Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend said. When I was growing up, my father, who was in business, suffered the three-day week, and I understand the impact it had on his business and many like his. I also understand that productivity needs to be improved and increased. We need to look at what is happening across the world to be competitive enough.

I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, has a business and understands business. If he were sitting on this side of the Chamber, I suspect that he would be arguing in the same vein as we are. It would be right and proper not to shirk away from proper impact assessments and proper comparative assessments of what is happening across the world, because we all want a competitive country where we are leading at the helm. Denying and disagreeing just for the sake of denying and disagreeing does not do this debate any good.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, unusually, I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben; he and I are both surprised by that. That is not because I am a business owner—that has never been my shtick—but because I am worried about the unintended consequences of the Bill. I too simply want an opportunity to check—and if I am wrong, that is fine.

This group of amendments is very important because it will give the Government a chance to think again, to assess and to reflect. It does not have to be a U-turn; it can straightforwardly be something that is accepted at this point in the Bill that would then mean that those of us who are nervous about the Bill’s consequences can be proved right or wrong.

I am particularly concerned about the impact the Bill will have on productivity, and Amendment 311 is therefore key. I am concerned that the Bill is not doing what it says on the tin and will have a diametrically negative impact on workers’ rights, jobs and wages. I am interested in Amendment 312, which simply asks for real wage impact reporting.

Of course, the big amendment that would cover all the things that have been argued for so far is Amendment 319, which calls for an impact assessment of the regulatory burden of the Bill on businesses. In the past, people who have complained about overregulation have been considered to be on the right of politics—the idea is that those people are so irresponsible that they do not want any regulations and are prepared to take risks. I have never understood it like that at all.

I was therefore delighted to find that I agreed with the Government and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he made some tub-thumping speeches about the problems of

“the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats”

stopping investment and growth. He called them an “alliance of naysayers”, which I thought was good, because I have always been worried about this. I am not from the Tory fold, but that goes along with what I thought. I was genuinely excited that the Labour Government were embracing this way of understanding what can get in the way of economic development and growth, which is necessary for workers to have jobs, wages and rights under an industrial policy that we are hearing about today—all the infrastructure things.

Last December, the Prime Minister infamously blamed Britain’s sluggish growth on

“people in Whitehall … comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.

As we have been going through the Bill, I have felt like I am in the tepid bath of managed decline at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster. Therefore, I urge the government representatives here to remember their own Prime Minister’s words when deciding how they should approach the Bill, rather than just being partisan.

Between 2015 and 2023, the Conservative Government set themselves the target of a £19 billion reduction in business costs through deregulation. Instead, the Regulatory Policy Committee watchdog calculated that even exempting most Covid regulation, the regulatory burden increased by £18.4 billion in that period. I am saying this because people keep declaring that they are going to tear up the regulations getting in the way of growth, industrial capacity and so on, and then, the next minute, unintentionally, regulations grow. The Bill is so jam-packed with regulations that workers’ rights do not stand a chance of breathing.

One of the fears I have about the Bill, which I have raised in a number of amendments and which I hope Amendment 319 will address, is that it is a recipe for huge amounts of lawfare. Day one rights and protection from unfair dismissal both sound progressive and admirable, but the Government’s own analysis predicts a 15% rise in employment tribunal claims. There are already huge backlogs of between 18 months to two years, even before the Bill is enacted, so there is a real threat of a litigious clogging up of the system. Of course it is important that employees are treated fairly. As I have argued throughout consideration of the Bill, I am not frightened of trade union and workers’ rights at all, but I am concerned about this growth, encouragement and incentivisation of the use of lawfare.

I have just read a fascinating report, which I will send to the Ministers, entitled The Equality Act isn’t Working: Equalities, Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace, produced by the anti-racist, colourblind organisation Don’t Divide Us, which assesses the unintended consequences of the Equality Act. Nobody thought this would happen, but it has led to a real fractiousness in the workplace: people are suing each other, all sorts of things are going wrong, and, in many ways, it has clogged up the system. The last thing we need is the Bill adding to that burden, leading to lawfare and people taking matters even further by suing each other.

Either an impact assessment is going to show that some of the concerns raised are overhyped, or in some instances ideological or raised by nay-sayers; or the Government can take the opportunity to say, “We never intended the legislation to do this, but we have seen that in some areas, it needs to be tweaked to make sure that it is not over-regulatory, damaging workers’ rights and wages and so on, in which case we are prepared to be honest and hold our hands up”. That is the very least legislators should do when they introduce a law that is going to bring huge change the whole business and workplace arena.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who does business from time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it strikes me that the Bill comes at an unfortunate time. Of course, we should always look at regulation, and there will always be an argument about what is over-regulation and what is under-regulation. But at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI, we should surely be looking at a low regulatory framework. I urge the Government to take this into consideration during any impact assessment.

The Minister knows about business. He is a businessman and has a successful business, and I too suspect that he identifies with many of the points we are raising, although he cannot say it. But it strikes me that, just at a time when people are very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older, so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news. If businesses are now saying it is simply not worth the candle, that will contribute to the unemployment that will surely follow as many of these jobs are replaced by AI anyway. So I urge the Government to look at that.

Equally, at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and the other things you need nowadays for coding and so forth, we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics—dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up. So by all means, let us properly protect our workers, but let us not overregulate to the extent that we do not have any workers to look after or to regulate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord for their contribution, and I have listened intently to each and every one of them. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my previous business career.

We return to the important issue of impact assessments. I appreciate the continued efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, here. It will be no surprise to your Lordships’ House, given the number of separate debates—I think there have been about eight now—we have had on this topic, that the Government view these amendments as unnecessary. Let me recap. We have already published 27 impact assessments, available on GOV.UK, which have been updated where needed as policy has been added to the Bill during passage.

Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research. For example, Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, said:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society”.


All this evidence is laid out in our impact assessment, which was developed in consultation with external experts. Business supports the view that this will be good for productivity. In a survey undertaken by the Institute of Public Policy, seven in 10 employers said that strengthened employment rights will boost productivity, compared to just 7% who disagreed, and six in 10 employers thought stronger employment rights would have a positive impact on business profitability, while fewer than two in 10 disagreed.

We have worked hand in hand with businesses, trade unions and civil society to understand the impacts of this Bill—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

There is no doubt that people who are happy at work are likely to contribute positively to the workplace. Nobody, I think, is arguing against that and wants miserable workers with no rights. However, what we are trying to explore is not whether people will have job satisfaction but whether they will have jobs. It is about the unintended consequences of the Bill that might mean that people are not employed; or, indeed, that new jobs are not created because productivity will not go up; or that it becomes too risky to employ, for example, young workers, and so on.

With all due respect to Warwick University’s academics—I went there and I know some of the people who wrote that research, and I am sure that they are happy in their workplace—the truth is that if some piece of legislation ended up unintentionally closing down Warwick University, they would not be happy and productivity would not go up. That is what we are concerned with. It is not a theoretical academic argument about how being happy at work makes you work harder—I know that. But if there is no work, then you are not going to be happy, you are not going to do any work and productivity will go down.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. If she can be a bit patient, I have some more positive news for her.

We have worked hand in hand with businesses and trade unions, as I said earlier, to understand the impacts of the Bill on industry and will produce further analysis as required under the Better Regulation Framework. It is worth noting that more doors are opening than closing. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created, up 2.8% on last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%. This Government are backing British businesses and British workers, and our Modern Industrial Strategy, published yesterday, is making that real. To give one example, we have boosted the British Business Bank’s capacity to £25.6 billion, unlocking billions for innovative firms, especially SMEs. For the first time, the British Business Bank will be able to take equity in fast-growing tech companies. This has never happened before. That is helping crowd in tens of billions of pounds more in private capital, fuelling growth, creating jobs and driving long-term prosperity. I hope that gives comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in a previous life, I used to work in further education with many young people who were non-traditionally successful. In more current times, I have worked on matters relating to prison reform and I am very interested in former prisoners gaining employment. In all the instances of working with young people who did not have traditional qualifications or were trying to get into work, or with former prisoners, you were in a situation where you were talking to local employers and asking them to take a punt—a risk—on people. You would say, “Look, the worst that can happen is that you try this person out, it doesn’t work out and no one’s lost anything, but actually I’ve got every faith they will be brilliant”, and so on and so forth. You had to say, “Take a risk”, and I am afraid that in all the responses from employers they are saying, whether we like it or not, that the Bill—if enacted as it is presently constituted —will mean they become risk averse and will not take risks on a former prisoner or a young person who is a bit of a scally. So it is key to assess social mobility.

