable agreement.

If we don't stick to the principles of this agreement, we cannot, in good faith, expect these groups to partake in future discussions. My Lords, in conclusion, the government has listened to the concerns of your Lordships House. We have worked collaboratively, collaboratively throughout the passage of the Bill with parliamentarians, employers and trade unions. We have found compromise on the unfair dismissal provisions, and we have now delivered on that compromise as part of a package deal to get this bill to Royal Assent last week, your Lordships' House asked the elected House to think again.

That is the right of noble Lords, and in spite of being a new member, one that I respect and defend, MPs have now done ASBOs supporting the government in delivering the tripartite deal in its totality. The letter from business representatives also states that now is the time for Parliament to pass the bill. Further attempts to unpick the agreement. At this, the fourth round of ping pong would add to uncertainty having a material impact on employers and workers alike.

I believe this is a good agreement. It involves compromise from all parties, including genuine movement from the government. I therefore respectfully ask your Lordships House to do as business groups have asked. Allow this important Bill. A manifesto commitment to pass and progress onto the statute book. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to motion A1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom EA. My Lords, I beg to move motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion A at end insert and do propose amendment end insert and do propose amendment 120 TU as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120 G. In lieu of
15:50
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 120 G. In lieu of amendment 120 N, and amendments 120 V to 120 Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120 H in lieu of amendments 120 to 120 S. My Lords, as the noble Lady, the Minister said yesterday. A letter was sent to members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear, and that is that the government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.

The agreement, and I choose that word carefully, was to remove the 52 week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community. But the government has now chosen to not only abandon that agreement, but to misrepresent it to the House. And to prove that point. I quote from the same letter from the six business organisations. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit.

My Lords, this is made all the more serious because the government has compounded that error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this bill, neither in your Lordships House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubberstamp late stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances. My Lords, let me be clear about the conservative amendment that's tabled in my name.

It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the government. The removal of the 52 week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit, there is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the government to not accept it. The amendment also provides for a formal review and proper consultation, and I remind the House that when the cap was increased under the Labour government in 1999, that changed followed consultation. When the coalition government introduced a 52 week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken.

There is no reason whatsoever why the government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence based manner. Again, my Lords, it's the government's choice and the government's choice alone to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. My Lords, it is also wholly wrong for the TUC, for the Minister in another place, and for others to attack hereditary peers, for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do, which is to scrutinise legislation.

And I think it's also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary peer who backed the government. If the 65 Labour peers who were absent last week had attended, the government would have likely prevailed. But I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet feet once they realised they were being asked to support multi-million pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions.

Perhaps my Lords absence was in this case a mercy. My Lords, over the weekend, the latest employment Tribunal statistics were published and they are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives, advised by the very best lawyers, will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have legitimate and modest claims, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.

My Lords, this debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, and this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas. And my Lords, it is the young people who are bearing the brunt at a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities. The government chooses to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market.

So what on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they're creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires. May I also say to the Liberal Democrats, it's a curious position to to demand that water company bosses be dismissed whilst simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye watering compensation. Yeah, something does not add up. My Lords. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships House.

In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord Lord Fox could explain this sudden change of heart. My Lords, the government has claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of rewards.

The Ministry of Justice's own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards, yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reached the point of an award because they're settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known end point and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult.

Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate, and tribunals which are already overwhelmed are left to pick up the pieces. My Lords, even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness, and he introduced 1 in 2017. And I think it's a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British government about competitiveness. My Lords, the only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg. Luxembourg has youth unemployment rate of 20%.

So, my Lords, a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was frankly inadequate, a fact that was recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating.

Will the government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate, that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? And if it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the government commit to reintroducing a cap like President Macron? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small? My Lords, in conclusion, because of the Conservative Party, a six month qualifying period has been secured.

