Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said.

In my time at Defra, there was a weekly biosecurity meeting covering a variety of things, such as invasive species. In particular, the risks of African swine fever and Xylella fastidiosa were probably our biggest concerns. Those concerns continue to rise, which is why the extra investment has gone in to support Border Force. There is a bit of a debate about Dover and Sevington—or, more accurately, Bastion Point—but nevertheless, officials recommended that Sevington be the principal gateway and that it be reinforced by the Border Force at Dover.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out quite extensively, this matters because it was often a challenge in government to try to get other departments to realise the impact of having something like African swine fever in this country. It would entirely wipe out our pig industry. Xylella fastidiosa would wipe out species after species of flora. This is why it matters for our national biosecurity. It was great to see particular reference to investment going into Weybridge in the security strategy.

Your Lordships should not underestimate what can be done by malicious actors trying to bring in this sort of element to disrupt our country. Although I know there is collaboration between the Border Force and port health in Dover and around the country, having this issue in the priorities of this new commander would give it the prominence it desperately needs—not just among officials but across Cabinet and Ministers.

As a slight aside, I welcome the investment in Weybridge, and I pay tribute to Dame Tamara Finkelstein. She is stepping down as Permanent Secretary at Defra and is leaving the Civil Service. Candidly, I think this will be the main legacy of her time at Defra. It has taken quite a few years and money has gone along the way, but having world-class facilities is vital to recognise the importance of this to our nation.

On how this could work as a priority, a lot of effort is going into the transition from the European Union and more on the border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Of course, there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I fear a lot of effort is going into that at times, and I genuinely believe it has been completely and utterly unnecessary. We need to keep our focus right around the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is particularly focused on Dover, and I understand why. Candidly, a lot of stuff coming in through the classic white van is going to different parts of the country. I also pay tribute to trading standards around the country, which has been tackling this issue. It is a limited resource in local government and is trying to do many other things as well, such as tackling illegal vaping and similar things. By bringing this into the Home Office as an issue of importance, that should then extend to it becoming a priority for our local police forces around the country too.

A lot of this is seen as quite low-level organised crime, but the impact could become truly devastating. I am very conscious that the Government want to make this Border Security Commander principally about the boats, people and illegal immigration, but we have the opportunity to consider a more strategic approach. Even if this is lower down in the priorities—not that I think it should be—at least it would be a shared agenda for one of the most important posts, which this Government are creating through the Bill.

I hope the Government will consider this. Defra works exceptionally hard on this and tries to work with other parts of government. This is an opportunity to stress how big this risk is and how malicious actors can do little things to massively disrupt this country. Just think back to 20 or 25 years ago and what happened with foot and mouth: it brought the country to a standstill, so much so that a general election was delayed. That is the sort of thing we need to think about. I hope this amendment will go through.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a small organic farmer and therefore have an interest in this. I also was the Secretary of State and Minister of Agriculture in the key area when we were trying to deal with BSE.

Looking back, it is amazing how we got through that period. Part of the reason was that we had a real reputation for protecting biosecurity here, so it was possible to get other countries to believe us when we said what we were doing and how we were doing it. As the person absolutely in the spotlight on this, I owed my predecessors enormously, because they created the circumstances in which it was possible to fight that battle.

It is very important, and I hope the Minister will accept this, because I honour him considerably and I think the Committee recognises what a considerable role he is playing. He can usually convince us that what he needs us to do is the right thing. I say to him personally: there is a problem if you have a Cabinet in which none of the people is a countryman or has a country constituency.

There are 9 million people who live in the countryside, and agriculture is one of our crucially important industries. Therefore, I hope the Minister will understand why we are very concerned that this should be in this Bill, because it covers a much wider range than doing the things that we might otherwise do in agriculture Bills and the like.

The truth is that, although the noble Lord and my noble friend have concentrated on the gangs and the people who make a lot of money out of it, one problem with biosecurity is that it is sometimes breached almost accidentally by individuals. You can bring really serious diseases in by bringing in a ham sandwich in the wrong circumstances and dropping it. I would just be frank about that end of it. We also know that there is considerable activity in bushmeats—in other words, meat which itself is illegal, as a matter of fact, but therefore has gone through no protective system at all—and the effects of that are really serious. We do not have to go into the details of some of the human diseases which have been spread by the use of bushmeats.

I recently had to spend a lot of time trying to get the Government of the time, a Conservative Government, to take seriously the problem of the growth in the number of wild boars in our forests and the fact that African pig diseases can get into that whole community and then threaten the entire British pig industry. I can tell the Committee why it was so difficult: it was because you were talking to people who did not appear to understand, first, that pigs have two litters and produce an awful lot of piglets, which can very soon get out of hand. They did not understand how close these wild boars were to the pig industry, and they had never really seen a wild boar—as somebody who had most of the lawn dug up by one, not all that time ago, I am quite strongly affected. I say merely that I found it difficult to explain to people how serious this was, why it mattered and what the effects were if we did not get it right, so I beg the Committee to support this change.

I know that the Minister wants to control the Bill, and one does not want to expand it, and I know that the Government are very concerned about that, but it is our only chance to remind everybody of the importance of biosecurity. The challenge is getting worse and worse. It is not just animals but, as my noble friend remarked, it is also about plants, invasive species and huge costs, and I end on that issue.

