Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

127A: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

Amendment 127A withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment aims to do just that. It prevents parents having to make the impossible choice between their child’s health and employment. Instead, it provides the financial support necessary to vulnerable parents in devastating situations. I beg to move.

[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

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

320: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Maximum pay ratio(1) A worker must be remunerated by their employer at a rate which is not less than one tenth of the remuneration made by the employer to the highest-paid employee.(2) The remuneration referred to in subsection (1) includes—(a) salary or hourly pay;(b) bonuses;(c) employer pension contributions;(d) shares, options, or other entitlements;(e) benefits in kind.(3) If a worker receives remuneration which is less than the entitlement referred to in subsection (1), the worker is taken to be entitled under their contract to be paid, as additional remuneration in respect of the period concerned, the difference between their entitlement and the remuneration actually received.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a maximum ratio of 10:1 between the highest- and lowest-paid employees in an organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendment 320 sits in glorious lone splendour in this group. I am not responsible for degrouping it; that was the way it was arranged. Noble Lords will see that this is a proposed new clause to introduce a maximum pay ratio. I thank the Public Bill Office for assisting me with the drafting.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, took us into celebrity land with Usain Bolt and Mo Farah. I am going further into that space with a forthcoming event from this week: the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez in Venice. I am relying here on the interesting reporting in the Guardian from Zoe Williams, who has been spending time with the campaign group No Space for Bezos and finding that in Venice there is considerable resistance to a billionaire taking over a city and totally disrupting the life of that city for three days. Williams quotes one of the local campaigners:

“We really wanted to problematise the ridiculous and obscene wealth that allows a man to rent a city for three days”.


Williams reflects in the article that

“when wealth itself is seen to be acting in its own interests, and it has accumulated to the degree that its impact scars every poorer life with which it comes into contact”,

we have a problem.

This amendment sets out Green Party policy—yes, this is long-time Green Party policy—but I am really aiming to assist the Government constructively here, and to assist the Committee as well as perhaps our national debate, by demonstrating that it is possible to lay down bridges to cross the deep fissures in our society. They are not just in Venice and they do not just involve Amazon—although I note that the Government have been applauding an expansion of Amazon here in the UK. We might think about how many of the small businesses we have just been talking about might go out of business as a result of that. I posit that it is essential to start to bridge these chasms, to tackle the poisonous inequality that so affects our political landscape.

Bringing the context closer to home, noble Lords may perhaps have expected me to cite research out only a week ago from the High Pay Centre, which analysed five years of mandatory pay ratio disclosures across the FTSE 350. This was a previous modest legislative attempt, hoping that shining a light on the level of inequality might have some impact in reducing that inequality. The study clearly showed that the attempt to do that has failed. The figures have basically bobbled around since 2019, and the current ratio of median CEO pay to the median UK employee was 52:1. That has been at a similar level ever since the ratio started to be recorded. I note that it is even worse for the FTSE 100, where the median CEO to median employee pay ratio was 78:1. Those are the middle figures but, if we take the widest measures, we go to the security and catering group Mitie, where 575:1 is the ratio not to the lowest-paid employee but to the median employee. At Tesco it is 431:1. This situation is doing huge damage to our society, and I put it to the Government that they surely have to tackle it.

A 10:1 ratio is Green Party policy. I know from the discussions that the Minister kindly had with me before this debate that she will not leap up and support my amendment, but I hope she may be able to provide some response, at least to acknowledge that we have a problem. The pay differentials also react to the low-pay environment in which those essential to the success of a business are not getting the respect, as well as the pay, that they deserve. Meanwhile, a few at the top are incentivised to chase short-term profits and share price valuation at long-term cost to society but also to the businesses that they head.

The impact on communities is evident in towns and cities, where the vast bulk of workers are now trapped on or very near the minimum wage, while money is shovelled away to faraway company headquarters. Companies defend these sums as reflecting performance, but all too often, as we have seen with the water companies, that is far from the case. Why is it that every worker does not benefit if a company is doing well, as they have all contributed?