In addition to that group of people, one of the key ways in which work contributes to social mobility is often through young entrepreneurs or young people who, again, might not be conventionally the kind of people who will pass the Civil Service exam, will not necessarily fit in as an ideal employee and might be slightly eccentric or risk-takers, but who will set up their own micro-business. We know that they are the kind of people who might well be successful, although sometimes they might not be.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been a lot of amendments tabled about micro-businesses—not SMEs, as they are traditionally still quite large businesses whereas micro-businesses have around 20 staff, or even two, three or four. If you talk to young entrepreneurs—the sort of young men who drop out of college but set up semiconductor manufacturing organisations, like some people I know, a builders’ business or a small hairdressers’ business—they realise that many parts of the Bill, which I have opposed throughout, will affect them. They do not have huge HR departments, they are not lawyers and they do not know what they are going to do, but they will be held liable for swathes of regulatory rules mandated by the Bill about the way they run their micro-businesses.

Those people are part of the great success of social mobility. They start out and make a success of it, but now it might not be worth it. They are not always poor and impoverished people. It can be young people making good through small businesses.

If it is the case that this is scaremongering about the worst fears or people just being paranoid, fair enough. But this Labour Government, of all Governments, should want to assess whether the Bill inadvertently, not intentionally, damages social mobility via employment. I therefore urge the Minister to accept this harmless but important amendment.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who covered quite a few of the points I planned to make. I want to speak specifically about young people.

Speaking very recently in front of a committee, Employment Minister Alison McGovern said that

“the situation for young people is a big worry for me at the moment”

and that:

“A lot of our young people—nearly 1 million—are effectively on the scrap heap”.


Those are not words I would have chosen myself; they are her words to a cross-party committee.

We have heard a lot of statistics during today’s debates. I will just add a few more. There are 1 million people not in education, employment or training, which includes a lot of young people. In addition, we have massive numbers of people receiving sickness benefits. All these young people will be a risk for employers.

The Minister is quite right that there has been an uptick in new businesses starting, but there is a serious downturn in the number of jobs created; unemployment is rising year on year, month on month since this Government took power; and the tax rises in the Autumn Budget are beginning to really kick in. We have seen that in the written submissions by numerous business organisations to the Government, other groups and Peers in this Chamber, begging—pleading—with us all to make their case about the significant costs they are already facing due to the national insurance rises. We can see it in real time. This amendment is a request to monitor the situation and come back with an impact assessment on perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society.

To show that these young people really want to succeed and want to have an opportunity, I will read the Committee a couple more numbers that the Minister is probably already well aware of. Some 60% of young people under the age of 30 would love to start a business, 9% of them have done so and 18% more of them would like to do so this year. These are the most vulnerable young people in our society. They are our future, as our demographics are getting older, and we are going to become more and more reliant on the economy that they generate. I have said it before, and I will say it again and again in this Chamber: Governments do not create growth; businesses create growth. We are now looking to these young people to start businesses and take risks on employing others. I urge the Government to, at the very least, come back having monitored that there is no impact on them and no further impact on the loss of employment that could ensue.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may paraphrase the Prime Minister, I think he was referring to the fact that people on the far right were using this to exploit fears and prejudices and to stir up fear and hatred.

What I am trying to do—I am sure the noble Lord will share this aim—is find concrete solutions by accepting the recommendations here and accepting into legislation, as far as we can, the recommendations of the IICSA report, and by taking positive action to encourage the police to go after particular groups that we know now can have their cases reopened, and so improve the prosecution rate accordingly. It is absolutely right that the core duty of police officers should be to follow the evidence and the truth and not worry about the ethnic background of the individual who may or may not be the perpetrator—they should bring the perpetrator to justice, whatever background they are from. I will ensure that guidance is given by our chief constables to ensure that the police understand that duty, as I believe they now do.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I urge more humility and a little less complacent gaslighting. No parties have clean hands. Too many people, including the victims, were smeared as racists for even raising the issue—and that includes in this House, as an aside. Will the 2020 Home Office paper on group-based child sexual exploitation be immediately withdrawn now that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has exposed its much-cited false claim that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly white, which the audit says does not seem evidenced by research or data—in other words, it is misinformation? It is a Whitehall policy wonk version of the literal Tippexing out of the word “Pakistani”. Can the Minister assure us that that report will now be taken out of public circulation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I will say two things to her. The 2020 report, as I recall, was not produced this Government or this Home Office. I will look at that report and the action, but the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, herself said only yesterday at the Home Affairs Committee, “If you look at the data on child sexual exploitation, suspects and offenders, it is disproportionately Asian heritage. If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, it is white men”. We need to accept the discussions and focus we have had to date and look at positive solutions for dealing with this.

When the noble Baroness says we need less complacency and more humility, I say that I have stood at this Dispatch Box on behalf of this Government and accepted all 12 recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. I have accepted the bulk of recommendations from the IICSA report from Alexis Jay, and I have put in place additional police support to take action on historic cases and bring 50% more offenders to justice. I do not think that is complacent. I ask the noble Baroness to try to work with us constructively; let us look at the solutions. I will accept constructive criticism, but I am not going to be called complacent when we have accepted every recommendation, done the things we have done on IICSA and brought more people to justice.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled a number of probing amendments to Clause 61. As I alluded to earlier, I take the view that the amendments are not unhelpful but should be seen through the prism of fairness, balance, proportionality and reasonableness. There is the possibility that, as drafted, it could plausibly be argued that the Bill’s balance is very much in favour of not just employees and union members but unions themselves as corporate bodies and organisations, rather than employers.

We are on our eighth day in Committee, and we have discussed on a number of occasions the less than benign economic circumstances faced by many businesses, including small businesses. The situation is deteriorating. Pretty much every week, there is worse economic data than one would hope for, particularly for the jobs market and the levels of employment and potential unemployment.

Therefore, anything that the Government do—and certainly this Bill represents a very far-reaching change to the employment relations regime—to make things more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises, and businesses generally, to employ people should be a cause for concern for Members of your Lordships’ House.

I will briefly go through the amendments. Amendment 224 would qualify the right to time off for union officials with a reasonableness test. I can see that most relationships between employers and union representatives are positive, based on mutual respect and it was ever thus. Therefore, this will not be a problem for the vast bulk of employers. However, when I was a local councillor, I had to rely on the Employment Rights Act 1996 to enforce my right to attend a number of meetings held during the day—in my case, at Ealing Borough Council, although I was an alternate member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which met across the road at County Hall. As a young working man, it was sometimes very difficult to get time off, and I understand that we went in the right direction in guaranteeing the right to time off. Equally, reasonableness is key, and this amendment speaks to that.

Amendment 225 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union officials with an appropriateness test. Again, this reflects a real-world experience of the discrete circumstances affecting a business at the time that the request is made. It might not be appropriate for a business to provide a room, audio-visual facilities or materials. This would be easier for a big company, which has a bespoke budget for HR training et cetera, than for a much smaller commercial entity, which might struggle to provide a similar level of facilities for trade union officials.

Amendments 226, 227 and 228 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union activities, and therefore there would be more of a balance for making the case for facilities being provided. I do not want to delay the Committee at this relatively late juncture; the amendments stand on their own merits.

Amendment 229 would qualify the right to time off for union learning representatives, again with a reasonableness test. In past debates, I mentioned my admiration for the Workers’ Educational Association and the great work it did in empowering working people to improve their life and their life chances, which is very important. However, a reasonableness test makes sure that it can be accommodated in a way which will not undermine the commercial viability of a business, while at the same time assisting individual workers and their representatives to deliver education and training outcomes.

Amendment 230 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union learning representatives, again with an appropriateness test.

Amendments 231, 232 and 233 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union learning representatives. It would be for the union representatives to explain why their request for facilities and learning resources was reasonable rather than the other way round.

These are probing amendments. I know I have said it before, but it bears repetition that these are not wrecking amendments. They do not alter substantially the kernel of the Bill, which is—and I take Ministers on their word—to improve the working lives of people, as in the report, Make Work Pay. I accept that premise and that Ministers sincerely want to do that, but these amendments are an attempt to rebalance between the workforce, their representatives and employers in a fair and equitable way. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I oppose the question that Clause 62 should stand part of the Bill, with the intention of removing provisions which compel employers to allow time off for trade union equality reps. To note, I am not opposed to trade union facilities time per se, and I am actually not objecting to Clause 61 in relation to learning reps.

My concern is specifically on the nature of equality as has been interpreted by the trade unions in recent years, the divisive nature of their adherence to identity politics, for example, and the ideologically contentious implementation of prescriptive policies, often setting one group of workers against another. Trade union priorities under the auspices of fighting for equality have been skewed, to say the least.

The wording in this unfeasibly long clause states at subsection (12)(b)(i) that:

“‘equality’, in relation to a workplace, means … the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation … in accordance with the Equality Act 2010”.


You would think I would have nothing to disagree with there, yet, time after time in the last few years, what we have actually seen is the discrimination and victimisation of women workers that has been at best ignored and too often actively abetted by trade unions’ own version of inclusive equality. They have in fact ignored the Equality Act.