If we let this get out of hand, the cost to the national Exchequer will be enormous. We need only look at what we are trying to do about Japanese knotweed and all kinds of invasive species—we know what the monster wasp is likely to do, and we think of the American crayfish. I could go through a whole series of things that we would then have to deal with. Many people will know what we had to deal with with the escape of mink, for example. The control of our borders is crucial for biosecurity reasons, but it is crucial also to the Treasury—and, if I may say so, I have never found a department less understanding of how crucial it is to them. They ought to remember the cost of foot and mouth and the cost of BSE and all those diseases. Just think of what bird flu is doing to us at this moment. Therefore, I beg the Minister to take this very seriously.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, calling for an impact assessment requiring an independent analysis on different measures. I have added my name to three of them. Amendment 310 asks for an impact assessment on business, new entrants and start-ups, while Amendment 311 asks for a productivity impact reporting, and Amendment 319 asks for a new clause on assessing the impact of the regulatory burden on businesses.

Amendment 310 would require an impact assessment on new business entrants and small start-ups, including the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need this? We know from ONS data that the story of business start-ups from 2016-17 to 2023-24 was one of steady increase, from 664,750 new start-ups in 2016-17 to 800,000 in 2022-23. We know from other data, from an analysis for NatWest bank and the Beauhurst Group, that for the last calendar year 846,000 new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last year. Just under one-third of that, 248,000, in the first quarter was, sadly, a figure not sustained by the end of the year, with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed.

Of course, headline figures should be read with caveats entered. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive their first or indeed their second year. One tech and computer entrepreneur once told me that you would expect in his sector at least one or two failures until you got to a success; it was almost the necessity to fail that brought success. Difficult circumstances, such as an economic slowdown due to exceptional causes or external shocks, may have an impact on new start-ups taking off. Indeed, some companies will simply be reformations of existing organisations and businesses.

These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start-ups not doing so well, but one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the burden of too much of the wrong—and unnecessary—regulation. The Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure, after a year or at a period to be agreed between the Government and opposition parties, to see whether the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate this. New businesses are our lifeblood. They help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightly fail in the competitive economy to which my noble friend Lord Hunt alluded.

This Bill, as others which the Labour Government have proposed or enacted since 2024, penalises employers and businesses and introduces a device of damaging politicisation and ideologically driven changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interests of business, the whole UK economy and the people of this country, who depend on a strong, prosperous and competitive economy to find and keep a job to pay their bills and to pay the tax revenue on which their public services depend.

The Bill’s burdens on all will impose a multitude of additional costs—through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, and additional duties and costs on employers—uncertainties, as many of the proposals in the Bill will be decided by regulation, and costs to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against and involve cost and compliance burdens for an employer or business, as my noble friend has explained, not only in respect of the rights of employees but through procedures that vary from record-keeping and handling equality action plans in Part 2 to the new law on industrial relations, which is in favour of trade unions and changes or repeals measures that have been around since 1992 and, by and large, have brought peace and harmony to the labour market of this country and the prosperity we need.

These burdens will make for grave uncertainty, given the range of powers that will be exercised, as I have mentioned, by a Minister who may reflect the ideological bent of the current Government to direct their powers against business, employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party through political funding—we have had many a debate on that in this Chamber. They are to be finalised through consultation and announced later. Surely, it is not too much to temper such militancy by giving the public and the Government of the day an analysis of what the costs of the regulatory burdens will be so that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated.

Amendment 311 calls for an assessment of the impact of the Act on productivity. My noble friend has said that the Government recognise in their own impact assessment that the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7—the US, Germany and France—but we will discuss international competitiveness later so I will not speak on that now. However, as a result of this Bill, we expect productivity to decline further by sector and by employee. We know that around 70.9% of workers in the UK work in firms with labour productivity below the mean. It is very difficult to envisage that productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this Bill.

If growth is the aim of this Government, we need to increase productivity dramatically. This will not be achieved through an ever-shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity; at my last count, our labour market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power. Nor will it be achieved by burdening business—and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned, its capacity to invest in new people, plant and technology—by increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance and regulatory costs of this Bill, rather than investing in the production of goods and services, and the training of the people who produce.

I support this amendment, as I do the others, so that we shall have a real measure, based on independent, impartial data, that will shed daylight on the impact of the Bill on these three counts and help the people of this country—and the Government—to press for change, should we need it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in both consultancy and the hospitality industry. I have really come to help the Government on this bit of the Bill, because the problem they have is that very few of those who are working on the Bill run businesses. I have run businesses all my life, except for the time when I was a Minister, and, as I read the Bill, I am very concerned that it has been written by people who have not run businesses. They do not understand the damage that they do to employment and new business. I hope every Minister will admit that to themselves, whether or not they have run businesses and met these problems. Have the civil servants who advise them, or the political advisers from their parties, run businesses and seen these problems for themselves? If the answer is “Not much”, “Not many” or “Not overall”, surely they ought to see whether they have got it right.