I finally note that, yes, this is also an environmental measure. To take just one element of the CEO lifestyle, the wealthiest people in the UK burn through more energy in flying alone than the poorest use in every aspect of their life. Environmentally, as well as socially and politically, we cannot afford a society split between a few have-yachts and the majority have-nots.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment and, frankly, to express a degree of disbelief that such a proposal should have been made. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that this amendment is a serious contribution to the debate on fair pay or responsible corporate governance. It is a piece of performative and ideological showmanship—a throwback to a worldview that sees profit as a vice, wealth as inherently suspect and enterprise as something to be managed, limited or downright punished. The idea that government should impose a legal maximum pay ratio—a flat arbitrary ceiling of 10:1 between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in every organisation—is not just unworkable but, I believe, economically illiterate.

First, this proposal would be a gift to bureaucracy and a curse to business. Every company, from high street shops to high-growth tech firms, would have to monitor and police every single form of pay—salary, shares, bonuses, pensions and benefits in kind—just to ensure that they do not cross an artificial line. Do we really want our job creators to spend their time calculating compliance spreadsheets instead of investing, innovating and employing? Secondly, it would actively disincentivise growth and ambition. High-performing individuals—those who drive investment, lead exports and create jobs—would simply leave and take their talent elsewhere.

The noble Baroness mentioned Amazon. I join the Government in welcoming the further investment that Amazon is making. As a matter of record, Amazon employs circa 75,000 people in the UK. No one is on zero hours, and the minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000 a year. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which allow parents, grandparents or carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. It offers paid parental and bereavement leave. Amazon also offers guaranteed hours from day one, and employees have the choice of full-time or part-time contracts. It is important to put the record straight. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64,000 million in the UK, and £12,000 million in the last 12 months, and supports a network of around 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness has given me to put the record straight.

To go back to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would mean that employers would be forced to avoid hiring lower-paid staff altogether, just to protect the ratio. What would be the result? There would be fewer jobs, less opportunity and more outsourcing—the very opposite of what a fair and inclusive economy should look like, hitting the least well-off, the most vulnerable and those at the margins of the labour market.

My third point is that this is not fairness; it is levelling down. It is virtually saying, “Don’t succeed too much, don’t reward excellence, don’t grow too big or too fast or be too profitable”. That is not fairness—it is anti-growth, anti-aspiration and anti-business. I must tell the noble Baroness that this amendment looks like it would be more appropriate in a Maoist economic manifesto, delivered to his revolutionary cadres, rather than a serious proposal for modern employment legislation. What this amendment reveals is not a serious attempt to solve a policy problem but a mindset that is suspicious of success, dismissive of wealth creation and entirely detached from economic reality. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will agree with mine, that this is an amendment that should not be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

By contrast, the noble Baroness’s amendment would introduce an arbitrary cap on the pay of any individual in a company, regardless of the experience or skills that they bring to the business as a whole. We are not aware of any other advanced economy that has introduced such a measure and have significant concerns that it could undermine the UK’s economic competitiveness. While it is right that companies should explain how pay at the top aligns with wider employee pay, it is also important that companies can compete for the best business talent in the UK and globally. The amendment would significantly undermine the ability of UK companies to attract and retain skilled and experienced employees, while providing international competitors with greater opportunities to poach UK workers, to the detriment of our economy as a whole. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to withdraw Amendment 320.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, this has been a short but very clarifying debate on the political divisions in our society. I will be fairly brief in responding, but there are some points that I must pick up.

The response of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, really sounded like something from a debate out of the 20th century. I started with the story of what will happen in the coming days in Venice because we are in the 21st century, where raging pay inequality is a huge political issue. If you are not prepared to acknowledge that that is an issue that is significantly shaping our politics, you really are not in the 21st century.

To pick up some specific points the noble Lord made, he said that the amendment would force people to monitor and police. However, as the Minister rightly said, all this monitoring and reporting already happens in FTSE 100 and FTSE 350 companies. It is the law already, so there is no extra paperwork to be done here at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the amendment would disincentivise ambition, but ambition exists right across the board in companies. We have millions of cleaners, caterers and new apprentices out there who have huge ambition. Their ambition and the contribution they make absolutely need to be recognised.

I have to pick up the Amazon point. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, missed a couple of things out about Amazon, which I describe as the great parasite. How many jobs has Amazon destroyed? How many ambulances get called to Amazon warehouses, where workers are worked beyond human flesh and blood in trying to keep up with robots? That is the reality of Amazon.

