Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

371AA: Clause 124, page 151, line 18, after “worship” insert “, faith school or faith community centre”

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments seek to improve Clause 124. It is worth reminding ourselves that this clause seeks to amend Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. Curiously, that section was itself amended in 2022 to allow the senior police officer to impose conditions on a march if it resulted in

“serious disruption to the life of the community”,

in particular where it results in

“a significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers”,

or

“disruption of access to any essential goods”

or services to be delivered to places of worship. It is somewhat strange that the Act was amended to allow goods and services to be delivered, but did not mention disruption to the services themselves, so Clause 124 is a great improvement and a great help.

However, I wish to draw to the attention of the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Katz, that Section 12 is dependent upon the actions of a “senior police officer”, who “may”—the Act is specific on that word—decide to take action. I guess that he may not, as he is not required so to do. The Home Office will still be totally and solely reliant on the decisions of the senior police officer being put into action. There is no override envisaged that the Home Office can apply.

While I am on my feet, I believe that exactly the same point applies to Amendment 372 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson; again, it says that a senior police officer may choose to do this. I suggest that does not deal with the problem that when complaints are made by members of the public, politicians currently simply put their hands up and say, “It’s nothing to do with us; this is a police matter”. As we have seen in the West Midlands, we cannot rely on the police in every instance to do their duty and act fairly.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is the third time I have raised this point in debates on this Bill. In the previous two discussions, I have not really had an answer from the Ministers. In fact, I am not expecting them to answer it right now. What I am asking is for a commitment to consider this point, reflect on it and possibly meet those with an interest in the matter, and for it to be addressed by the time of Report.

My amendments are needed so that we can be sure that if protesters are banned from being near synagogues, they are stopped from simply heading towards Jewish faith schools and Jewish community centres. Of course, if my amendments protect schools and community centres of other faiths then I would be absolutely delighted, so I hope that these amendments will receive support from all sides of the House. Disappointingly, there is not a Bishop on their Bench, because, in my view, places of worship of all denominations need to be addressed by the Bill.

Make no mistake: Jewish people are leaving the UK as they no longer feel safe, particularly with the marches threatening to come back. I was in Israel last week on a parliamentary Conservative Friends of Israel trip, and Israelis were asking me, “Is it safe to be in London or Manchester any more?”. Businesspeople, academics, scientists, tourists and clerics are all nervous about coming to the UK. As we know, by the way, the marches in Westcliff-on-Sea led to synagogue attendance falling, which cannot be acceptable. We now need to be ahead of the protesters, not behind them. We need to protect faith schools and community centres.

Indeed, there have already been protests outside a Jewish community centre; there is one called JW3, which I support. When protesters were outside it on 27 October, there were unpleasant and aggressive slogans, and the police were powerless to move them on. Ironically, they were protesting at an event which was a conference to talk about future peace progress, with Palestinian representatives speaking.

My amendments attempt to pre-empt what we fear will happen after Clause 124 is passed. I have the support of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, of the Jewish Leadership Council—I declare that I serve as a vice-president—and of the Community Security Trust. All these organisations urge that my amendments be passed. As the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said the other day, these proposals do not conflict with anything the Macdonald review might say. The Government need no persuasion of this, because they themselves have proposed Clause 124 and Amendment 372, both of which would ordinarily be covered by the Macdonald review. There is no reason, then, to wait for his report to put through the proposed amendments.

I hope that by Report, the Minister will be able to signal his acceptance of these amendments, because we will keep pressing them. I am sure that the Government will want to play their part in trying to dial down the anti-Israel, and consequently antisemitic, febrile activities and mood. In my opinion, it is most unfortunate that the Government chose to recognise the State of Palestine when they did. This risked giving the organisations of protest the message that their aggressive and unpleasant actions were being rewarded. The Government now have an opportunity to try to show some even-handedness. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments for the reasons that have been mentioned. Lists are always difficult, because wherever you draw the line, there may be another group to be added, but this is a sensible pair of additions to the definition as applied in the Bill. It is difficult, not least because this week we have seen complaints about what is happening in Notting Hill, where an Israeli restaurant seems to have had a protest directly outside it for no other reason than that it happens to be Israeli. This does not seem to have anything to do with the people attending or running the place, other than the connection to Israel. No matter where we draw the line on the list, there may always be others to add. But if we cannot protect children, and we cannot protect where minority and faith groups gather to share their faith, then our society will probably be worse for it. Providing this definition will make the police’s job easier. While others may argue for more to be added to the list, these are two reasonable, well-founded additions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this short but focused and important debate on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to extend the power for police to restrict protests near places of worship to cover faith schools and faith community centres. The amendments were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks and Lord Massey of Hampstead, and from the opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

I acknowledge the wider societal problem that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, powerfully described in moving the amendment. I think it is fair to say that he acknowledged the need for Clause 124 and hence its inclusion in the Bill. We are as government very aware of the problem. In the discussion on the previous mega group of amendments on public order on Tuesday evening, there were some assertions by noble Lord that synagogues are not impacted by marches or protests. I neglected to say it at that time, but this is an opportunity for me to say from the Dispatch Box that that is clearly not the case. We know that there are synagogues in central London that have been directly impacted by marches. They have had to change their service times and have had their normal pattern of worship disrupted by those marches. It is clear proof that, in respect of the Jewish community over the last couple of years at least, we need the provisions of Clause 124.

