I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026.

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. These two instruments, alongside the amendments made by the Employment Rights Act 2025, extend the time limit for presenting claims to the employment tribunal from three months to six months across the majority of employment rights. The draft regulations apply to Great Britain, while the draft order applies to England and Wales. The changes will help to create a framework that is more consistent and accessible, and better aligned with the realities faced by workers and employers. I recognise that Members will be rightly concerned about the capacity of the employment tribunal and the wider dispute resolution system to adapt to this change, given the growing caseload. However, I make it clear that we fully understand the challenges and are already working on reforms focusing on making the system more effective, efficient and resilient.

The dispute resolution system taskforce was set up by the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice last year. It comprises representatives from business, trade unions, legal organisations and third sector organisations. The taskforce is helping to inform our work to develop reform measures, which include short-term, targeted measures to reduce pressure on the system as well as forward-looking measures intended to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. Those will follow a phased approach, with work on some measures currently under way. We will have further opportunities to discuss that work, but I will now turn to the two instruments on employment tribunal time limits.

The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 are important because they ensure consistency with changes made by the Employment Rights Act and the current six-month time limit for statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. For many people, three months has proved to be a difficult window, and the short timeframe has led to rushed claims or, in some cases, people missing the opportunity to bring a claim altogether.

By moving to a six-month time limit, the regulations create a more realistic and fairer system that better reflects the realities people face, provides more time for disputes to be resolved without needing to go to an employment tribunal and supports fair access to justice. They give employees and employers more opportunity to engage with concerns early and, where possible, resolve disputes before they reach tribunal. The additional time, alongside the consistent approach to time limits across jurisdictions, will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, particularly in complex cases, as well as time to consider the legal costs and funding that may be required.

In practical terms, the regulations do this by updating a series of existing regulations so that the six-month time limit applies across a range of workplace rights that were not already amended by the ERA, including those relating to part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation and negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists and certain NHS-related protections. By bringing those time limits into line with a single six-month timeframe, the regulations support a clear and straightforward process.

The commencement date for the change is 1 October 2026. The new six-month limit will apply only to claims where the problem at work occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Any claims based on earlier events will continue under the current three-month time limit. That approach provides clarity and avoids disruption for cases already in progress.

The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing breach of employment contract claims by employees from three months to six months in England and Wales. The new time limit will apply only where the relevant employment contract is terminated on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to contracts terminating on earlier dates will continue under the current three-month time limit. The change ensures consistency by aligning breach of employment contract claims with the extended employment tribunal time limits introduced by the Employment Rights Act. The instrument applies to claims of this nature in England and Wales only and does not extend to Scotland, as the power to change the parallel Scottish legislation, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, lies with Scottish Ministers and not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government so that the change will also be made in the parallel Scottish legislation. However, in relation to Scotland, the change is expected to take effect in mid-November. We will provide clear guidance to ensure that those based in Scotland are aware of this temporary discrepancy in the time limit for breach of employment contract claims.

Taken together, these instruments represent a sensible step forward by aligning with the changes to employment tribunal time limits in the Employment Rights Act. By creating a more realistic timeframe, improving consistency and supporting better-prepared claims, they help deliver a fairer and more workable system for all.

I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax. She is the second Minister in her role in this Government, and I sincerely hope that we are not due a third. I wish her well over the coming weeks. There was a time—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for South Norfolk knows not to walk in front of me.

I apologise, Sir Alec.

There was a time not so long ago when we had a Government who said that they were obsessed with growth—that it was their core, underlying mission. Casting my mind back to that moment makes me feel old, but my goodness, what a long way we have travelled over the last almost two years.

I say that because no Government who were obsessed with growth, no Government who were genuine about creating the economic conditions for prosperity that provide our public services with the resource they need, and no Government who were sincere about giving the young people of this nation the opportunity to find work and climb the ladder of opportunity would, in all seriousness, have introduced these measures. It belies their lack of knowledge of working in business, for they do not understand the stifling impact of piling regulation upon regulation and doubling the period of jeopardy for an employer at a time when, as the Minister acknowledged, our employment tribunals are drowning, deluged and failing.

I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have some appreciation, although maybe not the full horror, of what is going on right now in our employment tribunals. I would certainly like to hear more from the Minister and her officials about their plans to remedy a situation that we all should recognise as a crisis. To be fair, this did not all happen on the current Government’s watch. It dates back too many years, but it is getting worse by the week.