Let me use as an example an incident that happened in May 2024 at Epsom and St Helier University Hospital. A black female nurse, Jennifer Melle, indirectly called a six-foot transgender patient “Mister” while on the phone to a consultant. The patient, whom I will call Mr X, was having treatment on the ward, having been transferred from a male prison. He was chained to two guards. Mr X is serving a sentence for luring young boys into sex acts on the internet while pretending to be a woman. For Ms Melle’s alleged misgendering, Mr X, the convict, violently lunged at her, screaming, “Do not call me Mister, I’m an effing woman”, and then called her the N-word, screaming it at her. He of course used the full words in those instances, and he screamed that word at her three times.

After her shift, Jennifer went home shaken but resilient about the reality of unpleasant abuse at work. She was then contacted by her hospital trust. You might think it was a welfare check—but no. There was no mention of support after the racist attack. Instead, she was issued with a written warning, and the trust reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to investigate her fitness to practise, because she posed a risk to the public, it was said, and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient’s preferred gender identity. Only when Jennifer went public and the story hit the media did the trust say it would investigate the racist abuse. But by then, it had suspended Jennifer for telling her story. Then, they moved her to another hospital, demoted her to a lower grade, and she lost pay et cetera.

Now, I would have assumed that this shocking story would be a huge equality-at-work story for the trade union movement to take up: an ethnic minority female, a front-line health worker, a victim of explicit racist harassment and male violence, all over the papers, and then gross discriminatory employer behaviour. But no, not a dicky bird: a deafening silence in the nursing unions and the TUC. Maybe Nurse Jennifer was, as an open evangelical Christian, rather than a trade unionist, the wrong kind of victim.

Recently, we heard that another nurse, Sandie Peggie, a Royal College of Nursing member for 30 years, has been forced to sue her union for its failure to support her or provide legal assistance when she was suspended by NHS Fife. Her crime was that she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, a biological man, in the women-only changing rooms at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. That Nurse Peggie’s legal action is necessary should shame the trade union movement. As Mrs Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, explained, her client expected the union to

“exercise its industrial muscle to challenge the decision which was adversely impacting her and other female union members”.

She alleged that she

“spoke to the union about the issue of single-sex spaces in February last year”.

In relation to this amendment, how can we mandate employers to provide generous facility time for trade union equalities work with such a risible attitude to the real-life attacks on equality at work, as evidenced? When Nurse Peggie is forced to take legal action to get justice from her own union, I am not sure I want any more union equality officers. Susan Smith, of the For Women Scotland organisation that brought the successful Supreme Court action, notes:

“We imagine this is likely to be first of many such cases. Sadly, it seems that only financial penalties will persuade the unions to step up, do their job, and represent women in the workplace”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for their amendments relating to the provision of facilities to trade union officials and representatives, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating debate on Clause 62, to which I will also speak.

In Amendments 224 to 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, he seeks to amend Clause 61 to maintain, as he argues, a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employees. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I take the amendments at face value: they are probing and not wrecking, and the noble Lord is trying to understand the appropriate balance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that the clause already seeks a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employee representatives. The paid time off that trade union representatives receive is often insufficient to fulfil all their trade union duties. Many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to support workplace relations. Indeed, in some sectors, in some companies, in some firms, their trade union activity is carried out very much on a voluntary basis rather than it being about people having full-time release and doing nothing towards the organisation apart from conducting trade union duties.

The Government want to rebalance obligations and responsibilities by ensuring that union workplace representatives are able to take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. While the clause grants trade union representatives the right to facility time and accommodation and other facilities from their employers, it does so by having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. The ACAS guidance will help employers to implement these measures and will be updated in partnership and through consultation with both employers and trade unions. It will therefore help to ensure that a balance of obligations and responsibilities is secured, and ACAS is a very appropriate and worthy organisation to undertake that role.

Greater facility time will lead to improved work representation and better industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. This will result in more mature industrial relations and increased co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for businesses and the economy. This is a framework to promote more co-operation and understanding at work, not more scope for conflict.

Amendments 234 to 236 concerning Clause 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, require that a performance condition must be met before facility time for equality representatives is provided by public sector employers. This would make the provision of facility time contingent on the employer already meeting certain performance standards, although the amendment is not specific about what those standards are.

We fully recognise the importance of strong public sector performance and accountability. However, linking facility time for equality representatives to performance conditions is both disproportionate and counterproductive, as it would create a barrier to improvement and creating stronger industrial relations. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to certify that a public sector employer is meeting relevant statutory performance standards before facility time can be granted. Together, they would pose heavy administrative burdens on both employers, who would need to apply and provide evidence, and central government, which would have to assess compliance for every employer.

I hesitate in suggesting this, but in speaking to other amendments on the Bill in Committee, those on the Benches opposite have been very quick to point out the administrative burdens that they assume are being placed on employers across all sectors by various measures in the Bill. The kind of burdens that this amendment would place on the public sector would not be tolerated by them on the private sector. More fundamentally, they would risk delaying facility time precisely for those organisations most in need of support and undermine the very purpose of equality representatives. Furthermore, a Secretary of State-led certification process would create legal uncertainty and potential disputes. It could also harm industrial relations in the public sector.

Finally, I turn to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to Clause 62. This clause inserts new Section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and requires that an employer must permit an employee who is

“a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and an equality representative of the trade union, to take time off during the employee’s working hours”

for specified purposes. However, this applies only if

“the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union”,

or will be undergoing or has completed training to become an equality representative. Sufficient training is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.

Clause 62 also requires that the employer must permit the employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to the relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or to provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable. So far on those grounds, it is as for any other recognised rep status.

Trade unions have long fought for equality: from Grunwick to the Bristol bus boycott, to campaigning on Section 28, to recently standing up for retail workers—mostly female—who have to cope with violence in the workplace, particularly from customers. It is important to recognise, as, it is fair to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did in her remarks, that equality reps have a key role in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave some specific examples. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in saying that the cases the noble Baroness recounted, of Nurses Jennifer and Peggie, were horrific experiences you would not want to see anyone encounter. However, I am unsure that using that single brush to tar the feathers of the whole equality reps proposal is proportionate. There may be some correlation, but I am not sure that there is causation.

Clause 62 recognises a trade union equality representative as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules, in a manner consistent with the Equality Act 2010. I contend that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. It is pure speculation but, had equality reps been in place in local authorities in earlier decades, and had there been more awareness of inequality in women’s pay, those local authorities facing significant equal pay claims today might not be facing them. Who can say?

I am not sure how rhetorical the questions were from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the sort of equality. For the purpose of the clause, it is defined in the Equality Act 2010.

Turning to Amendment 237—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister asked a direct question, I might as well answer it now. I gave individual examples. I am sorry if the personalised examples made it sound as though they are one-off cases. I was simply trying to bring alive trends, not say, “Nurse Peggie”. There are loads of them, but I only had 10 minutes. They are trends, but I have brought them alive, I hope.

I ask the Minister to reflect on two things. As the Equality Act 2010 defines equality, I used the example that many trade unions are saying that they will refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court clarification of what equality means under that very Act. They are going to defy it in the name of equality—trans inclusion and so on. How do you square that circle?

Secondly, the Minister read out the points about training. In part, I was challenging whether the Government care what the content of that training is. My argument was that the training being used in the name of equality is divisive and may not be helpful in the workplace, and is in fact likely to turn worker against worker, rather than the reverse. Do the Government consider any of that, or do they just hand it over to the reps?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will try to address those points now. Of course we care whether reps, when undertaking any role—whether it is health and safety, learning, or workplace negotiation—comply with the law and are trained in a suitable manner. That does not mean we should necessarily be scrutinising every single thing they do, because one would not expect that in the normal way of things.

I certainly did not mean to belittle the examples the noble Baroness gave, and I am sure they are not the only ones. But at the same time, one cannot make the generalisation that this is endemic across all workplaces where there is union representation. I will also speculate —as we are sort of speculating here—that the engagement and involvement of equality reps might prevent the kind of activity the noble Baroness outlined in the case of Nurses Sandie Peggie and Jennifer. That is counterfactual speculation; one cannot say either way, but it is worth positing if we are serious about discussing this.

I should add, without wanting to stray too far from my brief and, indeed, land myself in some kind of legal hot water, that the Government’s expectation is that all organisations will comply with equalities law in every manner while carrying out their duties. Whatever equality law clearly specifies, we expect all organisations, employers and trade unions to follow that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am getting snarky comments from the Tory Front Bench. I object strongly to that.

I am speaking in support of Amendment 238, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, needs no support at all. This would establish

“a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike)”.

As the noble Lord pointed out at the start of his introduction, from the early 1980s onwards, we have had one set of anti-union laws after another, and there are now decades of them. Conservative Governments have introduced anti-union laws, and Labour Governments have mostly kept them. The result has been declining union membership and that the power of working people has been taken away. The UK has gone from being a country where income inequality was not that bad, and was even falling in the 1970s, to one where inequality has been rising sharply ever since. That means more billionaires and more money for the top 1% of earners, while more people exist on low incomes and live their entire lives owning nothing but debt.