Before I move on to the amendments, I hope that, in responding to those in Israel and the US who raised with him whether it is safe for Jews to live in Britain and to be in Britain, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, provided them reassurance that this is still one of the best places to be Jewish. We have fantastic values of tolerance and a liberal approach to enjoying any lifestyle that you wish and any religion that you wish to follow. As a British Jew, I am certainly very happy still, despite the concerns that we are discussing, to say that Britain is a great place to be a Jewish person. I hope that he responded in a similar manner.

On the amendments, under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, the police must have a reasonable belief that a public procession or assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the purpose of those organising the protest is the intimidation of others. The police must have a similar reasonable belief under Section 14ZA in respect to noise generated by a one-person protest.

Clause 124 will strengthen the police’s ability to manage intimidatory protests near places of worship by allowing them to impose conditions on a public procession, public assembly or one-person protest, specifically if they have a reasonable belief that the protests may result in intimidation and deter those seeking to access places of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities or conducting religious activities there.

Clause 124 does not define places of worship, which means that, where community centres may be used as a place of worship, there is flexibility for the police to consider using this measure and imposing conditions if appropriate. We believe this is a proportionate approach, because it allows the police to exercise their independent operational judgment rather than being constrained by prescriptive lists in legislation. Non-statutory guidance from the College of Policing will assist in clarifying marginal cases without removing the police’s discretion.

I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made—and has made in previous debates—on police discretion. To respond to him directly, I am of course very happy to meet him with department officials to discuss this as we move through Committee and before we get to Report. That offer is open to him and to other noble Lords who would care to discuss the issue.

Regarding faith schools, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there is particular sensitivity around schools because it involves young people. I declare an interest; I have two daughters who attend a Jewish faith school. It is incredibly concerning that they could be exposed to this in the manner of going to school and that the most normal everyday activity that a child or young person undertakes could be so disrupted. We very much share his concern, and his concern that it is not simply about Jewish faith schools; we are talking about all manner of faith schools, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, Muslim schools—they are very much at the cutting edge as a very visible place in a community where protests could be mounted and could be a focus for local community opposition or aggression, which is why we need to be careful about it. However, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gave local authorities the power to make expedited public space protection orders which protect those attending schools from intimidation, harassment or impeded access in the course of a protest or demonstration. Combined with the wide range of powers the police already have to address intimidation and harassment, these amendments would, I submit to your Lordship’s Committee, unnecessarily duplicate existing law.

Given that, I hope—although I am realistic—that I might have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, a little. I hope that, taking an account of the offer of a meeting and further discussion on the points that his amendments raise, he would agree that his amendments are not necessary and, at least for the time being, that he will not press them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution. I was tempted to add restaurants to the amendment, but I had already tabled it. I have instead just made a booking there. Members of the House of Lords are welcome to join me to support the restaurant.

I thank my riparian neighbour, down the river at Henley-on-Thames from Hurley, for his most welcome contribution. Of course, I thank my noble friends Lord Massey and Lord Cameron.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Katz, that I told everyone who made that comment to me that the UK was a very safe space for Israeli citizens to come and visit. However, it really was a concern that was expressed to me, quite shockingly. I assure him that I am totally in agreement with him on that.

I would argue that community centres could not be defined as places of worship. The JW3 centre specifically, as the noble Lord knows, could not be described as such, so it would not come within that definition. However, I can see that he is sympathetic and understanding, and I am very grateful for that. I am grateful to the Government for putting in Clause 124. Clearly, the 2022 Act was not sufficient, which is why they had to put in Clause 124, so perhaps there is a discussion to be had. I am grateful for his agreement to do that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 371AA withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Thank you. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is absolutely right. For example, Steve Bray, the man who does all the loud Brexit protests in Parliament Square—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Lock him up.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will thank Members on this side not to comment on my speech if possible.

Apparently last week the police tried to close Mr Bray down in spite of the court ruling that said that what he was doing was legal. They made, I am told, the absurd and fatuous claim that the judgment had been repealed. That is completely wrong; it is complete nonsense. That is what the police said. They are confused. I do not blame the police for that; I think that the law on protest has now reached such proportions that they really cannot be expected to stay up with what is happening. The Minister said that the police are going to make these decisions and that we have to trust the police and have lots of confidence in them, but if you make bad law, you are responsible and not the police. You are responsible for passing laws that are, first, unnecessary and, secondly, plain wrong. The police have to try to put that into practice, and that is not fair.

I think I might have said everything actually.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is my intention, and I believe it is the case—possibly the Minister will confirm—that my amendment would not change one iota. It would simply incorporate all the current regulations from the 2023 regulations and move them verbatim into the Bill, making it a primary case. It would not change any of the provisions at all. If there are technical drafting issues then they can be corrected later, but there is no intention to change any of the concept.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments and will speak to a point that comes up in Amendment 378B. Because it arises in 378B, I am raising it now, but it affects the subsequent amendments in the next few groupings, particularly my amendments. It all flows from Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Essentially, there is some concern that so much discretion will be left to the police. It is clear that, for one reason or another, the police have not been effective in controlling protesters to date. Noble Lords may have seen the video clip on social media showing Gideon Falter, CEO of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, being told by police he was “quite openly Jewish”, and therefore causing a breach of the peace.

