Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

141: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition of unpaid trial shifts(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons working trial shifts. (3B) In subsection (3A), a “trial shift” is any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.”(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking trial shifts(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to persons undertaking trial shifts.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking a trial shift is eligible to receive the national minimum wage for the period of that trial shift at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.);“trial shift” means any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that persons are paid for trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I rise to move Amendment 141 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is, about now, talking about net zero to students at Oxford University. It was an engagement that was made some time ago, but she wishes to express her thanks to the Minister for arranging a meeting to discuss this and later amendments, and for the constructive dialogue that followed.

This amendment speaks for itself, but I would like to describe a case where it would have been applicable. It is that of 19 year-old Ellen Reynolds, from Glasgow, who worked a five-hour shift in a restaurant. She told the BBC:

“I ran food and drinks to customers … I cleaned the tables, set up the tables, swept the floor, took people to their seats … took a few payments on the card machine”.


Before that shift, she had to buy a shirt and trousers as a uniform, costing £20. Then, she got paid nothing, and she did not get a job out of it.

The Department for Business and Trade’s guidance on national minimum wage eligibility includes a section on unpaid work trial periods, which discusses to what extent the national minimum wage applies to work trials undertaken as part of a recruitment process. It says that work trials can help employers to

“decide whether the individual has the skills and qualities … for the job”,

and that unpaid work trials can be a

“legitimate practice”,

so long as they are not used

“to obtain work or services for which at least the minimum wage should be paid”.

That, I believe, is an invitation to abuse: the kind of abuse that Ellen suffered, being expected to work for nothing—not getting less than the minimum wage, but getting nothing at all. We hear reports of employers who do this to a succession of workers.

For those who would like to explore this issue in more depth than I have time for today, I point them to a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 March 2023, secured by Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP. That followed the introduction by the same MP of a Private Member’s Bill in 2017 seeking to achieve the same outcome as this amendment. That Bill that won the backing of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students, among others. The commendably persistent MP reintroduced it last year. So, it has been an issue that has been around a long time but still has no solution.

If the Minister feels that the amendment is not properly drafted, I have been assured by my noble friend that she is in no way attached to the detail of how it is written, although she thanks the Bill Office for its assistance so far. The point is to act and to actually create a solution for an abuse that is enacted on people who can least afford it.

I have heard some very familiar phrases in the past few groups: we need more information, this is not the right time, there is legislation elsewhere that deals with this and this is not the Bill. But if not now, in the Employment Rights Bill, then when and how? We have to protect workers such as Ellen. They are often young and vulnerable, and sometimes English is not their first language. Surely the point of an Employment Rights Bill is to protect people from exploitation such as unpaid work.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment. There are risks of exploitation, which the noble Baroness has just set out. Where I am somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment debated earlier today is about how people continue to do these sorts of jobs and still do not get paid.

To give a real example, the Department for Work and Pensions runs a programme called SWAP. It is quite a short-term programme and it is not quite the same as a boot camp, principally run by the DfE. It is often for people perhaps wanting to go into a new sector or who are open to new experiences, so there is an element of training. However, a key part of the SWAP is that you work and try out. There is no guarantee that, at the end of that, you will get a job with that specific employer, but what really matters is that it will give you a sense of aptitude and of getting back into the workplace, while you continue to receive benefits.

Let us not pretend that receiving universal credit for a week is necessarily the same as being paid the equivalent of a national minimum wage. But my principal concern with this amendment is that, while wanting to avoid exploitation, it would unwittingly or unknowingly shut down these broader opportunities and programmes which the Government run to help get people back into the world of work. That is why it needs to be considered carefully by the Minister, but ultimately rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this short debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for stepping in very ably. There seems to be a pattern of noble Lords needing to step in during the groups I respond to, but I very much appreciate her moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

We are somewhat repeating the first debate we had today on Amendment 129. Amendment 141 seeks to ensure that persons are paid for the trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position. It basically boils down to the same thing: how do we make sure that people are not exploited when they are in a position where they need to be flexible to try to gain work? It is very much the Government’s objective to ensure we can get more people working. However, it is also our objective to ensure we make work fair and make fair work pay.

That is obviously the intention underlying Amendment 141. In that light, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and for using the case study of Ellen to outline how vulnerable people in vulnerable situations can be exploited by unscrupulous employers. I assure the noble Baroness that that is absolutely not the intention of the Bill nor, indeed, our attitude towards the amendment. However, I will go into detail as to why we are taking our position on this amendment.