However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of this bill. The £5 billion cost remains the cost of a raft of 1970s style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for by the government. And to repeat, all of this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. So, my Lords, let me be completely clear. The next conservative government will repeal every job destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move a. The original question was that motion A be agreed to? Since when motion A be agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A at end insert, amendment to motion A at end insert, and we propose amendment 100 TU as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120 G in lieu of amendment 120 N and amendment 120 V to 120 Y as and amendment 120 V to 120 Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120 H in lieu of amendments one £0.20 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

120 S. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to Lord Sharpe. Mentioned parts of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mentioned parts of. The. Letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chamber of Commerce. What he didn't mention is that that letter from those groups also said, letter from those groups also said, I quote, now is the time for
16:00
16:01
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords Second Reading back in March. I think nine months ago yesterday, or I believe it feels yesterday, or I believe it feels like longer than that. I have to say, I said, that this bill will damage growth and most importantly, damage growth and most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people. After nine months of debate and scrutiny, it is less damaging, but I still believe it's not a good bill. It's still piles cost and regulation on businesses and indeed on the public sector at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.

But, my Lords, this House has done its job and I believe we've done it well and responsibly. We've pointed out the unintended consequences that the bill may cause, the potential damage to our employment prospects of the young and others, and the disproportionate impact on the backbone of our economy. Smaller businesses. We have given the Other place several opportunities to think again. And to be fair, they have done so in a number of areas. In particular, the government has compromised with respect to what I believe was the most damaging aspect.

Day one dismissal rights. We've also, quite rightly, registered our constitutional disapproval of the introduction of a material change at the very last minute being the abolition of the cap on unfair dismissal, which is the subject of motion A, I take the statement of the noble Lady, the Minister last week that the amendments were, and I quote context and bill specific together with her reference to and again, I quote the Leader of the House on how she and other members would like to conduct business more regularly as confirmation that the government accepts that this should not ever be seen as a precedent, and I believe this House would be right to reject it if it were ever used as a precedent in the future.

Now, I do have a lot of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the Labour Lord Sharpe, but I'm afraid I won't be supporting it at this stage. I think we are in danger of overegging the impact of the removal of the cap, the I don't support it. But for example, the the example of the water bosses, frankly, they're going to be remunerated if they are fired for contractual reasons, which is unlimited anyway. It's not going to be under the unfair dismissal rules.

I'm not convinced it makes an enormous difference. But he's quite right. We don't have an impact assessment yet, despite our giving it the opportunity to think again on many aspects, the Other place has disagreed with our changes and decided it wants to go ahead, and that does now also include the cap on unfair dismissal claims. The time has come, my Lords, for us in this House to respect the will of the elected chamber and let the Bill pass, regardless of any remaining concerns that I and I think many others still have, I will vote against the amendment for that reason.

I want to end with one final plea to the noble Lady, the Minister. However, she will be well aware of the latest employment figures and the worsening trend. She will also be well aware that what the ONS described as this subdued labour market is disproportionately affecting young people. We should all be very concerned about that. The Resolution Foundation is also clear on this, and I quote, as is typical in economic downturns, young people have been hit hardest with unemployment expected to stay elevated.

Government should be cautious about any further increase in labour costs. Much of the regulation of the implementation of this bill will be by regulation, which will follow over the coming years. I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere are kept front and centre, and that the unintended consequences that may arise, especially for young people, are thought through very carefully whilst the regulations are being considered, are being created. It was encouraging that the government did listen to business organisations in the later stages of the bill, especially around the unfair dismissal question, and I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to ensure that government continues to listen constructively to the concerns of those who will create the growth and jobs that will drive the economy, and especially that it makes a much greater effort to hear the concerns of smaller businesses who are feeling rather ignored and concerned at the moment.

But that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said, my Lords, it is time to let this bill pass. Lords. This time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This time. Last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. happened in the preceding interval. Today the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. And for that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short. Of course, speech will be short. Of course, there remains concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we've heard, and as he did last week, the noble Lord Sharpe has taken those concerns and amplified them to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing now.

I understand the motives and those motives became ever clearer just now. And if the noble Lord would like to have a face off on the water industry, I'd be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the conservative government and the the the compensation terms, which he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment.

My Lords, my my critique, my critique of the noble Lords Amendment is is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of
16:06
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
dealing with the cap issue than derailing the package that got the key concession, to which we are all very pleased. My Lords, as set out last week, reiterated in the last week, reiterated in the Minister's letter and reiterated reiterated by the Minister just just now, the government will just now, the government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the bill and they will do so prior to commencement will do so prior to commencement regulations for the for which would in in put in place the dismissal package.

Now, that was what we on these benches were asking for, and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment. My Lords, many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment. Today. They are asking the opposite. My Lords, as the noble Baroness, the Minister set out.

