Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I appreciate that clarification. Considering the time, I say to the noble Baroness that the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is forthcoming. I dare say he will be reading this debate in Hansard with some interest.

Amendment 380, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to apply the changes made by government Amendment 372 to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. I simply say that, in a democratic society, the threshold for banning a protest should always be markedly higher than that of imposing conditions on a protest. That is why, sadly, we will resist his amendment.

Amendment 382E, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, similarly touches on one of the guiding principles of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—namely, whether our public order legislation strikes a fair balance between freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe. The ability to impose conditions on, or indeed ban, a protest based on the cumulative impact of protests on policing resources goes to the very heart of how we strike that balance.

Finally, Amendment 486B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is concerned with access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. I understand from what he said that this amendment may stem from comments made by the Irish hip-hop group Kneecap, which previously received funding from the Government through the music export growth scheme. I want to make it clear that I unequivocally condemn the comments that were made, which the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others mentioned. In the light of that case, DCMS has made changes to the scheme, including requiring applicants to declare activity that may bring the scheme into disrepute, introducing further due diligence processes, adding a clawback clause to the grant agreement, and, where concerns are raised, escalating decisions to Ministers.

This has been a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate. We recognise the vital part played by peaceful protest in the functioning of our democracy. For the Government’s part, the measures in Part 9, together with Amendments 372 and 381, address gaps that we and the police have identified in the current legislative framework. We stand ready to address other operational gaps in the law, but before doing so we should await the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I hope that that addresses all the questions that have been posed tonight. We will of course review Hansard and write if we need to. In response to the specific request from my noble friend Lady Blower, we are of course always keen to have conversations, and we can take that offline outside the Chamber.

We all have a part to play here and I observe that those organising, stewarding and attending protests, as well as having a right to protest, have a responsibility to ensure that what they chant and the placards they wave are not racist and do not threaten communities or intimidate fellow citizens. Sadly, that has not always been the case. With that, I commend the government amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have two small points to make. First, there seems to be a lot of prejudgment of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—the Minister seemed to say that the noble Lord will not disagree with anything that has gone through in the Bill. I do not understand why we did not wait for the report to be published before the Bill was introduced. Secondly, I did not hear an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about why Labour has done a complete 180-degree turn on Amendment 372.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

In answer to both the noble Baroness’s points, the lived experience of the Jewish community, and that of other communities—the actions we saw against mosques and the Muslim community in parts of this country during the summer and since October 2023 provide a different context and this was recognised in the Metropolitan Police and GMP statement on chants to “Globalise the intifada”—over the past couple of years leads one to draw different conclusions. It is absolutely the case that the Home Secretary saw the importance of putting cumulative impact and providing reassurance to communities as a priority that could be folded into part of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and that there was no need to wait for it and we could use the Bill to do it. That is what we have done, and I will be proud to move those amendments.

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord is certainly right to recognise the importance of the recommendation by Sir Jon, in the commission report, of establishing a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector that will stand on the side of customers. He is right that the new regulator needs a wide range of skills, not only in terms of knowledge and understanding of the environment, customer service and regulation but also in terms of financial incentives. In the price review of 2024, we have seen the commitment to more than £100 billion of future investment in water infrastructure. In fact, since Ofwat announced its final determination, water companies have already raised over £2 billion in new equity investment. There is work going on, but he is absolutely right that there is no point having a single powerful regulator that is not able to regulate across the land and across the entire water sector’s activity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand the depth of disappointment that a lot of environmental campaigners have felt because the remit did not include taking water out of private hands? There is a general feeling of absolute anger that public ownership was not considered. Does the Minister accept that? I include Feargal Sharkey and myself among those environmental campaigners who are horribly disappointed.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness that I do not accept that there was widespread public anger that nationalisation was not used as a solution. We have committed to a once-in-a-generation reset of the water sector; we have been very clear that we have no intention of nationalising it. It would cost around £100 billion to do that, it would be immensely disruptive and it would create more problems and more costs than solutions. As a Government, we are determined, as we have already demonstrated through the legislation of the Water (Special Measures) Act and the hard work we are doing with Sir Jon Cunliffe, to get a system that works on the side of consumers and on the side of the environment and not worry about structural nostrums.

Water Companies: Private Ownership

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware there is a high bar for the use of a special administration regime but we have made our preparations and are ready for all eventualities, including applying for such a regime, if necessary. While the company is stable, we have stepped up the preparations. It is clear that if it is in serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order is appropriate for the company to retain its licence, we will act. We will make sure that it is not at bill payers’ expense.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, going back to the criminal convictions, the water companies currently have 12,000 criminal convictions against them. Can the Minister tell me at what number he will consider these people criminals and not fit to have an operating licence to deliver our water?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I can only repeat what I have already said. It is very simply the case that we are absolutely continuing the regime and approach of the previous Government, but we have done more. We introduced new legislation last year to ensure that we can block executive bonuses, which we have done. We will continue to bear down on water companies and ensure that their executives cannot take unjustified bonuses. We will continue to make sure, through the work and progress of the White Paper, which will be coming shortly for your Lordships’ consideration. We hope there will be legislation next year, although I cannot say what will be in a future King’s Speech. We will make sure that the water companies live up to their obligations to customers and, indeed, the taxpayer.

English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows that the UK has 377 marine protected areas, of which only 38 are fully protected. Can I just clarify that the 42 that the Government are consulting on are different from the 38? Surely the Minister can tell us when the consultation will end?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness sets out, the consultation has 42 MPAs, and 41 of those have bottom-towed gear restrictions proposed. As I understand it—I will write if this is not the case—those are separate from those previous 38. The consultation will close later in the year, I understand, sometime in the autumn, but I will write with further details if that is not the case.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Public Transport: Expansion and Electrification

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

If it is not jumping on the bus bandwagon, I would like to join in both the noble Lord’s and my noble friend Lord Hendy’s congratulations on Harrogate’s achievement. We have made some amazing progress when it comes to zero-emission buses: more than 50% of new buses registered last year were zero-emission—that is a record 1,600. I am very pleased to tell the House that more than 60% of buses procured via the ZEBRA process were procured and made by UK-based manufacturers. Zero-emission buses are not just good for decarbonising transport and providing better, more reliable bus services; they are good for growth in this country, which we need to see.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister made some excellent points earlier in response to the Opposition’s query about the price of electricity. It is linked to gas prices. Does the Minister know whether the Government have any plans to delink it so that we get the true price of renewable energy?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid that I am not aware of any particular plans—this strays a little outside my briefing. It is really important that we enable more green growth in transport to ensure that people have access to the sorts of transport levels that those of us who live in the capital enjoy. What we require and want, to paraphrase my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, is brilliantly boring public transport, so that where you live does not determine what you can achieve in life.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Stop groaning.

Normally, if today’s list says, “at a convenient time”, that means at the end of a group surely.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As I said, I understand that this is unusual, but it is in no way unprecedented. We have broken in the middle of a group before. It is not ideal, but we are where we are. I think it is in the best interests of the Committee, especially as it has been agreed through the usual channels, to hear from both Front Benches and any other Back-Benchers on this group in good time, and to hear, in the meantime, a repeat of the Statement from the Minister, so that everybody gets the best of all worlds. I know this is not usual practice, and we will endeavour not to do it on future Committee days.