Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord can never test my patience too far. I simply say that, in terms of the police’s operational use, there are three clear, easy-to-understand, easy-to-interpret defences one could use in this situation. Fear of dissident reprisal does not necessarily fit into that category so easily. Notwithstanding his inability to test my patience, I am going to make some progress, as we have more to discuss.

Under Amendments 372A, 372B and 372C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, Clause 139 would apply only where a protest is directed at or connected with the place of worship, before conditions could be imposed. Additionally, Amendments 372ZA, 372AA, 372AB, 372BA, 372BB and 372D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would raise the threshold for police intervention by requiring proof that a protest has the explicit purpose of intimidating individuals accessing a place of worship and that it would, in fact, intimidate them. The amendments also propose limiting police powers to protests occurring

“within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”

of a place of worship.

As seen with recent demonstrations, protests can have an unintended impact on the lives of a community and those seeking to exercise their freedom of religion without intimidation or fear. I want to be clear that Clause 139 seeks to address a clear legislative gap arising from such protests. Police currently have powers to intervene where there is a serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation. However, we have already heard consistently from both the police and religious communities that these thresholds are too high to protect worshippers who feel too intimidated to attend their place of worship, even though the protesters do not intend to have such an effect. Requiring officers to demonstrate both the purpose and effect of intimidation would restrict their ability to act at an earlier stage, reducing operational flexibility.

Clause 139 responds directly to that problem. It does not ban protests; it simply gives the police the ability to impose proportionate conditions where a procession, assembly or one-person protest may create an intimidating atmosphere in the vicinity of a place of worship. This will protect the freedom to worship without undermining the fundamental right to protest. Both rights are essential, and the clause is carefully designed to balance them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, herself said, the duty to protect minority communities and their right to go about their lives—whether it is their freedom of worship or any other aspect—is indeed paramount. The clause seeks to do that.

The noble Baroness’s proposal to introduce a rigid 50-metre boundary would further constrain the police, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The noble Baroness calls the proposal in the Bill vague, but I put it to her that the rigidity of a 50-metre boundary goes too far. For example, let us consider the practical example of the proximity of St Margaret’s Church to both this House and Parliament Square. Having this rule in place, notwithstanding any particular provisions on protests in Parliament Square, would make that sort of protest impossible. To use one of the examples promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, any protest outside churches or cathedrals would presumably also be limited in that way.

Activity occurring outside that distance may still create an environment that discourages worshippers from entry, yet the police would be unable to impose conditions unless the protest moved closer. This would undermine the clause’s purpose of enabling proportionate intervention where there is a risk of an intimidatory atmosphere near a place of worship. As noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, that includes the comings and goings—going to and from a place of worship, as well as actually being within the building.

I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, who, I am afraid, is not in his place, for meeting me and members of Jewish community organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, CST and the Jewish Leadership Council, to discuss the clause. As I reiterated at that meeting, I want to make it clear that the Government will write to police forces and local authorities following Royal Assent to remind them of their existing powers to protect community centres, schools and places of worship. This will ensure that all agencies are fully aware of the tools they already have to respond to intimidatory behaviour in these settings.

Amendment 373, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to remove the cumulative disruption clause from the Bill. I have been clear that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right in this country. However, it should be balanced with the need for individuals and communities to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. Over the past few years, we have seen the impact of protests on the lives of communities and, of course, the tragic antisemitic terror incident that took place at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation’s synagogue on 2 October, which led to the unfortunate murders of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz. Protests subsequently continued, which highlighted concerns around the protection of specific communities, including Jewish communities, which are affected by the cumulative impact of protests.

There are other examples where communities face serious disruption from protests taking place in the same area week after week. On this, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. On the streets of London over the past couple of years, we have seen protests almost weekly. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is right that the cumulative impact has the effect of forcing home a particular message that those protesters want to make. However, that should not come at the price of other citizens not being allowed to enjoy their regular rights.

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

I remind my noble friend that in Committee a number of us raised the statement that was issued by a whole range of civic society organisations, whose members often live in the communities in which they carry out protests. He will recall in particular that the TUC supported that civic society statement.