Frankly, I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proved wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened in the businesses with which I am associated. I know that we are employing less, because that is the only way we can pay the increased demands on employers. I know that the balances that we have to make now are not to the advantage of staff recruitment. Above all, I know that if I were starting a new business, the temptation not to do so would be very much greater because of the complications that the Bill, and previous actions of the Government, place on us.

That puts me in a position in which I do not think the Bill is, in large measure, a good one. But I am prepared to be proved wrong if, by clear investigation, we look at the results of what happens and take account of it. The problem is that if this Government are going to carry out effectively many of the policies with which I agree—more than I agree with some of the policies on this side of the House—they must prove to the public that they listen and are prepared to look at the facts.

I came to this debate to plead with the Government not to say, “Oh well, this is what we are told by people and we think it is a good idea. It fits in with our obligations and our attitudes”. Instead, they might say, “We will argue in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and at the end of it we will see whether we were right. We will see whether the Opposition were right or we were. If we show we are right, we have a really good position to say to the public, ‘There you are, we said we were right and we have been proved right’”. They might say now that they are not even going to find out whether they are right, not going to measure it and not going to accept these amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I disagree on most things. Both of us, though, think that it would be a good idea to check to see where we are. I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government, “Look, we think we’re right and we think you’re right, so check it and independently show that it is right”. Instead of that, the Government are admitting, frankly, either that they do not know or that they fear they would be proved wrong. I want a Government who are brave enough to say, “We’ll actually put it to the test. We’ll actually accept these amendments and we’ll find out who’s right. If we’re wrong, we’ll change it. If we’re right, we’ll crow like mad over those people who told us we were wrong”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am very pleased with all the research that was done before the Bill and all the research that has been done with it. The only question is: when the Bill goes through, why do not we do the research to make sure that we were right? I cannot understand why we draw the line the moment the Bill is passed, except in the generalities of better regulation. Will the Minister, whose business knowledge is considerable, please accept that businesspeople normally measure by results? Why cannot we measure the results?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I ask him to bear with me—patience here. We are already seeing the results. Just this morning, Amazon announced a £40 billion investment. This means that it has resounding confidence in the UK Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I have many, many—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Can the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mention any occasion on which the Official Opposition of the time demanded it?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My noble friend is quite right. I was going to make a rejoinder by demonstrating that, with Margaret Thatcher assessing, when you proposed a piece of legislation, you had to make sure that you had done your homework and carried out every possible impact assessment, as you would be closely cross-examined on each and every piece of legislation. I worry that this Bill has been rushed through in the first 100 days and no one has carried out the sort of test that Margaret Thatcher would have imposed. Therefore, I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for reminding us of that criterion, which we ought to bear in mind.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister listened with great care to what my noble friend said. I declare an interest as a partner in a small farm. I was walking the fields only yesterday, looking at the disastrous effects of the fact that we have had practically no rain. It is not much more than a year ago that I had to look at the disastrous effects of having too much rain. We are an organic farm, and therefore we have looked after the soil very carefully and suffered less than others during that period. But many farmers were not able to get a harvest or plant because the weather was so bad, and they therefore lost two years.

I believe that we have a real problem of diversity here. We often talk about diversity as if it is about race or ethnic minority, but it is so interesting that no member of the current Cabinet represents a rural constituency or is, as far as I can discover, a country person at all. There are 9 million people who live in the countryside and who are hardly represented at all. To be perfectly fair, the shadow Cabinet does not have, as far as I can find out, anybody who is a country person of the sort we are talking about. This is something that has happened to our society, and we who are country people find it extremely difficult. Therefore, I want to say to the Minister, who is known for his generosity, that it is crucial for this Government to show that they are listening to and thinking about this section of the community.

The seat that I once represented is now represented by a Labour Member. She must find it very difficult to appeal to many of the people who voted for her because it does not appear that the Government whom she supports have really understood how the countryside works—in other words, what agriculture is. I could, of course, make a great statement about the terrible situation of the IHT changes, which were rather peculiar given that no previous Labour Chancellor has ever thought them a good idea. I could make all those arguments, but I want to tone down what I might have said to one single concept: Governments can get the support of the nation only if the nation feels that they understand it—not just bits but the whole of it. The introducer of the previous amendment, who I am afraid is just leaving—I was going to be polite about it—rightly talked about the Bill having to represents both sides of industry. I ask that the Bill also represents different parts of industry, and one of those parts is the rural agricultural scene. My concern is that this has not been looked at through the eyes of the countryside.

It may be that, when the Government do that, they do not want to make any changes, but it does not seem possible for the Government to convince people that those changes are not necessary unless they have done what Amendment 133 asks them to do. All we ask is that the Government look in detail at the effect of the Bill on the agricultural industry.

In ending, I want to say something true and really serious. We are entering a period in which food security will be crucial. Climate change means that we will have less and less opportunity to import from wide areas of the world. I remember, when I was Minister of Agriculture, being interviewed by the cleverest man in Europe, Peter Jay, who said, “We don’t need a Minister of Agriculture because we’ll always be able to import food from somewhere else”. How madly wrong that was. Climate change will mean that we find it more and more difficult to fill our shelves at home. Nothing undermines a Government more than two or three days of people being unable to eat what they want to eat.