We are in the middle of assessing the appalling decisions by the West Midlands police, who consulted a large number of mosques, including some very radical ones that housed an imam who stated that women should not leave their home without their husband’s permission. These people were consulted on whether or not Israeli tourists should be allowed to visit the West Midlands. The police claimed they had consulted the Jewish community in the area: that was not true. It is clear they realised that the Israeli tourists would be in danger, but they decided to ban them from coming on the false excuse that they would be the aggressors. So they turned the victims into the guilty ones.

Your Lordships may have seen another video clip— on Friday or Sunday night—outside an Israeli-owned restaurant in Notting Hill called Miznon. There were some very aggressive and intimidating protesters and the police simply stood there. There may have been one arrest, but that was it. So innocent employees, eaters, diners and members of the public faced a very unpleasant situation.

Fair Work Agency: Small and Micro Businesses

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of his amendment in Committee. As far as I know, and I will obviously correct by way of a letter, the consultation is happening and statutory instruments—secondary legislation—will follow suit. We hope to get this up and running by April 2026.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the one thing one would have thought the Government had learned from the Budget is that business cannot deal with uncertainty. Most of the Fair Work Agency legislation is going to be in secondary legislation, so we need to know exactly when that is going to come out. Importantly, as my noble friend said, the SME community is very worried. SMEs employ 16 million people. Will the Government commit to set up a dedicated SME consultation panel to review the Bill’s rollout and try to avoid unintended consequences?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, the intention is to have the secondary legislation in place and for this to be set up in April 2026. As for engagement with SMEs, we have stressed that there will be an advisory board within the Fair Work Agency made up of representatives from business organisations, big and small, trade unions and independent representatives so that they can feed in their concerns and so that the Fair Work Agency will be able to do its job.

United States: Intelligence Sharing

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of my time on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I am grateful to him for his work chairing it now. He has articulated the principles of information sharing. He will understand that I cannot comment on the details of intelligence sharing, but the UK will commit to and retain its legal responsibilities in that field.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government took the political decision to ban some arms to Israel and to then recognise the Palestinian state in a series of anti-Israel measures, the Israeli Government said at that point that they might consider reducing or stopping intelligence sharing with the UK Government. Have the Government made an assessment of the likely damage that that would do to the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have common interests with the Israeli Government, and we should try to maintain that data-sharing arrangement. What they do and how they operate is a matter for them. It is important that we have as wide data sharing as possible and information sharing with important strategic partners. The Five Eyes partnership is the cornerstone of that, but self-evidently, where there are common interests, other parties would wish to share information on a basis. I would hope that the Government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state does not impact upon the ability to look at wider threats, should they exist.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I will try to finish the point in just a couple of sentences. The point is that somebody who does not like paying the political subscription can simply leave the union. If they object to it, that is what they can do. That freedom is protected by Article 11 of the European convention and is ratified in a whole number of cases. I will not develop the argument further. I would love to take it outside with the noble Baroness. We can have a drink and go into all the cases.

I just wanted to make one further point. The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that perhaps trade unions should be barred from making political payments at all. It is an interesting argument, which nobody else has advanced. It reminds me of the point my noble friend Lord Barber made about the fact that the requirement to have a political fund, introduced in 1909, is imposed on no other organisation in this country. Companies do not have to have separate political funds, ballot their members or shareholders or answer to anybody in making a political donation. It is only trade unions that are required to hold political funds with all the paraphernalia of opting in or opting out. I am not going into that argument.

I was contemplating—I never did it, but perhaps I should have done—moving an amendment that trade unions should be relieved of having political funds at all. It was a requirement which answered the Law Lords’ decision in Osborne vs the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in 1909, eight years after the foundation of the Labour Party, to bar trade unions from funding the political party that they had just launched. If we got rid of trade union political funds, we would not be having this argument at all.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lord, I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to my own Amendments 152A and 152B. In so doing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this amendment. I remember the debate we had at that time. There is no question about it: every side of the debate compromised. I remember Ministers from the other place telling us that we had to compromise and we had to make concessions that we did not feel were right. The deal was done, and the deal still holds.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we should do things in the round and in one is exactly right, rather than making this piecemeal change that the Bill proposes, if there are to be dramatic changes. I accept that times have moved on and that funding for the Labour Party is largely from individuals rather than from unions. None the less, if we are to make changes, then let us look at them in the round rather than observing the piecemeal change proposed in the Bill.

I have to correct the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hendy. Companies cannot make donations to any political party without prior shareholder approval in the period of a year—not 10 years, but one year. That approval lasts only one year and has to be refreshed at the annual general meeting. Noble Lords are encouraged to look at the accounts of any company—certainly a public company—to see that that is the case.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

That is true, but it does not require a ballot of individual shareholders. There is a vote once a year, or whenever, so that a donation can be made at the annual general meeting. It is not a ballot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With great respect, every shareholder gets a mailed piece of paper with a box to tick—every single shareholder every single year. If that is not a ballot, what is?