As I have said, we are committed to making work pay, and we have been delivering on this promise through the actions we have taken since the Government came into office last year. At the risk of repeating myself, I note that we have delivered an increase in the national minimum wage of 6.7% to £12.21 per hour for eligible workers aged 21 or over. We have also, as I said, delivered a huge uplift for the lower national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20 year-olds, which has increased by 16.3% to £10 an hour. That is a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, and it closes the gap with the national living wage, because, as I have said, a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.

However, hand in hand with fair pay is the flexibility for workers and employers to decide whether a job is right for the candidate and, indeed, whether the candidate is right for a job. Government guidance sets out helpful and practical information on how the national minimum wage applies in the context of unpaid work trials. The guidance is clear that employers can ask individuals to carry out tasks or trial shifts without payment only if it is a genuine part of the recruitment process.

Short, genuine work trials—such as the DWP scheme that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to—whether paid or unpaid, give employers and individuals an opportunity to test whether the role or the candidate is right for them. They empower individuals to seek out and test whether the role is suited to them and their needs. They allow employers to test whether a candidate can do the job and reduce the risk of taking on someone who might not have the right skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, rightly said, it is about finding the right balance.

Unpaid work trials can also provide a stepping stone for individuals who have been out of work for a long period of time but might want to get back into the workplace, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. There are also government schemes where individuals in receipt of benefits can participate in an unpaid work trial and continue to receive their benefits. The flexibility of genuine—I stress “genuine”—work trials can benefit workers up and down the country, and the Government feel that an outright ban would see these opportunities for individuals diminish. However, I repeat a point I made earlier because it is worth emphasising: employers cannot rely on unpaid trial shifts for free labour. If someone is carrying out work that goes beyond a short demonstration of their suitability for the role, they are most likely to be entitled to the national minimum wage.

We are committed to protecting workers and will monitor this issue closely. If changes are needed, those issues should be dealt with outside the Bill, so that the national minimum wage legislation can remain clear on how unpaid work trials can be used and ensure workers are protected.

As noble Lords will be aware, HM Revenue & Customs is responsible for enforcing the minimum wage legislation and ensuring that employers meet their legal obligations. Any individual concerned that they have worked on a trial shift or period that does not appear to be part of a genuine recruitment process can and should complain to HMRC, or they can contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for advice.

In the light of the safeguards that already exist in legislation, and despite the fact that we very much agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, we ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 141.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. If this amendment is so similar to Amendment 129—I was not in the Chamber during that debate, I am afraid—I wonder why they were not grouped together. That might be something to think about.

The Minister talked about genuine work trials. I argue that “genuine” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there: how on earth do you judge whether something is genuine if you are not monitoring it extremely closely? He also mentioned a “short demonstration”. How long is that? Are there criteria for them? Are they only two hours long, for example? In Ellen’s case, she worked for five hours—that is a fair amount of continuous time to work.

In speaking to this amendment, I am influenced by the fact that, in the Green Party, we are not allowed to take any unpaid work at all. We have no unpaid interns. If we have an intern, we pay them, and we pay them properly. This influences my attitude towards anyone working for nothing if they do not intend to do so voluntarily.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that there might be fewer opportunities, but workers are still needed and companies still have to find those workers. If companies cannot afford to pay the national minimum wage to somebody on a work trial, they are not solvent businesses, so perhaps they ought to go out of business. I have no sympathy for employers who do not pay for work.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, gave me conditional support, but I am not really sure; perhaps he will on Report.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that an amendment can be written to cover such schemes as the government scheme she mentioned. It does not necessarily exclude paying somebody for genuinely working for five hours continuously.

On balance, this is a good amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 141 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

141B: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to disconnect(1) All workers have the right to disconnect from work-related communications outside their working hours.(2) An employer must not—(a) require a worker to monitor, read or respond to any work-related communications outside the worker’s working hours;(b) contact a worker outside the worker’s working hours except in an emergency as defined in subsection (6);(c) take any action to the worker’s detriment, or treat the worker less favourably, because the worker has exercised or sought to exercise the right in subsection (1).(3) Every employer must—(a) establish a written disconnection policy, in consultation with workers or recognised trade unions,(b) specify the technological and organisational measures implemented to ensure respect for the right to disconnect,(c) establish clear protocols for necessary exceptions, and(d) provide workers with information about how to report violations of the right to disconnect.(4) The right to disconnect does not apply where—(a) a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty,(b) a worker has explicitly agreed to be available during specified periods outside working hours, with this agreement recorded in writing, or(c) in genuine emergency situations affecting public health, safety, or essential services.(5) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that their employer has infringed their right to disconnect under this section.(6) In this section—“emergency” means a situation that—(a) poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment, or(b) requires urgent intervention to prevent serious harm to the business, customers or other workers;“working hours” means the hours a worker is contractually required to work, including any agreed flexible working arrangements.(7) The Secretary of State must issue a statutory code of practice containing guidance on the implementation of the right to disconnect within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a framework for a “right to disconnect”, whereby workers cannot be required to handle work related correspondence outside of their working hours.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will again speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 141B is a no-brainer; I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to it as blindingly obvious. It would give workers the right to disconnect, which is already available to French workers; I am sure that many noble Lords have heard about that, since its introduction was seen to be world leading at the time. I am sure that many British workers expected to have exactly the same right as a result of this Bill, given the widely covered promises that the Labour Party made over recent years before it was in government.