Therefore, I say to the Government that I hope that this is a helpful amendment—and, if the Government say that they will not do what it asks, that says something to the 9 million people who live in the countryside and, even more, to the many people who keep food on our plates. No farmers, no food. If farmers are to do the job properly, the Government have to recognise that the weather that farmers deal with, which has always been the thing that is different about agriculture compared with any other industry, is now going to be a difference that is made very much worse, as we have worse and worse examples of more extreme weather. In general terms, the Government—unlike other parties—have been extremely good on climate change and I ask them not to let themselves down on this but to say, “Yes, we will look and see exactly what these provisions will do for agriculture—and, if we find that they need alteration, we will be able to come back with the facts”.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Deben. In doing so, I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer.

I am most grateful to my noble friends for their supportive comments for British farmers. I have asked in Written Questions and in debates whether the Government would commit to keeping detailed and timely data on the number of farmers and family business owners taking their own lives in the run-up to the introduction of the reduced inheritance tax reliefs, due in April next year. So far these requests have been denied or ignored. We know that a number already have taken that dreadful step—and, as the deadline approaches, the risk will only rise. It would appear to be callous in the extreme that the Government refuse to take responsibility for this tragic human cost of their Budget decisions. Will the Minister commit to keeping and publishing the data in a timely manner?

Farming has unique employment challenges, as others have already mentioned in this short debate—and as indeed the whole country is now aware, thanks to the popularity of “Clarkson’s Farm”. Arable crops and silage need to be harvested when the weather allows and when they are ready for harvest. This leads to high-pressure operations at short notice and often at anti-social hours. It is not unusual to see harvesters and wagons operating well into the night until the dew starts to form. If staff are not available to operate that equipment at the optimum time, it can lead to reduced yields, higher drying costs or even the failure to harvest a crop at all.

In the livestock and dairy sectors, staff are also required to be available to work flexibly. In livestock, this can mean being available for callout to inspect the health of animals, assist in lambing and calving, and recapture escaped animals. In dairy, cows need to be milked at regular intervals from one to three times a day, depending on the system being employed. If that regular schedule is not followed, animal health can be threatened and milk yields suffer.

In the fruit and vegetable growing industry, the fruit and vegetables need to be picked when ripe and when the market demands it. Contracts governing the supply of these goods to retailers and processors can be highly onerous and punitive when conditions are not met. It is essential for this industry that it can employ workers to meet these needs and contract terms.

Unfortunately, agricultural employers need to have staff who are committed to working flexibly, and access to staff who are willing to work when the work is available. The Bill makes it more difficult for employers to refuse employee submissions for flexible working requests. While these submissions can already be made from day one, employers can refuse them on the grounds of inability to fill the gap from reduced hours, or the detrimental impact on business performance or meeting customer demand. The higher bar set by the Bill is likely to make it harder to protect the business.

The Bill applies unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment versus the two years currently in law. We are yet to see the timetable to be proposed, creating significant uncertainty. I have first-hand experience of the damage that a new, unsatisfactory employee can do to a business, even without any malice, and being able to remove them at short notice when the poor performance is revealed is critical. In that case, due to the nature of dairy farming, it took over a year for the poor performance to come to light. The widespread industry reliance on casual workers is threatened by restrictions on zero- and low-hours contracts and the potential for those to obtain a right to guaranteed-hours contracts.

Paying fees for cancellation of shifts at short notice is also impractical in farming. While it is easy to see why the Government might want to penalise employers for potentially capricious and harmful decisions around shifts, the timing of work in farming is often not predictable. Therefore, it does not make sense to penalise farmers even more than they are already for changing weather.

The Bill is a massive threat to the viability of British farming. The extent of that threat will be known only when the Government have decided when employees’ probationary periods will end, when a casual employee gains permanent employment rights, and when notice has to be given of a shift cancellation. I ask the Minister why this work has not been done already and why are we debating a Bill when the extent of its negative impact is unknowable.

The English farming industry has been targeted by this Government, with dramatic reductions in delinked payments, the abrupt cancellation of SFI applications, the imposition of inheritance tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant being the highlights. We now read in the papers that the spending review is likely to slash the farming budget, offering little hope that government support will improve. Farmers also now face greater competition from heavily subsidised overseas farmers with little or no environmental obligations. On top of that, as my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, our arable farmers are struggling with low crop prices and extremely dry weather damaging yields.

Let us at least accept this modest amendment to the Bill to allow an open appraisal of the impact on the sector after a full annual cycle, when the terms of the Bill are fixed and in force, and ensure that the information is available to make changes that might prove necessary. This Government have claimed to be pro business and pro growth. Will they, at last, show some support to this business? I hope that the Minister will listen to this debate, depart from his brief and offer encouragement.

Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their contributions. As a relative newcomer to the House, I had not realised that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had not chaired the Grand Committee before. I wish her well. I note also that all of us speaking in the Committee today have been Welsh by election—if not in my case by birth.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Just in case anybody misses me out, I am Welsh also, but I am not actually speaking in this debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My knowledge broadens daily. In all the years I have watched the noble Lord from a distance, I had never realised that—we learn something every day.

