Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, every noble Lord has said that they will be brief but then quite a lot are not. I will do my best to be brief.

First, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Bennett said. She summed up the problems we in this Chamber face.

Secondly, I have said many times in this Chamber, on many Bills, that this Government are putting in more and more repressive legislation. They are getting worse than the previous Government and are just adding to their oppressive agenda. The Labour Party is failing the nation when it keeps adding crime after crime into anti-protest legislation.

I am sure the Minister knows that the six Palestine Action activists who were imprisoned and went to court came away without having any charges against them corroborated. They are free. It seems that this legislation will make things even more complicated for the police. Again and again, the police say that all the legislation relating to protest is too complicated at the moment, needs streamlining and needs to make more sense. Like it or not, this Government are losing the public. If a jury cannot find against six people who broke into a factory and smashed things up, they are losing the public. The public are saying to them, “We just don’t believe you any more. You are pushing things to far”. If the Government could not even get that case through the courts, they have wasted police time and court time, and have made the lives of those six people unpleasant and nasty for some time. This is overreach; the Government know it is, and they should not do it.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches will support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, if she decides to test the opinion of the House. I thank all Peers across the House for their powerful contributions on transparency, proportionality and the right to dissent.

The UK’s life sciences sector is something that we should cherish. It is a jewel in our economic crown, generating tens of billions of pounds in annual turnover and employing hundreds of thousands of people across the country. However, the protection of this essential industry, while necessary, should never come at the expense of our fundamental democratic freedoms. Sadly, this statutory instrument is on the wrong side of that argument. Time and again, as my noble friend Lord Beith set out, the previous Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. I argue that even at that time, the law covered non-peaceful protest, as has been described by some Members in this debate and set out in the very powerful arguments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.

We on these Benches consistently opposed the Public Order Act 2023, viewing it as a troubling example of the criminalisation of peaceful dissent and an unwarranted expansion of policing powers. It is therefore heartbreaking to see the new Government choosing to follow this same path rather than reversing some of those damaging restrictions. The regulations seek to rebrand ordinary research and manufacturing sites, including those licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as key national infrastructure. This designation risks turning legitimate peaceful protest into a criminal offence, carrying a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment. To place a pharmaceutical laboratory or a beagle breeding facility on the same legal footing as our energy networks, transport hubs or the M25 is, I believe, overreach.

Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns about animal testing or pharmaceutical oversight, should not be treated as threats to national security. The Government justify this expansion by citing pandemic resilience, but the facilities being protected often have, at best, an unclear or indirect link. Despite the Government’s focus on vaccine production, we still have no clear public evidence that facilities such as MBR Acres have played a direct role in Covid-19 vaccine development. Yet they are folded into these protections in the name of pandemic resilience.

The police already possessed strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour, such as has been described in the Chamber today. Long before these new laws were imposed, powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and other legislation already provided a robust framework to address criminal damage, harassment and trespass. The Government have yet to provide compelling evidence that those existing powers are inadequate rather than simply less convenient.

We must also consider the lack of transparency and the absence of a rights-based impact assessment for these measures. Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 restricts public information about these sites. Ironically, individuals may therefore find themselves criminalised for protesting near a facility that they did not even know was now designated, under this new system, as “protected infrastructure”. This is not just legal overreach but an outrageous expansion of state power that avoids meaningful public consultation and accountability, as was set out so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

This proposal also sits in stark contrast with the Government’s own replacing animals in science strategy, as set out so ably by the Minister. To publish a road map for phasing out animal testing while simultaneously shielding those same facilities from public scrutiny and peaceful protest sends, at the very least, an inconsistent message. Throughout this debate, noble Lords have reminded us that the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, not a privilege to be granted or withdrawn at the convenience of those who rule. Those who stand outside those sites are people who care deeply about animal welfare, scientific integrity and the kind of country we want to be. We should not treat people holding placards outside laboratories as if they are saboteurs of the national grid. I believe I have already covered anyone who has been violent and not been peaceful.

