Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the basis that they are legislative overreach; they extend the definition of “critical national infrastructure” beyond its appropriate meaning; the practical need for such an extension has not been adequately justified; they represent a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest; and sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for both outlining the statutory instrument and explaining my amendment to decline to approve it. I am going to structure my speech in an unconventional manner, starting with the points that I know the fewest people in this Chamber will agree with, moving backwards through the order in the amendment to the point that I believe that most people in this Chamber, particularly the Benches to my right, might be persuaded to agree with. I will finish not on points about animal testing or the right to protest, but on the basic constitutional understanding that statutory instruments are a way in which the law can be illegitimately extended well beyond the original intentions manifested when it was democratically debated, pored over and scrutinised, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. This statutory instrument is a notable and dangerous piece of legislative overreach.
I start with animal testing, the phasing out of which, as the amendment says, is not going nearly quickly enough under the replacing animals in science strategy. Why do I argue that this is too slow? It is for morality and for efficacy. There is public revulsion, yes, which results in widespread peaceful protest about the treatment of more than 2.5 million animals a year used in medical research here. More than that, there is a recognition of the inadequacy of animal testing, the “valley of death” that sees drugs apparently showing promise in animals failing to work in humans. Animal Free Research UK reports that that is the case for over 92% of drugs, and that failure makes up 75% of the cost of drug development. As an entire edition of the journal Frontiers in Immunology published in 2024 points out, there are 90 million years of evolution between humans and rodents.
However, there are alternatives. Our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, said last November:
“Now, new advances in technology—particularly AI and genomics, but also organoid and 3D cell systems—finally allow us to see a path to changing our reliance on animals in science”.
But this SI will be an active discouragement to the commercial companies to push on in this direction, the direction in which the Government say they want to head and for which public pressure—democratic forces—is clearly important.
My second argument, to quote the amendment, is that the SI reflects
“a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
That was the key concern in the debate on the SI in the other place of many of the 26 Labour MPs who voted against it. The Mother of the House, Diane Abbott, was among the 110 “no” tally. Among the Labour opponents were Stella Creasy and Kerry McCarthy, former Shadow Minister of State for Defra and a former Minister for Climate. As was suggested after the debate by Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole:
“This proposal treats private, often American-owned companies the same as airports, motorways and utilities. It shields private profits from fair criticism and puts them above our right to protest. That is not right”.
Protest is part of our political system, and it is a crucial part of delivering democracy. The Minister suggested that recent developments in protest had demanded that this SI be brought in. I can go back to the 19th century, when the UK was a leader in protest movements, such as anti-vivisection, through the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
I have circulated two briefings to noble Lords. One of those represents some 21 signatories, among them Protect the Wild, Camp Beagle, Medicine Without Cruelty and the Network for Police Monitoring, known as Netpol. It says that some 30,000 emails have been sent to noble Lords; I apologise to the many who have written to me personally, but I do not have the capacity to respond individually. Together with the other briefing written by Naturewatch Foundation, and supported by 26 other signatories, including Cruelty Free International, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Lush cosmetics and the Animal Law Foundation, this indicates that the SI in question represents a significant and unprecedented expansion of public order powers—already some of the most far-reaching protest-related restrictions in recent UK law—and would extend them to a broad and very loosely defined sector. When it comes to animal testing, the Government have failed to demonstrate why existing laws covering harassment, obstruction, criminal damage and public order are not already sufficient.
I turn to what I believe is my point of broadest appeal, and an appeal of considerable constitutional significance. I thank Jennifer Scotney, our staff member, for going through all the debates on the original Bill. In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the right honourable Kit Malthouse stated:
“The offence will cover major roads, railways, airports, harbours, and downstream oil and gas infrastructure”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill list transport and energy, and add newspaper printing infrastructure, but Parliament did not scrutinise life sciences as key national infrastructure. Its later inclusion relies solely on delegated powers and was not the original legislative intent. KNI was identified as specific, identifiable physical systems whose operation underpins daily life. Life sciences, by contrast, is a broad sector, operating largely on private land, consisting of thousands of sites of varying importance. To quote the right honourable Kit Malthouse again:
“Minor infrastructure such as undesignated roads and small-scale power stations will be out of scope”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 14/6/22; col. 134.]
If minor or diffused infrastructure was deliberately excluded, a whole commercial research sector cannot logically fit within the definition. The National Police Chiefs’ Council testified that it would have concern about an explicit duty being placed on policing to deal with an activity on private land.
Emergency services, health, and food services were explicitly rejected as not being suitable for inclusion in the Bill; Ministers said that they were not in scope. In Committee in the Commons, Sarah Jones MP proposed adding emergency services; this was rejected by the Minister. The response in the Commons to a proposal suggesting adding farms and food production was that this would
“significantly increase the scope of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/22; col. 606.]
In our own House, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the then Conservative Minister, said
“we do not believe it is necessary to add … into the list … at present”.—[Official Report, 16/11/22; col. 936.]
referring to other sectors. If ambulances, hospitals and food supply were excluded for being too expansive to be included in the Bill, life sciences represent a clear shift beyond Parliament’s stated limits for the Bill.
Ministers justified the secondary legislation power on the basis that new forms of infrastructure might emerge, or novel protest tactics might target previously unforeseen sites. Protests at animal testing and life science facilities, however, are long established—going back to the 19th century, as I said—well known and were explicitly referenced during the passage of the Bill. Martha Spurrier of Liberty, at the Commons Committee stage, said:
“If someone locks themselves to an animal testing centre … the police have to work out at what point that person’s right to”
protest
“becomes an infringement of other rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 09/06/2022; col. 72.]
Parliament was already aware of protests at animal testing facilities and discussed them as part of the existing protest landscape, managed under existing regulations and human rights law, not as a justification for redefining infrastructure.