Our economy has stopped working in the interests of the majority of people. Working people have less power but businesses and capital have more. That is one reason why in this country millions of pounds now disappear to offshore tax havens. The right of working people to withdraw their labour is a fundamental right, but it has been eroded. This amendment on the right to strike is another little step towards restoring the balance of power in the workplace. Without these little steps, which enable working people to stand up for themselves, this country will continue to get worse for the majority of people who do the real work.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want briefly to commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for putting this amendment forward. I have a lot of sympathy with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained some of my reasons for supporting it.

I just wanted to note that it is very tempting when rights are being taken away to want to consolidate them via the law and constitutionally. I felt it myself in relation to civil liberties, which I think are under attack: the right to protest and in particular free speech. I keep wishing there was a First Amendment, because then it would be there and they would not be able to attack it.

However—this a good faith question—when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, justify it in relation to international treaties, ECHR, the Council of Europe and so on, I started to worry that maybe this would become one of those treaties where it would be, “You can’t touch this” and you would end up treating it technocratically, as it were. Rather than it being fighting for the right to strike, it would be fighting for the principle of the right to strike with ordinary workers, rather than simply referring to defending it in the law. So can the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, even though he does not stand a chance of getting it through, reassure me that this is not just an attempt at ring-fencing a right, but then neglecting to fight for it in real life? I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this, because I really do feel that rights need to be protected under this Government as much as any other, I have to say.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, are I think as people have outlined. I have been on the wrong end of that legislation on a number of events—official strikes, unofficial strikes and secondary picketing. As a shop steward you are responsible for taking those actions for a company; there are consequences and I have suffered consequences from that.

It is not that I agree with the rights being taken away, but I think times have changed and unions have moved on now. The right of anybody to remove their labour, if they are pushed to it, should be a universal right, but it should be used very sparingly and in very special circumstances. It is all very well rushing to legislation and quoting the European Court, but we live in the real world and when things happen to people at work and people are treated badly, sometimes we have not got time to go and contact the KC and get case law. We just do the things that we used to do and take that action straight away. Sometimes that resolves the matter fairly quickly, because a reasonable employer will see the action you have taken as a direct result of another manager doing something that was not in agreement. So I get the thrust of this.

I have had notes typed and I have been writing my own notes, but I think the top and bottom for me is the amendment is seeking to restore a trade union’s flexibility in choosing which members to ballot and removing some procedural requirements and obligations to notify employees in advance of ballots. I think that time has gone as well.

Reinstating rights for prison officers, the group currently subject to significant legal limitations, is one I would like to slightly explore. The intent behind these amendments is to strengthen trade union rights and promote collective bargaining. The concern is potentially around impact, industrial relations and public safety, especially with the actions of prison officers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to the Government that the way to protect prison officers is not to enshrine the right to strike but to remove the reasons why they would want to strike. That really is about improving the Victorian conditions that we have in 2025 prison systems, where people go into prison and come out worse criminals or nine out of 10 as drug addicts or whatever.

Governments, instead of trying to give extra law for prison officers, should be looking at the root cause. I know there is a prison plan being built and we are trying to get more education into prisons—if you want to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, he can give you chapter and verse on that, as I have listened to him doing. I hear why it is being done, I understand why it is being done and I know that it is not got a hope in somewhere else of getting through. But I thank the noble Lord for bringing it forward, because sometimes it is good to realise that things that we used to do are perhaps today not even politically correct to do. Human rights and the rights of people who go every day to work, to earn a living and support their family, need airing and need protecting. I know this is a probing amendment, but I thank the noble Lord for bringing it because it is interesting. Now and again it is good to be reminded of how it used to be and how it can be now.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 31 should stand part of the Bill

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am proposing that we remove Clause 31 from the Bill. That would remove the power of the Secretary of State to require largely private sector employers with more than 250 staff to develop and publish equality action plans showing what steps they are taking in relation to the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is, sadly, not in her place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who is in her place, for their support.

This is a probing amendment because I am not at all clear exactly why this clause is deemed necessary or indeed exactly what it entails. On the latter point, I note with some dismay that much of the detail is to be left to regulations in terms of the content of an action plan, the form of an action plan, what manner it will take and even its frequency. There is no detail at all on what sanctions employers face if they do not comply with the yet not detailed regulations. It is very difficult to scrutinise such vagaries, and I fear it reduces the issue to nothing more than a virtue-signalling clause to claim that something positive is being done—action is being taken. What action? We do not know.

What we do know is that here is another clause that requires workplaces to create more paperwork. I fear that the noble cause of women’s equality is being reduced to bureaucracy. I am a tad cynical because, since 2017, employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data annually. Now the demand is for actionable steps, yet what is the problem that we are trying to solve here?

The implication is that more needs to be done to crack down on gender discrimination in the workplace, but I am not convinced that that is such a major problem today as is inferred. Which actions would be deemed acceptable might help us understand what this clause is trying to do, but it is never considered. For example, we are frequently given a reference statistic that men earn roughly 20% more than women. But such figures are misleading, as this is an on-average figure reached through combining part-time and full-time earnings and takes no account of age or employment sector.

Are women continually disadvantaged in the workplace in 2025? When we compare how much women and men are paid for doing the same number of hours each week, there is virtually no pay gap. Of course, it would be illegal to pay men more than women. To illustrate the complexities of age, occupation and hours worked, it is worth noting that women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age—not just like-for-like but also on average. Even for all women under 40 working full-time, the pay gap is negligible. Indeed, it was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, when she was a Government Minister bringing in the pay gap notices. She said then:

“We’ve virtually eliminated the gap for full-time workers under 40 and the gap for the over-40s is shrinking too”.

If we only look at these issues in a technocratic way, do we not we miss nuances?

You could say that a decline in jobs traditionally associated with men earning more is actually a decline in old industries, because there has been a decline since 1979, when 40% of GDP was those old industries in which men earned more. But I am not sure that is something to celebrate. In other words, if you only view equality through the gender pay gap, you could actually end up arguing for the suppression of men’s pay or celebrating its decrease.

More to the point, what are employers being asked to action here, when many of the changes are broad social and cultural shifts, rather than sexist employment practices? It is true that, in the past, the labour market was rigidly segregated according to sex. As a consequence, men and women in their 50s and older today entered a labour market in which women were often not treated fairly. There was a cultural situation where women were more likely to take considerable time out of work to raise a family. This alone explains pay differentials that are still being felt today. But, as I say, as young women are earning more, these things are less of a problem. If we end up thinking that the reason the pay gap exists is older women and those differentials, I am not keen that we end up dumping older female employees so that, on paper, the gap is narrowed. I am not suggesting that anyone is saying that, but I am saying that we should not deal with this in a technical fashion.

I now arrive at something in which I have more expertise: older women. We arrive at the menopause part of the new section to be inserted by this clause. My concern here is that the Bill may end up amplifying the problems caused by the menopause for female employees, unintentionally presenting menopausal women as victims unable to cope. This could re-stigmatise the menopause—the opposite of what is intended. We should remember that the menopause is a natural life stage that all women go through and experience, and they all experience it differently in its duration and symptoms.

I worry that some of this has led to awareness raising that can mystify the menopause and turn it into an imagined horror story. I remember talking to a group of young students some years ago. I made a quip about being menopausal and they all said, “Oh no—how awful. That’s grim. How are you coping? Are you feeling all right?” They seemed terrified at the prospect. The menopause suddenly appeared to be an insurmountable series of anguishes that they would never cope with. Inevitably, they had been on a well-being course that had given them awareness training on the menopause. Do we want such attitudes becoming embedded in attitudes to female staff in the workplace, along with the association that, if you are menopausal, you are a delicate flower who needs to be worked around?

What exactly will employers be required to do to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the specific needs of menopausal women? I have read activist demands that include the widespread availability of cooling fans; menopause champions and ambassadors in every workplace and department to encourage anti-stigma dialogue across the workforce; therapist sessions, including the availability of therapy dogs; and training courses for HR and management to look at everything from thermostat levels to developing menopause-sensitive language codes. To be honest, lots of these ideas stray dangerously close to condescending women. It might well be that this is not what the Government have in mind at all, but we have no idea if that is true because there are no details in the Bill—in fact, the details are all deferred until after the Bill is passed.

Do not get me wrong—I have been a vocal supporter of improving access to HRT on the NHS and, as a woman of a certain age, I am rather too familiar with some of the debilitating symptoms. But we should be wary of the calls, for example, for menopause leave and time off, with no questions asked, when using the word “menopause” would be enough to mean that—without any evidence and based on lived experience—employers are just meant to accept that there is a problem. There is a danger of green-lighting a mission creep not dissimilar to the crisis of so many not in work citing mental health problems—and I am really pleased to see that the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has raised this. That is a new social problem, and I do not want the menopause to become another one.