Finally, I come to the point the Minister raised about economic competitiveness and the best business talents. Yes, we need the best talents, but we need them across the board. One person as the leader of the company is a small part of that company. On the idea that this is a pyramid—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said these are the people who create jobs—I am sorry, but it is the whole of our society that creates jobs. You can put one of these CEOs on a desert island and they will not make a penny. The infrastructure, the workers and the customers—that is where the wealth comes from, and if we do not have a functioning society then we do not have successful businesses.

However, I am aware of the time and that there are some people in the Chamber who are undoubtedly waiting for next business, so I shall restrain myself from going on further. I shall look to come back with perhaps a more moderate amendment, but I will seek to hear from the Government what they plan to do about pay inequality, because I am afraid that I did not hear in the Minister’s response any answer to what they plan to do about that raging problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 320 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

321: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of safe homeward transport for workers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of whether workers should be entitled to access to safe homeward transport.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include—(a) an analysis of transport options generally available to workers who finish work after 11pm;(b) an analysis of the costs, in absolute terms and as a percentage of pay, to such workers of taking the available transport options;(c) best practice examples of employers who provide homeward transport for workers;(d) proposals to ensure that workers can travel home safely after 11pm without excessive cost.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11pm, and make recommendations. It includes reviewing best practice, such as City firms who pay for homeward transport for workers late at night.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the Government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11 pm and to make recommendations, including reviewing best practice. I note that some City firms already pay for workers to travel home.

This is based on work being done by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the “Safe Home” worker-led initiative launched in 2018 by the Better Than Zero campaign and supported by Unite the Union and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union. It was launched following a women in leadership course in which workers from the hospitality, fast food and retail sectors shared their frightening experiences of getting home after a late shift. They included sexual assault, verbal harassment, violence and stalking.

Large numbers of workers in these sectors are not able to get home safely. Your Lordships’ House is very well aware of how limited late-night public transport can be—perhaps more than we would like to be. We currently have nearly 9 million night-time workers, of whom 15% are in low-paid roles, compared to 10% of employees as a whole. When you take into account restaurants, pubs and entertainment activities, that rises to 38%. Low-paid workers, many of them female, finish work at 11 pm, midnight or 1 am. How do they get home? This is a modest and constructive amendment which seeks to say that, if you are working hours during which society does not provide the transport to get you home safely, your employer has the responsibility to do so. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 321. We recognise the concern underpinning the amendment and agree that workers finishing late at night should be able to travel home safely and affordably. We are aware that for some workers, particularly those in hospitality, healthcare and security, late shifts can pose challenges when public transport options are limited. We also acknowledge and welcome that some employers, including firms in the City of London, have taken proactive steps to support their staff with safe transport home.

While we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate for a review at this time, I hope I can reassure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to supporting workers’ well-being and safety. That commitment is evident throughout the Bill. For example, as we discussed on the second day of Committee in early May—another opportunity for a history lesson, it seems so long ago—the Bill strengthens the right to request flexible working from day one of employment. This flexible working provision empowers workers and employers to agree working patterns that better suit individual circumstances, including, where appropriate and reasonable, avoiding late finishes. We are also taking steps to improve enforcement of existing rights and to ensure that employers meet their obligations to provide safe working conditions.

Although it is not the subject of this legislation, the Government are also committed to reviving, rejuvenating and investing in public transport, not least through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the creation of GBR, improvements to rail services and the huge amounts being invested across the country, particularly in the north, in new transport projects, all of which will provide a greater level of options and service for not just people working late but those who want to enjoy the night-time economy and to use public transport more generally.