I speak as one of the perhaps few people in this House who has had responsibility for organising mass national demonstrations in central London. Can my noble friend reassure those organisations that this is not, as they fear, in effect, a quota on national demonstrations in London? Can he also give some guidance to the police on how they pick and choose between those different organisations if there is to be a quota?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that and for all the work that she has done in organising those national protests, at least one or two of which I am sure that I have attended.

It is absolutely not a quota. It is simply to say that if you are regularly marching in areas side by side with other communities, that repeated activity should not impede their ability, for example, to come and go to a synagogue. It cannot be right, as I know is the case, that synagogues should have to alter their regular service times on a Saturday morning to allow for protests. There must be a way that police can accommodate the needs of the protesters and of those worshippers. I want to be clear: this is not about imposing a quota on protests. The provision does not allow police to ban a protest but places a duty on senior officers to consider cumulative disruption when deciding whether the serious disruption to the life of the community threshold in Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is met.

Amendment 377C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to extend the notice period required for planned processions from six days to 28 days. As I explained in Committee, six days provides the police with adequate time to work with organisers who are planning protests to ensure that any conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord’s Amendment 377D seeks to amend Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 to enable a chief officer of police to consider

“serious damage to property, or … serious disruption to the life of the community”

and the demands on police resources when determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions.

Section 13 of the 1986 Act rightly sets out a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. Widening the scope of this power, including to take account of police resources, would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest under Articles 10 and 11 and the legislation becoming incompatible with the ECHR. The noble compared this with the measure we discussed last week around aggravated offences. The latter was a clear manifesto commitment announced before the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.

I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords who have spoken in this group. They have raised some very legitimate issues about whether existing public order legislation and the measures in Part 9 of the Bill strike the right balance between protecting the right to protest, protecting communities and preventing disorder. As I have said, there is an ongoing review examining just this issue, and I put it to the noble Lord that we should wait for the outcome of that review. Accordingly, this is not the occasion to press any of the amendments to a vote today. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw his amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because it is trying to achieve consistency in law. At the moment, the law protects a retail worker more, when in fact those who provide services are doing exactly the same thing. Broadly, they deal with the public and they are trying to get rules enforced. They are just trying to make sure that things work well.

My reading of the present advice on providing protection to retail workers is that they are protected if they provide goods, but not if they provide services. The consequence of that is that people who, for example, work in betting shops, theatres and cinemas do not receive the same protection that they would receive if they were providing that same retail worker service and also providing goods, and that seems inconsistent. Then there is the further group of workers that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred to: people who work in transport, such as taxi drivers. All of them face people who are often affected by drink or drugs, for example, and have to challenge bad behaviour, but they do not receive this protection. That seems odd. I find it odd that the Government do not want to protect that group of workers in the same way. For reasons of consistency, and because the workers I have described—those who work in betting offices, for example, where you get some pretty bad behaviour at times—deserve that protection, they ought to be included.

My final point is that although the present legislation excludes wholesale workers—should I name the companies? Perhaps not—you only get access to some of these wholesale or, I would say, retail sites by joining a club; you do not pay any money. I think we all know the ones I am talking about, where you get access to better prices merely by joining the club. Apparently, that is not retail. I think it is pretty much like retail. They still get bad behaviour on these sites. For all those reasons, I think this amendment regarding public-facing workers is a good idea and I encourage the Government to support it for the sake of consistency for those who provide services to us.

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

My Lords, I will be very brief, partly to remind all noble Lords that the shop workers’ union, USDAW, under Joanne Thomas, the current leader, Paddy Lillis before her and, indeed, John Hannett—the noble Lord, Lord Hannett—has campaigned for years for freedom from fear for a predominantly female workforce facing violence at work. As we have heard, that got a lot worse through Covid. At the time, USDAW was pressing for legislation; nobody listened. I have to commend the Government for listening to the campaign from the grass roots all the way up to the top of USDAW for that protection for workers in that industry.

Having said that, I have looked at the very latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive and from the Labour Force Survey, which show that public-facing workers across a number of industries, sectors and jobs disproportionately face violence at work. More than that, I have heard it from workers themselves. Bus workers, transport workers and hospitality workers have been spat at, assaulted and threatened. I also alight on transport workers, because they too perform a significant act of public service in the work they do. They often face real threats and real assaults because of the job that they do.