Again, possibly none of this is what the Government intend, yet we are using legislation to demand that employers must take steps to support employees going through the menopause. That seems completely inappropriate and unjustified, and it is bound to lead to mission creep if this legislation is used to that end, with this clause in it.

I will make two quick points as a PS. Can the Government please be careful with their language? Usually, it is the Government lecturing people like me on the Back Bench about watching our words and what language we use, but, whether we like it or not, the word “gender” has been corrupted by ideology. The pay gap that the Government seek to tackle is between the two sexes—a fear that biological women may be discriminated against as women. I am not being pedantic or referencing the culture wars here; I have been at a number of official corporate events over recent years where businesses were patted on the back for helping women break through the glass ceiling and for their work on the pay gap only for the examples of success given to be trans women—that is, men who identify as women—on corporate boards. I want to avoid that con happening.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and to my noble brother opposite, that we are taking a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. The use of regulations in this way will enable us to share as much detail to employers as possible while maintaining flexibility, which is essential to good employment practices. We are aware that most employers think of equality and inclusion as a whole. That is why we are aiming to reflect how employers already work by proposing a single plan covering both the gender pay gap and the menopause. For these reasons, we believe that equality action plans will benefit women in the workplace and that this clause is vital to strengthening the opportunities available to women. I therefore beg to move that Clause 31 stands part of the Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke, some of whom were more sympathetic than others to what I was trying to raise.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made an important point when he talked about the importance of accurate data. I agree, but data and statistics are not flat lines; they are complicated. I tried to indicate, without boring your Lordships with lots of statistics, that the gender pay gap number in relation to statistics is to do with age, the past, the change in relation to young women, and so on, which nobody has come back on. In fact, there are books written, and I have papers, and I have read them all—I will not bore your Lordships now—but I suggest that this is not the key issue facing women at work today.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, came back on a lot of the points in terms of the aspirations, and I agree with him. However, the Government are overcomplacent about the problems of delegated powers and legislative oversight, which I also raised as a substantial part of my complaint. There was no comeback. I supported the Government when they were in opposition. They constantly raised these issues, and I went along with them and supported them.

Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, suggested, I thought this was a modest proposal, but somehow I have managed to be accused of fuelling Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, and this was called an illustration of my political journey from far left to far right. I will not do a full critique of the attack on me, which was very personal and personalised, but I would like to point out something.

I was and am a member of the left, and the fact that the Labour Party and the left have moved in a different direction from mine does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has moved to the right. I spend a lot of time talking to ordinary working-class people—women and men—who are tearing their hair out at the attacks on the living standards that they are going through under this Government. Therefore, to be lectured about not understanding the fight against inequality, and the idea that anybody who stands up and challenges an orthodoxy on a potentially bureaucratic plan—by the way, I never mentioned employers and costs; I said it was an insult to women that we got reduced statistics and bits of paper, which was a different point. But anyway, it is crucial that we should challenge the orthodoxies of gender equality when they are presented in this way without being treated as though one is a far-right pariah. It is unworthy of the nature of this House, which is to debate and scrutinise, in my opinion. I simply try to do that.

I still want to push this—more so now than before—on Report, but for now I will not oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 31 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have commented on this amendment in far better terms than I could, but I will make a supplementary point. I was very surprised to see this amendment, because one of the perennial themes that we have heard throughout all stages of the Bill in this House has been a complaint about the alleged level of extra bureaucracy that it is supposed to impose on employers. Yet here we see a veritable feast of form-filling and requirements to report on those forms at regular intervals. I suggest that this amendment is not needed; it is surplus to requirements because it places unnecessary burdens on employers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. It is very important that we do not suggest that giving a helping hand to those who have been politically deprived of equality equals equality. It can also equal tokenism. Working-class people, women and people from ethnic minorities have been promoted to positions in authority, and people basically point them out and say, “Look at them: they succeeded”. That is the opposite of equal treatment, and condescension is not a good look.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I can hardly follow my noble friend Lady O’Grady in being the TUC’s first woman general secretary, but I was the first woman leader of Newport City Council after decades and the first woman leader of the Welsh Local Government Association—and am still the only one.

I was also a public service employee for 35 years, when I taught in schools in London and south Wales, so I know about positive action. When I became a public service employer, as the leader of Newport, what I tried to do with positive action was to actively take a range of measures and initiatives to encourage people from communities that were underrepresented. We wanted them to bring their talents, experiences and expertise to our organisation, and we wanted them to join us.

Our selection process was no different: through the use of positive action, we did not seek to remove competition; rather, we wanted to allow everyone the same level of opportunity. That final selection for a post was always made on the merit of the applicant. We built our workforce so that it reflected the rich diversity and complexities of our community of Newport and we attracted the best talent from the widest pool of people.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Davies because I absolutely agree with what he says. I would add, just from my own experience, that, early in my working life, I worked in a retail organisation where there was a staff forum and where I and colleagues were organising to establish a trade union. The difference is this: that staff forum was set up by the employer. It was not set up by workers. That staff forum was funded by the employer; it was not funded by workers. That staff forum was not democratic, whereas the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. I would hope that one of the aims we could share across this House is to see an increase—an expansion—of genuine collective bargaining, because the evidence is very clear that, internationally, we see that the demise of collective bargaining has been associated with growing inequality, worse conditions at work, a poorer share of the wealth that workers help produce and no independent democratic voice.

I would hope that, in this country, we recognise that there are many, many working people who feel they have been denied a genuine voice—an independent voice—at work and in society, and they are rightly fed up about it. If we want to tackle that—if we want to tackle inequality and the sense of powerlessness that many people feel—it is collective bargaining through the route of independent, democratic trade unionism that we all need to see grow.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this group and I am torn between both sides. I have some cynicism about the Opposition’s attempt at recognising non-trade unions and staff associations. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has just made about employer-led staff clubs, which I have been, over the years, invited to join. While they have been very pleasurably good social forums, they are very different from trade unions.

However, I am afraid that there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is, based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle. I do not actually think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them, because there have been far too many instances of trade unions not being fit for purpose. Indeed, there is often a huge gap between trade union leaders and trade union members. Many members are leaving unions or not joining them, and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricatured way.

At Second Reading, I made the point—and I am only repeating it here now—that, for example, the Darlington Nursing Union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses and who have been attacked by their HR departments and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happens, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women—something that the Supreme Court has now at least acknowledged is the law—but they have been harassed and bullied and so on, and the trade unions abandoned them.

I made a point about the Free Speech Union. I appreciate that it is not a trade union, and nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is in his place, will become the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, of future negotiations. Despite the fact that that is an unlikely role for the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Free Speech Union has been forced into existence and has represented workers who have been done over by their employers when their trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making.

The UCU is one example of a university union. I was a NATFHE rep for many years in the further education sector and I have watched in horror the way that that union has degenerated and sold out its members. So, for the record, I would prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time. The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old. They could do with upping their game. Similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by people sitting closer to me on this side of the House.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We are having a good debate and I very much hope to keep it friendly. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, was really rather flying pigs.

I, obviously not like most of the Committee, am old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the destruction of the British automobile industry by the trade unions. London docks was destroyed by the trade unions. This led, through the 1970s, to the “winter of discontent”, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margret Thatcher who sought to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction they were wreaking on the British economy. We all remember that; I am not fantasising about this. This 150-year story of the great things wrought by the trade unions is really difficult to let go by without saying something.

Right now, only 22% of workers in the UK belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature of those unions. Let us remember that, of that 22%, most are in the public sector. Public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas they occupy and in return are being rewarded by a Labour Government. We saw the sorts of rises, which were completely unjustifiable compared with what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government awarded many public sector trade union workers when they came to power.

We saw how there is—I am not saying anything we do not all know—a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. I saw a number—I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it and it seems reasonable—that, since 2011 the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Whether that is true or not, we know the figure is of that order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of government, because of the deals the Labour Government have to make with these trade unions. It increases the cost and complexity of government, and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.

All those things destroy the economic growth which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier, we are all trying to achieve. I ask the Government please not to give us guff—I hope it is not unparliamentary to say that—about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe the Government should trust workers to take responsibility for their own employment decisions. If workers want to request guaranteed hours, of course they should have the right to do so, and the freedom to ask without fear of discrimination or retribution. By undermining this basic principle of worker autonomy, the Government are sending a dangerous message on the real value they place on workers’ rights. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, until my earlier rant on trade unions, I had not been available to speak consistently in the debates on Clauses 1 to 8, although I have been listening in or following them. I have not been able to be here because of the problems of contemporary work: a portfolio career running from one job to another and never having time to do everything I want to do.