Six of the major organisations have sent a letter and it's a longish letter as the the the noble Lord Sharpe demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of that letter. But as the noble Lord Pannick pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous. We believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find a balanced solutions through secondary legislation to avoid losing the six month qualifying period. We therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the bill.

I said that last week and it's more true this week. My Lords, I also pointed out last week, as the business organisations pointed out, the key to enacting this bill will be through secondary legislation. And if His Majesty's loyal opposition care about how this bill is brought into life, it is through those Statutory Instruments that they should focus their attention and their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal motions, to vote down secondary legislation and keep the government focussed on the needs of British business.

That is the real arena that we should be be be working on. My Lords, my Lords, if the noble Lord Lord Sharpe amendment is is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping pong to yet another round, this is clearly against the advice of the business groups which which have been cited. My Lords, I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, to heed the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass this bill now.

Amen.
16:09
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank again your Lordships House for its again your Lordships House for its attentive scrutiny through the passage of the Bill. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord Lord Vaux mentioned, that the House has discharged its duties as a revising chamber. Your Lordships' House asked the government to look again, and we have worked collaboratively, collaboratively with noble Lords to reach this agreement. I would also like to thank the noble Lords Lord Fox, Lord Pannick and Lord Vaux for their speeches in favour of the compromise proposed by the government.

Just turning to a number of the issues raised, in particular by Lord Sharpe, I would remind noble Lords that negotiations only successful, that where there is compromise, as was so eloquently put in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, the former chair of Acas, the government and representatives worker representatives move considerably during negotiations to agree to retaining a six month qualifying period without similar compromise from business representatives representatives on the removal. This deal would have been one sided and undeliverable.

On the question of the impact of the cap, I don't think I can do better than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick had said last week. He said that the concerns expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps exaggerated. And this, this just now, he has mentioned that he does not believe it will lead to the chaos that the that the noble Lord outlined earlier. It's not our view, but in any case, we will publish, as I mentioned, the enactment impact assessment.

As soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent, it will be public, it will be transparent. It will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap. And I also remind noble Lords of our commitment to convene meetings with shareholders so that those from the city law practitioners and others can feed in into that. And those findings will be taken into account by the the Dispute Resolution Task Force that we are also setting up. So they will have all that information to hand.

And we are obviously very keen to improve the functioning of the dispute resolution system. We inherited something that was not in a good state. We are providing Acas with over £65 million in resource funding a significant increase. So we are, we are, we are working actively to make this a system that works extremely well. So my Lords, I think, I hope that this afternoon will mark the end of this Bill's journey through Parliament. And I reiterate the government's commitment, which was also mentioned by others, other Lords who spoke today to our commitment to continue talking to interested parties in the way we have recently about the full range of issues discussed today and genuinely engaging this bill will deliver a generational shift in employment rights.

It will do so by working with businesses and trade unions in a collaborative manner. And these changes to the qualifying period and the compensation cap are proportionate and practical for those who are concerned about business impact. The joint letter should provide noble Lords with reassurances that businesses support this workable agreement and, as they have stated, now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill. I hope noble Lords will recognise the progress made over the past nine months. Oppose the amendment tabled by the opposition frontbench and in doing so, support the package to deliver certainty for businesses and fair rights for workers.

It is indeed time for Parliament to pass this bill. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Baroness. The noble the Minister sits down. Yes, noble the Minister sits down. Yes, I've got a right to ask questions. I've got a right to ask questions. Sorry. Before the noble Lady. The Minister sits down. The thing which Minister sits down. The thing which has concerned most of us, at least for me, has not been the limit or the reducing of the compensation package. That's not the question. The question for most of us, using ping pong to produce a new clause that has never been debated in this your Lordships' House, or even in the Commons.

That's a constitutional question which bothers most of us. And what I want to know, I have not heard any word saying, for example, that yes, we reached an agreement and we felt we had to bring it in and we will not be doing this kind of thing again, because how do we know, as more bills come, that ping pong may be used in my book, not in the way it should be, because no one should introduce new clauses that have not been canvassed in both houses of Parliament.

And because that hasn't happened, some of us are not arguing about actual amendment as it stands. But will we know? Will we know that actually rules that have been established in this your Lordships' House for years, and I have been in the House since 2005. No ping pong has ever been used to introduce a new clause that has not been debated in both houses. Will we know?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, this the context here is bill specific and the changes that have specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships House. We went away. We convened a particular mode of operating. We brought it back as a package that is bill specific.