I quote the Labour Party 2022 Green Paper on employment rights, as it is unequivocal on this issue. It says:

“Labour will bring in the ‘right to switch off’, so working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices. Workers will have a new right to disconnect from work outside of working hours and not be contacted by their employer outside of working hours”.


That is very clear. By June 2024, the party had fleshed that out with an explanation in the document, Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay:

“The pandemic has led to a step change in flexible and remote working practices in many workplaces, which … inadvertently blurred the lines between work and home life”.


That is extremely worrying. The headline in that 2024 text is: “Right to switch off”.

Unfortunately, backtracking is already evident, but the promise to the electorate is more equivocal:

“We will follow similar models to those that are already in place in Ireland or Belgium, giving workers and employers the opportunity to have constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties”.


However, the headline was: “Right to switch off”. I think most people would have read that and hoped for a more balanced and less harassed life.

The Green Party is always keen to help any Government. Here, we would like to help the Government live up to the promises they made to an exhausted and overstretched group of workers, who find themselves trapped with a boss who expects them to answer emails from the sideline of their child’s netball match or to take a client’s call when they are on holiday. The promise from the Government has been that they intend to introduce a statutory code of practice instead. That does not mean that such contact will be illegal or even prohibited, but if an employee can prove that they are routinely being contacted outside of their contracted hours then this can play a role in an employment tribunal payout. On the previous amendment, the Minister mentioned that it is possible to make complaints. Most people do not do that; it takes too long and they do not have the expertise to do it, and they may not even have the energy to do it—that is fair enough. Tribunal cases are possible but they are extraordinarily rare and extremely slow.

We have a health crisis in the UK—an overworked crisis—and a huge imbalance in the power relationships between employers and employees, as many other parts of the Bill point out. In the Green Party, we are always constructive. This amendment provides the Government with a chance to live up to their promise to the electorate to empower workers and to help them remain healthy and engaged in their family and community lives, not for ever distracted by having to check their phone. After all, the economy is there to serve people; it is not for people to serve the economy. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly clarify the situation. I have just checked with my party, and we are not in coalition with the Green Party, that is for sure. But the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes a valid point. It is valid because of the societal change post Covid, where the number of people working from home now is exponential to what it was before Covid.

I go back to my days as a British Gas engineer, when I had a bleeper and was on call. We would dread the bleeper beeping, but I was on emergency calls and so I had to go out and do it. That was then and this is now.

There are so many people who are working from home who cannot switch off—the emails and alerts come through on their mobile phones. There needs to be some recognition of that within the legislation. Clearly, some organisations may need to contact people, but that should be by an arrangement that is agreed and supported by both parties. We are almost in a cowboy society again, where an unscrupulous company director of a small business with a small number of people wants to get things done and the deal has got to be made tonight—at 10 pm or 11 pm, when children are in bed—and so the phone goes and you have got to do it. If you do not, you face the consequences. These employees are probably not unionised, so it is difficult for them to resist. It is a never-ending circle.

I would like the Government to understand the importance of considering the framework set out in this amendment to provide a fair and practical approach that looks after the worker but protects the legitimate needs of the employers. It comes back to this idea of reasonableness and proportionality—the thread that seems to run through all this legislation. If it is reasonable and proportional then by and large it is fairly acceptable, but you have always got the unscrupulous person on either side. I have seen employees on call who have not replied when they should have, and they have been disciplined. That is correct; if you have an agreement and are on call, but you do not do it, there is a price to be paid.

The pendulum swings very slowly one way but very fast the other, to all those people who are working from home now and have no protection from the unscrupulous employer who just wants results 24 hours a day. We live in a 24-hour society—there is no escape from it. It happens with Ministers, spokespeople and friends I know. I have to turn my phone off—sometimes at 9 pm I switch the thing off until the morning, and then I get messages asking why I did not answer it. My answer is, “Because it was quarter to one in the morning and I was fast asleep”. These messages are from friends and colleagues. If you put that in the context of a work environment, where it is about your livelihood, marriage and children, it comes more into focus. I want the Government to look at this and see that there must be a way that we can strike a balance between the needs of an employer and the rights of a worker.