I come to the broader position in which we are debating the SI. The Public Law Project website says that
“for as long as delegated legislation has existed there have been concerns about the way it is used. Sometimes the Government leaves difficult and controversial matters of policy to Statutory Instruments so that the Government can avoid the difficulties of having to pass a law”.
I posit that this is happening here.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years, so I have heard many debates along the lines of a 2014 report from the Hansard Society titled: The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation. That report says, and this is the key part of my argument, that:
“The House of Lords should make greater, albeit judicious, use of its power of veto”
when referring to SIs. I put it to the House, and particularly to the Conservative Benches, who I know in general are extremely reluctant to vote for fatal Motions, that this would be a judicious—indeed, a critically important—use of their vote on this occasion, a vote for something we often hear championed from those Benches for free speech.
I state only the obvious when I say that politics is now in a great state of flux and the future is highly uncertain. The principle of far extending the original intentions of a Bill—which could be stopped through a mechanism that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have in their hands but decline to use—could, in the future, be a far graver threat to the nation’s liberty than even what we have before us today. Does Parliament make the law, or have the Executive morphed into a monstrous Henry VIII hologram, saying that the law means whatever they say it means? In this age, particularly, that is a very dangerous precedent to set. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Just Stop Oil blocking motorways and I do not agree with her now about animal testing, which must be carefully controlled but is still essential, but I come to the same conclusion as she does for the constitutional reason that she gave as the last of her indictments.
I strongly agree with the Government about the importance of the life sciences sector. I was chairman of Imperial College; I know a bit about it. The point where I disagree with the Government, and strongly agree with the noble Baroness, is on whether a research laboratory can properly be designated as key national infrastructure under the 2023 Act.
Section 7 of the Act makes it an offence to interfere with the
“use or operation of any key national infrastructure”.
It defines key national infrastructure rather precisely, as the Minister read out. There are eight categories; seven are to do with transport and the eighth, rather oddly, is about the production of newspapers—presumably the connection is communication. Section 7(7) of the Act permits the Secretary of State to add further infrastructure. Hence this SI.
In all our debates, no one ever mentioned laboratories. When we were passing this Act, animal welfare did not come up. We thought we were dealing with oil, gas, rail, road and air, because that is what Ministers and the Bill said. If we were thinking of what extra—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part in this careful, informed and widely acknowledged to be important debate. I express my great sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and all his colleagues who have been subjected to utterly unacceptable and illegal pressure as a result of their work. All the things that have been alluded to are illegal, remain illegal and I am sure will always be illegal. That is not what this instrument is talking about.
On the point of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, the noble Lord indeed was very helpful and we had a great deal of useful interaction when it was a Bill. I always opposed that Bill and I look to an article I wrote for Left Foot Forward on 25 January 2023, saying that this Bill should not go forward. That was, remained and still remains my position.
I will pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who said that international standards demand animal tests. Besides the UK there are, of course, many other countries looking to move at pace to get away from animal tests. I point in particular to leading action in India, the Netherlands and even the United States. As in the UK, all those actions are informed, and to some degree driven, by protests. That is part of the political process that is pushing in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, also unintentionally provided an argument against the Minister’s claim that this SI has be approved now, otherwise we will halt the approval of biocides and medicines, et cetera. The noble Lord referred to his time as Minister for Science. I looked up the dates: it was from 2010 to 2014. He said that even then unacceptable protests were happening. There is no evidence of anything new happening that justifies this SI.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who said that peaceful protest was not in any way stopped. I will pick up also on points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This was published without a full rights-based assessment. Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions have failed to rule out online activity or information sharing as not falling within scope. That puts NGOs and campaign groups at risk of criminalisation for lawful and utterly reasonable advocacy of boycotts, for public awareness campaigns and for education programmes. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made the point that people are not allowed to know where these facilities are but could be criminalised for protesting near them, which really does identify the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out that there has been only one direction of travel over many years: the rights of people are going backwards while the rights of corporations are being advanced. That is what is happening and, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, we are seeing juries saying, “Enough is enough, this is not acceptable”. That is a true expression of public will.
I also thank the Minister—and I will round up on this point—for pointing out that this SI is rejectable, this House has the power to do this and this is within the constitution. The reasons why the SI should be rejected were laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who said that this is the clearest abuse of legislative power she can remember in 27 years. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I ask the noble Baroness to bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This is my last sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, conjured up for many of us very fond memories of the noble Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this pushes the boundaries too far. Your Lordships’ House has a choice. This is so constitutionally important that I must ask to test the opinion of the House.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. This Statement concerns the transition of citizens who have come here through an immigration route to work to having earned settled status.
Last week, we discussed another Statement on asylum claims. Persecution for religious faith would be a ground to seek asylum. We have also had a policy statement on how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that that is not an automatic barrier. However, it is certainly a significant barrier and how that person has arrived can be examined. For those asylum claims, we will meet our obligations under the international refugee convention and our human rights obligations, and those claims will be based on an individual’s personal circumstances.
The key point of the Statement we made earlier in the week is that, instead of five years, it would now be a two and a half year period. If the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago. It may be, in which case the asylum claim would still be processed.
The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine. If so, we allow status. If that happens, they will fall under the routes of this particular Statement. If it is not a proper asylum claim, they will face removal from the country. That is a two-stage operation. This is not just around people who are coming on small boats; these are people who are coming on work visas who wish to have long-term settled status. Here, we are just putting some more guard-rails around that settled status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed and, on the four key issues, are citizens that deserve the right and privilege of being British citizens as part of their consideration.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“Fairness is the most fundamental of British values”.
Is it fair that people who have uprooted their lives, moved their children here and made their lives here should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? In responding to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the Minister said that there might be transitional arrangements and that they are consulting on all this. But that means that people who might have been here for four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair?
