Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days 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(1 week, 6 days 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.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsTuesday 24th June 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2025)
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsMonday 16th June 2025
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IX(Corrected)(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Corrected Ninth Marshalled List) - (16 Jun 2025)
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(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 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 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(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsWednesday 5th March 2025
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
“Period product safety: regulations and requirements(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 1, make provision to reduce risks as defined in section 1(4) presented by period products, including those for single use and for re-use.(2) For the purposes of this section, period products consist of items intended to collect menstrual blood.(3) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must also make provision about period products requirements by regulations under section 2.(4) Regulations in accordance with subsection (3) must set out product requirements for the production, use, marking, marketing, testing, approval and provision of information (including information about risk) of period products.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment intends to bring in regulation of period products, given the human and environmental health risks they represent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister and his team for taking extensive time to speak with me about the safety of period products. I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging, from the Dispatch Box and in meetings, that there is a need for action in this area. But the reality is that, if we leave this to the general, broader consideration of product safety, this will take a considerable period of time, when there are people today—and right now—walking into shops and buying products that will do them, and the environment, harm. This amendment, which we debated a week ago, says that there will be government action within one year. In the interests of public safety and environmental safety, I ask to test the opinion of the House.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsWednesday 26th February 2025
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Feb 2025)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in my name in this group, starting with Amendment 26. Backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman of Steventon and Lady Smith of Llanfaes, it is about period-products regulation. It sets out a requirement that, within one year of the Act being passed, the Secretary of State must create regulations to reduce the health risks of period products.
I have circulated to many noble Lords, and will be delighted to share it with any who has missed it, a briefing prepared by the Women’s Environmental Network. The briefing is now complete, and includes a list of NGOs that support the briefing, which backs the amendment: the Women’s Environmental Network, the Pesticide Collaboration, the Hazards Campaign, City to Sea, Hey Girls, UK Youth 4 Nature, Pesticide Action Network UK, Natracare, the Soil Association, MCS-Aware, Savitri, the Menstruation Research Network, the Rivers Trust, Period Positive, Fidra and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. There is a lot of backing for this amendment.
I offer my thanks to the Minister and his officials, who have kindly provided their time for a science-rich, detailed debate looking at policy in this area, but I am afraid that they have not convinced me that we do not need this amendment. Although many large-scale across-product actions need to be taken, this is something that can be done now, directly for health. It is perfectly possible, and this amendment would deliver it.
These period products are, of course, as the removal of VAT recognised, a necessity and not a luxury consumer item, used by roughly 15 million people who menstruate each month. Currently, these products theoretically come under the General Product Safety Regulations, but there is no specific mention of period products there. That lack of specific regulation means that there are few limitations or restrictions on the presence of potentially harmful chemicals or additives in period products. This is in sharp contrast to, for example, cosmetics.
The practical reality is that period products are used next to or in one of the most absorbent parts of the human body, unlike the other consumer items which come under the GPSR. Internal products, such as tampons, menstrual cups and discs, have direct access to the bloodstream. The absorption rate through the vulva is much greater than through the skin of the rest of the body.
In the past 10 years or so we have seen an advertising arms race among period products. A worrying number of potentially harmful chemicals and metals have often been explicitly added to or are found in single-use disposable and reusable period products. I went into this at some length in Committee, but I will identify just some of the biggest issues.
Biocidal silver, an untested additive currently waiting to be assessed for safety by the UK Government, is being used in many period pants as an antimicrobial. There is research showing that it affects the microbiome in the vulva. After the first 10 washes, 72% of it washes out. It is very toxic to aquatic life and contributes to antimicrobial resistance. I note that the National Audit Office has explicitly said today that we are not collectively doing anything like enough about antimicrobial resistance.
Also found in period products are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates, bisphenols and parabens, all of which have been identified as disrupting the function of our endocrine system. They are linked to cancer, reproductive and development disorders, birth defects, asthma and allergies. PFAS is an acronym that will be familiar to many noble Lords as forever chemicals. These have been found in period products and are used for waterproofing. They are also widely used elsewhere, as I will come back to. There are also heavy metals. Last year, lead, arsenic and cadmium were all found in tampons tested in the UK and internationally. For lead, there is no safe level of exposure.
Of course, I now come to microplastics. Despite their apparent cottony appearance, tampons and pads can both be up to 90% plastic and very likely continually shed microplastics. I say “very likely”, but I can point to research from Galway that recently found microplastics from period products in outlets from wastewater treatment plants, having gone through those plants. The University of Manchester found that tampons can shed 17 billion nanoplastic fibres—an average of 9.4 billion per tampon. That means people are being exposed to 86 trillion fibres over a lifetime of use.
