Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the amendment is legally coherent and that is very much in its favour. It contains a tacit acknowledgment of the dualist system that we have in this country. That means that we are bound by domestic law and bound by international law only in so far as it has it has been incorporated in domestic law. The noble Baroness is right that there are references to the refugee convention in domestic law—for example, Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

The main provision of the refugee convention that attracts attention is Article 33, the non-refoulement provision. Does membership of the refugee convention require a particular response from the courts of this country? There is reference to it in the Supreme Court decision on the Rwanda policy, although it was not entirely clear, to me at least, what effect it had on the outcome of the case. The much greater part of the judgment was taken up with the review of the relevant articles of the ECHR, which are incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act.

What is quite clear is that it is always open to Parliament to exclude references to international law from domestic legislation. In which case, any obligations that this country has under the refugee convention exist only as a matter of international law. I say that without meaning to diminish the importance of international law; we should comply with international obligations as far as possible. However, there is an increasingly recognised view that the 1951 convention was of its time and that it is necessary to look again at its application in the light of the challenges that immigration now presents not just to this country but to other European countries and to countries such as Australia that have signed up to the convention.

If the leaked memo reported in Saturday’s Times is correct, the Attorney-General himself acknowledges that the time may have come to look again at the convention and its application to the immigration and asylum system. It is important to stress that no body or institution is empowered to determine authoritatively what the convention means. This distinguishes it from the ECHR, where the European Court of Human Rights performs that task.

My view is that it would be best to remain a member of the refugee convention but to remove any references to it from domestic legislation, so that Parliament can determine the proper policy in relation to immigration and asylum without fearing interpretation of that legislation by reference to the convention. This amendment does precisely the opposite of that, which is the reason that I oppose it, despite its legal coherence. I anticipate that the Government may not altogether be inclined to accept the amendment either, because to do so would hard-wire the convention, with all its imprecision, into our domestic law. This would create just the sort of difficulties that we have had with the European Convention on Human Rights and the obligation, under Section 2 of the Human Rights Act, to take it into account.

It should be possible to remain signed up to the refugee convention without unduly or unnecessarily hampering our obligations. Australia has managed this, as I said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his 188-page analysis of the various issues that are thrown up by the convention. He is right that we may have to think again, even without this amendment, if our courts interpret domestic law in a way that appears to incorporate international law. Important though it is, it confuses the issue. Parliament ought to be sovereign in these matters and to decide the correct policy.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I really support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who very articulately and with legal adeptness explained some of my reservations. I will raise just a few other points.

I am particularly opposed to Amendment 184, because it would further institutionalise—this is even its title—the primacy of the refugee convention. I think that emphasising that primacy undermines democracy.

I listened carefully to the expansive debate on refugee family reunion in the first group. One of the most insightful comments came in the very moving contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, about her family’s experience of refugees fleeing Nazi antisemitism. It was a reminder of that historic period, but also of the importance of historic specificity. This matters today—which is such a joyous day, by the way, with the return home of the hostages; I spent most of the morning crying, but with joy in this instance. Jew hatred is alive today—it is still happening—but it is not the Nazis or the Second World War. This is a completely different version; something else is happening.

That issue of history is one of the reasons why I wanted to speak on this group. I have long argued that the refugee convention is long past its historic sell-by date and that it is time for us to consider leaving it or maybe amending it in some way, as has been discussed. So I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has given us a chance to consider the issue.

Of course, when the refugee convention was established in 1951, it had noble aims. It was designed for a world coming to terms with the aftermath of a world war and mass displacement. But if you think about the way that the term “refugee” is used today, you will find that it has become so expansive and flexible that it has been used recently to describe a trans-identifying burglar from Algeria and a Zimbabwean paedophile, both of whom say that they are entitled to the same protection as women and children fleeing a war zone.

Earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that language and words matter, and I agree. In this instance, “refugee” has become completely corrupted and confused. So we urgently need to review terms such as “refugee”, as interpreted by today’s reading of the refugee convention, because these stoke resentment among the public and actually harm the interests of those who might legitimately be refugees in need of protection. It bundles up a whole lot of things.

The history of the convention means that it is not the rule of law—an act of God that cannot be challenged at any time—because it has an interesting history. Established in 1951, as I say, it was a practical solution to the existence of hundreds of thousands of people in Europe who had still not been resettled after the Second World War. It is interesting that, when it was introduced, the convention applied only to refugees in Europe, and only in respect of those who had acquired that status due to the events that happened before 1951. The convention has therefore changed because it did not assist with refugees who fled Hungary in 1956. That did not mean that people were not humane in 1956; the convention was not something that could be used—as is regularly done—just to say, “Where’s your humanity? Don’t you care about refugees?” It was very specific.

It was only in 1967 that the regional and temporal limits of the refugee convention were lifted to give rights to refugees around the world. That was motivated, as many historians have noted, by the Cold War. It was used to say that all refugees are welcome in the West and to show the superiority of democracy over communism. Actually, rather a small number of refugees came on that basis.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the refugee convention seemed to lose its raison d’être. It is interesting that, in 2004, Tony Blair, no less, noted how the convention,

“first introduced in 1951, at a time when the cold war and lack of cheap air travel made long-range migration far more difficult than it has become today, has started to show its age”.

Following Blair’s lead, in the 2005 general election the Conservative Party had a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the convention. There have been discussions about whether it is showing its age. I would say that the refugee convention is not just showing its age but has outlived its usefulness and shackles democracy.

My concern about this amendment is that it tries to do something that is already a problem. We spend all our time in this Chamber scrutinising pieces of law. If we are then told, “No, you can’t do that because of the refugee convention”—or if we pass laws and they are usurped by the refugee convention through the courts—what is the point of democracy and the decision-making here if they are so undermined by international treaties? The refugee convention therefore betrays democracy and the public.

If we in this place get frustrated that laws are made and conventions are then used to undermine those laws, can noble Lords imagine what it is like to be a voter? I know it has been a while for a lot of us, but it is worth remembering that voters’ frustration is even more palpable. This does not help refugees; it is a way of bypassing democratic accountability and is a hindrance, rather than a help, to refugees and the British public.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I am very interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He always makes a very pertinent point, but this is surely wrong in common sense. I do not speak as a lawyer, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, did, but this is common sense. Surely, as my noble friend Lord Murray said, the refugee convention as it stands would want someone from Afghanistan to be accepted in a country near Afghanistan, and they would probably prefer that. But that person is given four or five alternatives. He need not stop in one country or another country. Surely it is designed to discourage “asylum tourism”, whereby you decide which countries suit your purpose.

That is surely something we shall consider. It is not necessarily the case that someone coming from Afghanistan will be sent back to Afghanistan. They may come from France, in which case they may stay in France, where they are in no danger. If they go via Italy, they are in no danger there, either. Surely this is the logic of the situation, which ordinary people cannot understand. Why do we have to accept these people who come through multiple countries when there is a refugee convention which accepts that they need not be accepted if they have come through more than one country?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is not just ordinary people who do not understand it. I do not understand it at all, logically. Mind you, I am an ordinary person.

The discussion so far has been very helpful in raising some key issues that the country is preoccupied with. The sensible way to approach this, which people have started to do, is to say that there should be a proper, open debate on it. We need to have a proper discussion about whether the 1951 refugee convention is appropriate for 2025 and very different circumstances. Some of the amendments have allowed us to reflect on that.

Every word of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was on the money—absolutely hear, hear. We sometimes have discussions in this Chamber that bear little relationship to the political, social and cultural context of what everybody else in the country is talking about. There have been times during this debate in which the discussion about what constitutes safety and fleeing unsafe countries gives us a hint as to how we have got into a very serious political crisis in this country. The definition of what constitutes unsafe, the definition of what constitutes asylum and the definition of what constitutes refugee have become so expansive that it is a miracle or a mystery to me that anyone has been deported. If anyone was listening, you would just think, “Oh well, we can’t do anything”.