I look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of someone who is either already here now or comes in the future—a carer or maybe a nurse in a care home. The five years are kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after 10 years’ service, she injures her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns to work? What happens to her child, after 15 years, when they are unlikely still to be dependent? Perhaps they push to remain dependent to be able to stay in the country that is the only one they actually remember. Is all that fair?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me answer the first point. The announcements were made on 20 November. The consultation closes on 12 February, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a three-month or four-month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. It is important that we make the policy statements that we have made and allow for consultation. The points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.
The noble Baroness asks, “Is it fair?”. It has to be fair if we want to ensure community cohesion and that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not an automatic citizenship privilege. I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. There are many political parties—I do not accuse the noble Lord of this—that would go much further, removing people from this country who have settled status and doing things like that. We have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government—it is difficult in government—but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties. We have to find a way to ensure that the fairness that is appropriate for the system is generated in the rules that we are consulting on now.
Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (14 Nov 2025)
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and thank her for tabling this important amendment. The noble Baroness has laid out the arguments extremely carefully and clearly. Romany and Traveller people experience stark inequalities. They are subject to a wide range of enforcement powers against encampments. Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, introduced in 2022, created a new criminal offence relating to trespass and gave police tougher powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for up to 12 months, alongside powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers.
This draconian amendment was tabled and supported by the previous Conservative Government. It took no account of whether elderly relatives or children were on site, or whether a woman might be in the late stages of pregnancy. It was a broad, sweeping power which the police had not asked for; nor did they want it.
On several occasions I called on the previous Government to require all local authorities to provide adequate permanent sites for Romany people and Traveller people, as well as temporary stopping sites to accommodate the cultural nomadic lifestyle—but to no avail. His Majesty’s official Opposition prefer the scenario where, due to the absence of authorised stopping places or sites, illegal camping is dealt with in a draconian manner. The Gypsies and Travellers are evicted and thrown in prison; their caravan homes and vehicles are seized; and their children are taken into care—all a burden on the taxpayer, with no thought to the humanitarian impact on the Romany people and Travellers themselves. Making a nomadic, cultural way of life a criminal activity was and is appalling and is out of all proportion, and it is in breach of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
In Somerset there was previously adequate provision of both temporary and permanent sites for the Traveller community. I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get those sites up and running, against huge opposition. Some of those sites have since been closed. I now live in Hampshire, where I am to all intents and purposes surrounded by Traveller sites. They live round the corner; they live at the bottom of the road I live in; their children go to the local schools, both primary and secondary; their babies are baptised in the church. One baby girl was baptised yesterday, surrounded by over 100 well-wishers from her extended family. We bought our logs from the man who lived down the road. Sadly, he died earlier this year, and we now buy from his grandson, who has taken over his grandfather’s business. There is nothing but good will and respect between the Travellers and the rest of the community.
There will, of course, be those who live close to very large, unmanaged, sprawling Traveller sites. I have some sympathy with those people. However, if their local authority had made adequate provision in the first place, with sites having adequate toilet and water facilities, maybe they would not be in the current unfortunate circumstances we hear about.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for reminding us how Gypsies and Travellers are still treated. It is a disgrace. It really is time that proper provision be made for those who have a culture different from those of us living in bricks and mortar. Now is definitely the time to ditch the legislation of 2022. It was not needed then, and it is not needed now. I fully support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with pleasure to join the three other proposers of Amendment 49. I apologise for not taking part at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb said then, there are two specific issues that we will be dealing with, and this is one of them. The case for the amendment has already been overwhelmingly made, so I will not repeat what has already been said. However, I will take your Lordships back to December 2021, when I called for a vote in the House on whether Part 4 should be part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, as it became in 2022. I said then that this was a moral issue: to have legislation explicitly targeting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, given what it was doing to them, was such a moral issue that it could not be allowed to drift by. I note that first on the list of the people supporting me in that vote was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There were four Cross-Bench Members who supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady O’Loan. There were nine Labour Members who supported me in that vote, and 54 Liberal Democrats. I thank all of them for supporting me then and for hearing the strong words from the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell, now.
It is worth looking back to that debate. At Second Reading, the then Conservative Minister said, in effect, “We have to have this; we are delivering on a manifesto commitment.” I believe and hope that maintaining Part 4 of the Bill was not a Labour manifesto commitment. This is an opportunity for Labour to undo something the previous Tory Government did, and which absolutely should be undone. That could be achieved very simply, as shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is such a champion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues in your Lordships’ House over such a long period, and who leads all of us who follow that path so well. This is a chance simply and clearly to do something that needs to be done.
I will also go back to the discussion around that time. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—who is not in his place, unfortunately—wrote a very powerful piece for the Independent opposing Part 4, which is what we are essentially undoing here. Like the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, of course, is a Kindertransport survivor, was thinking of the situation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, who
“could see their worldly possessions wheeled away, their warmth and shelter seized, their parents potentially imprisoned”.
That is what this part of the Bill, which we seek to remove, actually does.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I think the point is that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion.
As for the issue of incompatibility, it is worth noting that, when a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike-down power; it is not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches believe that there have been too many instances of judicial overreach, as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. If we cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, that is an indication that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He speaks about so-called judicial overreach, but building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, in a consultation in 2018, 75% of police said they did not want these extra powers and 85% said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. This is across the justice system; it is not just what the judges are doing.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsFriday 12th September 2025
(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 June 2025 - large print - (20 Jun 2025)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am speaking far into a frequently heart-rending debate that has included so much about agonising death and so many speeches that deserve to be noted, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about his father’s death and his own reflections on it.