One of the reasons I am very keen on an impact assessment on the impacts of Clauses 1 to 8 on these sectors—the subject of the amendment to which I added my name, looking at hospitality, retail and health and social care—is that I feel as though the modern employment landscape has changed so dramatically. Despite the fact that we have a Bill about modernising employment rights, I have sometimes felt that there has not been an adequate recognition of how things have changed. As I hinted at earlier, there is a rather caricatured view on a variety of sides of the Committee, as though we were stuck in the 1970s and every employee and every worker was a public sector worker with a nine-to-five job. That is just not what it is like. The contemporary workplace often needs flexibility, for the sake of the workers as much as anything. But it is an argument, and I am not going to go into the details.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt—of wherever—for allowing me to put my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained well the different issues that have been raised in the debates until now, as I understand them. On different Bills I have raised the problems in these sectors, so I will not repeat them. But I note that, in a debate on Martyn’s law—which has now become an Act of Parliament as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act—I raised the real problems that the hospitality sector is facing at the moment because it is under the cosh and overregulated. People who work in that sector feel that it is not going to survive. There are the national insurance contributions and the regulations being brought in. The retail sector, such as convenience stores, will now face a whole barrage of assaults in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill; I talked about that at great length, so I will not repeat that.

I fear that the health and social care sector has exploited care workers via zero-hour contracts; I have talked about that in the past. A modernisation of the health and social care sector is required, and I am disappointed that the present Government have not brought that forward. The one thing that I would like a Bill on is the modernisation of the health and social care sector, instead of these other Bills, which I think do some damage. Despite that, all that the amendment I am supporting calls for is an impact assessment of Clauses 1 to 8.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am delighted that consultations are occurring but, as legislators, we are asked to vote on a Bill without having seen the consultations. The Minister can tell me that there are no gaps because it will all be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves; what are we doing, sitting here, reading through line by line in Committee and discussing a Bill that we are told not to worry our little heads about? Those are the gaps.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I did not say “little heads”. It is important that we continue to have conversations with stakeholders. Most noble Lords know, and I am sure the noble Baroness knows, that employment law includes a lot of regulations. Previous employment legislation puts further regulations in place. It is important and right that we speak to a wide group of stakeholders, businesses, workers, trade unions and everybody involved in this, so that we get it right.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

One last thing: to be frank, I want the Government to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent people. It is simply that it should have been done before the Bill was brought to us. I want it to be noted on the record that wide consultation work should have been done, but the Government should not have brought legislation that could have unintended consequences that damage workers’ rights, while they proclaim that it will save workers’ rights. If they had not done the consultations, they should never have brought it to Parliament to be discussed.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me. I understand that there is a case to be made for a national inquiry, but the view that the Government have taken is that the IICSA recommendations, made over seven years—which were put to the previous Government and are now being implemented over the next 12 months by this Government —are the basis of what would come out of any national inquiry. There are issues to address, and we have tried to ensure that there is an independent review of the policing response in the areas that the noble Baroness has mentioned. If there are issues about the culture, or how those charges or investigations took place, they will be looked at.

There is the pot of money that we put aside for local authorities to determine a local response, if they wish, and they can apply for that. We are putting in place a framework that will made be public very shortly. We are trying to ensure that the victims, which the noble Baroness rightly put at the heart of her contribution to the House, are served well, which is why we want to ensure that we do not drag out, over a long period, things that we can do now.

The review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will report shortly with immediate responses about what happened in certain local authority areas; undoubtedly, it will be painful reading and will create further debate. There will be the police and inspectorate reports on the current positions that we have talked about to date. The legislation currently before the House of Commons, on the recommendations that will come forward shortly, will put in place, by the end of this year, a range of measures that will, I hope, prevent the creation of future victims.

I understand why both the noble Baroness and her Front Bench have called for a national inquiry, but I believe that the response needs to be made now. That is why we are trying to put some energy—through my ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons—into this area to deliver some urgent outcomes. We are always open to further lessons. This is not the end of a process; it is an ongoing process. The key thing should be to prevent future victims, to prevent systematic abuse and to hold those people who have abused to account.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister emphasised the importance of now, but I want to emphasise that these are not historic cases of grooming gang abuse. If you look, you will see that the rape and systematic sexual abuse of young women and girls is still happening. We sometimes talk about it as though it was in the past, but it is happening now. That is why some of us get frustrated at the rather slow response.

The Minister keeps saying—this was also said in the other place—that there is a £5 million fund that councils can apply for, as though it is something they would want to apply for. The frustration is that the councils do not want to apply for the money because they are the people who are being accused of covering up the abuse in the first place. So they are not exactly queuing up and saying, “Give me some money, so I can look into myself”. That is why so many of the victims, from Rochdale, Bradford, Huddersfield, Oxford and so on, feel so frustrated: they feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

Although I have reservations about mandatory reporting, in the instances of the grooming gangs, reports were made. People knew about it. The reports were made to people in social services, education and so on, but they were ignored. They were covered up and people looked the other way. When the Minister says that we have immediate solutions such as mandatory reporting or a £5 million fund, it just sounds like he is talking about a different issue.

I will make one final point. These are gangs, not just arbitrary individuals. With child abuse in the Church, we did not shy away from recognising specific child abuse scandals, but it did not mean that I then thought that everybody in the Church of England or every Catholic was an abuser. We should not shy away from the particular ethnicity and religion of these gangs now, because it does not mean we are saying that all people of that religion or ethnicity are paedophiles or rapists—of course not. Do not let us be frightened to say the truth.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution, as ever. Since the election, a new child sexual abuse police performance framework has been developed. We have put in place legislation, which will be before this House shortly, on online offending, abuse and grooming enabled by artificial intelligence. We have put in place new performance powers for Border Force to detect digitally held child sex abuse material at the border. We are putting new restrictions on sex offenders changing their names. We are increasing investment in law enforcement capability through police undercover online networks and tackling organised exploitation programmes. Those measures are before the House now.

The Government have had to both develop that at policy level and put it into legislation and are now taking those matters through both Houses of Parliament. Slow though it might seem, in my experience of nearly 14 years as a Minister over two sets of Governments, it is actually quite a speedy process. By the end of this year, we should have legislation in place to deal with a whole range of issues that are currently being recommended to us and are important areas which will help prevent abuse and support victims.

The noble Baroness mentions mandatory reporting. Yes, it is there and, yes, it was ignored. The difference now is that, in the legislation before the House of Commons which will soon be before this House, there will be professional sanctions against those who fail to undertake mandatory reporting. That is not the case currently, and that is why we are strengthening the regime on mandatory reporting to try to ensure that we beef it up to hold people to account if they fail to report incidences of sexual abuse that come before them.

The noble Baroness is right that we should not ignore where abuses are undertaken by particular ethnic minorities, but the simple point that I would make is that we should tackle the sexual abuse of children wherever it comes from. If there are particular lessons to be learned from the grooming gangs issue, that is what the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will bring to us very shortly, that is what the police are looking at now through a historical reassessment of the cases and that is what we have asked HMIC to examine as well. I simply say to the noble Baroness that there are things that she thinks may not be happening, but I hope she can trust us that there are positive actions being taken by the Government on these issues and there will be further reports back and legislation in this House during the course of the next few months.

Apple: Advanced Data Protection Service

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes interesting points. The Government take privacy very seriously and have a strong reputation internationally for protecting human rights. Access to data can happen only under specific circumstances and with strict safeguards, and it is taken, when it can be taken, against child sexual abusers or terrorists. I come back to the point that I cannot comment on the operational issues relating to points made in this House today, including neither confirming nor denying the existence of any notices, and that is the position that I will have to advise the House of during the course of this Question.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I understand the Government’s concern with their own privacy and secrecy, less so that of family group chats and journalists’ WhatsApp messages. To avoid that, does the Minister acknowledge that it is not possible for Apple to open doors to all its customers’ data and ensure that only the police and intelligence services walk through, when it is obvious that criminals, foreign adversaries and others would exploit that weakness? Also, at a time when the Government are seeking to establish the UK as a leading hub for innovation and technology, does the Minister agree that it would be baffling if the Home Office were to squander that advantage by trying to bully tech companies into undermining their users’ privacy, security, civil liberties and free speech?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Investigatory Powers Act, on which I served during its legislative passage with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, contains robust safeguards. It contains independent oversight to protect privacy and ensure that data is obtained only on an exceptional basis and only when necessary and proportionate to do so. That is the only answer I can give the noble Baroness today. I cannot comment on the operational issues or on the case she has mentioned in relation to Apple. I cannot confirm or deny any notices, and I have to stick to that position today for the House and for national security issues.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

This Bill is not only about sending a signal to all people who organise public events to carry out sensible measures, but about providing a degree of compulsion and expectation on those who do not do that already. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I slightly query the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a stage where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. There are some fundamental philosophical disagreements about what we are doing in relation to this Bill, and I raise those because they relate to the amendments we have heard about.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that, for smaller venues with a capacity of, say, 50 or 100, we are establishing the notion that everybody should be sensible and take precautions. My argument is simply that we do not need new legislation at any level to encourage that, and that this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are for ever issuing guidance on how events should be organised. This is a hammer to crack a nut, and it might have unintended consequences. That is what all of us have argued.