--- Later in debate ---

We are committed to delivering the right to switch off. It will mark another significant milestone in our mission to make work fairer, healthier and more sustainable, but we are taking things one step at a time. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 141B.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed, and I say how deeply disappointed I am in the Opposition. I am trying to hold the Government to account to actually bring in a measure that they promised to do, and they have given them an easy ride, I would say. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that she is being far too kind to the Government, in my view. I am sure they are very grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was much more supportive of this amendment, so I thank him very much.

To the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, I say that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also pointed out, in a very privileged position. The noble Lord sounds like a very kind man and is probably a very nice employer, so probably his employee would be free to say, “No, I can’t do that”, if they had to pick up a child from school or something like that. This is to protect people who do not have that sort of privilege, who feel obliged to do the things that their employer tells them, or supposedly asks them, to do. This is to protect the most vulnerable, the people who are not in our sort of position. I do not want to be here now, quite honestly. It is seven o’clock. I would much rather go home and have something to eat. I certainly did not want to be here at 10.35 last night—I would rather have been home in bed—but I do it out of a sense of duty, and I do it willingly. There are people who would not be able to do this but would not be able to deny their boss that work.

To the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that I am always very dubious when people start talking about “real life”, and I wonder how much real life they actually have. I grew up in a very poor working-class family, and I still have a lot of friends from my childhood who are not in the privileged position that I am in now, so I get a taste of real life when I am at home. In real life, there are people who would not be able to deny their employer this sort of overtime, or whatever.

I thank the Minister very much for his response. I am very glad to hear that the Government are going to introduce it. But, if this is too prescriptive and premature, why did the Labour Party commit itself to that? Why do the Government not just do what they promised? This is something that I struggle with. We see parties, before they are in government, promise all sorts of things and then they scrap them, and it is just not right. It is betraying the voters, and I do not understand why. Consult, by all means, but do it in a sensible and fairly fast way and just get it done.

By the way, nothing I have said in the last five minutes is to do with my noble friend Lady Bennett, so noble Lords should not blame her for it. I very much hope that she will bring this back on Report and that we will push it to a vote, because if you promised, you should do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 141B withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The time is up.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. I shall sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I, too, have visited Calais and I totally agree that no one would live there if they had a choice. Those people are clearly desperate, and one can perhaps understand why they are taking desperate routes. I am also speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so I cannot tell him what a wonderful speech he has just made, but I am sure it will be excellent.

I listened to the two opening speeches with something close to despair, because I get the sense that the Labour Government want to do something right, but I think they have missed opportunities here. Of course, the Opposition had 14 years to put this right and what we actually saw was 14 years of draconian rules and legislation that focused public attention on stopping the boats but at the same time allowed a huge abuse of the system with billionaires in private jets siphoning off taxpayers’ money during austerity and the Covid crisis. We had 14 years of a hostile environment and 14 years of draconian rules, and what did we actually get out of it? Rwanda was the most ridiculous threat, and I am delighted that that has now gone.

Certainly, in those 14 years, the criminal gangs got richer and the people who were letting out their hotels to refugees also got richer, but, of course, the number of people arriving by small boats has kept on climbing. Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco made a combined profit of £385 million since 2019. That has grown, because the Government deliberately allowed a backlog in asylum claims as part of their failed policy of deterrence. The “Bibby Stockholm” refugee barge was yet another failed deterrent, with the taxpayer picking up the bill for things such as the high-cost docking fees at Portland Port.

The last Government tried deterrents. They did not work and led to much higher bills for taxpayers but not to any real advantage. Refugees do not want to live on ships or in hotels. They want to become citizens and build new lives for themselves as previous waves of immigrants did. Whether descended from the Huguenots, German Jews, Ugandan Asians or other families that have fled persecution and war to make a good life here for hundreds of years, the vast majority want to contribute to society. They are grateful to be taken in and allowed to live without danger.

Most of today’s refugees want to earn a living and not rely on handouts, but our Government will not let them. Most want to contribute and benefit our economy, but our Government make them a problem instead of part of the solution. The problem is not the refugees; it is the Government’s failed attempts to deter them, which have not worked but have made things much worse and created bigger problems. I know that Labour wants to sort out the huge delays in processing asylum claims and to cut down on the use of hotels, but they are keeping most of the draconian rules that were passed by the previous, clueless Government.

Why are this Labour Government retaining provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that when in opposition they condemned as immoral and destructive of human rights commitments? They even voted alongside the Greens and the Lib Dems to defeat the previous Government 19 times on those draconian rules that they regarded as unacceptable. Why have His Majesty’s Government failed to make any provision for safe routes to this country for people seeking asylum—including people with close family and other connections here? The Government expect us to pass a law that says, “If you arrive here via a small boat, or in the back of a lorry, you’re not regarded as a person of good character and are therefore ineligible to settle”. However, because no additional safe routes are set up, the only way that you can be a person of good character, according to Labour, is not to arrive here at all. These are not the actions of a Government who treat vulnerable people with fairness and decency, and, quite honestly, they are not a Government who deserve to be in power.