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

Do shareholders get an opt-out facility from political donations that the company is making on behalf of the owners of the company?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

They can certainly vote against it, and that happens quite regularly. The situation is exactly the reverse of the one put forward by the Benches opposite.

My focus is on Clause 77, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, highlighted. It is a complicated clause. It refers us to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which was itself amended by subsequent Acts, and to the famous aforementioned Section 32ZB, which relates to details of political expenditure in the political fund. The political funds, as I think has been said, were set up to protect the unions because the law did not allow them to make donations directly, so the political fund allows donations to political parties. But this clause requires details of any political expenditure to be disclosed in the annual return to the certification officer, and that is what the Bill wants to get rid of. It was brought in as Section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Political campaigning, which the noble Lord will know is clearly spelled out already in the legislation, requires some of these issues to be paid for out of the political fund, Indeed, my own union, UNISON, operates two separate political funds, as my noble friend Lord Prentis explained in Committee, one of which relates to the party-political affiliation and the other to the wider campaigning role. Of course, not all political party payments have gone to the Labour Party; they have gone to other parties and candidates as well.

The payments must be established through the democratic structure of the union. Those same structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how those political funds are utilised. Joining a trade union is an informed decision and members will be made aware of their right to opt out of political fund contributions. Indeed, we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership. Those changes should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund under the system that existed before 2016. If members wish to exercise that right to opt out, they are free to do so at any time.

We are not altering the arrangement for existing union members. If they decided to join a union with the knowledge that they would be opted out of political fund contributions, they will continue to be opted out once the Bill passes. As I hope I have explained, automatic opt-in will reduce the administrative burden on unions while still allowing members to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish.

I turn to Amendment 148 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation—a framework that delivers productive and constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandates.

The 50% threshold is a high bar and is not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament and votes for MPs and local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold but are not thereby considered any less legitimate. Indeed, most local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%—I am sure that a number of noble Lords who have previously been councillors have been elected on a less than 50% turnout—and nor, for the most part, do votes at general meetings of companies require any turnout threshold. Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot, and they will have their voices heard in the normal way.

The Government have been clear about our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, including industrial action ballot thresholds, but the amendments would prevent the Government delivering on that manifesto commitment. I was pleased to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for upholding our manifesto commitments, and I will remind him of that when we come to vote on these amendments.

The date for the repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have broad and demonstrable support.

As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about the doctors’ strike. The Secretary of State has held constructive meetings with the BMA resident doctors committee to try to avert strike action by discussing how we can work together to improve the working lives of resident doctors. However, the BMA RDC has refused to engage in further discussions and has instead chosen to proceed with its planned strikes. Our view is that strikes have a serious cost to patients, so once again we urge the BMA to call them off and instead work together to improve members’ working conditions and to continue rebuilding the NHS.

On Amendment 149ZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the Government have made it clear that we do not intend to make sectoral carve-outs for the limitations and conditions that apply to industrial action. That is demonstrated by our repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action ballots, both of which remove the further conditions on industrial action that currently exist in some public services.

Ensuring that statutory notice periods for industrial action are consistent across every sector will ensure that the rules are straightforward and clear to all parties involved in industrial action in every circumstance. It is then for employers in each sector to be mindful of these rules and manage their industrial relations and businesses accordingly.

I also want to make it clear that repeal of the 14-day notice period forms part of our manifesto commitment to reverse the Trade Union Act 2016. Following the outcome of our public consultation on creating a modern framework for industrial relations, we decided that a 10-day notice period for strikes was the appropriate balance between giving employers time to prepare and upholding the right to strike. It is also a minimum, not a maximum, period and employers will be able to plan for industrial action long before receipt of a notice.

Our approach is not an outlier. The UK will still provide one of the longer industrial action notice periods in Europe. Many European countries have shorter or no notice requirements on industrial action, while also requiring airlines to comply with the EU version of Regulation 261/2004. We are aware that under Regulation 261/2004 an airline may be liable to pay passengers compensation if it cancels a flight less than two weeks before its scheduled departure. But even under the current 14-day industrial action notice period, in practice airlines may therefore still be liable to pay compensation if they need to cancel flights due to industrial action.

I turn to Amendments 149A and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. This is why we are substantially repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 and fixing the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in the meantime.

Legislation governing picket lines is, of course, essential and, to be clear, we are repealing only those additional measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Substantially repealing this in the Act is also a manifesto commitment, while other legislation relating to picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location, it must be peaceful and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. The existing Code of Practice on Picketing, once updated to remove the requirement for a picketing supervisor, will continue to support the legislation on picketing. Together these are sufficient to ensure the operation of peaceful picketing.

The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016, published in October 2024, set out the expected impacts of the removal of the requirement for a picketing supervisor and is available for all to read. The assessment shows limited evidence of serious problems on picket lines prior to the introduction of the 2016 Act, and there remains limited evidence of problems on picket lines in more recent years. The assessment concluded that it is therefore unlikely that the removal of the additional legal requirement to appoint a picketing supervisor will have a noticeable effect on the impact of picketing during disputes. There is nothing new to add to that assessment; we are simply returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016 when it was working well and understood by all parties.