When I explain to people what I am doing in the House of Lords at the moment and what Bills I am following, and I explain this one, they are totally bemused that, in tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and regulators. They are more than aware that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism, and this just does not feel as though it is the most important way of dealing with that. The right reverend Prelate made a good point: it is not as though terrorists sit around and say, “That is a 500-seater”. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport or, in the case of Sir David Amess, an MP holding a surgery, it can be small places; or it can be the use of a vehicle as a weapon at a Christmas market. We have been through these different examples.

The question before us is whether the Bill will keep the public safe. My contention is that I am not convinced it will, but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm, and it could undermine civil society. Some of these amendments would at least help to remove the threat of legislative intervention from the smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society events. Of course there is a difference when there is a law. Even if you are a small venue, you might think “We do take precautions. We have 200 people. It is not as though we wander around oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises”. Once you have the threat of a regulator and a law, it is coercive and there are threats and things you need to do—I do not mean reports that have to be written—and you are answerable. As we have seen in every aspect of the evidence that has been given in consultation, people are put off; they say it is not worth running the venue or the event, and volunteers are standing down, as a number of later amendments will indicate.

We may have to make the best of what I consider to be an unnecessary and distracting law. I want to fight terrorism, but not this way; none the less, we should at least make the best of a bad job.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated.

Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises.

I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”.

It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size.

Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise.

For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group. Amendment 13 seeks to introduce a provision for exemptions to public protection procedures under the Bill. While I fully support the legislation’s intent to enhance security and preparedness in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, I believe that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor proportionate. This amendment introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations under the Bill are applied where they are truly necessary, without imposing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low.

We must remember that security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low-risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to their actual risk profile. For example, a village hall hosting occasional gatherings, a small charity-run space or a low-footfall museum in a rural area does not face the same level of threat as a major city-centre venue yet, as the Bill stands, they may all be subject to the same requirements.

This amendment does not seek to weaken security; rather, it ensures that security measures are appropriately targeted. It would allow exemptions to be granted where a venue could clearly demonstrate that it does not meet a reasonable threshold of risk; that could be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events that it hosts. The Government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on all premises, regardless of their individual circumstances.

The Bill must be robust, but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism would ensure that security resources, both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact rather than being spread thinly across venues that pose little to no realistic security concern. I urge the Government to consider the practical implications of this legislation and accept this amendment in the spirit of ensuring a proportionate, risk-based approach to public protection.

In Committee, the Minister helpfully said on 5 February that the responsible person would

“consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources … Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person”.

His assurance is welcome, but the problem is that the Bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in the light of their cost. The Minister also said:

“What we are asking for in the Bill … is that he thinks … about the consequences and about whether there is a threat”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 794.]


Yet the Bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to think about the consequences and whether there is a threat—that is, assess the risk—as the Minister suggests. Instead it demands that, without consideration of the risks, the responsible person puts in place the costly rules that I am concerned about.

I am deeply concerned that, if we allow these rules to stop harmless, peaceful community events around our country like the ones that I referred to in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Murray so aptly said earlier, the terrorists will have won. The Minister’s encouragement to rely on the

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

wording is helpful—but the problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so phrases such as this are open to variations in interpretation.

Furthermore, one of the really important problems that the Bill creates is that it is, as Bills often are, very broad-brush in its drafting, especially in the public protection procedures and measures. It leaves the detailed requirements to be fleshed out in guidance and advice, so at this stage we have no way of knowing how difficult they are going to be to comply with.

On Amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment or two ago, when the subject was raised in Committee there was much discussion of the level of the lower threshold—that at which premises became qualifying premises or an event becomes a qualifying event, as the case may be. This amendment approaches thresholds in another way, still seeking to address the concern that the selection of the level of the thresholds is based on very little science and, once the Bill is passed, they are set in stone effectively for ever—and they certainly cannot go up. The Bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary thresholds upwards or downwards from time to time, which would also remove an element of doubt from the Bill as its stands, in that there is currently no clarity over how and when the Secretary of State may exercise his or her power to reduce thresholds.

The thing that is missing from the Government’s approach is a lack of any science to the question as to how the level of risk—for example, of a terrorist attack—changes from time to time. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that the national threat level was then, as it is now, at substantial. As he knows, there are four other national threat levels—low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the assessment of risk by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat level.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

First, it is really gratifying to hear from the Minister at the start that the Government are listening, have listened and have acted accordingly. I really do welcome the reining in of Henry VIII powers and the remarks that the Minister made. On listening, do feel free to carry on.

Some of the arguments that have already been made and which will be made in this group and others are about whether the Government are still considering the points about ensuring that the Bill does not have the unintended consequences that some of us dread. Throughout Committee, I was struck that the Government stressed that the Bill was not a one-size-fits-all measure, and they did not feel that that was appropriate. Earlier, the Minister made the point that there are exemptions for this Bill and that this House itself is not under the same requirements as other venues—and I have referenced again that there is a different approach to places of worship. That is appropriate, because we do not want it to be one size fits all.

I have put my name to Amendments 13 and 25, which respond positively to the ministerial commitment to flexibility and agility. As we have already heard, there is a constant theme and genuine worry about the unintended consequences of the Bill harming civil society and the social fabric of communities by taking an unnecessary regulatory toll on events. As I have said, it can feel as though the discussions we have here are far removed from the material threats that society faces from terrorism. I appreciate what was said earlier: if the Bill passes, nobody is claiming that it will stop terrorism. None the less, we are constantly told that lives will be saved if we pass the Bill so there is a moral onus on us to pass it. However, we need to take a broader approach.

Prevent: Learning Review

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Again, he brings a perspective that is helpful to inform government policy as a whole. I am not aware of anybody having their reputation slurred by political correctness, but I say genuinely to him that I have a great admiration for all individuals, in the police and elsewhere, who work to help the Prevent programme have the successes that it has.

There are failings in these cases—again, every individual can fail at different times. Are they systemic? That is what we are asking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at. Are there suggestions for improvement? Yes, there undoubtedly are. Are there suggestions for future legislation? Probably. But the question for me is: is it still worthwhile investing in support for professionals to undertake diversionary work for younger people who are coming into contact with neo-Nazis and Islamists, or indeed who are forming views which will lead to terrorist action downstream? The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes”. As the Government, we have to give full support to those professionals who are making judgments that I do not have to make on a daily basis, but they do. They deserve our full support, but that does not mean that we do not have to learn lessons when things have gone wrong—and in this case, and in the case of Southport, things have gone wrong and lessons need to be learned.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have heard the passion and fury from Katie Amess, David Amess’s daughter, over recent weeks, demanding a full inquiry. I would just like to say that she is very much her father’s daughter and he would be so proud of her. She feels that the Government are ignoring her. I ask the Minister whether he will please look seriously at her common-sense suggestion that the Axel Rudakubana Prevent inquiry is expanded to include Katie’s father’s murderer, Ali Harbi Ali, because, as she says, it is wrong to pick and choose which murders Prevent failed to prevent should be investigated.

Also, does the noble Lord agree that both cases have a lot in common, not least that politicians can get distracted by some bizarre blame games. When Sir David died, there was a swathe of people discussing online civility—anything but discussing radical Islamism. After the Southport killings, what have we been discussing? Selling knives on Amazon. It does not feel too serious to me. A full inquiry into both together would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We have ordered a public inquiry into the Southport murders. We agreed to do that and we are looking currently at terms of reference and a number of other measures to get that inquiry under way. We have asked for an initial Prevent review from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in relation to the murder of Sir David. Like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to Sir David’s daughter, Katie, who has done herself proud in standing up for the legacy of her father, and also in standing up to make sure that her father has justice and that lessons are learned. That is a vital role for her to do.

We will first review the examination by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, of what has happened, on top of the reviews that have been undertaken, which we published this week. In the light of that, we will consider further discussions downstream. That might not satisfy the noble Baroness now, but I am trying to put that into the context of where we are to make sure that we do not lose valuable lessons from what happened to Sir David.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 37B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 31 to safeguard the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. The amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill should be construed as infringing on the right to protest, provided that such protests are conducted peacefully and lawfully, do not incite violence and do not threaten public safety or disrupt essential services. Furthermore, it proposes that any action taken under the Bill that impacts the ability to protest or assemble should be subject to review to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not unduly restricted.

The right to protest is a cornerstone of any democratic society and one of the primary means through which individuals and groups can express their views, voice grievances and influence public discourse. Throughout history, peaceful protests have played a transformative role in shaping our society, strengthening democratic governance and securing fundamental rights and freedoms. From the suffragette movement, which fought for women’s right to vote, to more recent demonstrations calling for climate action and social justice, the ability to gather, express dissent and campaign for change has been essential to our democratic values. Indeed, the richness and resilience of British democracy have often been reinforced by the willingness of citizens to stand up and speak out when they see injustice or seek reform.