As ever, both the Conservative and Labour Benches are squeamish when it comes to fatal Motions. My suggestion to both those parties would be: in that case, do not use sweeping powers that diminish citizens’ rights through unamendable legislation. While Labour have been consistent on this, many years ago their own noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, produced a report suggesting that fatal Motions should sometimes be used. Even our new Lord Speaker has been known to support a fatal Motion or two from the Conservative Benches. More recently, we had a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose conclusion was stark:

“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.


The regulations we are debating today are an appalling example of just that, as was so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Miller.

For all these reasons—the lack of necessity, the absence of transparency, the inconsistency with stated policy on animal testing, and the chilling effect on peaceful protest—I urge noble Lords to support the amendment to decline the regulations and to uphold our tradition of lawful, peaceful dissent.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to support very strongly Motion H1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have two concerns about the Government’s response. The first is the issue of protection. That is not present at the moment; it is severely lacking. I have visited chalk streams and seen streams that are probably beyond recovery. It is still happening, so there is a real need for urgency to protect the rest of what we have, and perhaps to instigate measures to recover them.

Secondly, the Minister mentioned two organisations that, in my view as a Green, have been largely discredited in their protection of the environment: Natural England and the Environment Agency. Somehow, neither of them actually does what it is meant to do, and certainly not within the parameters of what one would expect. This is urgent: you cannot just keep leaving it to consultation and finding out more facts and details—it has to happen.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the considerable amount of time she has given to so many of us in these discussions, particularly on Motions H1 and K1 in this group.

First, on K1—this is the wrong order, but I am going to do it that way anyway—I particularly welcome this new and additional commitment from the Dispatch Box to concentrating on nutrient pollution. That is a very welcome development today, and I support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, in her response to that.

With regard to H1, sadly, we feel there is still progress to be made. The Minister will be aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has looked at and reflected on the criticism made in the House of Commons of spatial development strategies and their use, and has therefore provided us with an amendment this evening which uses guidance, backed by regulation. We believe that this approach is technically right and that it is possible to do this.

The second point is about time being of the essence. The Minister expressed frustration at the pace at which protection of chalk streams was moving under the previous Government. We are very much at the 11th hour, and time is so precious that embedding something in this legislation, even now, rather than waiting for a White Paper or a Bill next year—goodness knows how long that will take—is the very kernel of the argument for pressing the House of Commons to think again.

We are here in numbers. If the right reverend Prelate decides to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Conservative Benches will join with us and the Cross Benches and express a strong opinion on this.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 56 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope, who, regrettably, is unable to be with us today. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that qualify as reasonable adjustments, provided that a local authority assessment has been completed. The challenges faced by disabled tenants are many and their needs are often complex. Without clear provisions allowing disabled tenants to make the necessary adaptations following a proper assessment, they risk being unable to remain in their homes long term. Far too often, disabled tenants are forced to move frequently, encountering unpredictable and inadequate modifications that undermine their ability to live independently.

This is not a marginal issue. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey found that 37% of households included someone with a long-term illness or disability, with that figure rising to a striking 59% in the socially rented sector. According to a 2024 report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, one in three people living with disability in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation—the highest rate of any tenure type. Meanwhile, a survey by Generation Rent found that more than eight in 10—86%—of disabled private renters reported that their disability or mental health condition had been negatively impacted by renting privately.

Following the Committee debate, I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the additional funding for the disabled facilities grant and for her comments on the review of the allocation formula, which is a welcome step. I also appreciate the Minister’s remarks regarding the ongoing review of the upper limit for the disabled facilities grant. However, I highlight that this upper limit has not been revised since 2008, meaning that it has not kept pace with rising costs and the increasing complexity of adaptations needed. While I agree that any review must be thorough, to ensure fairness and sustainability, it is equally important that it is carried out with a sense of urgency. Delays in updating the upper limit risk leaving many disabled people without the full support they need to make their home safe and accessible. A timely review and adjustment are essential to reflect the current realities and provide adequate assistance for those who rely on this vital funding. I also gently urge the Government to prioritise timely and efficient local authority home assessments. For many disabled people, delays in these assessments mean living for months or even longer in unsuitable or unsafe conditions.