The points raised were valid points. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I do not have a figure for the number of SMEs but there has been wide consultation. This is not a new requirement: version 1 has been in place and version 2 is a slight update with some slight tweaks. I hope noble Lords are aware of that. To minimise the impact of the requirements, including on small and micro businesses employing up to 50 people, the regulator is allowing a transitional period from the date that the version 2 code of practice comes into force until October 2025, for all providers to become compliant with version 2 of the code. There is a learning space for small businesses.

Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations. The Government have published an Explanatory Memorandum alongside them, and I shall begin with some brief background as to how we have got to where we are.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, known as the IPA, provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. I recall it well, having served on the Bill, in both draft and original form. It never fails to surprise to me that it is almost 10 years ago since the Act came into being. It helps to safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way in which the powers are authorised and overseen. The IPA is considered to be world-leading legislation that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial protections for privacy.

The IPA was intentionally drafted in a technologically neutral manner, to ensure that public authorities could continue to acquire operationally relevant data as technology evolved. While this approach has largely withstood the test of time, a combination of new communication technologies and the changing threat landscape continues to challenge the effective operation of the Act.

The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 was introduced by the previous Government and received Royal Assent in April last year. To ensure that the legislative regime remains fit for purpose, the 2024 Act made a series of targeted changes to the IPA to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.

That gives rise to the purpose of these regulations. The regulations before us bring into force three new and five revised codes of practice, which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising their functions under the IPA. As well as including minor updates and changes to ensure consistency, the codes of practice have been revised to reflect various changes made by the 2024 Act under the previous Government.

The new codes on bulk personal datasets with a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party bulk personal datasets relate to new regimes introduced by the 2024 Act. The new code on the notices regime consolidates guidance from various existing codes into one place. The regulations also contain several provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including defining “relevant change” for the purpose of the new notification notices. They also introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to membership of the technical advisory board.

The regulations and code of practice have been informed by a 12-week public consultation which closed in January 2025. The Government received responses from a range of stakeholders, including interest groups, public authorities, technology companies, trade associations and members of the public. We made several changes following that consultation, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes and changes to the technology advisory board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published and, should Members wish to see it, is available online or it will be at a future date.

To sum up, these regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act. They will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt and prosecute the most serious crimes. I commend the SI to the Committee.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to give us some idea of the ongoing arrangements for the updating of this kind of material. He has shown that the constant need for this is because of the speedy change of the world outside. Who is responsible for it? How are they able to keep up to date and how regularly do we think we are likely to have statutory instruments updating the material that we have? We are dealing with an ever-changing scene which is changing ever more quickly. I would like to understand the government structure that enables us to make satisfactory changes rapidly enough to see that we are fully in control.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. These regulations implement key provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government. These regulations introduce three codes of practice and revise five existing ones.

The new codes provide a framework for two regimes introduced by the 2024 Act— the treatment of bulk personal datasets where there is a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the authorisation of access to third-party datasets. A third new code consolidates guidance on the notices regime, including the operation of notification notices and what constitutes a relevant change—a key test for when telecoms operators must inform the Secretary of State of technical updates.

The revised codes also enhance oversight and safeguards by clarifying the conditions for lawful access to data, strengthening protection for journalistic material and requiring notification of serious data breaches where it is in the public interest. These regulations also make important structural updates to the technical advisory board, expanding its membership and adjusting its quorum rules to ensure it can operate effectively when dealing with complex or concurrent reviews.

We welcome these provisions and, with that in mind, I raise several broader points. First, on legislative responsiveness, these regulations reflect the speed at which both threats and the technologies behind them are evolving. The 2024 Act rightly introduced flexible tools for handling internet connection records and bulk data. But agile legislation should not rely solely on periodic amendments. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to conduct regular reviews of the framework and whether a structured timetable has been established to ensure that the legislation continues to meet operational needs?

Secondly, on stakeholder engagement, the Government’s consultation included contributions from technology companies, civil liberties organisations and public bodies. Although this engagement is welcome, several respondents raised concerns, particularly regarding the practical implications of notification notices and the definition of “relevant change”. Given that, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders as these codes are implemented?

Finally, on oversight and accountability, the powers under discussion are significant. Their legitimacy depends on effective safeguards; this is especially true for third-party bulk datasets, where individuals may not reasonably expect their data to be protected. Can the Minister confirm that the revised codes provide the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with the necessary clarity and authority to ensure that these powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately?

The 2024 Act was designed to safeguard national security in a rapidly evolving digital world. However, the use of investigatory powers must always be lawful, properly overseen and proportionate in its impact. Although these reforms offer practical steps to modernise the existing framework, we must ensure that these powers are used responsibly, reviewed regularly and held accountable, balancing security with our democratic values.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We are having a good debate and I very much hope to keep it friendly. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, was really rather flying pigs.

I, obviously not like most of the Committee, am old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the destruction of the British automobile industry by the trade unions. London docks was destroyed by the trade unions. This led, through the 1970s, to the “winter of discontent”, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margret Thatcher who sought to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction they were wreaking on the British economy. We all remember that; I am not fantasising about this. This 150-year story of the great things wrought by the trade unions is really difficult to let go by without saying something.