And as I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take forward business. The Leader of the House has set those out very clearly, so that is the way that we intend to proceed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more generally. My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who've spoken in this noble Lords who've spoken in this very brief debate. I would say to the noble Lord Lord Pannick, he's right. Of course, I didn't quote that bit from the letter because that bit from the letter because the noble Lady the Minister did, and I think the House generally doesn't like needless repetition. doesn't like needless repetition. So I'm following the rules. I'm very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured.

My Lords, I'm grateful that the impact assessment will be, and correct me if I have any of this wrong, that the impact assessment will be published before commencement, that it will be public, transparent, will include a dispute resolution mechanism in the tripartite agreement, will endure going forward in further discussions around this bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that we on these benches will continue to hold the government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.

My Lords, I've what's been said. I would just like to emphasise one point made by the noble Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech, which is, of course, that we are particularly concerned about the impact of this entire bill on small businesses, and we will be returning to that theme unless their interests are very, very carefully protected going forward. As to the noble Lord Fox comments regarding the strategic position, I'm not entirely sure what the strategic position is, but I'm grateful for his comments.

And my Lords, I'm also enormously grateful to all of those on His Majesty's Loyal Opposition Benches and the many on the Crossbenches who stuck to their principles. We've achieved a great deal, my Lords, and made a bad bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A1 is it your Lordships pleasure that motion A1 be withdrawn. The that motion A1 be withdrawn. The motion is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion A be agreed to as many of that opinion say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, may I suggest a short pause before we I suggest a short pause before we My My Lords, Second Reading of the Victim and Crimes Bill Baroness Levitt.

this.
16:20
16:21
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
and improving the efficiency and fairness of our courts in a fair and proportionate way. A number of and proportionate way. A number of your Lordships have spoken to me about some of the provisions in this bill, and I'm very grateful to them for their measured and them for their measured and constructive approach. I had hoped to be able to answer some of their to be able to answer some of their questions in advance of this debate, but in the end, time constraints meant that this did not prove to be meant that this did not prove to be possible.

But I shall do my best to address some of them during this short speech. That said, as ever, with issues about the justice system, I and the government welcome the opportunity to work with members of your Lordships House, from all parties and from none, in order to ensure that we get these provisions right. My Lords, may I begin by addressing the issue of defendants who refuse to leave their cell in order to attend their sentencing hearing. This happens too often. It causes great distress to victims and their families, many of whom have sat through a difficult trial.

The sentencing hearing provides an important opportunity to tell the defendant exactly how the crime has affected them, usually done through a victim personal statement. And for many, it is important to be able to look the defendant in the eye as sentence is passed. So when the defendant chooses not to attend court, that can feel like the final insult. The government agrees with victims and their families that defendants should not have that choice. Judges have always had the power to order defendants to attend their sentencing hearing, but if the defendant refused, the judge was very restricted as to what she or he was able to do.

This bill will change that by putting the power on a statutory footing. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan, Mustafa, Harriet, such, Olivia Pratt-korbel, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena. Their courage and tireless campaigning have brought about this change and for that we will thank them. Turning to the specific provisions, first, the Bill makes it clear that reasonable force may be used to get the defendant to court, but this has to be balanced against the risk to prison and security staff.

So there will be three issues which the judge will take into account necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Second, in addition to the use of reasonable force, judges will have the power to impose up to two years imprisonment in addition to the sentence for the offence and or an unlimited fine. Thirdly, concerns were raised that because many of these defendants will be receiving very long sentences, an additional period of imprisonment might not have much effect. So in order to meet this concern, Crown Court judges will also be given the power to impose meaningful sanctions, which will have an impact on how the defendant serves their time in prison.

If defendants attend court but are disruptive or disrespectful and, as a result, have to be removed from the hearing, the judge will be able to impose the same penalties. My Lords, this government is clear. Victims and their families voices matter and defendants should be sentenced with those voices ringing in their ears. This bill will help to ensure that this happens. I turn to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. Protecting children is an absolute priority for this government, and these provisions are part of a wider exercise to ensure that the interests of children remain paramount in all proceedings.