UK/US Free Trade Agreement

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, are the British Government going to take any extra security precautions when they are dealing with the President of the United States, who is a convicted felon?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question, but I do not agree with her. We have to respect President Trump. He won an enormous victory and he has a massive mandate from the American people. That is democracy. We will work with President Trump and his Administration.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Given that the last Government did not set up safe, legal routes and actually encouraged the small boats, does the noble Lord have no shame in actually suggesting that this will do the same?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Well, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong: there are a number of safe and legal routes, as she will hear in a moment from the Minister. We are part of the UK resettlement scheme and there are a number of other routes, including the Ukraine family scheme and the Hong Kong scheme: these are all safe and legal routes. So I have absolutely no shame in standing here and asserting that this Bill would be contrary to the interests of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Of course not.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not here for Second Reading, but my Green Party colleague, my noble friend Lady Bennett, was.

I absolutely oppose all these amendments. I have been at debates on a couple of Bills in this Session where the Conservative Peers have been, I would say, playing games. That does not show respect to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Shame.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave me a very sneaky answer earlier. If he is a distinguished lawyer, I can see how he might win cases by being sneaky like that. He knows very well—look, he is laughing.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is unparliamentary language.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is it? I do not think it is.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Yes. All this—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord has had his say.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.

Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.

On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No; I will give way in a moment—perhaps.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No. The previous Government actually encouraged the small boats. They encouraged people to come by routes that were not safe.

The Green Party supports this Bill. It is time to remove the barriers so that desperate children can be reunited with their families in safety.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I declare that I—along with Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP—wrote a report on children in northern France, Calais and Dunkirk some years ago. I find this whole group of amendments to the Bill extremely sad.

I want to concentrate on a legal issue, which I raise to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was certainly not an immigration lawyer but, as far as I understand the Immigration Rules, civil partners, who come up in Amendment 13, and adopted children, who come up in Amendment 14—both are referred to in Clause 1(5)—are already within the Immigration Rules. Consequently, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are right, they are trying to reduce the Immigration Rules, not increase them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, with her customary elegance, has outlined her response to the amendments. I am particularly glad to note that we agree on the importance of integration in relation to additional family members—if not on too much else.

I am also pleased to note that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his matter of principle that the detail should be in the Immigration Rules. That is one of the reasons why I, like the Government, oppose the Bill in total. But, if we are to have the Bill, I suggest that we need the amendments. As I understand it, the Government remain against the Bill, notwithstanding the very elegant tightrope on which the Minister trod.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech. Possibly one might have thought, from listening to it, that the purpose of the Bill was solely in relation to children, but of course we can see that Clause 1(3) relates to family members of

“a person granted protection status”.

So that is all people, not just those under 18.

To the question from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I agree with her too. I certainly do not intend by my amendments any alteration to the present scheme in Appendix FM. It works well and allows the Secretary of State to amend the scheme, which is the correct way that these things should be done.

Lastly, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I obviously do not accept that the Government caused the small boats crossings; they sought very hard to address them and succeeded in bringing them down, and they brought in the Rwanda scheme to stop them. I still maintain that, had it been switched on, it would have achieved its deterrence objective, but that is a debate for another day. The noble Baroness suggested that the term “safe and legal routes” should be defined in the way she suggests: as a route open to anyone for application. I am afraid that that is not the meaning of safe and legal routes. It is a term used in statute and means just what it says on the tin: a route that is safe and legal.

This Government, and the previous Government, have welcomed a great many refugees: over half a million in the last 10 years, including refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. These are great things that we can all be proud of. However, through these amendments I say that the Bill would unfortunately overwhelm our resources to deal with this sort of migration. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for being so rude about him. I like to think that I speak the truth, but sometimes the truth verges on utter rudeness, and I am extremely sorry for saying that.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Immigration: Human Rights

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government want to secure a decision on asylum claims. In doing that, we also want to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is paramount. Therefore, security checks will take place. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know that 16,400 people have been removed from the United Kingdom since July of last year. That figure is up by 24% over the previous quarter, when he had stewardship of this office in his Government. We will ensure that, as he says, we look at the issues that successful asylum claimants and refugees experience in relation to work and employment. As my noble friend mentioned, it is important that, when those individuals are successful, they can get into work and contribute to some of the jobs required to be filled by people in this country today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, there are likely to be more refugees because of climate change—people who are fleeing drought and floods. Do this Government see that, as a massive consumer still driving climate change, we have a duty to those refugees, as well as to refugees from war zones?