Right now, only 22% of workers in the UK belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature of those unions. Let us remember that, of that 22%, most are in the public sector. Public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas they occupy and in return are being rewarded by a Labour Government. We saw the sorts of rises, which were completely unjustifiable compared with what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government awarded many public sector trade union workers when they came to power.

We saw how there is—I am not saying anything we do not all know—a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. I saw a number—I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it and it seems reasonable—that, since 2011 the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Whether that is true or not, we know the figure is of that order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of government, because of the deals the Labour Government have to make with these trade unions. It increases the cost and complexity of government, and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.

All those things destroy the economic growth which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier, we are all trying to achieve. I ask the Government please not to give us guff—I hope it is not unparliamentary to say that—about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether we are having a discussion for 2025, or one that is deeply mired in history. I find myself in some difficulty listening to either side of this discussion. I say very strongly that trade unions have been, and are, very important, but I also hope that people who watched the annual conference of the National Education Union, all of whose officers have the support of the Socialist Workers Party, may ask why a union like that should have spent more time talking about Gaza than it did about school attendance. We cannot be entirely happy about the circumstances of all trade unions, and this Government are going to have to face those trade unions pressed from that way.

On the other hand, I deeply disagree with the attitude we have just heard about trade unions being destructive. Trade unions have been very constructive in many circumstances, and this is something we should recognise. My problem with the Bill, and my reason for coming to this debate to support my noble friend’s amendments, is related to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton—who opened the Back-Bench remarks—said about trade unions: that they were not forced on anyone. They were created by people coming together to work for better attitudes, better conditions and better pay for working in those circumstances.

If people want to do that but want to be independent and not subject to their employers—as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, fears—and if they do not want to be called a trade union, then we ought, in 2025, to give them the powers to make the same kinds of arrangements with employers as a trade union. If we do not do that, this is going to be the one area where this Government will say there shall be no competition or opportunity for people to make a different decision about their future.

We ought to give people that opportunity, and we ought to protect those people by making sure that it is given to them only if they are independent, pay for it themselves and have chosen that particular mechanism. I say to the Labour party Front Bench that none of us who work—as I still do, happily—right across the board with all kinds of companies can think of today’s industry and commerce as if it were like yesterday’s. There are new circumstances and new ways of doing things, and the Bill ought to recognise that. If all it does is solidify the past, we will have missed a great opportunity.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, let me just explain that if an organisation meets the requirements to be free and independent, it is a trade union. Anyone can set up a trade union. If it does not meet the standards—many of which have been set by the party opposite—it is not a trade union and it is not capable of collectively representing its members. There is an illogicality in suggesting that an organisation that is not meeting the standards of a trade union can represent its members.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is so, it is very simple: we can all agree to this amendment, with such alterations as are necessary, to make sure that they are independent. Then we can all feel that we have created an answer that suits today. Can we please get out of this yah-booing from both sides—and I mean both sides—about these issues? We have to find a way in which the whole of society can come more effectively together, without constantly determining that we have to do it like we did 100 years ago.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has a troubled history. It should not have been introduced to either House in its current form. It has now fallen foul of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on three occasions and of the Constitution Committee on two occasions. We acknowledge the Government’s efforts to assuage the DPRRC’s concerns, and we thank the Minister for engaging so fulsomely and openly and driving through a number of government concessions. Those concessions are welcome, and we will support them, but, regrettably, they do not go far enough, in our view.

I speak today about the critical importance of having a purpose clause in the Bill, and its implications for the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. In its current form, the Bill contains no explicit mention of respecting the UK’s regulatory autonomy, which is the foundation of a prosperous, independent economy. This absence is exactly why we need this purpose clause: to fill that gap and provide clear direction for the actions of the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill. After all, the reason we left the European Union was to regain the ability to make our own decisions, free from external control. Yet without this purpose clause, the Bill does not sufficiently safeguard the autonomy we have worked so hard to reclaim. This is precisely why we need this purpose clause. It explicitly addresses the need to protect and prioritise the UK’s regulatory autonomy in any actions taken under the Bill. It would establish a guiding principle that the Government must always act in a way that protects the UK’s sovereignty in regulating products and metrology, free from undue influence by foreign laws or regulations.

By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations are of the highest quality, this proposed new clause would push the Government to focus on creating a regulatory environment that stimulates rather than stifles business, and extend a clear message that the UK’s regulatory framework should encourage technological development, support start-ups, protect consumers and ultimately contribute to economic growth. We live in a highly competitive global market, where businesses need certainty and the freedom to operate according to clear and fair rules. A regulatory framework that ties the UK’s hands by aligning with foreign laws could create significant barriers to growth and innovation.

I appreciate that this preamble is lengthy in the context of an amendment on Report, but the proposed addition of this purpose clause makes sense only with some of that historical context. These arguments will inform many of our other amendments, so noble Lords will be relieved that they will not need to listen to them again too often.