I turn to Amendments 152A and 152B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. I think on previous occasions the noble Lord has reminded us of his role as treasurer of the Conservative Party, although he did not on this occasion. Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that positions that do not require financial remuneration do not need to be declared. I did, in fact, make that declaration at Second Reading and in Committee and no further declaration is required.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I think that is the point I was making; I was just reminding the noble Lord. He could have reminded us on this occasion, given that a number of his points were very much party-political ones.

Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would omit, remove burdensome requirements and regulation on unions imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. This red tape works against unions’ core role of negotiating and dispute resolution, which is why we made a manifesto commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. In relation to Clause 77, trade unions will continue to submit an annual return to the certification officer; however, the amount of information required in that return will be less.

--- Later in debate ---

Indeed, we are not changing the requirement on unions to provide an annual statement to members that specifies, among other things, the total income and expenditure of the union’s political fund. In relation to Clause 78, there is no need for the certification officer to retain powers to investigate requirements that will no longer exist when this Bill is passed. The certification officer—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Can the Minister be quite clear with us in that case? She said that unions will be required to report to the certification officer gross amounts of income and expenses. Can she be crystal clear that there will be no requirement to disclose expenses made within the political fund to any organisation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000. The certification officer will continue to be able to enforce remaining annual return requirements—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

That is what I said.

We are simply returning to the situation as it was pre-2016. I would add that the unions are already specifically regulated in the requirement to have a separate fund for spending on political purposes that is subject to many rules. There is no such requirement on many other membership organisations.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton relating to Clause 62 on equality representatives. Trade unions have long fought for equality. We recognise that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. New Section 168B(2)(a) therefore provides for the broad purpose for equality representatives to take paid time off for carrying out duties

“for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”.

In addition, new Section 168B(2)(c) makes provision for

“providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”,

and new Section 168(2)(d) makes provision for

“consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”.

Finally, equality representatives may also be eligible for time off under Section 168 of the 1992 Act, which includes time off for

“negotiations with the employer related to or connected with matters falling within section 178 … in … which the trade union is recognised by the employer”.

We believe that these measures are broad enough to include a range of activities, which encompass collective bargaining, negotiating with employers and representing members. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to withdraw Amendment 147.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

152A: Leave out Clause 77

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, we have debated this at length. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but I cannot see a reason why payments should be hidden from members of a union.

In wishing to test opinion of the House, I also declare that I have never received any financial remuneration from the Conservative Party: neither have I received any union payment or indeed a union pension. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. There are good reasons to exempt small businesses, which make up the backbone of our productive economy, from the measures in Clauses 55 and 56, both for the statement of trade union rights and for trade union access.

We know, as we discussed in Committee, how rapidly trade union membership is falling, and that it has fallen particularly in the private sector. We know that, although it has gone up in the public sector, it still represents a much smaller proportion of trade union members than in 1995, when statistics began. Small and medium-sized businesses account for 99.8% of our productive economy. If we impose additional compliance costs on 1.16 million micro businesses of up to 10 employees and on 4 million sole traders, we are saddling them with the kind of compliance costs to which noble Lords have already referred.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendments to exempt the majority of small, tiny and medium-sized enterprises from the compliance costs of furnishing a letter and the costs—indirect, perhaps—of access arrangements for trade unions, when there may be no trade unionists in the workforce of these small, entrepreneurial businesses.

[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

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, both of which I have signed. I also support the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, which calls for some scientific and statistical significance in polling a representative group of SMEs on the impact of certain provisions in the Bill. This Government’s consultation with SMEs is, to put it politely, curious and opaque, lacking, so far, any meaningful numbers or quantified response, and with barely any names. Consultation carries little weight if it lacks statistical credibility.

The entirely sensible and pragmatic amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to hand the Secretary of State regulatory tools to bring in exemptions to Part 1 for certain groups or sectors, for specified periods of time, should he or she decide that these are appropriate.

Noble Lords may remember that the Government were offered similar powers of exemption by amendment in the NICs Bill earlier this year, voted through enthusiastically by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the majority of Cross-Benchers, only to receive the custard pie treatment in the other place under the cloak of financial privilege, which was a great pity. The noble Baroness has, very generously in my view, made the same offer again, and I hope it gets a more constructive response this time.

For there is broad consensus across business that Part 1 of the Bill will have a significant impact on the jobs market, especially for SMEs, but let us be frank: the degree or level of impact is highly unpredictable. If we see the sorts of outcomes suggested by membership surveys from such bodies as the ICAEW and the FSB, then the Secretary of State would be well advised to grab the option of these exemption tools with both hands rather than doggedly sticking to a one-size-fits-all mantra.

Turning briefly to Amendment 159, seeking the disapplication of certain provisions for small and micro-businesses with fewer than 50 employees, this gets my wholehearted support. I will spare the House a repeat of my arguments in Committee. But for the Government to argue, as I am sure they will, against this amendment, because they do not want to create a two-tier workforce, simply does not reflect economic reality or indeed the jobs market or the structure of businesses.