The open caseload of single claims stands at a record 64,157 in the last available figures, which is a 55% increase in a single year. One does not need Carol Vorderman’s maths ability to understand that the backlog has grown by more than half in the last 12 months alone, firmly on this Government’s watch. It is not too late for the Government to recant, to see the light and the wisdom, on this statutory instrument, and perhaps ingratiate themselves with the next Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are more firmly committed to the growth that has eluded the incumbents.

New single claim receipts rose by 39% last year to 50,000. That is the addition to the stack of claims, while—please write this down—disposals fell by just 12%. As we sit in this non-air-conditioned Committee Room this afternoon, more claims are being added to the pile. The backlog is growing. The prospect of claimants and employers receiving settlement of those claims now dates back more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. Again, I urge the Minister to correct me if any of these statistics, based on the figures of the Office for National Statistics on gov.uk, are somehow erroneous, or if I am portraying a false narrative of the situation as it exists today.

In these Committee Rooms, we are supposed to engage our minds and properly look at the evidence, not just vote the way we are told. Wouldn’t that be a good idea: evidence-based policymaking, rather than simply yielding to whatever the Government ask and whatever officials put in front of us?

The Government’s overall economic analysis of the Employment Rights Act, of which these regulations are a small measure, implies that the volume of cases in the failing, unreformed employment tribunal system is expected to increase by about 17%—this is the economic analysis of the Department for Business and Trade from January 2026. That is 17% more cases on a backlog of 64,000, which is growing by the day and resulting in delays to claims of more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. I will not detain the Committee with every single measure in the 330-page unemployment Act that the Opposition oppose—that is largely behind us—but there is no reason, when we are in a hole, to keep digging and make the situation worse.

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that about 80% of the costs that the system imposes on employers are passed on through lower wages, so it is the workers we seek to represent, our constituents, who ultimately bear the cost. Business has continually warned that increasing the already 13-week time limit would potentially significantly increase the jeopardy and therefore the risk.

And who ultimately pays the price? This may be a fact that Government Members do not wish to fully contemplate, assimilate and understand, but the people who pay the price are the young people who are denied those opportunities. I would be delighted if any Government Member wanted to intervene to tell me the rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds today, and how much that has increased in the last 24 months under this Government as a result of both the swingeing increases in tax and the crushing amount of red tape.

In the absence of anyone intervening, and to move us forward quickly, I can reveal that the figure is 16.2%. That means that one in six of our young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are actively looking for work—who are dispiritedly firing off application after application—are simply unable to find the work that they seek. That is 735,000 young people, almost three quarters of a million.

I believe in the good of Members, so I do not really believe that anybody on the Government Benches came here to put young people out of work, but the law that we pass most often is the law of unintended consequences. I urge Government Members to look at their consciences and decide whether putting more of our young people out of work is really what they came here to do.

I will conclude with a few points to the Minister, if she would be so kind as to respond. First, she talked about the idea that six months is somehow fairer than three months. If that is the case, and if it is the Government’s position, will she make representations to the Chancellor to similarly apply that 13-week increase to 26 weeks when it comes to HMRC? The ordinary taxpayer does not have that same luxury of time. If it is the Government’s new principle that the only fair period is 26 weeks, there will be plenty of opportunities to extend that across to other parts of Government in a symmetrical way.

Can the Minister share any specific assessment her Department has made of how many additional claims these two instruments alone will generate? We have heard about the 17% overall increase in tribunal claims, but can we have an understanding of the additional claims that relate just to these measures, so that Members can make an informed decision when they cast their vote? That is unless the Minister is kind enough to withdraw the measures today.

Given the 64,000-case backlog, what resources does the Minister plan to give the employment tribunal to remove the constraining factors by having additional judges, hearing rooms and sitting days and longer hours? Perhaps she has a comprehensive plan that can reassure hon. Members that 64,000 cases is just a transient backlog, and that it will not grow. Finally, if the Minister is confident—as I am sure she is—about the Government’s reforms, which she mentioned in passing, will she commit today to publishing a clear timetable that identifies the day on which the backlog will be reduced to the pre-2024 level she inherited?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. The shadow Minister asked whether this is really what Members came here to do, and I can say that I genuinely and literally came to this place to do this, so I am delighted that we are doing it. I was one of the people who joined Pregnant Then Screwed in its #Givemesix campaign against maternity discrimination. I spent years practising in employment tribunals, and I saw very large numbers of women with maternity discrimination claims and people with discrimination claims of all types.