I share my noble friend Lord Hendy’s hope that, even if the Government cannot support this amendment, my noble friend the Minister could at least commit to talk to colleagues in the relevant departments to get us around the table to look at a real strategy for prevention of violence and enforcement of the laws we have. Many workers still feel unsafe going to work to earn a living and no worker should face that threat at work.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we strongly support the creation of a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker. It sends an important signal to those working in shops at a time when shop theft has surged and the risks to staff have grown. But if this measure applies only to those who work in shops, we risk sending an unintended message to other front-line staff that they somehow count for less.

The Minister previously gave three reasons for rejecting the noble Baroness’s amendment in Committee. First, he said that the case is especially strong for shop workers because they enforce age-restricted sales and are on the front line of theft. We agree that shop workers are at particular risk—that is why we support these clauses—but many other public-facing workers also enforce rules, refuse service and challenge bad behaviour. They too attract anger and sometimes violence.

Secondly, the Minister said that a narrow definition of retail worker is needed for legal clarity, while suggesting that some hospitality workers might be covered by the definition of retail premises in Clause 38. In practice, that causes new uncertainty. It is hard to justify protection for a worker in a café inside a supermarket but not for one in a café next door to a supermarket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have clearly defined in the Bill what we believe a retail worker is. I accept that there are areas of interpretation for the courts, such as, for example—we have discussed this with colleagues outside the House—whether a post office is covered by the retail worker provision. Somebody might walk into a post office to buy Christmas cards or birthday cards and go to the post office counter—is that a retail worker? Those are areas where there may be some interpretation, but we have identified this as tightly as we can. It is a straightforward clause that defines a retail worker. I commend it, given that there has been a considerable amount of work by the Home Office in drafting the amendment, after a considerable amount of work by retail organisations and trade unions to develop the campaign.

I go back to my point that all attacks on all staff are unacceptable. Other areas are covered, but the reasons I mentioned on the specific provision of upholding legislation are why we have put in a specific offence against retail workers. That is why I commend those clauses to the House. I ask the noble Baroness—although I understand that she cannot do this—at least not to push her amendment to a vote.

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

Before the Minister sits down, I think there was appetite among many of us to see the beginnings of a strategy for each sector that we know is facing rising violence. I know that that is not within the gift of the Minister, but a request to talk to Ministers and get people around the table in those sectors so that we can deal at a strategic level with the causes of violence, as well as big issues such as resources for enforcement, would go a long way to give comfort to people that this is the beginning of a conversation about how we deal with violence against working people.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to the House, I do not support, encourage or condone any violence against anybody under any circumstances. The public-facing workers are covered by two pieces of legislation; we are adding a specific offence for retail workers, for the reasons I have outlined. I have met personally with a range of bodies that the noble Baroness has brought before us. I understand that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill has met organisations and met and discussed issues with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is here today, and will continue to do so. However, this campaign on the clauses in the Bill has been a long time in gestation—it has taken 15 and 16 years to get where we are today—and I want to get them over the line, so I cannot accept the amendments that the noble Baroness has introduced. I ask her to withdraw her amendment but if she puts it to the vote, I shall have to ask my noble friends to join me in voting against it.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I want to come back really briefly on the language of “gender-responsive approach”. That is not a “gender-inclusive approach”: it is based on the ILO convention that our Government ratified, along with the rest of the global community, and relates to the fact that more women than men face misconduct at work. I wanted to clarify the language there, but I do take those points.

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

My Lords, I add my support for these probing amendments and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her work on this issue. I strongly welcome the Government’s promise to launch the largest crackdown in history to reduce violence against women and girls. While of course the misery of experiencing violence and harassment is not exclusive to women, surveys from the TUC and others have shown that it is overwhelmingly women who suffer this abuse. I also welcome the Government’s recognition that we need a whole-system approach that places prevention and survivors at its heart. As we have heard already, every part of society has to step up if we are to achieve the goal of every woman feeling safe everywhere, and that must include action to make the workplace a place of safety for women, too.