SMBs cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities, pensions and a whole range of other benefits. That is a reflection of their size, their culture and their stage of development, yet they succeed in delivering strong employee loyalty and identification. This is true of family businesses, start-ups and scale-ups. To apply all the provisions in this Bill, and specifically those listed in this amendment for disapplication, to a micro-business employing five staff as it does to a multinational employing 10,000 is wilfully indiscriminate and, I suggest, economically illiterate. That is why I put my name to the amendment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Noakes. I shall speak to my Amendments 106, 153, 155 and 184. The main thrust of the first amendments is to force the Government to listen to real concerns of the SME community who, frankly, even at this late stage, are unaware of the effects of this Bill. They are too busy trying to keep afloat in a difficult economic environment, where the painful costs of NICs and other tax rises are kicking in.

I declare an interest as an adviser to many SME businesses in my career at Cavendish plc and, to the extent that it is relevant in union matters, as a Conservative Party treasurer. We have not yet heard from any Labour Party Back-Benchers today, but I am sure that, if we do, they will declare their interests in respect of union membership.

Turning first to Amendment 106, which relates to Part 1 of the Bill, we are constantly told by the Labour Front Bench that they want to consult with business—indeed, they repeated that today. They want to consult with business, but they fail to disclose who exactly they are consulting with, let alone what they are being told by those businesses and their representative bodies. I suspect that is because they are embarrassed by the backlash against the severity of this Bill from SME and micro employers, who will make it clear to the Government that this Bill will mean they are less likely to employ more people and much more likely to let people go as the burden of employment is ratcheted up. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the Labour Party manifesto’s commitment to consultation.

If the Government are so confident of the benefits of this Bill for all businesses, why not agree to engage with them? This proposal is really very modest: just 500 companies out of some 5.5 million in the UK. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to be honest with us and tell us what the reaction of the SME community is and what are its concerns, particularly as we know there has been a shocking lack of impact assessments for this Bill. We know that the recent CIPD survey revealed that 79% of organisations expect these legislative changes to increase employment costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I feel that his comments on political funds go a fair way outside the scope of the amendments we are speaking to today. There will be plenty of time to discuss political funds next week on Report.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?

Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.

If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and declare my interests, as recorded in the register, as the chairman of three businesses that would undoubtedly qualify as small enterprises.

I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the Minister when she replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would find in their favour. Very long ago I practised in the field of employment law, and I saw at first hand the consequences—often very damaging, sometimes disastrous—for a small business of having to spend the time, trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if ultimately, it was successful. In the real world, faced with that predicament, employers often find themselves obliged to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and would stand scant chance of success, were it ever to come before the tribunal. That factor ought to be taken into account.

My question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is this. Attention has been drawn today to the impact assessment, particularly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who pointed to the increase in the number of tribunal cases that would be a consequence of the Bill. To what extent did that impact assessment take into account disputes that were not actually taken to the tribunal and were settled by the employer, who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case at the tribunal, but which would nevertheless involve substantial, damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the employer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord starts throwing statistics around, I can throw statistics at him as well. As I said earlier, the Deloitte survey shows that the UK is the top destination for businesses. In fact, the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House yesterday was very much welcomed by the City of London. All the financial services say that London will be the destination for fintech investment. Furthermore, KPMG’s recent consumer index says that people are feeling that they have more money in their pocket and are starting to plan holidays for the summer—good for them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will want to be very clear on this. I think the Deloitte survey he refers to was in respect of inward investment only, probably because the UK is regarded as a cheap place, given what has happened to us in the last month, whereas the chartered accountant survey is specifically on business confidence, which has fallen every quarter for the last four quarters. One wonders what happened four quarters ago to prompt that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We got into government one year ago, after 14 years. Business confidence was very low then, and at the same time unemployment was on the rise. At the end of the day, we are making progress. The figures will take time to change, but I am confident that confidence will grow. Inward investment is coming in, which means more investment in business and growth. Furthermore, the FTSE index reached the 9,000 mark yesterday. What does that say? People have confidence to invest in British companies, so let us not talk down the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their amendments and their introductions. I speak strongly in favour of these amendments, which address a crucial gap in the rights currently afforded to workers.

At its core, this is about fairness, autonomy and dignity; it is about giving working people real choice and a real voice when it matters the most. As we have heard, under the current law, a worker facing a disciplinary or grievance hearing has the right to be accompanied, but only by a fellow worker or a trade union representative. What of the workers who are not in the union, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out, is most of them? What of those who work in small businesses, where asking a colleague to attend is uncomfortable or perhaps even counterproductive? What of those sectors in which peer support simply is not realistic? We must not confine workers to a narrow and outdated list of whom they are allowed to bring into the room at a time of maximum stress and uncertainty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, so powerfully illustrated with her real-world examples, that causes problems.

This amendment would bring common sense, compassion and modern flexibility into law. This is about worker autonomy, trusting people to decide whom they need in the room with them. If we are truly to modernise employment rights, either amendment should be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

106: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on Part 1(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 of this Act.(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that views are specifically sought from at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, within 18 weeks of the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on the outcome of that consultation, including a summary of responses received from SMEs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are consulted as part of that process.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto promised consultation; it has not happened. The Minister, when batting away amendments promises consultation, and it has not happened. The SME community of this country is petrified about provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. They want to be heard, and I think noble Lords do as well. I wish to test the opinion of this House.