I speak from a unique position, even as speaker number 85, for the policy of the Green Party of England and Wales is to legally provide, with all the appropriate safeguards, provision for assisted dying. But that does not in any way tie my hands, for the Green Party does not whip, so every vote is a conscience vote. That policy position was extensively debated in the party, and we heard a great many concerns from disabled people, people from global majority communities and people who fear they are discriminated against and badly treated in our current medical system and who fear discrimination here, too. I also heard fears from learning disabled people at an event I hosted earlier this month.
But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the safeguards built into the Bill mean that people are more protected in this than they are in other areas of healthcare. Imposing those protections right across our health service should certainly be a priority, as should fully publicly funded quality palliative care. Polling evidence shows that, overall, disabled people want the same rights as the rest of us when terminally ill.
To lay it out plainly, one of the chief reasons why I will support the Bill is that assisted dying is already available to people in Britain, but only some people: those who have the financial wherewithal and confidence to navigate foreign systems and travel, and the remaining health and capacity to get to Dignitas in Switzerland. That is a profound inequality that leaves some dying in the many harrowing conditions we have heard about today. As we have also heard, it means that people die alone, without their loved ones even knowing of their final choice, for fear of the legal repercussions for those they leave behind, and that people die sooner than they might otherwise because they fear being too ill to travel.
I oppose the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, which I am afraid can be regarded only as a wrecking amendment, setting an impossible timetable for the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained. I am not so sure about the obviously constructively intended amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I will listen to further arguments on that.
But, in addressing both of those, I want to make the point that, in progressing to make a new law—particularly a law of conscience such as this, as with the laws on access to abortion and the rights of LGBTIQA+ people—debate does not happen only in Parliament. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, set out, this Bill has already received far more parliamentary attention than many government Bills. But debate and scrutiny does not happen only in Parliament: it happens in the media, in communities and now, of course, on the internet and social media. We should not discount the power and importance of that in shaping the law.
On the level of correspondence that I and many other noble Lords have received about this Bill—for me, hundreds of contacts—the balance of that reflects the views of the public in the polls. I thank all those who have taken the time to be in contact with me about this. That is people’s politics. If we look at the opinion polling, the people have a clear and settled view on the need for assisted dying to be available in the UK, rather than relying on the decisions already made by the people and legislature of Switzerland. The people expect politics to deliver on their view.
Finally, I have been asked to note that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is on medical leave, is listening to this debate from home and wishes to put on record her support for this Bill.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsMonday 8th September 2025
(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (4 Sep 2025)
“Amendment to section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002For section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 substitute—“(5) Exception 2 applies where C has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and—(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh, or(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to remain in the UK without C.”” Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met. These include that they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child (that is, a British child or a child who has resided in the UK for more than 7 years) or a qualifying partner (that is, a British citizen, or someone settled in the UK within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971).
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Noble Lords will note, being terribly observant, that I am not my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Around about now, I hope, she is emerging from theatre, having had an operation on her foot. She will not be in the House for a few weeks, so I am afraid that I am picking up amendments from my noble friend. I apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading, but the timing of the operation was uncertain, so this is where we have got to.
I am moving Amendment 136 and will speak to Amendment 187, both in the name of my noble friend. They propose two new clauses which would address the rights of children. Most of us will understand—and I hope and believe that most of us accept—that we in the UK regard the rights of children as enormously important and that, when making decisions, we have always to keep in mind the best interests of the child. These will often be British children or children resident in Britain.
To set out a couple of points of context for this, I note that, as many will be aware, Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is about the best interests of the child being at the centre of decisions. Article 5 talks about the importance of parental guidance for children and children’s rights, and Article 9 says that separation from parents should be avoided wherever possible.
Let us think about what it means for the child if a parent is deported. I refer to some testimony from an organisation called Bail for Immigration Detainees which talks about what it is like when a child sees their parent facing deportation. Obviously, it is devastating when families are torn apart and children face never seeing their parent in the flesh again. If a parent is deported to, say, Jamaica or India, it will be extremely expensive, perhaps impossibly so, for the child ever to be in their arms again. There are also the practical considerations. Families have arrangements. They take children to school, with employment fitting around it—one parent takes the children to school while the other is working. All those arrangements fall apart very suddenly, and the child is the one who suffers.
That is the context of these amendments, which the two proposed new clauses seek to ensure that the Bill addresses. Amendment 136 would amend the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to address the rights of the child. As the explanatory statement sets out, it
“seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met”.
This is about a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child. It is about the reality of children’s lives, not just this year or next year but for the whole of their childhood.
Amendment 187 would insert into the Bill a new clause providing a
“Duty to have due regard to family unity”.
Again, this would put the rights of the child front and centre in the exercise of all immigration and asylum functions. It would apply to the Secretary of State, to immigration officers exercising immigration and asylum functions and to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in deciding human rights appeals.
We hear a lot about the problems and difficulties in our society. If we are to be a caring society that prepares our young generations for the future, I put it to the Committee that these two amendments would be a step in the direction of making sure that—as we so often claim to do—we put the rights of children first for the future, for all of us. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments together. Section 117C, on the deportation of foreign criminals, which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, provides at subsection (1) that this deportation is in the public interest. I suggest that the well-being of children is a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals at the moment, and the noble Baroness has rightly focused on the position of children. As the noble Baroness has identified, the family unit, about which politicians talk an awful lot, is generally in a child’s best interest. I am not sure about there being public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept, but I am not sure how you define it.
In Amendment 187, there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. I have been aware over the years that, although the means have developed, “Skype families”, as they used to be called, were desperately distressing for everyone concerned. I heard one example many years ago of a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because they had never seen the father below chest level. So, although it is not Skype these days, the principle remains.
I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a quick recovery and I thank her for bringing this to the attention of the House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind wishes to my noble friend. I will certainly be passing all those on as soon as possible. I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate—including the Minister. However, I will point that in his closing comments he repeated several times, “Do not commit the crime”. But the child we are talking about here has not committed any crime. It is the future of the child’s whole life and family life that we are talking about—focusing not on the criminal but on the child.