To give an example of some of the things that were argued, I was involved in a debate on the radio some months ago about whether Albania was a safe country. The example given was one that has been cited here today about the levels of domestic violence in Albania. I pointed out that most of the people that I had seen in the small boats who were Albanian did not look like they were the victims of domestic violence. Given the historic split, sex-wise, in terms of domestic violence, they might well have been the abusers.

I point this out only because, every time you say, “Surely, there is no reason why they should be in this country; they are from a safe country”, people will say, “No they’re not”, and you get left in a situation where you cannot remove them.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will make the point, before the noble Baroness moves on, that that is exactly the point that many of us are making—you cannot generalise. I will just put it that way.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was about to go on to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that a country may be safe generally but not for a particular section of the population. The noble Baroness more or less made the point there that she has just made now about not generalising. I agree that it is difficult to say, “This is a safe country” or “This is not”. The problem I have is that we have a situation where we either say, “These countries are not safe” or “Every country can be safe, but not to some groups of people”. We end up, therefore, saying that the whole world, and sections of the whole world, are likely to be unsafe and the people there can come to the UK. We cannot be in a situation where we open up to everybody from around the world who is in an unsafe situation.

By the way, that would also be true of this country, when it comes to the threat of violence against women and girls. You could say that the UK is a safe country. Let me tell you that it has not been a safe country in hundreds of towns for thousands and thousands of young women, girls and children who were sexually abused and raped in their thousands, in an industrial fashion, in the “safe” country of the United Kingdom. I am not prepared to generalise, but we cannot simply say that, because of the lived experience of those individuals who have suffered at the hands of others in other countries, it should be automatically assumed that they can move to the United Kingdom.

Finally, therefore, I want to ask for some guidance from the Minister on the status of the Bill. I read through a lot of the sections and notes in preparation for what I was going to say today and for other forthcoming days in Committee, and I thought, “Oh my goodness, this Bill is completely out of date”. I do not mean it is out of date as far as I am concerned but rather as far as the Government are concerned. Looking at a number of the amendments I have put my name to, I now look like a lily-livered liberal type in comparison with some of the comments made by Labour Government Ministers on the Front Benches. I suddenly thought, “Oh, I was being rather tentative there on the European Court of Human Rights and so on”. But it is full throttle—the Home Secretary covering herself in Union Jacks and flags, as she has told us. I thought, “I don’t know where to go now”.

In all seriousness, the Government have said, perfectly reasonably, that parliamentary time is short in general, and we all know that the Bill is under a lot of scrutiny. There are an awful lot of amendments to the Bill. Would it be possible for the Government Front Bench to assess all the amendments from across the House in different directions and tick off all those that the Government might now agree with, so that we do not waste parliamentary time on things on which there is general unanimity on the Government Front Bench, if not on their Back Benches?

As we continue to discuss the Bill, we should constantly bear in mind that the reason why there is concern about international conventions, the European Court of Human Rights and so on, is that this Parliament—the whole point of us being here—has to pass legislation it considers to be in the best interests of the people who live in this country and are of this country, the national interest being important. If the will of the people, as expressed in Parliament, cannot happen because of international conventions and human rights laws, as liberally interpreted by a plethora of lawyers, then it means that democracy is threatened. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he said we should look at some of this again. I hope the Government will look at it again and that we do not have to waste time on amendments that they will, broadly speaking, agree with.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The speeches that have been made in this debate about an important issue are clear, and I strongly support those made on this side of the House. Because of the exigencies of where the issue arises in our consideration of the Bill, I have tabled manuscript Amendment 147A. Noble Lords may well be scratching their heads, but it is a manuscript amendment, which has been circulated separately, on a different subject, but it comes up at this point of the Bill. It has been brought to my attention by my union, Unite, and I need to declare that, but it is an issue of concern to all unions.