I had hoped that we had moved on from the notion that violence against women is somehow a private or domestic matter, but let us take the practical example of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations. This is the UK’s health and safety law that requires employers to report specific serious work-related incidents, such as fatalities and major injuries, to the Health and Safety Executive. These reports help the HSE track risks and prevent future harm, making it a vital legal duty to maintain workplace safety and accountability. But, if you look at it today, you see that the HSE website explicitly states that, while acts of violence to a person at work that result in death or a major injury are reportable, a physical injury inflicted on one employee by another during a dispute about a so-called “personal matter”, or an employee at work

“being injured by a relative or a friend who visits them at work about a domestic matter”

is not reportable. So, the HSE has no responsibility to track violence against women that happens in the workplace which is deemed to be a personal or domestic matter. I find that pretty shocking. You have to question why women’s experience of violence at work is disregarded in this way.

As we have also heard, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has responsibility for the duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, but it is open and public that it will investigate only what it describes as “strategic cases”, as it simply does not have adequate resources to deliver comprehensive enforcement. Surely, health and safety inspectors who have the powers and ability to go into workplaces have a role to play in enforcing prevention of sexual harassment.

The UK has fallen far behind the ILO’s recommended standard for the ratio of labour inspectors to the size of workforce. In effect, the safety and welfare of British workers has been deprioritised over the last decade and more compared with other countries. But it seems that the safety and welfare of women workers have been deprioritised even more. There is an opportunity for an update and a reset. The new fair work agency and boosting the number of labour inspectors will be vital, but we must get the health and safety framework right, too. For the sake of women workers, I hope the Minister will talk to other colleagues, for sure, but also give careful consideration to the amendments before us.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the objective of Amendment 348—who would not support the objective of preventing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace? I suspect that the main argument against Amendment 348 will be the burden that it would impose on employers, particularly small ones, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made that point very eloquently.

I will briefly identify one reason why it is very much in the interests of the employer to have these duties. It is because if there is illegal violence and harassment in the workplace which causes, as it will, damage to the victim, she—and it normally will be she—will be looking for remedies, and the person against whom she is most likely to be advised to sue is not the rogue other employee but the employer. The employer is particularly vulnerable to such a civil claim if they have not, as required by Amendment 348—which no doubt can be improved in its drafting—conducted any sort of assessment to identify potential risks, have not implemented policies and procedures to eliminate those risks, and, in particular, have not provided at least basic training to all employees on the importance of these matters. So, yes, this will impose a burden on employers, particularly small ones, but it is very much in their interests to protect themselves against legal liability and to deter such action taking place.

Fair Work Agency: Small and Micro Businesses

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The Fair Work Agency will be set up as an executive agency independent of the Secretary of State. However, it will have to report to the Secretary of State for its actions and enforcement. It will bring the four current enforcement units together into a single unit that all businesses should be able to address, and it will simplify the whole issue.

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

My Lords, many businesses of all sizes will welcome the simplification that the establishment of the Fair Work Agency represents in terms of the enforcement regime, but does the Minister share my concern about the spread of bogus self-employment through a range of sectors, from logistics to construction and retail? Does he share the view of the newly appointed chair of the Fair Work Agency that a priority must be a crackdown on sham self-employment in order that the Employment Rights Act is a success and that workers who suffer those contracts get the minimum wages and rights that they have earned?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend is right draw attention to this matter, on which she has long been a thoughtful voice. In 2024, the Low Pay Commission estimated that some 20% of workers paid at or around the wage floor were underpaid the minimum wage. Analysis conducted by the Resolution Foundation suggests that 900,000 UK workers per year have their holiday pay withheld, worth some £2.1 billion. A similar analysis published by the Trades Union Congress estimated that 2 million workers do not receive their holiday pay and entitlements amounting to more than £3 billion per year, and 1.8 million workers do not even receive a pay slip. My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to crack down on these shambolic practices, and the Fair Work Agency will address them.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I support Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers. I added my name to it and send her my best wishes. I place on record my thanks to Kalayaan, Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Work Rights Centre, the TUC and trade unions, and many other front-line organisations pressing for this change.