There is a huge problem: 74,000 women a year are estimated to lose their job while they are pregnant or on maternity leave, over and above what would otherwise be expected for their demographic. This absolutely enormous problem is affecting our national productivity, with so many women falling out of the workplace after they have children.

When women have just had a baby and suddenly lose their job, they have very limited money because statutory maternity pay is extremely limited—it is awful—so they cannot afford legal advice. They also have a tiny baby, so bringing legal proceedings is not something they are seeking to do. It often takes them a long time to seek advice about their situation. Women are regularly being ruled out of bringing perfectly legitimate claims for the widespread problem of discrimination.

I gently remind the shadow Minister that his Government failed to recruit any employment tribunal judges from 2010 to 2018, and that is how we ended up in this mess. We have no pipeline of people coming through who have seniority. This Government recommenced the recruitment of judges, and, to be fair, at the very back-end of the last Government there was some realisation of the catastrophic mess that had been generated in the employment tribunal system.

It is not in employers’ best interests for the system to be run down, and it is not in employers’ best interests for us to assume that the best thing for employees is to insist that they have no rights and are unable to enforce those that they have. None of those things make business better in Britain; what they do is level down so that the worst employers are enabled to get away with misconduct while penalising those who do the right thing.

I literally came here to do this. I have campaigned for this for years, and I could not be more pleased to see it happen, because what I think we will see is that good employers have absolutely nothing to fear from these measures. Good employers are the ones who are taking the time to deal with grievances properly, and that takes more than three months. At the moment, we are seeing people being pushed to bring claims to protect their position far too quickly, which pushes them into an adversarial process that is not in their best interests or employers’ best interests, and it is potentially enabling unscrupulous employers to find ways to get people to time-out by unduly elongating the process. I absolutely support these measures, and every Labour Member should be proud of them. I want to say a huge thank you to Pregnant Then Screwed for the campaigning it has done for many years. I am really proud to be here today.

I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for a brilliant and well-made speech about why this legislation is so important.

Unfortunately, the shadow Minister conveniently missed out a couple of statistics in his opening remarks. I will start with the first one. Going back to historical statistics on the previous Government’s inability to fix and appropriately resource our employment tribunal, if we look at 2017 and 2018, the percentage increase year on year of the number of outstanding single cases reached a shocking 89%. From 2008 to 2018, the average time from receipt of a claim to the first hearing was stable at around 30 weeks. That increased to 49 weeks by early 2021. If we look at the stats published in 2023, employment tribunal delays had increased by 60% since 2010 due to resource shortages. I certainly do not want to go back to those targets, nor commit to them here today.

These measures are absolutely necessary because they recognise the reality that many people need more time to understand what has happened to them, seek advice and prepare their claim properly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton outlined. By creating a more realistic timeframe, they will reduce the risk of a rushed or missed claim and support fair access to justice. At the same time, they will give employers greater opportunity to engage early to resolve concerns and avoid unnecessary employment tribunal claims.

The shadow Minister also asked what other work the Government have planned. I am sure he will welcome this update. He heard me refer to the dispute resolution system taskforce, which actually met this afternoon to progress that work at pace. I thank all members of the taskforce for their commitment and engagement so far to consider that longer-term reform. We are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient, and to make up for the lack of resource we saw under the previous Government.

In the shorter term, we are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges, who will add capacity from 2027. Recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, which I am sure the shadow Minister will welcome.

The Government are also actively improving efficiency and productivity, including through virtual hearings to enable judges to hear cases remotely. Where local shortages arise, we are deploying legal officers to optimise limited judicial resource and centralised telephone support so that litigants get a consistently good service and so that tribunal staff can focus on case progression. We are also rolling out digital systems and piloting AI transcription to support employment tribunal performance.

We have talked about the impact of this legislation and why it is so important. Businesses will benefit from the increased time in which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed. That creates an opportunity for disputes to be resolved before they even reach the employment tribunal, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system in turn.

