Debates between Baroness Blower and Lord Murray of Blidworth during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Wed 16th Nov 2022
Public Order Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee stage: Part 1

Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Accommodation

Debate between Baroness Blower and Lord Murray of Blidworth
Monday 16th January 2023

(1 year, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Baroness is of course correct.

Baroness Blower Portrait Baroness Blower (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s question did not actually mention mould. He mentioned adequacy and quoted the law. However, does he accept—and will he say from the Dispatch Box—that it would never be acceptable for any asylum seeker to be housed in any accommodation in which there was black mould growing, particularly in the light of what we learned recently about the death of a young child in such accommodation?

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Clearly, the adequacy of accommodation is clearly a matter of fact and assessment for each accommodation—so that is the answer I give to that question.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Baroness Blower and Lord Murray of Blidworth
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Clearly, the provisions of the locking-on offence do not expressly contain the same provision. Therefore, it is correct to say that the Bill envisages a defence for the involvement in industrial disputes in relation to key national infrastructure, but there is no need for such a like provision in respect of locking on. I will obviously clarify that with my officials and respond to the noble Lord in on that.

Baroness Blower Portrait Baroness Blower (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I just seek some clarification. In response to the speech I made earlier about picketing, and since there is no intention in Amendment 60 to expand picketing, or any rights in relation to picketing, is the Minister therefore saying that, on everything that has been permitted by law in terms of picketing—which is already hedged with quite a lot of regulation and requirements—there is no intention in this Bill to make any alteration to the lawful carrying out of picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute? I believe that is what I am hearing the Minister say, and I hope that is the case.

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Can I confirm with my officials and write to the noble Baroness in respect of that point? My understanding is that that is so, but I want to check that before I confirm.