The unions strongly support the provisions in the Bill which introduce paid facility time for equality representatives. This is an important development and it is something for which unions have campaigned for some years. However, there is concern that there are some technical problems with the provisions in the Bill, which is why I need to raise them now. We are looking at Clause 62, which creates the right for paid time off for this new initiative of equality representatives in certain circumstances. It appears to me that there is a deficiency in the Bill, in that it says they are entitled to this time off for the purpose of consultation, but it is quite clear that these representatives will also be involved in negotiating. My manuscript amendment seeks simply to add “negotiating” in front of the existing provision in the Bill that says that these equality reps are involved in the process of consultation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to what is essentially a technical issue, but one which I need to raise now.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel in something of a time warp, because I opposed Clause 62 in Committee and tried to get it dropped, but I want to go back to the discussion we were having on Amendment 147. I support this amendment, because I genuinely think there are very good reasons why the trade union movement should not be frightened of this amendment, and I do not understand the changes that have happened. All the amendment does is to try to retain, at least notionally, control in the hands of trade union members: they should decide where they want their dues to go and whether they want them to go into a political fund. What could possibly be frightening about that?

It means that, at least in theory, the trade unions will have to be kept on their toes and justify why members should opt in, and therefore not assume or assert that their union’s political activity—which, to be fair, is often far removed from rank and file workers’ interests—is on behalf of their members. It simply puts unions in a position in which they have to convince their members to opt in.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who possibly knows that constituency better than anyone else in the House today; she brings her wise counsel with her comments this afternoon. It is important that everyone who holds office in society, elected or otherwise, ensures that they consider the situation there in a favourable way to ensure that the police have their support and that the criminal justice system is allowed to take its course. Community cohesion and community engagement is the most important issue before the House today.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, does the Minister recognise the legitimate fury and frustration of local people, whether in Epping or Diss, because they feel their voices are not being heard in relation to their concerns about the hotels? They genuinely fear for their children because of crimes committed by people staying in the hotels, even if it is a minority of those staying in them. Secondly, does the Minister acknowledge that some of the misinformation includes calling those local people “far-right thugs”, which, to a certain extent, is the most insulting thing you can call people who are genuinely protesting? Will the Minister distance himself from that misinformation as well as the other misinformation that he has mentioned?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Any potential crime committed anywhere—be it in a hotel or a town centre —is a matter for the police to investigate. It is then for the police to charge people and for a jury of peers to make a determination in due course. In this case, an individual has been arrested and charged and will be before the court in due course, so I cannot comment on the specific circumstances.

If people have legitimate concerns about the hotels, asylum, migrants or people crossing the channel, they have a right to express that view in a peaceful, orderly way. The line is drawn where that protest leads to other potential crimes. In this case, the police have acted to arrest and potentially to charge individuals for crimes, which, equally, will go before the courts and be determined upon in due course. It is the job of us all to appeal for calm in those circumstances and to ensure that we find political solutions to some of the challenges that we have—but not, in any way, shape or form to encourage inflammatory action against the police, the community or people who are not committing crimes and who happen to reside in a particular place at a particular time.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, currently only a fully certified trade union representative or a colleague has the statutory right to accompany an employee to a hearing. In practice, this leaves the vast majority of workers in the UK—77.7%—to navigate proceedings alone or, worse, to be accompanied by an inappropriate companion, who may frustrate the process or cause inadvertent detriment to the worker’s case.

We all receive briefings from numerous organisations, which contribute to our debate. The last one I received today was on this issue, so I read it to see how I could incorporate it in my speech. It was from the TUC and said that only the trade unions could possibly represent people, which confirms my words and adds weight to this amendment. An amendment to the Bill is desperately needed to guarantee that all workers, regardless of their membership of a trade union, enjoy the right to be accompanied by a dedicated and trained companion during workplace disputes. This would ensure transparency, fairness and due process, as trained companions ensure that both employees and employers have a robust safeguard against unfair treatment and misunderstanding.