However, the context in which we now consider this amendment is one of heightened security concerns. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance public safety by imposing new security obligations on certain premises to protect against the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As noble Lords will agree, this is a pressing and legitimate concern, and our duty to protect citizens from harm is paramount.

Yet, as we pursue this noble objective, we must be vigilant in ensuring that necessary security measures do not inadvertently erode the civil liberties that define us as a free and democratic society. The fight against terrorism must never become an excuse to undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Ensuring compatibility with human rights principles is not merely a legal obligation—it is a moral imperative.

This amendment provides much-needed clarity. It recognises that, although security is of the utmost importance, it must be balanced with the protection of democratic rights. The conditions it outlines are both reasonable and proportionate. They would ensure that protests remain peaceful, lawful and respectful of public order while preventing unnecessary or heavy-handed restrictions that could stifle legitimate dissent. The provision for review is particularly important. It would ensure accountability and create a safeguard against potential overreach by authorities. This is essential in preserving public trust, especially in the sensitive area of counterterrorism measures. If people perceive that security measures are being used to suppress dissent rather than to protect them, we risk undermining the very co-operation and solidarity needed to combat threats effectively.

Critics may argue that the amendment is unnecessary because existing legal frameworks already protect the right to protest. However, clarity within the legislation is crucial to avoid legal ambiguities or unintended consequences. By explicitly affirming the compatibility of this Bill with the right to protest, we would send a strong message that we value security and civil liberties equally and make it clear that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive but must coexist in a healthy democracy.

In practical terms, this amendment would also support public co-operation with counterterrorism efforts. When people see that their rights are respected and protected, they are more likely to trust and engage with security measures. Public trust is a critical component of effective counterterrorism strategies. A society that respects the right to peaceful assembly is one where people are more inclined to work with, rather than against, the authorities.

To be clear, this amendment would not weaken the Bill’s security provisions, or shield unlawful, violent or disruptive activities. Rather, it reinforces the principle that peaceful and lawful protest should not be treated as a threat to public safety or security. It provides assurance that this important legislation will not inadvertently target the exercise of democratic freedoms.

Moreover, we must consider the international dimension. The United Kingdom has long been regarded as a bastion of democracy and human rights. By enshrining protections for the right to protest in this Bill, we would reaffirm our commitment to those values on the global stage and demonstrate that it is possible to confront terrorism without compromising the fundamental freedoms that are the hallmark of a democratic society.

This amendment would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that it aligns with the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. It would send a clear and important message that we can protect our citizens from terrorism without sacrificing the freedoms that define our society. Security measures that respect civil liberties are not only more just but more effective in fostering a cohesive and resilient society. I therefore urge the Government and noble Lords to support it. Let us demonstrate that we are committed to both safeguarding our citizens and upholding the principles that make this nation great. By doing so, we can ensure that our response to terrorism remains not only strong but principled, just and democratic.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, sometimes the world goes a bit topsy-turvy and mad. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given an inspiring rendition of the importance of the right to protest. I kept thinking that I was sure that I made many a speech like that—not as well or with such wonderful rhetoric—saying that the right to protest should never be compromised when that side was in government. There are times when you wonder what is going on. However, I concede that I have thought that there could be problems in this Bill around the right to protest, so I am glad that it has been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made a very lawyerly speech. I did not understand all of it, but it is worth probing this. The other day, I talked about farmer protestors meeting in a barn and wondered whether this would apply, who would be the responsible person and so on. There is something in this. It is also what I had in mind when I supported the amendments about the Henry VIII powers, because there is no doubt that those powers give the Secretary of State the right to interpret public safety and security in such a way that our civil liberties could well be compromised in the name of public safety. In that sense, at least some reassurance from Minister would be very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46 and in support of Amendment 47 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. These amendments address two crucial concerns regarding the implementation and potential impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: the effect on the night-time economy and the importance of proper consultation and guidance for businesses.

The first amendment, Amendment 46, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 18 months of the Act’s passage reviewing its impact on the night-time economy, jobs and growth. Specifically, it would assess the effects on public houses, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas and other late-opening venues. The night-time economy is a vital part of our nation’s cultural and economic life. It provides employment for thousands of people, contributes billions of pounds to the economy and plays a central role in fostering vibrant communities. However, it is also an industry that has faced significant challenges in recent years, first with the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and now with rising operational costs and economic uncertainty.

While the security measures outlined in this Bill are essential to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, it is vital that we do not inadvertently place an unsustainable burden on businesses in the night-time economy. Venues that already operate on tight profit margins may struggle to absorb the costs associated with implementing new security requirements, such as enhanced surveillance, access control systems and staff training. By requiring a formal review of the Act’s impact on this sector, Amendment 46 would provide an essential mechanism for accountability and evidence-based policy-making. It would ensure that Parliament remains informed about any unintended consequences and allows for adjustments to be made if necessary. Crucially, this review would help strike the right balance between public safety and economic vitality.

The second amendment, Amendment 47, seeks to delay the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 until draft guidance has been issued to businesses and a proper consultation has taken place. This is a sensible and pragmatic approach that prioritises clarity and fairness for businesses. It is one thing to pass legislation, but it is another to implement it effectively and responsibly. For businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, sudden and unclear regulatory changes can be disruptive and costly. Without proper guidance, there is a real risk that businesses may struggle to understand their obligations under the Act, leading to confusion, non-compliance and potentially adverse outcomes for security and commerce.

By ensuring that draft guidance is published and consultations are conducted before the Act’s provisions come into force, Amendment 47 would promote a smoother and more co-operative transition. It would allow businesses to prepare adequately, understand the requirements and implement the necessary measures in a way that is both effective and economically viable. Moreover, consultation with businesses is essential to ensuring that the measures introduced are practical and proportionate. Those who operate public venues have valuable insights into the challenges and realities of implementing security measures, and their input can help shape more effective and workable solutions.

Amendments 48 and 49 are probing amendments on the timescale for implementation of the Act. We discussed implementation timescales briefly on the first day in Committee, and the Minister confirmed that the Government think that the Bill will take a two-year period to implement. I have tabled these amendments to understand better how that period will work. Can the Minister confirm which parts of the Bill are likely to be implemented before that two-year period has elapsed? Can he give us an indication of whether the Government are firmly committed to implementing the Bill in full by the end of the two years? We feel very strongly that it would be helpful for organisations and events that would be affected by the Bill’s measures to have as much information as possible as soon as possible. Can the Government confirm how they will keep those organisations and events updated on progress so that they can plan appropriately?

In conclusion, these amendments do not seek to weaken the Bill or undermine its vital security objectives. On the contrary, they would strengthen it by ensuring that its implementation is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the needs of businesses and communities. Amendment 46 would provide a mechanism for accountability and assessment, ensuring that the impact on the night-time economy is carefully monitored. Amendment 47 would prioritise proper consultation and guidance, fostering co-operation and compliance among businesses. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support these amendments as a means of enhancing the effectiveness and fairness of this important legislation. Together, they represent a balanced and pragmatic approach that upholds public safety and economic resilience. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I wanted to put my name on this group, but I missed the deadline. I think it is a crucial group and I hope that the Government will be very positive about it, because the night-time economy is very worried that its venues are going to be badly affected by this, and I think it would be very constructive for the Government to adopt this amendment as some kind of reassurance.

I was inspired, indirectly at least, to get involved in supporting Amendment 46 by the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Mirror, Keir Starmer was saying that he backed the fight to save the great British pub:

“there's nothing any of us like better than going to the local for a pint, myself included”.

He said:

“They are the places where friends, family, community come together around something which is very British – the pub. It’s a place of warmth, of opportunity, to have a nice time with friends, family and for people to have the friendship and engagement that is so important to their wellbeing”.


The Prime Minister was supporting a campaign to save pubs precisely because pubs are struggling. Data from the Valuation Office Agency in December showed that the number of pubs in England and Wales fell by 402 last year. That was a net figure that took into account new pubs opening but did not include premises standing empty that are still classified as pubs. As pub numbers have plunged by more than 2,000 since the start of 2020, and with industry experts such as AlixPartners warning that 3,000 more pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs are at risk of closing in 2025, I want the Government to note that this Bill represents another burden and that we should at least keep our eye on, monitor and be accountable about whether unintended consequences will damage the sector.

Publicans and experts blame a cocktail of supply and staffing costs, rising energy bills, and those controversial, crippling national insurance contributions, but stakeholders raise all the time regulatory demands and the costs in terms of licensing. There is a certain dread of what this legislation will mean, especially because pubs are trying to make more of themselves as venues—for example, for quiz nights and community choirs. In Neil Davenport’s “Letter on Liberty”, Pubs: Defending the Free House, there is a discussion about a mini boom post-lockdown of pubs as new live-music venues. That thrill of face-to-face live events and the public square as a place of freedom is lucrative as well, so we need to be careful that this Bill does not unintentionally end up killing that off.