All workers, regardless of immigration status, and all decent employers, share an interest in everyone having the power to speak up and secure justice at work. But here is the problem: the UK’s visa system means that, too often, workers, not bad employers, end up punished. One migrant worker told researchers at the University of Birmingham:

“I was left with nothing, no job, no house, no papers … because the sponsor broke the law, not me”.


As we have heard, Amendment 44 seeks to restore the rights and protections of overseas domestic workers, which, shamefully, were stripped away in 2012. It is true that in 2016 domestic workers were afforded the right to change employers, but only while their six-month visa remains valid. So, with no right to renew their visa, the worker has no meaningful right to challenge their conditions of employment. As we know, domestic workers are uniquely vulnerable to exploitation. According to Kalayaan, many do not have access to their own passport or their own private space, let alone a bedroom. Many are not paid regularly and may face threats of deportation if they do not comply with employer demands. This imbalance of power is stark.

In his response, my noble friend the Minister may be tempted to talk about rights under the Modern Slavery Act. These rights are vital, but they do not help with the more everyday cases of exploitation or poor treatment of domestic workers, such as overlong hours and underpayment of wages, or sex and race discrimination. I strongly welcome the Government’s plans to raise labour standards and to enforce them through a new fair work agency. But perhaps the Minister can tell us: how many overseas domestic workers have been able to enforce their rights to fair pay and working conditions through an employment tribunal over the last decade? How many times has a labour inspector visited residences where domestic workers are employed? Critically, what difference will the new fair work agency make to those domestic workers?

I know that this Government are committed to strengthening rights at work for all working people, and I know from his track record that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to the plight of domestic workers. Will he agree to a summit, including front-line organisations, to determine how the Government can make good on the intent of this amendment, which is simply to ensure that migrant domestic workers get the same real rights to dignity at work as everyone else?

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this bit of the Report stage, but I want to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said. I speak as chair of both University College London Hospitals and the Whittington Hospital.

This is a real issue for health workers. We have a large number of asylum seekers coming to this country who already have health qualifications, and we are desperately short of workers in our health system. The fact that we do not allow them to work when we need them and our population would benefit from their services is an absolute disgrace. I ask the Minister to think about what the public reaction would be to having asylum seekers allowed to work and be doctors, nurses or whatever it might be. Would they not feel that it was much better than people being served in very short-staffed emergency departments or whatever?

I support all these amendments—but, specifically on the subject of health workers, we should let them work. It is absurd.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. In doing so, I accept that he is very sincere in the arguments that he makes. I would not necessarily wish to dispute his interpretation of ILO regulations or policies, but we are nevertheless being asked to accept the central premise of secondary picketing. Although I agree with the noble Lord—any reasonable person would—that the P&O dispute was an egregious example of malfeasance and inappropriate behaviour by the management, it should not be the basis of industrial policy and legislation that governs employment. On that basis, and with all due respect, I do not think that the noble Lord’s argument is very compelling. It is always bad law to work on the basis of unique circumstances, situations and anecdotes, notwithstanding the fact that we disagree with how P&O Ferries handled that situation, which was pretty lamentable.

That said, in the situation that we now have in the economy, where we have pressure on employment, rising inflation, difficulties in recruitment and ossified GDP growth, and where we are not achieving growth levels that we need, the last thing we need is to make the employment market more disputatious and more litigious. That is what this amendment would do, frankly. If one reads it carefully, the term “connected with” in proposed new subsection 4(a) would probably do a lot of heavy lifting in the future and no doubt be the subject of quite a bit of legal action, one would assume, were it to be incorporated into the Bill. In addition, the change in proposed new subsection 4(b) from employed by “that employer” to by “an employer”—that is, all employers—gives carte blanche, frankly, for going back to the bad old days of the 1970s when we saw behaviour that caused huge disputes and very significant dislocation between the workforce and employers across a wide range of industries.

As others touched on in Committee, and notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said about the ILO, this is almost from a different era. We are no longer in the era, or we are less so than we were, of heavily mechanised, heavily unionised manufacturing, where that central argument for having collective action between different groups of workers at different locations—I could mention Saltley coke works and Orgreave, which is very topical—was a pertinent issue. We are no longer in that situation, because of technical change, communication change and the way that people work now. Many more people work from home and many more work on a self-employed basis. They are not accessing unions as members and it is not necessary for them to have that physical collective action.