The challenges facing disabled people in the housing sector were highlighted in deeply concerning evidence from, again, the local government Select Committee. Some individuals waited 22 weeks to complete just the first stage of their disabled facilities grant application, leaving them without access to an adapted kitchen or bathroom during that time. While I understand the concerns about creating a two-tier system, the central aim of this amendment is to ensure that, once a professional assessment has confirmed a need, there is a clear pathway to delivering those adaptations. I hope that Ministers will continue to engage with the spirit of this proposal and explore practical ways to reduce unnecessary barriers to independent living.

I also express my support for Amendments 72 and 86, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 72 proposes a new clause to establish a right to minor home adaptations for accommodating a disability. This is an important and practical step that would enable disabled tenants to live more independently, without unnecessary delays or obstacles. Amendment 86 seeks to prevent discrimination against prospective tenants who may require adaptations for accessibility. This is a vital protection to ensure that disabled people are not unfairly excluded from the rental market because of their needs. Both amendments reflect a fair and proportionate approach to improving accessibility and inclusion in the private rented sector. I hope the Government will give them serious consideration.

While I do not intend to divide the House at present, I hope that the Government will listen carefully and reflect on the proposals contained in these amendments. The aim is not to impose undue burdens but to support disabled people in living independently and with dignity in homes that meet their needs. I urge the Government to continue engaging constructively on this issue and to consider how we can work together to improve the system so that it is more responsive, more equitable and more attuned to the realities faced by disabled tenants across the country. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for giving such a good explanation of them. I wish I had lobbied the Minister more, as all three amendments in this group are very good and very sensible.

Turning first to Amendment 72, I was talking last night to a friend who has very severe disabilities. He said he had noticed that, while landlords are very slow at making improvements or adaptations and allowing their tenants to do so, business, retail business in particular, is moving ahead. He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil where everything is accessible. It is roll-in, roll-out, and people with disabilities in wheelchairs, for example, have full access.

It seems that businesses are taking this seriously, so why are the Government and landlords not doing so? Renters of all ages face challenges—it is not only the older ones among us—but older renters are particularly vulnerable, for several reasons. They are more likely to have health issues or disabilities, which means they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing. They are also more likely to live in poor quality homes. In view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do but entirely necessary.

I welcome the support of the LGA for Amendment 86, as promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It is essential that tenants are protected from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen with its welfare reforms what happens when Labour does not listen to the needs of disabled people. These are simple changes, but they are important. They would change the lives of our ageing population for the better, now and in the future—and that is what a progressive Government should do.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the relationship between landlords and tenants, and the abolition of Section 21, but we must ensure that the protections afforded to tenants are as robust as possible if the Bill is truly to deliver for the people who find themselves on the front line of this housing crisis. The Bill introduces new mandatory eviction grounds. Although we understand that the intention is to provide clear routes for landlords to regain property, making grounds mandatory removes the courts’ vital ability to act as a backstop and consider the individual circumstances of the tenant. It is important to test this issue in Committee, which is why we tabled Amendment 31.

Although most repossessions will be able to proceed without a hitch under the new Act, ensuring that exceptional cases have a discretionary element is critical—a discretionary element that the Labour Front Bench argued for with some vigour in the previous Parliament. Indeed, the Renters’ Reform Coalition argue that the lack of discretion is one of the most significant shortcomings in the Bill. The Renters’ Reform Coalition comprises some of the leading charities that work tirelessly on the issues of tenancy, homelessness and housing, including Shelter, which I used to work for. I thank the coalition for its work on this amendment and its support on this issue.

It is not difficult to imagine situations where compelling reasons for refusing immediate possession should exist. For instance, a tenant or a member of their family may have a serious terminal illness such as cancer, with a very limited life expectancy, a severe disability, or caring responsibilities for a disabled person, meaning they will necessarily need a longer period to find the most suitable accommodation. In the previous Parliament, the shadow Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, provided us with a useful hypothetical example, in which a terminally ill cancer patient could be evicted and at risk of homelessness because the landlord wishes to sell—a landlord, in this hypothetical scenario, with a portfolio of, say, eight houses and no compelling need to sell. In that scenario, he argued, a judge should have discretion.