I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising a very important point about the well-being of children. We are focusing not just on those children but on the public interest. The future of our children is the future of all of us. The noble Baroness made a very useful point by noticing how often the unity of the family is brought up in public debates but then seems to be excluded from certain parts of the conversation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a really important point in the context of our current national debate for those who would see us withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. It is actually a very flexible instrument, which reflects why these amendments have been tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why these amendments were needed and said that it is all there in Article 8 judgments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that we can set the guardrails; we can say what Article 8 means and that is what these amendments seek to do.
None the less, we have had a useful debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned Skype families. That is an issue I have been working on for a very long while. I think we might have to get a new term—maybe Teams families or Zoom families. It is important to think about the reality. Let us think of a child of seven or eight who knows they are never going to be held in the arms of a parent again. How does the other parent, if there is another parent there, explain that to the child?
I am sure my noble friend will be looking very closely at this debate and taking on board all the comments so, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and chairman of the Task Force Trust, which I will come on to later. I extend my best wishes to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German, who are not able to be here because of illness, and wish them well.
I support the amendments on the right to work, particularly for domestic workers and those in the NRM. I have been an advocate of this for some time. Call me psychic, but I do not think the Government will accede to this for the very reason the noble Lord, Lord German, gave: the pull factor—although that has never been proved—or whatever.
In my capacity as chairman of the Task Force Trust, we have had a very interesting set of projects through Action Asylum—I would be very happy to show the Minister an evaluation report we got from the University of Nottingham—that get asylum seekers and refugees to do voluntary work, particularly in the environment field: things such as beach cleans, tree planting and a lot of other similar things. This is so important because it has been shown that, in local communities that are not always the most keen on what they perceive asylum seekers to be, they see them as real people, they see them as families and they see them doing things. It has been great for cohesion, but also a great thing for the asylum seekers themselves, to make them feel valued and part of the community, and it has helped their mental health. I think it is something that should be looked at more. As I said, I would be very happy to pass on a copy of this evaluation report from the University of Nottingham that shows the value of it.
There are other projects I have been aware of. For example, the Marylebone Cricket Club has a foundation which has been getting asylum seekers to play cricket. The Saracens Foundation has also involved refugees and so on into sports. I cannot help feeling that this is the way forward—at a time when we know full well that there are frictions out there in our communities—to make sure that they realise we are talking about actual people.
It is a lateish hour and there are plenty more speakers. I just say to my noble friend Lady Lawlor, on her amendment, I think the question of driving licences for these people is a valid one, but it is slightly discriminatory to say it is just for overseas people. There are plenty of other people around. It may be that she thought it was a cunning way to get the issue raised, but I do not think this is really part of this. With that, I will sit down, but I am very happy to meet the Minister, or pass him this report, because I think it is a very valuable idea in terms of community cohesion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer Green group support for all the amendments in this group, except for Amendment 154A, and to express the greatest sympathy with those who are not able to be with us when we would like them to be. It is also terribly disappointing given that this is such an important group of amendments for addressing essential issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as a result of our immigration law.
I will address two related amendments: Amendment 151 from the noble Lord, Lord German, and others, and Amendment 155A, both of which address points on what is known for short as the “lift the ban” campaign. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on this. Indeed, last week, I spoke with the Minister in Oral Questions about suggestions from the Refugee Council to allow people who are most likely to be given asylum status the right to work. This is a broader step.
Giving people the right to work as they seek asylum would, of course, empty the asylum hotels. That is one way of doing it, but the arguments for it extend beyond that. I note that the Global Compact on Refugees—a UN agreement that we do not hear much about these days, but undoubtedly should—says that refugees should be included in communities from the very beginning, meaning as soon as they arrive. What better way is there to include people in communities than to allow them to work? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was just saying that voluntary work is great, but to enable people to support themselves, support their families and contribute to societies is surely better.
I will just draw on a little history. I am coming up to six years in your Lordships’ House, which makes me not quite a newbie any more by House of Lords standards, so I can go back to the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2022. I just point out that what we are presenting here is something that the House more or less supported, voted for and sent back to the other place. Amendment 30 of the Nationality and Borders Bill on Report was to change the Immigration Act 1971 to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. It was proposed and the vote was called by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Meacher. Ten Conservatives and 32 Labour Members voted for that amendment, so we are not really going out on a limb here with these suggestions to allow people to work after three months or at least to review the possibility of six months.
A Times leading article from 16 December 2021 also called for—I emphasise that this was the Times—asylum seekers to be given the right to work after six months. I may not say this terribly often, but I entirely agree with the Times where it says:
“Enforced idleness is a waste of initiative and wealth”.
It notes that, at the time, the Migration Advisory Committee opposed the ban on asylum seekers working and the leading article suggested that they should be able to work in shortage occupations. This Times notes that, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said:
“Britain’s policy is more restrictive than that of EU member states”.
As the noble Lord also said, it
“would have no impact on the aggregated numbers of people granted asylum”.
I finish by quoting the Times’ conclusion:
“it would help the economy, reward enterprise and better integrate migrants into British society. A policy that is humane and beneficial for all concerned ought to be grasped”.
When we think about the way in which our immigration debate is going at the moment, it is worth thinking about how far we have moved in the wrong direction. Let us head back in a humane, just and sensible direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has set out an overwhelming case for Amendment 154, on the fishing industry. It is worth going back to some research from the University of Nottingham Rights Lab from 2021. I do not think there is any evidence that the situation has improved since then. Some 35% of fishers reported experiencing regular physical violence, including racial abuse and sexual violence. Their average pay was £3.51 an hour—one-third of the minimum wage; 19% were working in conditions comparable to forced labour; and 60% reported shifts of a minimum of 16 hours. When we think of the conditions to which the noble Lord referred, one in three were working more than 20-hour shifts, and 100% from outside the EEA were on the visas we are talking about.