The shadow Minister knows that we published an impact assessment setting out the impacts on both employers and employees. Although we expect that more claims could be brought to the employment tribunal, as he alluded to, he unfortunately missed out that the six-month time limit will give employers and employees longer to resolve disputes without needing to go to tribunal. We expect that the additional time to submit a claim will result in fewer claims being submitted late, thereby saving judicial time by reducing the resource spent on considering time limit extensions. It would have been good of the shadow Minister to reflect on that latter part, too.

Just as importantly, the instruments will bring greater consistency across the system, aligning time limits and making the process clearer and easier to navigate for everyone involved. These are measured reforms. They will ensure that the system works better in practice by being clearer, fairer and more effective. I therefore commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

Question put.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Climate Change Agreements (Administration, Energy-intensive Installations and Eligible Facilities) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations expand the eligibility for the climate change agreements scheme to include three new processes—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automotive-grade battery cells—as well as clarifying the existing eligibility and administrative requirements for the scheme and updating the carbon emissions factor figure used in the buy-out fee for the scheme.

The climate change levy was introduced in 2001 for the purpose of encouraging energy efficiency across our economy by taxing energy supplies such as electricity or gas. From the outset, the tax has included the CCA scheme, a voluntary scheme that provides eligible energy-intensive businesses access to significant discounts on their CCL bill in exchange for meeting negotiated energy-efficiency or carbon-reduction targets.

As a tax designed to drive efficiency, the CCL should accommodate the changing energy landscape. We therefore propose to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the three I have already mentioned. Those processes meet the scheme’s established eligibility tests, thereby demonstrating that they are sufficiently energy intensive and, where applicable, subject to competition from imports. Their inclusion is consistent with existing policy and continues to support the Government’s objectives of delivering affordable and secure energy and decarbonisation, while also helping to drive growth.

In summary, the regulations give effect to the Government’s decision to extend the eligible processes within the CCA scheme to include the production of automotive-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wishart, presiding over our proceedings. Given the origin of this measure, with the policy work that underpins it having begun under the previous Government, we will not oppose it, but as the Minister may expect, I have a few questions for him.

The climate change agreements allow eligible facilities to reduce their energy use and, in exchange, pay reduced rates of the climate change levy. The discounts can be significant—up to 92% on electricity. The regulations make three changes: they expand the scheme to include the three new processes the Minister referred to, they consolidate the existing eligibility rules and they correct a numerical error in the formula used to calculate buy-out fees.

The consultation that preceded the changes was launched in November 2023 and closed in February 2024. Applications were made for the inclusion of seven processes, and in October the Government announced that the production of automative-grade battery cells, the packaging of spirits and the mechanical recycling of plastics were all to be included. The changes do not take effect until January 2027, over three years after the consultation opened—a lengthy process, as I am sure you will agree, Mr Wishart—and the response to the consultation highlighted that more time was needed. Will the Minister explain why the process has been so lengthy?

As I mentioned, applications were made for the inclusion of seven processes, and three were selected. I have looked into it but was unable to find the information, so perhaps the Minister can tell us what the other processes were and explain the basis on which they were rejected. I would also be interested to know whether there is the potential for those sectors to be given further opportunities to apply.

I will not dwell on the buy-out fee correction, because the adjustment goes to four decimal places. I am not sure that will have a substantial impact, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on that.

I have previously welcomed the Government’s decision to extend the climate change agreements scheme for a further six years. When businesses are facing headwinds, the extension offers much-needed respite. Nevertheless, as all Members will know, British manufacturers pay considerably more for energy than their competitors. Compared with the EU, UK firms pay 50% more, and the gap between the UK and America is much larger.

Excessive energy costs are undermining our growth and productivity prospects, yet in the most recent Finance Act, the Government raised the climate change levy rate, at a cost to business of £2 billion a year. That is a significant burden on businesses that are already struggling. We need cheaper energy, which is what the Conservative’s cheaper energy plan would deliver.

We welcome the lightening of the load on businesses, and we support the agreements, but the Government should stop adding levies and costs to the energy bills of companies and individuals, and instead look to remove them. We will not oppose the statutory instrument, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my questions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.

It is positive that the Government are looking at costs and energy bills for businesses and non-domestic consumers. Extending the scope of the climate change agreements scheme is a good step to support our industries in the transition. Decarbonising our industry, and encouraging energy-intensive businesses to be more energy efficient and to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, will be vital to meeting our carbon targets. That could not be more relevant than in this week: not only is it London Climate Action Week, but for the first ever time we have a UK Health Security Agency red alert for extreme heat. Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is here with us now.