If the Government are determined to force through this unfinished skeletal legislation in the teeth of perfectly reasonable objections from the committees of this House, and, indeed, from their own Attorney-General, the least we can do is give the Bill an overarching purpose: to improve the regulation of products and metrology, while prioritising the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. If the Government are serious in their stated growth intentions—earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said, “We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, British businesses and citizens”—surely they will find nothing to object to in either of those aims and will therefore accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not being able to be present at many of the earlier debates, but I have come specifically to hear the explanation of this amendment, and I have to say that I am not convinced. The purpose of regulation is, of its nature, to do the best for growth and for business, and if it is best for growth and business to have a regulation that aligns us with somebody else then that must be sensible. There is no reason to say that the priority is not to be aligned. Indeed, I rather think the opposite: the priority is probably, in most cases, to be aligned.

To tie the arms of a future Government on the basis that somehow or other we are living not in the world that we now live in but in some mysterious world that people would like to live in seems wholly unacceptable, and I must say that I am sad that the Government have been opposed on this basis. It runs through all these out-of-date amendments, all of which seek to reassess and restate the disastrous policy of leaving the European Union, which we all know to be a huge success—everyone, throughout the country, knows how very good it has been, so let us make it even better by making it even more difficult to try to come to terms with the world in which we now live. I very much hope that the House will not agree to this amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to support my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I am moved to do so by the speech from my other noble friend. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that there is a later amendment, which we may or may not pursue, the purpose of which is to make it clear that, when making regulations, Ministers should have regard to the likelihood of the United Kingdom being an attractive place in which to manufacture or supply products. I am sure he agrees that is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I recognise and value the constitutional principle that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, eloquently draws to our attention. Ministers should not be given broad delegated powers, but constitutional principles are not absolute; they have to recognise practical reality.

In the context of this Bill, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. We are dealing, in Clause 1(1), with regulations that reduce or mitigate risks presented by products; to ensure that products “operate efficiently and effectively”; and that ensure that products designed for weighing or measuring operate effectively. Are we really to debate each and every such regulation in this House, either on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee? We would have little, if any, time for anything else.

If the regulations raise issues of principle, Parliament retains control. Parliament does not have to accept the regulations; it can vote against them under the normal principles. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, quoting someone from one of the committees—I cannot remember which—that this is Government by diktat. I suggest to him, with the greatest of respect, that that is unfair and inappropriate in this context, for the reasons I have given.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I make it clear that, having disagreed with Amendment 1, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his discussion here. I fundamentally disagree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because this is exactly the moment when we give away basic parliamentary control. We know perfectly well that, although it is better than it was, it is still true that a great deal can be done by ministerial diktat which ought to come to Parliament.

I am not in any way suggesting that everything should come to Parliament. Of course, it is very easy to say, “You can’t have everything”, but that does not mean that we should allow this to go through without insisting on having a much clearer definition of where ministerial diktat is proper and where it is not. Until we get that right, this is, if I may dare say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the slippery slope.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, I cannot support my noble friend, because I worry that his amendment will not just unilaterally disarm our conformity assessment provisions with the European Union; it will it unilaterally disarm our conformity assessment processes with a wide range of potential countries. That is not the path that we should go down. In this legislation, we should try to stick, for now, to the principles that we will seek to adhere to international standards, we will build the UK conformity assessment regime, and we will negotiate to secure mutual recognition with other countries on that basis.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support the comments that have just been made. My concern is that we should live in the world that actually exists, rather than some mythical world that we might like to exist.

Some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Frost seem intent on trying to make it impossible for people to organise themselves in the world in which we live, because of the particular view that he takes about the rest of Europe. I do not want that to be the view that we should have. We should have a fundamental view: first, that our regulation should be in accordance with the science—which is why I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley—and, secondly, that we should take into account where our major markets are and where it is important that we have common standards, if they are possible. We should not be hidebound by some past view.

It happens to be true that the world in which we live includes the fact that the rest of Europe is pretty close to us, and we will therefore find that it is probably true that the area where we will most need to have common views will be there. I say that not to try to reverse the decision made by Britain but to face the facts of geography and trade.

In my business life, I advise a very large number of big and small businesses. We do not discuss whether we were in favour of our leaving the European Union; we discuss how we should run the business and make it work today. One thing that we all agree on is that the present system does not work very well. We can leave the past aside, but if we are to make it work in the future, we must give the Government the opportunity to align where alignment seems sensible in the context of the science. We will have to accept, by the nature of life, that much of that alignment may be with the countries with which we do most of our business and with which we will continue to do so.

We must not insert into the Bill matters that are not about it, but about reasserting a particular view of the way the world ought to work. We in this House should be prepared to accept that we are where we are, and that our job is to make life easier for the businesses we want to grow and to be able to work with other countries in our continent as well as beyond. Sometimes it will be more sensible to be aligned in a much wider sense. Much of the time it will not be, but that will be for the particular issue, the particular moment and the particular decision. We should not make it more difficult here to make the best decision on every occasion.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Fox. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose common sense I often agree with. I am happy to echo his request that we treat and judge these amendments in the world we live in, rather than the world we would like to live in.

My name was attached to a predecessor of this amendment when the Bill came before your Lordships’ Committee. Its absence at this stage does not reflect any diminution of my belief that its provisions would both enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and strengthen Parliament’s scrutinising role. The fact is, I just left it too late to add my name.