Synthetic fragrances, encouraged by advertising, have been used in period products to address consumer anxiety about the social construct of so-called menstrual odours. These add nothing to functionality but contribute to stigma. If a comparable amount of fragrance was found in a cosmetic product it would have to be labelled, yet there is no such regulation for period products.
Noble Lords might say, “Oh, but this is an amendment that says the Government must act within one year”, but I can point them to New York state, Catalonia, Wales and Scotland, where regulations are already in place. The European ecolabel prohibits the use of many of the chemicals I referred to, although it is unfortunately only a voluntary code of excellence. These examples show that it is possible to act. What is needed is political will to protect our population. That is what I am asking for and I have given notice to the House that it is my intention to put this amendment to a vote.
I refer also to my other amendments in this group, which help put Amendment 26 on period products in context. Amendment 33 is a development from two amendments I tabled in Committee about the harmful impacts of clothing and a call for a ban on single-use plastics. As one is supposed to, I have developed that in bringing this forward on Report to see what we might be able to do in the short term to understand the scale of the problem we face.
I say this in the context of a study out this month that many noble Lords may have seen about the number of tiny fragments of plastic that will be in your brain. They were thought not to be able to cross the blood-brain barrier, but they very clearly are. The study showed that the concentration of microplastics in analysed brains increased by 50% from 2016 to 2024. On examination, the brains of 12 deceased patients with dementia had three to five times as much microplastic as people who died without suffering from dementia. That is one study, but we know that the amount of plastics produced in the world doubles every 10 to 15 years. The figures from these brains reflect what we are doing to the environment.
Microplastics are, of course, just one in the cocktail, alongside PFAS, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, pesticides and pharmaceutical products, all of which are accumulating in our environment every day. Governments and regulators have failed to consider how human bodies are being barraged and penetrated by these dangerous materials, and how they interact with each other, potentially damage our health and make us more susceptible to the impacts of other challenges, be they these materials or infectious agents.
When I started the discussion of these issues in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, acknowledged that it had started him wondering about the non-iron shirt he was wearing that day, what had altered the fibres of the cotton to produce such a result, and what impact it might be having on his health. The answer is almost certainly a resin that releases formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen and mutagen. It might also be a direct immediate problem for anyone who suffers from contact dermatitis. The EU has introduced new stricter regulations on that substance, starting from next year, noting that people are likely to be exposed to it from a wide range of sources—from car interiors to furniture, and from electronics to construction materials.
When they tackle these issues, Governments’ responses are almost invariably siloed. It is great, and world-leading, that the French Government have just banned the manufacture, import and sale of most PFAS-treated products from next year and of all PFAS-treated textiles by 2030, but they are tackling just one issue among many, and cleaning up the universal contamination of this class of chemicals just cannot be done.
I said I would tie this to Amendment 26. If we think about the bodies of people using period products in our society today, they are, like all of us, exposed to all of this and they are also getting the extra from the period products.
Finally, and very quickly, I come to Amendment 27A and the linked Amendment 66. This is a probing amendment that relates to the Environment Act. It is now 1,205 days since that Act became law.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I could have split these amendments out but chose not to. Perhaps I can have another minute, as others have had? The Act grants the Government powers to work towards the ending of the UK’s contribution to deforestation. Are the Government—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene but the rules are quite clear.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think a previous noble Lord spoke for 12 minutes. I will ask the Minister a question and write a comment piece to cover the rest.
Do the Government plan to bring forward rapidly the necessary secondary legislation under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act, and to confirm that regulations will take the most ambitious form possible within existing UK law?
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 26, to which I have added my name. Period products are currently regulated in the UK only under the General Product Safety Regulations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. In many other countries they come under more stringent regulations, even being considered as medical products. It is fantastic to see innovations in period products—we have seen improvements to them and a greater range of options over recent decades—but innovations can raise safety risks as well. I will give one example.
In the late 1970s, a super-absorbent alternative to cotton in tampons was invented. It could absorb 20 times its own volume, and so it needed changing much less frequently. It seemed life-changing. Unfortunately, its super-absorbency and longer use created the perfect environment for the bacteria staph aureus. Then, the tampon caused scratches because it absorbed too much and left people dry. It was a deadly combination. The bacteria could then get into the bloodstream, causing toxic shock—a syndrome that could rapidly kill, with minimal warning signs. Thousands of people died from it before the problem was identified and the product withdrawn.