We must do all we can to decarbonise and avoid the worsening of climate impacts on our economy and way of life, so it is right to include the three processes the Minister mentioned—the mechanical recycling of plastic, the packaging of spirits and the production of automative-grade battery cells—in the reduced rates scheme. Ultimately, to decarbonise industry we need a package of policies, including ones to make low-carbon actions and technology viable for businesses.

We Liberal Democrats feel that the Government also need to take steps to simplify the current energy-tax system, and that once the emissions trading scheme is fully effective in the UK, complicated taxes such as the carbon price support and the climate change levy should be abolished. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

As we have heard, the price of energy is currently a huge and disproportionate burden for our businesses, across sectors, compared with other countries, which makes the UK less competitive. We need to take action to help businesses—not just energy-intensive businesses but the many small business that are currently left exposed to exorbitantly high energy costs—to decarbonise and have affordable bills. If the Government are serious about meeting our climate targets and driving British industry forwards, we need action and ambition to help to support businesses and industries to stay competitive.

As ever, I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their contributions and questions.

I agree with the shadow Exchequer Secretary that lengthy consultations can be a frustration—they are the bane of my life too. Of course, we need to make sure that we engage and listen, but it is always good to be as quick as we possibly can be. There is a gap between now and when the changes will come into effect because the Environment Agency requires numerous administrative processes to be completed before facilities from newly eligible sectors can join a scheme. We of course always look to make sure that we can speed up such administrative processes.

I will follow up in writing with details as to why the non-successful processes were not successful; I do not have that information at my fingertips today, but I look forward to reading the letter and sending it to the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I can confirm that the four processes that applied but were not successful were two relating to tire retreading, one relating to the roll turning of plastics and one relating to water. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points in due course.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right that there is a very minor change in a complicated formula from 0.0497 to 0.0498. I am assured that that is about helping to make sure the Government do these things properly, and that the resultant changes will not be significant.

The shadow Exchequer Secretary is right to point out that we have high energy costs in this country. We need to bring them down. We are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of saying no to new nuclear power stations over and over again, and we are not going to take the approach of the previous Government of not investing in our energy security. Instead, we are going to get a range of different energy sources into our energy mix so that we can get prices down. The Chancellor proactively made the decision at the last Budget to take £150 off energy bills for families across the country, which was very welcome indeed.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned how she would like to see the carbon price support removed. I have good news for her: just a few short weeks ago we announced that we are removing it. I am disappointed that she did not hear that exciting news. It is a very niche tax, but it is important that we are removing a tax that had become outdated and was not fit for purpose given the current structure of our energy market. I do like to make sure that we get rid of taxes.

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need action and ambition on decarbonising our electricity network. We must take the steps we need to take to get clean power and to make sure that we meet our net zero obligations, not just for ourselves but for future generations and for the world. We owe it to all of humanity to make sure that, in a reasonable and careful way, we make progress towards decarbonising our economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Members may remove their jackets, because I am going to remove mine—it is too hot.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Lewell. I know that for many colleagues across the House the prospect of being on a Delegated Legislation Committee considering Church of England legislation is not the true highlight of their parliamentary week—and in this weather; I am so sorry. However, while our setting today might be routine, the legislation before us is anything but. The Measure is a cornerstone of the Church of England’s ongoing vital reform of clergy discipline and safeguarding.

During the passage of the Measure through the General Synod, the Church acknowledged that the current system has not served complainants well; they have far too often found the process to be retraumatising, opaque and painfully slow. Equally, it has not served clergy well, leaving many in a state of prolonged anxiety and limbo. The new Measure is the result of six years of detailed work to address that situation. To that end, the Clergy Conduct Measure will replace the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 in its entirety. It is clear that the system was not fit for purpose: it was outdated and needed reform to better protect and support individuals.

Before I turn to the detail of the Measure, hon. Members will see from the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee that it initially found the Measure “not expedient” on the basis that clause 31(3) provided that the tribunal hearings were to be held in private by default. I am pleased that the Church withdrew that and the General Synod looked at the issue again. In February, the Measure was amended for hearings to be in public by default.