Borders and Asylum
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very valid question, and I am grateful for the broad support that the noble Lord has given to the proposals before us. We have said in the immigration Bill, and we have said publicly, that we want to look at how Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family life, is interpreted. We have seen wide interpretation of Article 8 to ensure that individuals can protect themselves against deportation when asylum claims have failed. In the next few months—and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me on this—we intend to issue a further consultation on what we need to do on that. It does not involve us, as some political parties and others would want, leaving the ECHR; I hope it will revise the guidance so judges can examine it and make different judgments accordingly, based on the information that we will ultimately supply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the detailed and carefully worked-out proposal put forward at the end of last month by the Refugee Council. Its plan could close asylum hotels by the end of next year by putting in place a one-off scheme to give permission to stay for a limited period, subject to rigorous security checks, to people who are almost certain to be recognised as refugees. The proposal applies to people from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Syria who were in the system on 30 June. That would represent four in 10 of the people in asylum hotels from those countries—more than 33,000 people in total in Home Office accommodation. To take some examples, 98% of Sudanese who apply for refugee status receive it, and yesterday in your Lordships’ House there was a great deal of discussion of how terrible things are in Sudan; and 86% of Eritreans receive it. Have the Government considered this carefully thought-out proposal, put forward by the Refugee Council, or anything like it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are open to a range of discussions on any issue because it is a manifesto commitment for us to end hotel use by the end of this Parliament. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, myself and others in government want to do that as quickly as possible, but—and I say this, I hope, helpfully to the noble Baroness—we have to do this in an ordered, managed fashion. We are trying to do that in an ordered, managed fashion now by reducing the level of hotel use as a whole, filling up the remaining hotels so that we maximise their use and looking at how we can exit those hotels over time. In the past 12 months, we have saved around £1 billion of taxpayers’ money by the measures that we have taken. We have had limited success to date in reducing the number of hotels, but we intend to speed that up. The suggestions that have been made will always be examined, but the ultimate objective for the noble Baroness, the Refugee Council and for us is to make sure that we exit hotels, speed up asylum claims and make sure that those who have asylum claims are dealt with and allowed to remain in the United Kingdom with a properly adjudicated, speedy asylum claim.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think we will have to have an honest disagreement with the noble Viscount. That is not my view of how this works. My view is that we are all party to a European court and convention. That is not a European Union issue; it is a Council of Europe issue. There are countries not in the EU and in the EU which have abided, since 1950, in the aftermath of a world war that split Europe apart, by a convention that gives basic rights to individuals. I support those basic rights, but that does not mean we cannot examine how they are interpreted. That is where the Government are coming from. Different parties are asking different things, and that will be a debate we will have, but I am trying to show the noble Viscount that there are, in my view, benefits to the ECHR as well as areas of potential challenge.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, expressed concern about the level of first-tier decision-making in the Home Office. I agree with the noble Lord that there is reason for concern about that, but concern about ill-founded refusals of asylum applications—the evidence for which is in the high number of successful appeals. On that subject, I have two specific questions for the Minister, and I will understand if he needs to write to me. First, Home Office checks in 2023-24 showed that only 52% of initial decisions passed the Home Office’s own quality standards. The figures for 2024-25 were supposed to have been published in August but have not been. Can the Minister say when those now overdue figures will be published? Secondly, Home Office data on appeals has not been updated since the start of 2023. There is data on appeals from the tribunals, but Home Office data historically has been more detailed. Are the Government planning to publish that data on appeals?
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsMonday 21st July 2025
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (21 Jul 2025)
“Review of the extent and impact of pay inequality(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the extent and impact of pay inequality, with particular regard to the highest level of pay in comparison with the median and lowest pay in an enterprise, in large enterprises.(2) The review must be carried out no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of the review within three months of its completion.(4) Large enterprises are those exceeding the medium-sized companies threshold under the Companies Act 2006.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the impact of pay inequality in large enterprises.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 127A in my name is a milder attempt to deal with the pressing issue of pay inequality and soaring executive pay in our society than the amendment I tabled in Committee, which was to provide for a 10:1 maximum pay ratio for enterprises. I hope this one has a slightly less inflationary impact on the blood pressure of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, while dealing with the excessive boardroom remuneration referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, two groups ago.
The amendment simply seeks to put in the Bill a review of the impact of pay inequality in large enterprises, as defined by the Companies Act 2006—those with net turnover of more than £54 million, assets of £27 million and more than 250 employees. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this approach. It is not my intention to put this to a vote, but I want to be helpful to the Government here and offer them some constructive ways forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, in part made the argument for this amendment for me in Committee when he said that:
“It is right that companies should be sensitive to wider workforce pay when setting pay for those in the boardroom and other senior leadership positions”.—[Official Report, 24/6/25; col. 201.]
However, suggesting that companies be sensitive is not really going to do it. That seems to be the Government’s position. I noted that the Water Minister, Emma Hardy, on LBC this morning, urged water company bosses to “read the room” and refuse huge wage hikes. Well, the room has been sending a very clear message about water company bosses’ pay for a long time and the voluntary approach has simply not worked.
We are talking here about the right of lower-paid workers not to be disrespected—insulted—by the soaring pay in the boardroom while they struggle to meet their basic needs, pay their bills and put food on the table. This is action that clearly needs to be taken, not just words of gentle encouragement.
As I said in Committee, the security and catering company Mitie, with a 575:1 ratio between its top-paid employee and the median employee, and a large number of low-paid workers, tops the High Pay Centre’s FTSE 350 companies hall of shame. I note that this month, the Labour Party postponed a London drinks reception for north-west MPs sponsored by Mitie after a backlash over the company’s employment practices. Unison had planned to picket the event. You have to question why it was ever planned in the first place.