Corporate Liquidations

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the reported rise in corporate liquidations in the year to 31 March 2025.

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

My Lords, in the year to 31 March 2025, total corporate liquidations rose by 8%. This increase was driven by a 36% jump in solvent liquidations, while insolvent liquidations fell by 3%. The current corporation insolvency rate remains less than half what it was during the 2008-09 recession. Businesses go into liquidation for various reasons—tight cash flow, falling sales and loss of market share to online rivals—but no single factor dominates. Compulsory liquidations have increased mainly due to the increase in winding-up petitions from creditors, mainly from HMRC.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The Minister is right: in fact, more than 2,000 businesses have faced winding-up petitions this year, the highest rate since 2012. Today, we learn that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 274,000 over the past year, and most worryingly by 109,000 just this month past. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has predicted that eye-watering costs to business, particularly tax costs, will lead to more job losses. Does the Minister agree with me that as every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Noble Lords may groan. As every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office, now is the time to reduce tax, which is at an all-time record high for businesses, particularly SMEs, before the next election.

Anti-Semitism in the UK

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. She will know that I am not brave enough to restrict her freedom of speech in any way. I think this goes back to what I said when I quoted Rabbi Sacks. He pointed out that anti-Semitism may begin with the Jews but it does not end there, so it is for all of us to combat it.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words, and particularly for reminding us of the wise words of the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks of Aldgate. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is as he says, but it is actually worse.

I was talking to a beauty journalist yesterday and she was telling me of the tweets going around about beauty products, telling people not to buy from certain businesses as they are owned by a Jewish person and not to buy from certain businesses as they are owned by a person who supports Israel. It is biting, and it is not just beauty products but clothing products and any Jewish business. This is truly shocking. This last happened 70 years ago. It is spiralling out of control. Jewish businesses are being targeted because they are owned by Jewish people, and people are responding to it. I do not know what the Government can do about that.

As I mentioned earlier in this Chamber, I am president of Westminster Synagogue. On Saturday, the police told us that they would protect us. They sent 20 police officers and four vans, because the demonstration walked past our synagogue, and they felt that was necessary. That demonstration included people chanting anti-Semitic slogans and the expression “From the river to the sea”, which means genocide of the Jewish people in the State of Israel. Of course, the police did not do anything to stop those chants and protests. They did, however, take one person away. That person was standing behind a railing with a banner saying, “Hamas are terrorists”. He was manhandled by the police, his arms were locked and he was walked away. My noble friend the Minister says that the police are restricted in what they can do; they seem to be selective in deciding what to do.

Of course, I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to have answers to all these specific instances tonight, and I can only add to the praise of CST, of which I am proud to be a supporter. I commend Sir Gerald Ronson’s incredible work in promoting CST to the organisation it has become.

I add that it was extremely disheartening to see the disgraced academic David Miller allowed to tweet out his vile abuse of Jewish charities, and it was very disappointing that the University of Bristol failed in its case. One can only think that it did not try particularly hard. I hope the Government will think through how they can take action to stop people like David Miller from posting such vile abuse to people who are just trying to be philanthropists and to help others in need.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I heard his comments about the synagogue and the march this afternoon in another Question. On that incident, as I said, it is very difficult to second-guess the police after the fact. I appreciate where my noble friend is coming from. The decision obviously has to be context specific. But the police are accountable for their actions and, speaking from a personal point of view, I read a good article in the Spectator yesterday by our noble friend Lord Godson. He was right to raise the questions that he raised in that article, and we are all right to question the police, after the fact, about why they did what they did, how they did it and all the rest of the operational matters that they have to remain responsible for. On the targeting of businesses, I have seen some of this stuff online, and I am afraid it disgusts me as well. I am not sure what the Government can do, but this is obviously noted, and I will take it back to the Home Office.

National Security Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1, an amendment to government Motion B. I am very pleased that the Government have finally proposed an alternative amendment, recognising that only the ISC can undertake effective scrutiny of intelligence and security work undertaken by the Government.

The ISC supports the government Motion on the basis that my Motion is also accepted. It removes the requirement for consideration of whether the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated to commence within six months. We are concerned that such a time restriction may have unintended consequences; it might inadvertently affect the ability of the ISC to oversee security or intelligence activity related to the Bill. For example, if the Government commence new security or intelligence activity as part of the Bill outside the ISC’s remit—beyond the six-month period—the Government could attempt to argue that they will not consider any commensurate update to the ISC’s MoU as considerations are required to start within six months of the Bill coming into force.

Because of the Government’s long-standing refusal to update the ISC’s MoU, and their continued arguments to justify their refusal to accept independent oversight of the committee, the committee is of the view that it will be much safer for us to remove this time limitation to avoid any possible confusion in the future. Although that sounds like a lawyer’s argument, this is a lawyer’s issue; it is something we have to be quite careful about.