This sensible amendment would give rights to people who are very often not in a trade union-recognised organisation. The trade unions can still represent, but they do not have to be the only people to represent. This amendment, I feel, fills that gap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Amendment 99 seeks to remove the restriction that only trade union representatives or a work colleague may accompany an employee to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Londesborough, for supporting what is a modest and practical but important change to employment law. It would give workers the right to be accompanied to a hearing by someone they trust, somebody of their choosing—perhaps a family friend, a carer or a person from the relevant industry. It is about fair play and equal treatment, ends a one-size-fits-all effective union monopoly and is simply empowering and modernising.

My amendment is similar to Amendment 98 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which would expand the list of those who could accompany workers to include trained and certified companions. I support the principle behind the noble Lord’s proposal but fear that its certification regime is unnecessarily complicated, could result in delays and inconsistencies and could create bureaucratic barriers, especially for staff cohorts such as young employees unfamiliar with the bureaucratic paraphernalia of such procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

On Amendment 98, the law already provides that when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary and grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative who the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

As we have heard, and perhaps in response to the critique by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, employers can allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional sports body, partner, spouse or legal representative.

As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway helpfully reminded us, the existing legislative provisions seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces to better ensure that the heat is taken out of the situation and that they are used as conciliatory opportunities to resolve tensions and maintain a good employer-worker relationship. As my noble friend said, this could involve a workmate who knows the context of the situation, understands the employment —and probably both parties to the grievance—and can provide real insight to the situation and focused support.

The inclusion of professional bodies, which may include legal representation in the legislation, may jeopardise the involved parties’ ability to engage in amicable conversation, with the concern that discussion may be significantly restrained as a result, with neither party willing to accept fault. The Government are rightly concerned that this will result in an increased likelihood of a failure to reach a suitable outcome for both the worker and employer. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, we want systems in place that are quicker, cheaper and more effective at reaching resolutions.

However, this in turn, as part of the proposal, would increase the cost of hearings for both parties, as the processes and the meetings themselves become more protracted and reduce the chances of a mutually beneficial outcome. The involvement of legal representatives may be particularly costly for smaller businesses, which may not have legal resources readily available—we have heard much already today, if not in previous debates in Committee and on Report, about that issue. Additionally, the introduction of legal expertise at these hearings may limit the ability of ACAS to mediate an ongoing dispute, as legal arguments may already have been heard during an internal hearing. It is worth noting that an amicable solution between the parties is the fastest way to deliver justice and the amendment may have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood of tribunal claims being made, although of course that is not its intention.

Of course I understand that certain organisations, including those that provide legal services, would benefit. However, as previously noted when discussing similar amendments, an employer already has the existing ability to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers if they set this out in the workers’ terms and conditions. This is a solution in search of a problem. ACAS estimates that there are 1.7 million formal disciplinary cases in UK organisations each year.

It is rare that I ever say this, let alone from the Dispatch Box, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his amendment would be unduly cumbersome. It would complicate a law that has been in place for over 20 years and, if accepted, will require that the employer checks secondary legislation for every case to see who is a responsible body and whether the individual has been certified as having been trained. These are additional administrative burdens that the Government are keen to avoid. Indeed, the Opposition Front Bench has been keen to point out when they see fault in our proposals in other places—erroneously, I should add.

On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Government believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. If Amendment 98 was a solution in search of a problem, Amendment 99 is an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to bash a problem, in her view—namely, trade unions.

I am a former trade union official. I have also worked in a number of private sector roles as a manager. Unions are a good part of our industrial landscape, as we have heard across the House. I join with others across the House in saying that it would better if more people were members of trade unions. They are far from perfect, but although the cases that the noble Baroness raises undeniably raise issues about the trade unions she talked about, they do not undermine the day-to-day work of many trade unions and, in particular, of trade union reps. In the workplace, day in, day out and across the country, they work with employees and businesses to make workplaces safer, to ensure that employees are properly educated and skilled, and to help those employees access their rights at work, which we deem fair and necessary.