Police Officers: Recruitment

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we have stability. Very often, when I was a Member of Parliament, the police chief in the local area would be in post for two years and he or she would either retire or would be promoted and go up the ladder. We need to have some stability. Part of the purpose of neighbourhood policing is to try to get stability and local intelligence, including from police support staff on the ground.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was on the police authority when Boris Johnson took an axe to police numbers. I remember it very clearly and it damaged the Met because it took out a swathe of officers, and then other officers had to go and do backroom jobs. I remember it clearly, so I think it is a bit hypocritical of this side of the Chamber to start complaining to the Government. My question is: will all those new officers have really good training in dealing with domestic assault against, mainly, women, and in understanding that it can lead to much worse crimes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have a strong commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We had a Statement last week on some aspects of that in this House, and we will be looking at developing further policies to reduce the level of violence against women and girls. Key to that is police understanding of the sensitivities and potential escalation of that violence, and probation and monitoring the effect on individuals who commit—in inverted commas—low-level crime initially, which can then escalate into sometimes tragic events. The point that the noble Baroness makes is extremely valid, but it is on the Government’s agenda, and I hope she continues to press me on that as time goes on.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is important that people know who their police officers are, see them visibly and have the trust and confidence to give them information that might help reduce anti-social behaviour or other criminal activity. It is important that police engage with the community in a way that gives them confidence for that information to come forward and that, as they have done in the past, at a local level police use their antennae to pick up on information that needs to be addressed by the wider policing family in tackling criminal activity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, magistrates’ courts are a fantastic resource, but at the moment there is a backlog of 370,700 cases. What will the Government do to make magistrates’ courts viable to deal with the sort of cases we are talking about?

Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Organised crime gangs are muscling in on this in a serious way. It is absolutely vital that the police—through the National Rural Crime Unit, the Home Office generally, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency—look at how organised crime gangs are operating. Last year, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% to £52.8 million, and that quad bike and terrain vehicle crime increased by 9%. These crimes are often led by organised crime groups, who use organised crime to disperse material. They need to face long jail sentences. They need to be caught and put before the courts and action needs to be taken. That needs co-ordination and I assure the noble Lord that we will do that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was on the Met Police authority for 12 long years of its existence. In that time, I asked many times for a category of rural crime to be on crime reports. I was told this week that that still does not exist and if you cannot count it, it is very difficult to know what resources to throw at it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are a number of aspects to rural crime. What we do count, and what the National Farmers’ Union counted in its report, are things such as the cost of GPS theft, vehicle theft, equipment theft, the number of farm animals killed each year and the number of respondents who thought rural crime was increasing. We have statistics on that. We also have statistics on a range of matters such as the number of instances of badger baiting, hare coursing and other types of wildlife crime, such as dog fighting, that occurs in rural areas. There are obviously continual problems with shoplifting, burglary and theft in rural area, just as there is in towns and cities, but there are specific areas that we can measure and examine. Through the National Rural Crime Unit, we can begin to co-ordinate activity to reduce the instances of that and ensure that people are arrested, put before the courts, sentenced and ultimately jailed.

King’s Speech

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I welcome our three new Peers this evening. I also welcome our new Labour Government. I think they have made some moves in the right direction, for example the Hillsborough law and appointing the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I hope he is given the powers to do his job properly.

However, there are a few issues that were not covered in the King’s Speech that ought to have been. I shall raise those and would like to hear the Government’s response and, hopefully, what they plan to do about them. The first on my list is civil liberties. As many noble Lords will know, a lot of repressive laws were passed in this House by the former Government. Just recently, Just Stop Oil activists were treated abominably in court and given very long prison sentences—much longer than many sexual predators get. The judge who jailed them said that

“the end of the world is neither here nor there”.

Personally, I disagree about that. He showed how draconian the sentencing guidelines are, given that 60% of the population think that an average imprisonment time of four and a half years for these people is simply too much.

That judge has ensured that, the next time a case like this goes before a jury, the jurors could ignore the judge and find the defendants not guilty, which they are entitled to do according to their conscience. That right was established in the early days of Quaker dissent and is inscribed on the walls of the Old Bailey. Jurors can use their common sense to defend the actions of ordinary people when the law is being used to suppress their beliefs or actions. That judge has also highlighted the stupidity of throwing climate protesters in prison at the same time as we are releasing thousands of criminals early because of overcrowding.