The moving spirit behind this amendment is a desire for the greatest possible transparency and, leading from that, the greatest role possible for your Lordships’ House and the other place in examining regulatory decisions and subjecting them to scrutiny. The coverage surrounding this legislation has frequently described it as an enabling Bill, but I see this amendment as one that enables Parliament to have access to the thinking of relevant Ministers when they choose to align with or diverge from EU or other law. These decisions should and will be made according to a calculus of national self-interest, rather than—as I suspect some on the Opposition Benches are determined to believe—a desire unthinkingly to ape EU regulations, whether such alignment is in the interest of British business and industry or not.

In that respect, this amendment is rather more narrowly drawn than its predecessor, to which I put my name. It does not represent dynamic alignment but offers a greater measure of regulatory certainty for business, while ensuring that decisions that prove not to be in our interest are regularly reviewed. As I have said, I am aware of the fears of some on the Opposition Benches, and the suggestion that the Bill encompasses the extinction of British regulatory independence. I do not agree with them but suggest that if this is indeed their belief, the greater transparency and reviewing requirements of this amendment should offer a vehicle for more effective scrutiny.

This amendment has been drafted carefully and is consonant with the aims of the Bill as a whole. It does not suggest or conform to any preconceived determination that alignment with EU standards is inherently desirable. As we have heard, it simply imposes on Ministers a duty to report to Parliament when a decision has been made against or in favour of regulatory alignment. In a further departure from this amendment’s predecessor, the yardstick against which that decision has been taken will be a simple one: whether the decision is to the benefit of British businesses.

Recent weeks have made it abundantly clear that we now live in a more transactional world. Although I might regret that fact, I recognise it and accept that this is the world that we live in, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, would say. Even judged by that metric, this amendment’s value is clear. Its starting point is what is good for our national economy and businesses; it ensures that Parliament is to be apprised of the basis on which Ministers make their regulatory determinations; and it ensures that if these have proved mistaken, they can be scrutinised and, where necessary, reversed. For those reasons, it should be part of the Bill. Whether through proceedings in your Lordships’ House or the other place—which, I am sure, will have an opportunity to consider it—I hope that this amendment, or something very like it, will make its way on to the statute book.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As a Minister, my dealings with the police on a day-to-day basis are varied. I have found the police to be professional, forward-looking and aware of the need for accountability because they are exercising strong powers on behalf of the public at large. The purpose of the IOPC, its accountability to Ministers and the framework that we as Ministers set, is about making sure the police retain the confidence of the public they serve and maintain their security. Without that security and confidence, the police cannot operate in an effective way in policing our communities. That is part of the reason why the forthcoming White Paper will look at how we can improve standards, the management of standards and the level of accountability.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The whole House owes a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his constant concern about these very big issues. But the thing that really matters to ordinary people to keep confidence in the police is, for example, the police answering complaints. That does not happen with the Metropolitan Police. If you send a complaint by email there seems to be no means of reply. The police ought surely always to be seen to be obeying the law that others obey. Every day, along the road from here, a long line of police cars are parked on double yellow lines. I do not mind it being designated as a police place, but on yellow lines, where ordinary motorists cannot stop, people just say that it is the police, again, not doing as police should do, which is to obey the law that everyone else has to obey.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the proposals that the Government are bringing forward, which I hope will help the noble Lord, is the investment in 13,000 community police officers. As part of that community and neighbourhood policing offer, there will be in each council ward a named police officer who is the local liaison point. I absolutely take the noble Lord’s point; the level of response when a complaint is made is important. As for the operational issue of parking in front of this place, I will take that away but, ultimately, it is about the security of this building. There is a range of issues there which I think the noble Lord needs to look at. But I understand his point, and I will reflect on that.

Small Boat Crossings

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend speaks with authority on this matter. This Government are trying to better engage with our European partners, and France in particular, on how we deal with this problem in Calais and other parts of northern France. One of those issues will be not just the policing and action at ports or on beaches but what we need to do up stream. The Prime Minister will be engaged with a number of European nations to try to look at that upstream element. It is important that we do that.

Because the figure is now in front of me, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that we have had 9,400 returns since 5 July this year, which indicates that economic movement is not acceptable behaviour when there are legal routes for application to come to the United Kingdom.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If we are to solve this problem, it is clearly welcome that the Government are now talking much more closely to our European neighbours. Will they accept that solving the issue of climate change is also important? If that is not solved, the number of migrants we have today will pale into insignificance compared with the numbers of people who will travel across the world to get a life—not a better life but a life at all.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord. The factors that drive movement are war, poverty and climate change. He will know that the Prime Minister and other Labour Government Ministers have been in Baku this week to try to get further action on climate change. One commitment that this Government have is to ensure that, in our term of office, we deal with this issue because, as the noble Lord rightly says, it will drive movement of people, poverty and potentially even war still further if it is not solved.

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend that assurance with a firm yes.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that most of these people are not criminals, that they are welcome in this country and that the way we deal with them should show that people with whom we share culture, history and a great deal of common interest are welcomed, instead of sounding as if they are being pushed back?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not believe I have given the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that impression—I certainly hope not. Some 5.7 million people have been accepted under the scheme, and they are very welcome. They work among us in this city and in my area where I live, they live among us and their contribution is welcome. But we have to monitor the scheme to ensure its integrity, for the reasons that the noble Lord’s Opposition Front Bench indicated.