While we cannot support this amendment, we share the underlying concern and will continue to work to ensure that all workers are protected and supported. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her Amendment 321.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this brief debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and I can agree that there is an issue here and I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think that offering flexible working will really work with a pub or restaurant—that option will not be available. On public transport, for the workers affected, overwhelmingly we are talking not about grand infrastructure projects but local buses, which have been massively decimated over the last decade. None the less, the point has been made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 321 withdrawn.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to Ann Cryer, the mother of the noble Lord, Lord Cryer. I served in Parliament with Ann and I know she raised these matters and faced extreme difficulties locally as a result, and took a very brave stand at the time. Again, I say to colleagues across the House, let us look at how we deal with this issue. My party has not been in Government for 14 years, but we have been in control of some of the councils. My party was not in control of government when a lot of these issues happened, but I still have a responsibility to make sure we deal with these in an effective way. I want to make sure that we accept these recommendations and see them through, and this House will monitor me to make sure we do it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in responding the right reverend Prelate, the Minister said victims need to find a place they can trust. Among the promises of action in the Statement is a promise of further action to support child victims. For many of these children and young people to be able to speak out, they will need the support of known and trusted adults: people like youth workers, teachers or medical professionals. Are the Government going to ensure that there are enough resources in affected communities so that those kinds of trusted adults are available to support victims?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can answer the noble Baroness in a positive way. I have said already that we will look at how we support victims to interact with the inquiry and the potential chair. I want to make sure that the chair, whoever he or she is, has an opportunity to look at how they frame the issue, rather than have central government directions on it. The Prime Minister has been clear that the inquiry will be fully funded, and we are looking forward to how we can develop that. The involvement of victims is central and we need support for them, because I do not want to retraumatise people who are talking about their cases and what happened to them in the past. It is important that we get to the truth of what has happened, where there have been institutional failings and how we put in place policy options to rectify that, reduce future victims and ensure that we bring perpetrators to effective justice.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I thank the noble Earl for proposing his amendment. I look forward to playing a continuing role in supporting freelance workers, specifically those in the creative industries, to secure their safety and indeed dignity at work.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Caine. She made some terribly important points; they are literally about matters of life and death.

I have added my name to Amendment 259, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I apologise to the noble Earl for not having also signed Amendment 287; I certainly would have done so, had I caught up with it sooner. I previously backed a similar amendment from the noble Earl to an earlier Bill under the previous Government.

I declare my position as beneficiary of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, with which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is associated. I published one book with the society last year, and I have another one coming out this year.

Amendment 259 is about unionisation and collective bargaining in the arts and cultural sector, and it calls for alternative, appropriate models for the sector. I hope the Labour Government see sense and come back in support of the amendment. They believe—I hope—in the values of collective bargaining and of workers being able to get together to fight for appropriate conditions, whether it is health and safety, pay or work security.

I declare another position—or, perhaps, a situation—in that, 20 years ago, I reviewed a lot of London fringe theatre on my own website. Speaking to some of the actors and the other creatives involved in those performances, I learned that the conditions under which they were employed, or hoped to get paid, were often very precarious. I very much doubt that that situation has improved.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the insecurity of Covid and what followed it. The Republic of Ireland saw that situation and took a step to deal with it: it introduced the universal basic income trial, which ran from 2022-24 and paid creative workers a weekly stipend of €325 for three years. We still have not had the formal impact assessment of that, but I have heard a great many anecdotal reports about the more stability and reduced stress for creative workers. Realised from anxiety, they had time and headspace to open up new possibilities and create trajectories. They spent time researching, experimenting and taking risks and really saw the benefits in their creative practice. What we are proposing here is not going as far as a universal basic income but is a collective bargaining approach that strengthens the position of creative workers within their sectors and organisations, particularly freelancers. This would surely be a positive step at least heading in that direction.

Finally, it might feel as if we are addressing something that has been an issue for a very long time. There is a very famous painting called the “Poor Poet”, done in three versions by the German painter Carl Spitzweg. It shows a garret room with a leaking roof. There is no fire or bed, only a mattress on the floor, and the poet is tucked underneath every bed covering because he cannot afford to heat his room. That has been a long-term stereotype, but it does not mean we have to continue that.

More practically, in the reality of Britain in 2025, many people cannot even manage to access conditions such as that. There is a real issue—and no one else has brought this up yet—about access to the creative sector being open to a wide variety of people from a wide variety of groups in our society, not just to people who can access the bank of mum and dad when things go a bit wrong and can afford to work as an unpaid intern for years. If we are going to have a creative sector that truly harnesses the talents of all our society, opens opportunities and—if I have to put it this way—is great for the economy, then surely all the amendments in the group, but particularly the amendments on collective bargaining and the freelance commissioner, would take us some steps down that road?