A review such as the one proposed in the amendment could be a start towards the Labour Government generating policies such as those recommended by the High Pay Centre in its useful list of proposals—I recommend it to Ministers as a crib sheet, since the current Government were elected with so few policies of their own in place—such as all-employee profit-sharing or share ownership schemes. As the centre notes:
“One of the reasons why … the pay ratios between workers and CEOs are so wide is that CEOs receive large share-based payments in addition to their regular salary while workers do not … In France all companies are required to share an element of profits exceeding a set amount calculated using factors including taxable profits, net equity, wages and added value with their workforce”.
This has actually reduced inequality.
Another timely proposal from the centre, which again a review might throw up, is a cap on CEO-to-worker pay gaps for public service providers, such as water companies—here we have another way forward—or social care providers. The claim made by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, in Committee, that high pay means
“companies can compete for the best business talent in the UK and globally”,—[Official Report, 24/6/25; col. 202.]
certainly does not stack up in the water sector, if one looks at its outcomes. Fat cat pay has delivered only underinvestment, pollution and ill health for those unfortunate enough to have to rely on the services of the privatised companies.
Finally, I note that, responding to the call for even higher executive pay from the UK capital markets task force—drawn from the City of London and big business—a letter written by 20 leading academics specialising in executive pay, corporate governance and economic inequality made a number of points, including that there is a very “questionable” link between
“higher executive pay and better business performance”,
that any claim that there is a
“shortage of capable candidates for executive roles should … prompt scrutiny of companies’ leadership training and development processes”,
and that the “opportunity costs” of high top pay have impacts
“in terms of … pay for low and middle income workers or investment in the business”.
It is interesting that polling by the High Pay Centre suggests that the overwhelming majority of the public think that CEOs should not be paid more than 20 times more than their typical employee. If the Government want to consider the politics of this, I point to the conclusions in the report, The Spirit Level at 15, by Professors Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, which articulates many of the ways in which inequality strengthens far-right politics. Executive pay is only part of that story, but it is a very visible part. This amendment offers the Government a way forward to start to tackle that political problem, as well as the economic and social issues. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 127A. Although it rightly raises the important issue of pay inequality, it effectively duplicates a review process that we are already undertaking.
It is undeniable that average salaries have stagnated. In fact, they have barely increased from where they were 15 years ago. Had wages continued to grow at the rate seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis, the average worker would now be over 40% better off. This is not just about stagnant wages; it is about persistent and deep-rooted inequalities.
The UK’s income inequality remains above both the OECD and G7 averages. In the financial year 2022-23, the richest 20% of the population received 44% of the UK’s gross income, while the poorest 20% received just 7%. The OECD has noted that higher inequality can lead to underinvestment in human capital and slower adoption of new technologies. It estimates that rising inequality between 1990 and 2010 resulted in UK output being nearly nine percentage points lower than it might otherwise have been.
As I said on day 2 on Report, in one of the world’s wealthiest nations, workers are still turning to food banks. Many cannot afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Morale is at rock bottom and motivation is vanishing. The noble Baroness is right: executive pay keeps climbing. In 2023 the average FTSE 100 CEO earned 118 times more than the median UK worker, up from 50 times in the late 1990s. This is not sustainable or fair.
The UK exhibits greater regional disparities in productivity, pay, educational attainment and health than many other developed nations. This Bill, by benefiting lower-paid employees most, will help reduce these disparities, not only in terms of income but in the quality of work experienced. Supporting this, analysis published in 2019 by the World Bank found that employment protections can play a significant role in reducing income inequality.
As I have previously outlined, we already have robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place. By reinforcing the framework that supports our workforce, we are making work more secure and predictable. We are also putting more money into the pockets of working people by making wages fairer. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to withdraw Amendment 127A.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer, although I have to express disappointment that none of the other Front Benches wanted to engage with the issue of high pay. The Minister very much acknowledged the issues around low pay and talked about robust monitoring and evaluation of high pay, but he did not speak about any action on it nor even about any plans for action on it. We have a real problem with the inequality that has seen those executives’ salaries—those fat cat salaries—rise and rise. As I said in my introductory remarks, there is an opportunity cost where those resources are going to that, as well as, of course, the sense in society that there is a deep unfairness and the Government are not doing anything about it.
I remain disappointed. This is certainly an issue that I and the Green Party will continue to work on but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsWednesday 16th July 2025
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (15 Jul 2025)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible Green support for this amendment, and the support of many others who cannot be here today. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has outlined the reasons for this amendment very clearly, and I am just going to make a couple of additional points.
In many cases, the ability of parents to be at their child’s bedside acting as an advocate is crucial to ensuring that the child gets the best possible medical treatment. There is a profound inequality here if financial circumstances prevent parents being at the bedside, giving doctors and other carers information about their child’s health and the child themselves.
This amendment would also enable the parent to maintain contact with the workplace. Rather than having to give up their job and deal with the mess later, there would be a continuing relationship that would hopefully work out for the best if the child comes home and things go back to something like normal.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in paying huge tribute to Ceri and Frances for the campaign they have run for Hugh’s law. As the noble Baroness said, this is very much a legacy. I have to say that I am very surprised, because this week the Government responded to a final plea to back it. I hope the Minister may be about to stand up and offer something different, but the email suggested that that is not what we are going to hear today.
The briefing from the Hugh’s law charity points out that, with GoFundMe, people have to appeal to the public to fund their support for their sick child, meaning that they have to expose their suffering and pain. Unless funds are strictly designated to pay for medical treatment, the parents are then not eligible for any of the later government assistance that the noble Baroness set out, such as universal credit. If they have money from the public to support them, that cuts off government support. That is not covered in this amendment but is something that the Government should look at to make sure that, if a family in deep distress receives donations, that should not stop them getting other support.