There are, very briefly, other big philosophical and ideological reasons why it would be bad news were this amendment to be appended to the Bill. There would be a disproportionate impact of secondary picketing, which would undermine the confidence of employers, customers and suppliers in businesses that are not directly involved in the dispute. It would create economic damage that extends far beyond the scope of the actual workforce disagreement. It would unfairly target neutral parties. Secondary picketing affects businesses and workers in the supply chain who have no direct involvement in the original dispute. These neutral employers face disruption to their operations, despite having no control over, or responsibility for resolving, the underlying conflict. There would obviously be a multiplier effect in the economy of such disruption. There are also legal and fairness arguments and contractual rights. Secondary picketing can interfere with existing contractual relationships between neutral businesses and their customers, suppliers or employees, which undermines the security of commercial contracts and business relationships.

There is also the right to work. Workers at secondary sites who are not party to the original dispute have their own right to work without interference; secondary picketing would, of course, impinge on that right. Secondary picketing can effectively coerce those workers into supporting a cause that they may not agree with or have a stake in. In terms of property rights, secondary picketing often takes place on or near the property of businesses uninvolved in the dispute, potentially interfering with property owners’ rights to conduct their business freely.

The rule of law is important as well. There is a reason why there was consensus among the voting public at the 1979 election and onwards, with the continuing legislation brought forward by the Conservative Government, that secondary picketing was essentially retrograde, a bad thing and not good for jobs, prosperity and business.

There is a final point to be made about democratic legitimacy. Secondary picketing can give unions power to disrupt parts of the economy where they lack a democratic mandate from the affected workers, as those workers have not chosen to join the industrial action. The point is that if you wish to go on strike, having gone through the democratic processes of a union workplace ballot at your place of work, that must be respected and it must be proper and within the rule of law. However, imposing that particular dispute on other people through secondary picketing undermines democratic legitimacy.

I say finally that the Blair Government were not perfect, but they looked at this situation, as did the Brown Government, when Labour was in power from 1997 to 2010 and did not essentially resile from a settled position and a consensus on secondary picketing. For that reason, notwithstanding that I respect the great expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I think that this is an unfortunate amendment and I oppose it.

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

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 150 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, because I think that it is worth taking just a moment to consider the impact of the reduction in union bargaining power that we have seen on ordinary working people in this country. That will not take long, because it is plain to see, in stagnating living standards and the drag on fair growth, but it is also worth considering how the position of the party opposite on industrial action has evolved over time.

In April 1980, the then Secretary of State for Employment, Jim Prior, introduced an Employment Bill which restricted secondary action, but he certainly did not advocate that it should be banned altogether. The then Conservative Government’s position was that secondary action should in fact remain lawful if it related to a first customer and/or supplier that was of direct importance to the original dispute. Jim Prior said that

“the only other position that we could take would be to say that there will be no immunity for anything other than primary action. I do not believe … that that is either a practical or a reasonable position to take”.

He also said that, by protecting the right to take secondary action in relation to a customer or supplier,

“We are seeking to reach a position which we believe is fair and which recognises the traditional rights of the trade union movement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/1980; col. 1490.]

Back then, a Conservative Minister could acknowledge that the relationship between an employer, on one hand, and workers and their unions, on the other, is an inherently unequal one. But, of course, Jim Prior did not last long in that role and, under successive Conservative Governments, the inequality of power between workers and employers was deliberately and repeatedly reinforced.

Secondary action, or solidarity action as it is commonly called, was effectively outlawed in 1990, but here is the problem that I invite noble Lords to reflect on when considering the arguments of my noble friend Lord Hendy. Business was handed a unilateral power to define what secondary action is and, unfortunately, that is an invitation to an abuse of power. This is not an academic point. It was only after a six-week strike in 1984 that Ford sewing machinists finally secured full equal pay, but the victory was short-lived. Ultimately, the company took the decision to outsource those jobs and so avoid any need for pay parity, secure in the knowledge that solidarity action from workers in the customer company would become unlawful. Today, some companies continue to use long supply chains and complex outsourcing arrangements to effectively balkanise workers’ bargaining power. For example, take a company that decides to boost profit margins by targeting one part of the work- force for wage cuts. To prevent fellow workers from participating in industrial action to resist those pay cuts, a company can simply divide itself in two. To paraphrase Jim Prior, is that fair?