Mandatory grounds, such as grounds 2ZB and 2ZC, which cover possession when a superior lease ends, prevent the court taking these profoundly human factors into account. Making all grounds discretionary would offer a vital layer of protection. It would allow the courts the potential to act as a backstop, consider all factors and potentially propose alternative courses of action to avoid a damaging eviction.

Obviously, some will argue that this cannot be done on the grounds of backlogs in the courts. Reforms in Scotland, where grounds for possession were made discretionary in October 2022, have shown little evidence of significantly worsening court backlogs. Indeed, if backlogs in courts, or in any institution right now, were applied to every piece of legislation that comes before us as a rationale for not proceeding or making a decision, we would be very hampered indeed as a legislative body.

We all know that the reality and likelihood of tenants taking up this course of action, just like the First-tier Tribunal, will be minimal, but the existence of the discretionary approach would ensure that an all-important safety net is in place for the worst possible cases. This amendment would remove “must” and insert “may” in the relevant heading of part 1 of Schedule 1, and omit the heading of part 2. This would provide the courts with the flexibility needed to consider the specific context of each case. I understand that the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, in the House of Commons has countered that this is “a step too far” and would remove “certainty” for landlords, but we disagree—or rather, we agree with his original arguments, which are no different from mine today.

Should the Government remain resistant to making all grounds fully discretionary, can we please explore, between now and Report, robust mechanisms to prevent evictions that would cause severe hardship? As a fallback position, we advocate strongly for the introduction of a mandatory hardship test that courts must apply when considering possession orders under any mandatory grounds. This test would require the court to explicitly weigh the potential severity of the hardship caused to the tenant, considering factors such as health, disability, how many children there are, access to alternative accommodation and the impact on the ability to maintain employment or education, against the landlord’s stated reason for seeking possession. This hardship test would ensure that the most vulnerable tenants are not rendered homeless or forced into the inadequate temporary accommodation that we have heard described by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, simply because a mandatory ground is technically met without consideration of the dire circumstances in which the tenant finds themselves. It would provide a necessary safety net, ensuring that, while good landlords could regain their property for legitimate reasons, the system does not blindly facilitate deeply unfair and harmful evictions.

We must listen to the voices of those who live with the constant fear of losing their home. We owe it to future generations to get this bit right. This amendment would strengthen the Bill to ensure that security, fairness and compassion are at its heart by making grounds discretionary—or, at the very least, by introducing a mandatory hardship test.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendments 35 and 71 both aim to help people who rent. I declare an interest as someone who rents a two-bedroom flat.

I have tabled Amendment 35 because I am worried that the Government’s good policy will actually end up penalising the very people that it is aiming to help. I hope the Minister will go away from here thinking, “The Green Party had quite a good idea on that, and how nice it is to have them on our side for once”.

The Government are doing the right thing for the climate and for people in putting in higher energy efficiency standards—that is a given—and doing the right thing for landlords with grants to help them meet those standards. However, the only people who do not get a guaranteed better life are the poor tenants who have to put up with the work, dust, noise and inconvenience of the energy improvements being done, with the possibility that their rent will be going up as their energy costs go down. Amendment 35 is an attempt to give tenants a guarantee that they will also get some direct benefit from the drive for net zero with two years of lower energy bills, without that saving being cancelled out by a landlord focusing on profiting from a government grant. I think this is a sensible amendment and I hope it will find favour with the Minister.

Amendment 71 aims to shift the debate firmly on to the needs of the tenant and to discourage landlords from constantly changing their minds about letting out their properties. It builds on the Government’s welcome attempt to get rid of no-fault evictions by adding a new clause to the eviction process that gives the tenant a one-month financial head start. With all the costs involved with moving—the deposit and moving costs—it can be a long, drawn-out process, and, for many tenants who are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts, time is literally money and moving is a time-consuming business.

I hope that passing this legislation will create a new era of stability for those in the private rental market. A whole generation of young people has had to suffer from an overheated rental market, which was firmly loaded in favour of investors and those with the money to buy properties. This legislation does not actually solve that problem, because only the Government building hundreds of thousands of social homes could probably do that, but I welcome the start the Bill is making and I hope the Minister will consider the needs of tenants even more in this way.