My Lords, having children is a privilege, but it is also a responsibility, and the justice system must always ensure that these children are right at the centre of what we do. So as part of that, this bill provides that where a parent has been convicted of a serious offence involving child sexual abuse and has been sentenced to four or more years imprisonment, then there will be an automatic restriction preventing them from exercising parental responsibility for their own children. This measure will protect the children of child sex offenders, whose convictions will provide clear evidence that they pose a risk to children, including their own.

The bill will also restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for children of rapists, where their crimes have led to the conception and birth of the child in question. There will be two routes. In the first situation where the Crown Court is satisfied to the criminal standard, that the child was conceived as a result of the rape, then this mandatory restriction must be imposed at the same time as the defendant is sentenced. If the second situation is where rape has occurred as part of wider domestic abuse, and the court is satisfied that the child may have been conceived as a result of that rape, but cannot be sure, then the court must refer the case to the Family Court via the local authority.

This sends a clear message that we will protect all children conceived and born as a result of rape, no matter the circumstances. The noble Lord Lord Meston asked me when we met about the number of offenders this will capture. Our belief is that up to 20 offenders will be affected by this measure each year. Third, non-disclosure agreements, my Lords, non-disclosure agreements or NDAs should not be used to silence victims or to cover up crimes. This bill will make sure that they cannot be used in this way.

It makes clear that NDAs will not be legally enforceable to the extent that they seek to prevent victims, or those who reasonably believe they are victims, from disclosing information about relevant criminal behaviour. In addition, we want to make sure that victims can provide the full context and circumstances when speaking about crimes, so the bill will also ensure that such a victim will be able to speak about how the other party reacted, both to the criminal conduct itself and to the victim speaking out about it.

Of course, we recognise that there may be situations where both parties genuinely wish to have the closure that is offered by an NDA to accommodate that. The measure includes two powers. The first will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out the criteria for an accepted NDA. Such NDAs would not be voided under the measure. The second part allows the Secretary of State to specify that, speaking about the crime to some people, for specific purposes or in certain situations will always be allowed, even if an accepted NDA exists.

So, by way of example, a victim who wanted to speak to a victim support service in order to get support may be able to do so despite being party to an accepted NDA. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst asked me about some of the exceptions set out in the clause. I'm sorry I was not able to answer their questions in advance of Second Reading, but I'll do my best to do so now. The measure will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements.

This is in the interests of national security. Unlike with NDAs, victims of crime who sign such agreements will not always be able to make the disclosures specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under the second power. Because the relevant bodies have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring victims and witnesses of crime can speak up and seek support during the development of the clause, extensive engagement was undertaken with relevant government departments about which bodies an exemption should apply to.

An exemption for agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency in the interests of national security was not considered necessary. Legislation that binds the Crown does not ordinarily apply to the sovereign, unless there is a specific policy justification for it to do so, and for the purposes of this measure, the government does not consider that there is a specific policy justification for the measure to apply to agreements entered into by the sovereign personally. Fourth, strengthening the powers of the victims. Commissioner.

My Lords, I wish to start my remarks by paying tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, who will be greatly missed in your Lordships House. All of us have a great deal for which to thank her. This bill will enable the Victims Commissioner to hold the system to account more effectively, which we hope and expect will boost the confidence of victims. The victims Commissioner will have a number of new tools which we intend should be used to achieve systemic change. First, for the first time, the Commissioner will be able to exercise their functions in relation to individual cases where such a case raises public policy issues which go beyond that particular case and are likely to be of relevance to other victims and witnesses.

Second, local authorities and social housing providers will have a duty to cooperate with the victims commissioner in relation to anti-social behaviour and as a result, the Commissioner will be able to get the information they need to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and examine how the system responds to anti-social behaviour. Thirdly, this bill will place a new duty on the Victims Commissioner to produce an independent assessment as to. As to how public agencies are meeting their duties under the Victims Code.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a report will be provided to Ministers who will then be required to consider it as part be required to consider it as part of preparing their own report on code compliance under the Victims and Prisoners, Victim and Prisoners and Prisoners, Victim and Prisoners Act 2024. Some of your Lordships have raised with me at meetings whether the Commissioner will have sufficient resources to take on this additional work. We have worked closely with the Victims worked closely with the Victims Commissioner's Office to understand the impact of the measures, and we have identified a small additional resource requirement amounting to £150,000 a year, and that is outlined in our impact assessment.