I am not keen on putting huge numbers of people in prison—just the violent ones—but we have not yet jailed anyone for the Post Office scandal, Grenfell Tower or the infected blood scandal. What about the obscene rip-off of taxpayers over the PPE ministerial fast track, or the parasites in our water industry, with companies making billions from poisoning our rivers? People are seeing their taxes go up and the NHS collapsing, while those who walked away with our money stay free to spend it. I see trauma and long years of suffering for sub-postmasters, while those who let them down get to keep their corporate pensions. I remember the flames at Grenfell Tower, but the building and development industry that allowed the cladding scandal to happen is as profitable as ever. Clearly, I do not blame the new Government for this, but they have to deal with it. We have scandals, inquiries and taxpayers picking up the bill for compensation, but those responsible at the heart of these scandals get to keep their money and rarely face jail time.

So I do not understand why there is a draconian clampdown on climate protesters, at a time when the climate crisis is accelerating. Essentially, it is because the oil and gas industry bought the last Government. The corruption of dirty money being pumped into the political system via party donations, MPs’ second jobs as lobbyists and Tufton Street think tanks means that we have a polluted system. So it is time to ditch those sentencing guidelines and the whole package of laws passed by the last Government. We need our civil liberties restored. People have voted for change, so please do it.

My second issue is the problem of misogyny, which we heard about earlier. The “spy cops” inquiry has been fascinating because it has demonstrated the appalling misogyny shown by many police officers, some very senior. Now the Treasury is pushing for that inquiry to be closed down because it is costing so much and has gone on for so long. That is mostly because there has been so much damaging material on the part of the police, and the police themselves have blocked disclosure. There are a lack of prosecutions for rape and sexual assault and threats to women politicians, and daily violence against women and girls has reached record levels. Misogyny must be made a hate crime as fast as possible.

My third topic is the scandal of IPP prisoners, which I raised with the Minister earlier. The criminal lawyer Peter Stefanovic has made films about this issue that have had 20 million views, and the people who have seen them are appalled at the persistent persecution of IPP prisoners. This was a Labour Government’s terrible mistake, and the new Labour Government have to fix it. No one should get 11 years for stealing a mobile phone; that is outrageous. We need to see a government action plan as fast as possible, and perhaps resentencing to get these people out of prison.

Finally, I want to make a bid for restoring the refugee scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—we urgently need safe routes for refugees—and I would like to hear more from this Government on restorative justice.

I wish this Government well and I look forward to offering them many more constructive Green Party ideas in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Oh, that’s terrible.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

They are just catching on.

I do not know whether the noble Lord occupies my old room at the Ministry of Justice, but we share a firm commitment to justice and the justice system. There is of course an overlap with yesterday’s debate on the constitution, because the rule of law is not actually a law at all but a constitutional principle. In that sense we should all be declaring an interest, because we all have an interest—a financial one—in the maintenance of the rule of law. Without the rule of law there would be no security in transactions, no enforceable right to property. But it goes well beyond matters financial. Without the rule of law, there is nothing to separate or protect us from despotism on the one hand or anarchy on the other.

That brings me to the first of three short points arising out of the King’s Speech. The first is the safety of public venues and keeping the public safe from terrorism. The Minister referred to what he called the appalling and horrific terrorist attack in the Manchester Arena, which he also called senseless. I am afraid, however, that there are too many people who see in their warped and twisted vision some sense in that sort of attack, and that means our response to terrorism must go beyond merely steps to keep people safe. We must be unyielding against those who commit terrorism, but also those who fund terrorist attacks; those who advocate for them; those who explain them away; those who equivocate about them; or those who fail to assist the authorities in their efforts to thwart them. That means we need to engage with those in all communities—and they are the majority in every community—who support the rule of law and stand against those who seek to subvert it.

The second point concerns leasehold and commonhold reform, the draft Bill on which I await with interest. We must ensure that we have a system of land ownership which is fit for the 21st century. I remember from my university days that in land law, the devil really is in the detail, and it changes slowly. I remember talking about my land law essays with my father, who still referred to the Law of Property Act 1925 as the new property legislation. No doubt any change will be viewed with horror in some parts of Lincoln’s Inn, where they still have flying freeholds—a concept which is too arcane for discussion at any time, but certainly at a quarter to 10 at night. I hope the proposed legislation will be clear, concise, modern and will provide us with a useful system of ownership of land.

Finally, a short word about the Arbitration Bill. I welcome this very much. When I was a Minister, I helped the Law Commission set up its work on arbitration. London is the global centre for international commercial arbitration. The 1996 Act is the gold standard, but like many things made of gold, it does need a bit of polishing from time to time. There is one point which I was going to mention about the Arbitration Act, but my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate warned me that if I mentioned again what he regards as the esoteric legal topics of monism and dualism, he might not be responsible for his actions. I do not know how he would react if I more than merely mentioned tonight the difficulties presented by an arbitration agreement having what lawyers call a floating governing law, but I am not minded to find out. I will take that up with the Minister offline, and leave the detail for another day, although I suspect it will be a day on which my learned friend finds he is unavailable to attend your Lordships’ House.