Concerns were also raised about the working relationship with the Church. The Church has assured me that it recognises the need to work collaboratively with the Ecclesiastical Committee and with Parliament. It should know that robust parliamentary scrutiny is not a hurdle to be cleared, but an essential part of ensuring that our legislation is fair and transparent and commands public confidence; we are, after all, legislators.

The Measure at the heart of the new system is proportional. It introduces three different tracks to allocate complaints to: as a grievance, as misconduct or as serious misconduct. Each track has its own procedure for investigation and resolution of the complaint, and by triaging cases effectively from the outset, the Measure seeks to ensure that every complaint is handled appropriately and with the right level of seriousness. Crucially, that will lead to a much quicker process. Justice delayed is justice denied, both for those raising complaints and for those facing them. By streamlining investigations and hearings, the system seeks to end the agonising multi-year delays that have so heavily characterised the current process.

The Measure also makes vital strides in aligning safeguarding and discipline processes. The one-year limitation period will be abolished for allegations of serious misconduct, meaning that those who have been seriously harmed by the Church will be able to bring a complaint regardless of when the alleged conduct took place. In cases involving children or vulnerable adults, safeguarding professionals will automatically become party to the complaint, providing critical input into the decision-making process. That alignment will be significantly better for both complainants and respondents, ensuring that safeguarding is not treated as a separate silo but is central to the disciplinary framework.

Alongside that, new statutory duties are placed on bishops to implement support for all those affected by a complaint, and there are significant protections for the clergy through the introduction of restraint orders against those who persistently harass them with vexatious complaints. For the most serious cases where the cleric is prohibited from ministry for life, the outcome of deposition from holy orders has been reintroduced.

The new system provides greater protections for vulnerable witnesses and ensures that those who have the immense courage to come forward and report abuse or misconduct are properly supported and shielded throughout the proceedings. The Measure will be supplemented by rules made under secondary legislation, which will be considered by the General Synod next month. Ideally, the Committee would have had the rules alongside the Measure, and I hope going forward that the Church will look at ways to implement this. Should that legislation pass the General Synod, it will be laid before Parliament under the negative procedure.

Behind every clause of the Measure, and behind every complaint that it will eventually govern, are real human beings. There are victims seeking justice, congregations needing leadership and clergy dedicating their lives to service. The Church has listened to survivors, to the clergy and to Parliament in devising this new system. The Measure is serious and comprehensive, and it is a response to those voices. I am pleased to commend it to the Committee today.

I am as surprised as I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, for I was nominated by the Committee of Ways and Means to chair the Committee, only then to discover that I was to have the pleasure and honour of serving on it.

This is a most welcome Measure because it reverses a very unwelcome modern trend—namely the trend to reduce discretion and to centralise decision making. The method by which the lead assessor will assess the different levels of complaint, whether grievance, misconduct or serious misconduct, enables him to have the decisions on the outcome of those complaints for grievances dealt with at the local level. Even where the threshold for misconduct is reached, if it is at the lower end of the scale, the lead assessor still has the discretion to have the matter resolved as a grievance.

Nothing used to infuriate me more, as an assessor on the board of courts martial, than seeing a number of what I regarded as trivial cases come before us that, frankly, earlier in my career would have been settled and resolved by the commanding officer. Because they went through this litigious procedure, it wrecked careers and put officers and men under a huge amount of strain. We have heard from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, about the trauma that people accused of offences go through with prolonged procedures, so I welcome that provision.

The other thing I welcome about this Measure is the provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants. The Church, like our constituency parties, is a voluntary organisation—although I sometimes wonder why I volunteer when I am subjected to some of the more gruesome modern liturgies. Nevertheless, it is a voluntary organisation in that, overwhelmingly—exclusively—the congregation is voluntary, and a significant amount of the clergy are now non-stipendiary.

We all know from our experience of handling our own voluntary organisations that character clashes and differences emerge. It was always said that, when it came to any kind of selection, the local candidate was at a disadvantage because, if they know you, they know they do not like you. Therefore, these provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants are most welcome. On that basis, I will certainly be voting for this Measure.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very thorough welcoming of this Measure, and for wanting to ensure that we support it. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a progressive step forward. It brings much transparency to the process and more fairness to all, whether that is a complainant or somebody being complained about. I welcome the fact that he will be supporting this Measure.

Question put and agreed to.