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. Amendment 154 would remove another huge chunk from the legislation and, for the arguments that I rehearsed in the previous group, we will not support any move to force a vote on this occasion.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to mark that this is the moment—21 July, at 8.59 pm—when the Labour Government are going to put such unreasonable demands on small businesses that they will all come together and say, “This Government are not our friend. This Government are distracting us from growth, from employing more people and from productivity”. Just as small businesses are getting over Making Tax Digital, Covid and tariffs, this legislation will do irreparable harm. I wanted to make that point because I assure noble Lords that there will be future reference to this very moment.

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

My Lords, I too will be brief. I thought it might be helpful to inject a bit of balance into the debate. Noble Lords might recall that in Committee I spoke of how often there are positive voluntary agreements between employers and unions about access, because everybody recognises that in a modern, civilised society, workers should have the right to speak to a trade union. It is their choice whether to join, but it ought to be seen as a basic right to be able to meet a union at the workplace. In my experience, very often you go in and have a cup of tea and you get a chance to meet the workers, who will make up their own minds about whether they want to join.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which, to me, smacks of common sense, while also acknowledging that Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is a step in the right direction.

For those of us who have conducted disciplinary and grievance hearings—as an employer, I have conducted my fair share over the years—these are often stressful, time-consuming and sometimes very divisive, not only for the employee but often for the employer, the manager and the other team members who are involved. An officious approach, in which only a trade union official may accompany the worker into the meeting, makes this situation, if anything, more adversarial, more us versus them and, in my view, less likely to lead to a sensible compromise that works for both parties. This is particularly the case for small and micro-businesses in which trade union representation is lower and the worker very often does not have that option. To widen it out to other members, colleagues, friends or even family members, as Amendment 99 states, seems to me a sensible move.

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

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to correct what I think has been a mischaracterisation of the TUC briefing, which makes it very clear that the right to be accompanied includes, yes, trade union reps but also workmates. I also want to correct what is a misunderstanding of the spirit of the right to be accompanied, which was very much about dealing with grievances, disciplinaries and procedures within a workplace. Hence, when a union is recognised by the employer and the worker is a member of the union and chooses their union rep to represent them, that is a good thing. Our experience is that that is about resolving issues at an early stage. Likewise, a worker may choose a workmate to represent them—somebody inside the organisation who can take a practical, common-sense view of dealing with a grievance and disciplinary procedure.

During the debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot about the worries of ending up in employment tribunals, disputes being protracted and lawyers and others who maybe want to make a pretty penny from representing workers in trouble. Noble Lords will find that many employers, like workers, want to keep resolution of those issues within the workplace because that is often the quickest, more effective and cheapest way that everybody concerned can sort out problems when they arise. Surely it is in resolving issues that we should all share an interest.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I rise to say simply that, in my experience, I have found that employees want to bring with them family members, often parents—particularly women want to bring a parent—and I am not sure that this will allow that anymore.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, can be brief. I have deep concerns about proscribing Palestine Action. I do not think that the case has been made. I think this is a dangerous overreaction to populism expressed primarily in the British media.

I also want to take this opportunity to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for standing up and moving her amendment. We in this House talk a great deal about the principles of democracy, yet we are not often good at listening to unpopular or dissenting opinions, and I believe the way that she was piled on was completely inappropriate.

I also wish to associate myself with the contribution of my noble friend—and I underline that—Lord Hain. It takes courage to question a Government. I stand here and have the freedom as a non-aligned Member of this House. I was a member of the Labour Party for 45 years and, as noble Lords know, had the Whip removed and subsequently resigned. I have the luxury of standing here and criticising without repercussions from my party in government. My noble friend Lord Hain, too, has shown immense courage.

I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but I cannot sit here and allow this to go through with my silence and, thereby, my agreement. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wishes to press her amendment, I will go into the Lobby to support her.