With those comments, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I know that many other Peers will, so I hope that we might hear something positive from the Government.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for introducing the amendment. Anyone who heard the interview on Radio 4 this morning could not but have been moved by the circumstances that are the background to the amendment.
I speak as one who had the experience of losing two young children. At the age of two and three, our children, Alun and Geraint, were diagnosed with a life-terminating condition. It was the week in which the 1974 election had been called and my wife and I had to decide whether I should remain working in industry at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil or to stand. The question was how on earth we were going to face the circumstances in which both our boys would live perhaps for five, 10 or 15 years, but one thing was certain: both my wife and I could not continue to work. Caring for two boys who had learning disabilities and were gradually able to walk less and less, until they could not walk at all, was an emotional as well as a physical and, potentially, a financial challenge, which is where the amendment is relevant.
We were unlucky, and the unluckiness was double, as I have described. My wife was also expecting our third child at the time and we did not know whether that child would be affected by this condition. Standing for election and being elected to represent Caernarfon in the House of Commons meant a 30% reduction in my salary. My wife, who was a professional musician—a harpist—would not be able to continue her career thereafter and would lose her earnings altogether. Had it not been for the availability of the then mobility allowance and attendance allowance, both of which it was possible to get at the highest level for both children, we would not have been able to employ someone to help us in order to give my wife some relief while I was down in London doing my work here.
That situation continued. We had two other children, our daughter Eluned, who was born in the June following that February—she was all right and was not affected by the condition—and our son Hywel, who was born two years later, was not affected by it. So we were blessed by having two children who were not affected. But we saw what the reality could be of the financial pressures that come from that double disability. If it had not been for my parents living next door—my father had just retired, on a good pension—we could not have survived. We were subsidised by my parents, who were retired and in their 60s, and, putting that together with the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance, we could eke the money out and make things practical.
I am telling your Lordships this by way of background—it is not something that I talk about very often in this House, but it is directly relevant to this amendment. There are countless families who face these circumstances without having the support that we were lucky enough to get. I am sure that people of all parties, across the House, want to build a system whereby no parents are put in a position where they cannot look after their child and keep enough money coming in to eke things out. I support the amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing it forward. I wish the family who have been the motivation for this amendment every strength in the challenges that they face.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I pay tribute to the work the noble Baroness has done over many years, at immense personal cost, in fighting antisemitism. She is completely right about this. I know the owners of that building. I went to see it afterwards. I know how deeply shocked they and other Jewish residents in that area were after that attack.
I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the defence and security relationship between Britain and Israel, which is of huge importance to our national interest. People who argue for boycotts or banning defence exports to Israel need to be careful about this, because the RAF would not be able to get its planes off the ground without Israeli technology. British soldiers would have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan without Israeli defence equipment. Israeli intelligence has prevented terror attacks here in the UK. We have to be careful when people suggest undermining that relationship. People who argue for that would have a great deal of difficulty explaining to the public why they want to put our Armed Forces at risk because they are so obsessed with this. There are 200 land-based conflicts in the world and the only one that people seem to care about is the one involving Israel. We have to ask ourselves why that country is singled out and held to standards that never apply to any other country.
The final point I want to make about Palestine Action is this: if the only country you campaign against, the only country you think should be abolished, or the only country you think should never have been established in the first place just happens to be the only Jewish one, do not tell me that you are not a bunch of antisemites.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am aware of the time and I will be very brief. It will not surprise your Lordships’ House that I rise to offer the strongest possible support to my noble friend. Responding to the noble Lord who just spoke, I note that I have been strongly campaigning against arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and many other places, for a very long time.
I wanted to make three points, drawing some things in this debate together. One is the point about social cohesion made powerfully by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Smith of Llanfaes. Many young people—hundreds of thousands of people—show social media support. This is an issue where we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, powerfully pointed out, potentially criminalising and calling terrorists an enormous number of people who are absolutely horrified, in their gut, about what is happening in Gaza. We have to think about the impact on our society of what the Government are choosing to do.
My second point is that we have heard some powerful and important points about process. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about the ISC not having been briefed and some astonishment about that. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out that the Explanatory Memorandum simply did not set out clearly the impact of what the Government are doing, and that surely is a real problem of process.
I turn to my third point. I thank the House collectively —a number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—for acknowledging that my noble friend has done a difficult thing. It is important that people are allowed to set out their case clearly, particularly in starting the debate. So I thank the House for the support that has been shown.
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord may say that about the Employment Rights Bill, but I speak to many businesses and many of them do more than what that Bill does; but that is a conversation for another day.
The whole landscape is changing. We have to be responsive to that, and we are not leaving any sectors behind.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in its introduction, the industrial strategy says that
“we live in a world dominated by the rise of superstar firms, whose success spills over to the wider economy”.
It seems that the Government are adopting a trickle-down theory of business, but is this not assuming a future that looks like the past two decades? It has been an era of cheap, abundant financing for firms that have often burned through enormous sums of money—money used to force competitors out of business and to buy out genuine innovators and swallow them up, or squash them, not to deliver genuinely productive, useful, substantive products and services.
This is the idea of the unicorn: a biased picture of entrepreneurship that favours valuation over value creation. This is the model that has given us the massively unequal, deeply unstable society we have today. Surely, we cannot keep going the way we are. It has got us to the disastrous point we are now at.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I do not quite agree with the noble Baroness. At the end of the day, the Government have to make a choice. We have identified the top eight sectors that we will support with this strategy going forward. At the same time, other industries will also benefit from the support because of its roll-on effect. Yes, ideally, we would like to support every sector, but we need to pick and choose. It is just like running your own business: you pick and choose who your customers are and you work with them, but you still serve everybody.
The industrial strategy focuses on eight sectors, but other foundational sectors will also be supported through the various plans set out in the strategy.