While the government Motion will not remedy the significant gap in ISC oversight that already exists in relation to intelligence and security matters, it at least seeks to stop the oversight gap becoming even bigger. I hope that this reflects a turning point and the beginning of a shift in the Government’s position, including their acceptance of the need for robust, independent and democratic oversight of secret intelligence matters.

However, the House should not forget the wider problem, and we should continue to insist on a remedy. With my ISC colleagues in the other place, I have already explained repeatedly why the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated more broadly. I will not repeat those arguments now, other than to say that currently there is insufficient parliamentary oversight of the Government’s intelligence and security activities.

Intelligence and security matters are too important for there not to be comprehensive parliamentary oversight. There can be no activity by the Executive which escapes democratic oversight. The Motion is the first indication from the Government that they have begun to grasp this fundamental principle and the importance attached to it by those in this House. Despite the Motion’s significant limitations, I support it being added to the Bill, with my own Motion, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences which may negatively affect the ability of the ISC to oversee the entirety of this regime. I encourage the Government to use this as a foundation for constructive engagement on the rest of the ISC’s MoU, which, as I have explained, urgently needs updating.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this closing part of the Bill. I declare my interest as the senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. It is not on the register of interests, because the registrar does not accept it as a declarable interest; I do not know why, but I bring it to your Lordships’ attention now.

I wish to speak because, as this debate concludes, it would be unfortunate if the reader of this debate and previous debates was left with the conclusion that political parties are in any way seeking to obtain donations from foreign parties or do not take considerable steps to ensure that foreign parties or intermediaries do not make donations to political parties. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord West, commented that

“it is perfectly possible for companies to make significant donations to political parties despite clearly not making operating profits and therefore with limited explanations of how they can afford such donations and where the money comes from”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 237.]

However, many companies can of course raise substantial sums of money and not make operating profits— I have personal experience of that. That is not the issue; the issue is that regulated donees have to be UK-registered companies incorporated in the UK which carry on business in the UK. I know from my experience that considerable lengths are taken to ensure that those companies are companies that carry on business, by any definition, in the UK. That is a requirement of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The companies must also be registered with Companies House. Later this afternoon, we will finalise our debates on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, in which I have had a large involvement. From that, it is clear that Companies House will have substantially greater access to information on companies’ accounts digitally to assess who the persons of significant control are.

Accepting or funnelling unlawful donations is already illegal. Every donation over £7,500 is declared and you can take my word for it that any donation that one might think is, shall we say, unusual leads to lots of inquiries from the press, which is perfectly reasonable, and others such as political opponents. The Electoral Commission has 233 staff. It has resources this year of £25.5 million. It is responsible for looking after political parties, not much more than that.

It is not particularly obvious to me what more political parties could do. They are not banks; they are not HMRC. It would be inappropriate to create a very false impression. Donors do not control parties. They do not influence or determine policy. They typically give modest sums of money because they believe in supporting a party and wish it to succeed. We do not wish to slip into state funding, which would be a very dangerous route. In fact, donors to all political parties should be thanked and recognised for their contribution to civil society.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I slightly despair listening to the noble Lord. Can we just ask for a little humility from treasurers of all political parties? I am afraid there is plenty of evidence that the garden is not as perfect as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is saying.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I beg to disagree and am happy to offer humility. I note that recently the Labour Party returned a donation from a Mr Ian Rosenblatt which it decided was inappropriate. All credit to it. It happens regularly. This is not a political issue; this a cross-political matter. As I say, every donation is listed, so there is 100% transparency. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s proposals, which I think are extremely sensible and helpful to this argument.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We on these Benches very much welcome the concessions that the Government have made. I disagree with the rather overoptimistic interpretation of where we are from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. In the last exchanges, the Minister said that the National Security Bill was about national security and not about donations to political parties, but donations to political parties from foreign powers are a matter of national security.

Indeed, in the last Commons debate on this, a number of rather distinguished Conservatives intervened to say how strongly they supported the amendment as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the last occasion. I recall Sir Jeremy Wright saying that he found it “very difficult to disagree” with anything in the amendment. He is currently on the ISC and was previously a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it was writing its report on public finance.

I have just read a paper on political finance that the Institute for Government has just published. That stresses how rapidly the context is moving and how the law needs to adjust to cope with that. It particularly stresses the extension of overseas voting rights to British citizens who have been resident abroad for a very long time, many of them dual nationals. Checking on where the ultimate source is for those things is going to be extremely difficult and probably impossible, but political parties should be on their guard against undue influence and the suggestions the Government are now making perhaps will help political parties to take further moves in that direction

I was also struck by the speech that David Davis made in the Commons last week about a donor to the Conservative Party who had given £750,000—not a modest donor, even by the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—who had spoken openly about buying influence and “access capitalism” as part of what he expected. This was a dual national whose fortune appears to have come largely from contracts within a number of post-Soviet states.

There is a problem there, and it requires investigation, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance that there is a problem and that it needs further investigation, and we look forward to reading the text of the amendment that the Government will move in the Commons and to the further work that they will do then—we hope in co-operation with other parties—to last beyond the next election. This is an area where we need to have electoral rules that are agreed by all the participants.