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

My Lords—

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, everyone will be able to speak in this debate. We will hear from my noble friend Lady O’Grady next, then the noble Baroness.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the noble Baroness, and I thank the Minister for always listening to different perspectives with respect. We do not have to agree to be able to respect one another.

I support the proscription of the paramilitary and white supremacist IRM—or RIM, as I now have to call them—and MMC. To me, they clearly meet the commonly understood definition of terrorism, which is the use of violence that threatens civilian lives. Palestine Action is different: in its bid to disrupt the arms trade, its members commit serious damage to property. In my view, they are not terrorists but criminals. Drawing the definition too broadly risks fragmenting the power of that term and our common understanding of what terrorism is. I also worry about the impact on community cohesion.

My question is, what message would my noble friend the Minister send publicly, including to minority communities here in the UK, who may sincerely see this proscription of Palestine Action as, at best, a terrible distraction from the true terror we are all witnessing on our TV screens? Instead, the Government should do everything we can to help bring the hostages home, to seek justice for all victims of war crimes, to meet our duty under the UN convention to prevent and to punish genocide, and to secure an end to the unlawful occupation of Palestine with a two-state solution and lasting peace.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and I certainly agree wholeheartedly with her final sentence. I too support a two-state solution, but I also support this SI and I am very grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of why it is necessary.

I have to say to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Jones, for whom I have respect—we have often agreed on other issues—that to say that this group is not engaged in serious violence baffles me. I shall just suggest to noble Lords an incident from last August when Palestine Action used a repurposed prison van to smash through the perimeter of a research facility in Bristol. Of the security personnel who tried to intervene to stop them attacking the buildings, one was hospitalised with head injuries, two policemen who came along were attacked with sledgehammers and one ended up in hospital. So, when the Minister describes the tests for terrorism as being, one, to advance an ideological or racial cause, two, the intimidation of the public, and three, serious violence or serious damage to property that endangers life, I struggle to see how those examples do not meet the requirements for terrorism.

I am grateful to the Government for acting swiftly to try to prevent people actually being killed, rather than endangering their lives.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I do not quite agree with the noble Baroness. At the end of the day, the Government have to make a choice. We have identified the top eight sectors that we will support with this strategy going forward. At the same time, other industries will also benefit from the support because of its roll-on effect. Yes, ideally, we would like to support every sector, but we need to pick and choose. It is just like running your own business: you pick and choose who your customers are and you work with them, but you still serve everybody.

The industrial strategy focuses on eight sectors, but other foundational sectors will also be supported through the various plans set out in the strategy.

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

My Lords, I strongly welcome this industrial strategy, alongside the TUC and the CBI. It is about a mission for fair growth and delivering secure, skilled jobs in the parts of the country that need them most. I am also very conscious of the history of industrial policy. I remember when noble Lords opposite, as members of a Conservative Government, were responsible for temporarily nationalising Rolls-Royce because they saw the company as key to the defence sector and manufacturing. Making more things here in Britain matters.

I also welcome the focus on vocational training. Can the Minister say more about the role of higher education, which in successful countries has traditionally had a key role in supporting clusters such as R&D and innovation, with a view, obviously, to better productivity in the country?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As usual, my noble friend makes a brilliant observation; she is spot-on. We have to focus on skills. This is another thing that is brought to my attention every time I meet with businesses in the UK, and with international businesses. They say, “You need to close the skills gap”. Skills are missing in certain places, and this strategy addresses that.

We are investing in technical excellence colleges through the further education scheme. As far as higher education goes, noble Lords know that four of the top universities are in this country. Businesses work with them and fund their research as well. We attract international business because of the higher education expertise and professionalism in this country.

Let me say more about skills. We have just announced £275 million of skills investment over three years, which forms a wider skills package made up of £75 million of government resource investment and £200 million of capital funding, made available from our new skills mission fund.

We committed in the industrial strategy to investing over £100 million to boost engineering skills. That is made up of £75 million of resource funding and £25 million of capital funding from the skills mission board. The Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education have contributed funding for these engineering skills. We are also investing a further £187 million to support the digital skills package, which the Prime Minister announced at London Tech Week a few weeks ago. More details on defence skills will be set out in the forthcoming defence industrial strategy.