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I address Amendment 287 on the creation of an office for a freelance commissioner in the name of my noble friends Lord Clancarty, Lord Freyberg and Lord Colville of Culross, who has managed to beat our limited motorway system but arrived just too late to speak, sadly.

I am somewhat conflicted about this thought-provoking amendment, in that I have argued at Second Reading and in Committee against the overreach of the Bill and its sheer complexity and burden on employers, especially for small and micro businesses. On the noble Baroness’s comment, I do not want to be seen to be adding baubles to the Christmas tree. However, I agree that year by year the arguments grow for the establishment of a freelance commissioner, partly because the number of freelancers is growing and will continue to do so. The current 2 million plus freelancers will easily rise to 3 million within the next 10 years in the UK alone as employers shed staff from payroll, weighed down by the combination of increased national insurance contributions, national minimum wages increasing much faster than the rate of inflation and all the new rules and regulations coming in this very Employment Rights Bill.

Just look at the recent and alarming drop reported last week by the ONS of 274,000 workers coming off payroll during the past 12 months. We do not yet have the data to track how many of them are transitioning to freelance or self-employment. Indeed, as my noble friends have pointed out, the data on this area of freelancing and self-employment is poor and not up to international standards, and that is a real problem when we are trying to assess exactly what their contribution is to the economy.

I am going to muddy the water slightly, but you could argue that there is a need for an independent commissioner for the self-employed. We have been talking about freelancers, but there are 4.2 million self-employed people, including freelancers, in the UK. Those numbers are going to increase given the impact of technology, digital communications, AI and, particularly, the practice of working from home. I accept that there are key differences between freelancers and many self-employed people, for example, sole traders or those running their own businesses or partnerships, perhaps with just one or two contractors, but freelancers, although independent and project-based, are also self-employed and are treated just the same way for tax purposes by HMRC.

I accept that freelancers and the self-employed are not as valued or appreciated by Governments of all parties as they should be. This was brutally exposed during the pandemic with furlough and other schemes. If we want to develop a proper entrepreneurial spirit and environment in this country, we should do much more to value and look after those who create their own jobs and face up to all the risks and jeopardy that that involves. That includes freelancers, not just in the creative industries, but in other sectors where they are prevalent, which are as diverse as construction, professional services and agriculture. The Government need to give Amendment 287 serious consideration and, while doing so, think through how the interests of all the self-employed, not just freelancers, should be represented.

Corporate Liquidations

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Apologies; it is 0.7% growth. I thank the noble Lord for that. At the end of the day, what is really important is that we have to support businesses, and the Government are supporting businesses. Capital gains tax is still the lowest in Europe. In the G7, only the US and Japan are lower than us. Frankly, most employers go into business to create businesses. Sometimes they exit business, and some of our tax reliefs are still better than those of many other countries in Europe.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, several of the corporate collapses that the Minister referred to earlier were associated with private equity ownership and high levels of debt. Moody’s reports that default rates have been twice as high for private equity-owned firms as for others. The Financial Times leading article on 6 June noted that, with exit activity from private equity funds slumping to a historically low level, some private equity firms

“are resorting to … risky … methods of generating liquidity”.

Are the Government concerned about private equity’s impact through these means on both the real economy and financial stability?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, private equity plays an important role in business support in this country. We have seen private equity companies that have acquired businesses and actually grown them as well. Yes, their track record is not great, but there is definitely a role for private equity in business in this country. Do not listen to the Government. Listen to people in the private equity business. Jamie Dimon said:

“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s … strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.


Yesterday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued that the UK was in the “Goldilocks” zone with great universities, a good start-up culture and the third-largest amount of investment in AI companies globally outside the US and China.

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very important point. We do not want to damage business, trade or engagement with any nation currently under the FIR scheme or potentially under FIR schemes. Currently, there is a significant difficulty with trade with Russia, because of the issue with Ukraine, and rightly so. Ultimately, we have had widespread consultation on this matter. We want to make sure that we do not damage business, but it is important that national security is at the forefront of our thinking. The prime move today is to make sure that malevolent actors do not operate in a non-transparent way, and that if they do, and are found, they will face the full force of United Kingdom law under the cross-party Act that we supported collectively in both Houses.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, this Statement is about the foreign influence registration scheme, which, as the Minister said, is trying to ensure transparency and control of the lobbying influence of certain states in the UK. But this is part of a much larger issue.