This will be accounted for as the measure is commenced and implemented. Victim contact scheme My Lords, the Victim Contact Scheme plays a critical role in communicating information about the release of offenders to be given to those who need it most. But the legislation governing it is more than 20 years old. So this bill will simplify and update the current system. It will bring victims currently served by different operational schemes into the single victim contact scheme. And as we implement this measure, we will make sure that the updated scheme works for the victims it's designed to serve.

The bill will also provide all victims with one clear route they can use to request information about an offender, the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. Asked about interactions with clinicians obligations and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raised issues about when an offender is detained under the Mental Health Act 2013. We will consider how best to support victim liaison officers and indeed hospital managers, to provide this information to victims where it is appropriate to do so.

This requirement reflects current practice where the release of information must comply with data protection legislation and the convention rights. We also would not provide information that would put either the offender or the victim at risk for any reason. Where information is not disclosed, victims can seek a review through existing independent HMP complaints processes or make a complaint to the relevant NHS service provider, and if they are unhappy with the outcome, victims can escalate their complaint directly to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

For mentally disordered offenders, this includes information about discharge, leave and any other information as appropriate. Furthermore, the bill will allow victims to request information about an offender, which will be delivered via a new dedicated helpline. This means that eligible victims of mentally disordered offenders will receive information upon request. Our intention is to ensure that those who are eligible receive the right information about offenders at the right time and in addition, but outwith this bill, we will consult on a new victims code in due course.

My Lords, I would now like to turn to prosecutors. I declare not so much an interest as experience in this area, because I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I am sure that all will agree that it is essential that we ensure that the CPS can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Having inadequate numbers means that important decisions about, for example, who to charge with offences, choice of charge and evidence requests to be made from the police cannot take place in a timely way.

In England and Wales there are, of course, the members of the two well known branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. But what is less widely known is that there are other routes by which a person may qualify as a lawyer. The biggest of these organisations is Cilex, the Chartered institution of Legal Executives. At present, as the law currently stands, it is difficult for the CPS to appoint lawyers other than solicitors or barristers to work as Crown prosecutors. This bill will remove those barriers by enabling further, suitably qualified and experienced legal professionals to be appointed to these important roles.

A number of noble Lords have raised with me whether this will involve lowering standards, and I am happy to reassure your Lordships that it will not. At present, the law requires Crown prosecutors to have what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification requires the lawyer in question to have very wide rights of audience, namely in all proceedings in the senior courts, in all proceedings in the county court or magistrates courts. But in practice, not all these rights are necessary for their role as a Crown prosecutor.

So the bill will remove that requirement. But what will remain is that Crown prosecutors, from whichever professional background, must have the necessary rights of audience and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to appear in the courts relevant to their role, and they will have to meet the necessary CPS competency standards to conduct prosecutions at the appropriate level, and the CPS will retain full discretion over who to appoint. My Lords, this will widen the pool of eligible prosecutors and support greater flexibility in staffing.

The hope is that in the longer term, this will shorten waiting times for prosecutorial decisions to be made. The measure supports in a proportionate way the intention underlying the manifesto commitment, rather than giving more powers to associate prosecutors. These measures will increase the pool of prospective Crown prosecutors private prosecutions. Once again, I declare that I have experience in this area, having been a partner in a firm of solicitors and head of a department which brought a number of private prosecutions.

I was also one of the founding members of the Private Prosecutors Association, and was heavily involved in the drafting of the Code of Practice and Conduct for private prosecutors. This government is committed to reforming the private prosecution system so that it is fairer and has the necessary safeguards in place, and whilst that will require more extensive and long term change, this bill is taking the first step as part of that plan for reform. A number of your Lordships raised with me the question of whether this reform would have a chilling effect on private prosecutions.

That is not the intention underlying these measures. The government agrees that private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system. But when a private prosecutor applies to the court for their costs to be paid by the public purse, there are no fixed rates. And this is not satisfactory for two reasons. First, costs determinations can be protracted, taking up valuable court time, and secondly, there is a lack of certainty for those who would like to consider bringing a private prosecution as to the amount that they may be able to recover.

That is why, my Lords, this Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds. This will save court time when it's required to determine costs orders. It will reduce the number of appeals and give private prosecutors a better degree of certainty. We believe that it will ensure the best use of public funds. My Lords, this measure is purely an enabling power. I am aware that reservations have been expressed about the effect of setting the rates too low, and I have been assured that there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders, and a full consultation will be held before
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page