Peaceful Protests

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Practical toolkit for law enforcement officials to promote and protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests, published on 7 March by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and how they intend to ensure that the United Kingdom aligns with United Nations standards on the use of surveillance technology at protests.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, what a select little bunch of Peers we are. Clearly, we all know our stuff on this.

A few years ago, I introduced what I think was the first ever debate on facial recognition here in Parliament. At that time, I recognised it as part of a wider package of changes that were on the route to dismantling parliamentary democracy here in the UK, because, when you combine facial recognition and other technologies with the draconian laws passed in the police Act, the Public Order Act and by ministerial decree, a full-scale clampdown on any form of effective protest is now possible. We are a very short step away from what happens in Russia on a regular basis as the authorities here attempt to stifle protests.

If you add to that the plans for the Government to spy on pensioners’ bank accounts, to promote their own digital currency and to link an array of biometrics to a digital ID card, we enter a very different world where the state can switch on and off your access to the basics of life. We have already given the Home Secretary the power to banish anyone with a dual passport from this country, with no right of appeal in this country, and laws that allow the police to stop named individuals attending a demonstration are in place. Is the UK state going to set up the technological infrastructure that will allow for the internal banishment of people with views the Government do not like, with the denial of privileges that we currently see as rights?

We are entering this new era of a Big Brother state at speed, and democracy will be the victim of the inevitable crash. The UK police charged with combating extremism now have similar powers to the Russian police combating extremism. I was once called a “domestic extremist” by the Met Police; it watched me for 10 years because I was clearly a threat to democracy—and it lied about it as well. The differences are dependent on which police officer interprets the law; the vigour of groups, such as Big Brother Watch, which seek to defend our rights; and the spirited independence of those lefty lawyers whom the Government complain about so often.

In Russia, more than 2,000 protesters against the war in Ukraine have been arrested or detained using facial recognition technology; they include people visited at home and questioned after a peaceful protest. This has also become standard practice by the Met Police, which trawls through video footage to identify people it wants to arrest. Most importantly, facial recognition is now used in Russia to detain those on their way to a protest after being spotted by the metro camera system. This mirrors the new laws in this country allowing the authorities to ban protesters ahead of demonstrations by issuing control orders or the new serious disruption prevention orders. The Met Police also has access to much of Transport for London’s camera network, yet the only political party to have ever pressured for constraints and safeguards to be put in place is the Green Party.

These deployments of facial recognition have turned our city streets into mass-scale police line-ups, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people subjected to biometric identity checks. Yet, eight years after UK police first rolled out this invasive technology, there has been no democratic consent to live facial recognition and biometric surveillance in Britain. No legislation to approve or ban the use of live facial recognition technology in the UK has been passed or even seriously proposed. Instead, the police operate in a grey area, enabled by a democratic deficit to use rights-invading technology with minimal oversight.

That is why we need to apply the UN standards as a minimum. Those standards make it clear that such technology should not be used to identify people participating in peaceful protest and that protests should not be used as surveillance opportunities. The UN model protocol prohibits the use of facial recognition to identify those participating in peaceful protests. These are standards designed for the likes of Russia, Zimbabwe and Uganda, but we actually cannot meet them here in the UK.

For example, Cheshire Constabulary has stated that it intends to use facial recognition technology to monitor, track and profile individuals. There are no safeguards in place to protect individuals’ rights and the right to protest. This is hardly surprising. How many times, in recent years, have we heard senior politicians and Home Secretaries saying that they believe in the right to protest—“Ah, but not for those particular protesters or protests”?

We need a charter of democratic freedoms that enshrines the right to protest and to assemble. We must never have another situation like the Sarah Everard vigil, when senior officers at New Scotland Yard decided on a clampdown against people who were coming together to remember a woman murdered by a man nicknamed the “rapist” by his colleagues in the Met, while they allowed him to remain in their ranks.

Our authoritarian Government are proposing the abolition of the existing scant oversight of facial recognition and other forms of advanced surveillance through its Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. You cannot use a system designed to protect consumer privacy to protect you from state intrusion. My big concern is that we contest each of these new laws and technologies in isolation, rather than seeing the big picture of what this Government are out to achieve. The ban on strikes, the granting of legal immunity to undercover officers who spy on campaigners, and voter suppression are all part of a rapid slide into an authoritarian country.

I hope that the next Government aim to restore the freedoms that we have lost and replace the safeguards that have been dismantled. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the shadow Minister on that. I will be pressurising the next Government to make that happen and for our freedoms to keep pace with the technologies used by the state to restrict them. Will the Government accept these UN standards?