The lobbying Act 2014, passed under the coalition Government, is now a decade old. By coincidence, I started today—some time ago—at a round table which was considering a forthcoming report from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, titled No Rules Britannia? The UK’s Lobbying Laws Exposed on the Global Stage. That report is still under embargo but I do not think institute will mind me sharing a phrase from the foreword, which says that

“the UK’s lobbying laws leave us languishing at the lower end of global governance rankings making it harder to promote our democratic values on the world stage”.

Is the Minister prepared to look at the report when it is released, if I share it with him and his team? He may want to respond later in writing, but are the Government prepared to look seriously at the lobbying Act of 10 years ago to see what needs to be done to bring us up to somewhere near global standards?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course I will look at any report that is produced and share it internally within government. We want to see transparency in lobbying. That is why we are taking measures to ensure that Members of both Houses are transparent in how they operate and about their outside earnings and their declarations. That is part of the Government’s role on transparency.

I will take away what the noble Baroness said about the specific Act and review and respond in due course. The issue that we are dealing with today shines a light on transparency regarding the influence of Russia and Iran, which have been notified under the current FIRS arrangement. That transparency will give confidence for parliamentarians in this House and in the House of Commons about the level of influence on us as Members from any outside body and who is behind any influence. That is a good thing when we are dealing with malevolent state actors, which both those nations are designated as. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome that.

India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate, which is extremely timely. As many noble Lords have noted, the attempt for a UK-India free trade agreement started in January 2022 and restarted just last month.

I am concerned chiefly with one issue of transparency. The Government have apparently inherited the negotiating objectives from their predecessor Government, but they have given no indications that they plan to seek any alteration or to reopen any concluded chapters. I hope that this is a different Government from the Johnson Government, so we might expect a different approach. One of my chief areas of concern is ISDS, investor-state dispute settlement. The position of both this Government and their predecessor on ISDS has often been ambiguous. It was exempted from the UK’s first, from- scratch, post-Brexit free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, but, in other contexts, Ministers have publicly defended the continued use of ISDS. In December 2023, the then Investment Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, was asked during a session of the International Agreements Committee whether the UK would press for ISDS in the India negotiations, to which he responded that he did not know. This Government have yet to set out their position. My chief question to the Minister today is what the Government’s stance is on ISDS in the India deal and the south-east Asian deals?

Why am I so concerned about ISDS? Coincidentally, the Guardian is running a large series of articles that set this out very clearly. One of those highlights the case of Greenland, where the world’s largest financial litigation company, Burford Capital, is backing a case against it—population less than 60,000. It is demanding that, despite the population democratically agreeing that they did not want uranium mining in Greenland, either uranium mining is agreed or £11.5 billion is paid to the company that was going to mine it, and of course, that litigation funder. Litigation finance used to be focused on claims about car accidents and similar, but the Guardian highlights that more than 1,400 cases have been launched against Governments and they have become far more common and lucrative. Far more than £120 billion of public money was awarded to firms through ISDS courts, including at least $84 billion to fossil fuel companies and £7.8 billion to mining companies. These have become an increasingly popular investment class for hedge funds and other investors. We have the democratic decisions of Governments, for which the peoples are being forced to pay by what are essentially financial gamblers. It is therefore obvious why we should not have ISDS in the India trade agreement.

Very briefly, I have a couple of other points to raise, about the labour and environmental chapters in the India deal. A leak in September 2023 reported that trade negotiations had already led to the conclusion of the climate and labour chapters. That will not include legally enforceable commitments on labour rights or environmental standards. Can the Minister say whether the Government are truly happy and are proceeding on that basis of no legal commitments?

Finally, I note the lack of democracy in the situation we are now in compared to when we were a member of the European Union. All this is incredibly opaque and non-transparent. Surely the Government want to turn over a new leaf and start doing this in a democratic and open way when we are talking about free trade deals.