Trade unions have an important role to play in supporting workers during the process of a disciplinary or grievance hearing. Union officials allowed to accompany a worker, as prescribed in the existing framework, must be certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. By opening this role up to anyone the worker chooses, the amendment risks introducing individuals into the disciplinary and grievance hearings process who are not familiar with the workplace in question or, indeed, with the employment rights framework.

As I noted when speaking to the previous amendment, this is again likely to lead to a reduced likelihood of successful mediation of these disputes. The role of the recognised union representative allows the relationship between the employer and representative to be developed over time, thus increasing the likelihood of an amicable solution that does not go to a full legal process. This amendment could lead to the involvement of a family member or friend in disciplinary grievance proceedings, which may, in practice, cause more problems than solutions, given the sensitive nature of such a personal relationship.

In closing, it is unclear to the Government where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces specifically would benefit. In the consultations we have undertaken in government and prior to being elected, with both businesses and trade unions, the need to expand this right has not featured from either side in the workplace.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I think the Minister may have answered his own question there, because if the consultation was with trade unionists about whether there was any need for non-trade unionists to go in, then they would give you one answer. I want to clarify one thing: it is true that I have never been a trade union official, but I have been a rank and file trade union member for decades. I am not anti-trade union, but I do not think the world stops and starts at trade unions.

I want to ask the Minister whether he understands that, at the moment, the statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not in-house. The way the law is phrased is that any trade union official, even one from a union that you have never joined and from a completely unrelated sector, can accompany you—that is the way the law is. I wanted to know whether that is fair or whether that wording could change. What is wrong with, say, a Citizens Advice caseworker or what have you? The numbers of people who are in the trade unions just do not tally for people to be accompanied fairly at the moment. Unless there is an 80% increase in trade union membership, it is obviously two-tier and discriminatory at present.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To respond to the first point the noble Baroness made, perhaps I did not enunciate clearly enough, but I said that in the consultation the demand for change did not come from either trade unions or employers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This is the final word. This is not a trade union rights Bill; this is the Employment Rights Bill. It is casually known as the workers’ rights Bill. There are millions of workers who are not in trade unions for a variety of reasons, including your own Minister Angela Rayner, as I just noted. I simply suggest that when you ask employers or trade unionists whether there is a demand for this then rank and file workers are being ignored. I suggest that you acknowledge and empower them.

[Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to put the record straight, because we have heard much about the Deputy Prime Minister not being in a union. She is in a union. She is in the union called UNISON and has been for a number of years. I did not want noble Lords to go home tonight thinking that no one would represent the Deputy Prime Minister.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps it is possible to bring both sides together on this issue. I have a long history of being attacked for my views on this. I was the Member for Lewisham West when we brought in the east African Asians, and I remember the appalling attacks that one had for supporting Ted Heath and the Conservative Government at the time. I want to underline the long history of Conservatives being supportive of proper attitudes towards human rights and asylum. But it does not help us in this discussion if we miss out two different things.

The first is that we need to support international agreements, because this is not going to get any easier. I will not bore the Committee on the question of climate change, but if anybody thinks we have real problems of immigration now, the kind of weather changes we are going to have will mean that there will be a lot more people moving not for economic reasons but because they can no longer live where they are born. We have to realise how serious the issue of immigration right across the board is going to be. One has to take this very seriously, but that means we should be very careful about protecting the rights of asylum seekers. We did not just do this because of the Holocaust, although that was the proximate pressure. There are people who are treated in a way that makes life in their countries absolutely impossible, and they cannot leave by some accepted rule or open system. They have to hide and escape, and we need to take them very seriously.

The other thing we have to remember is that there is widespread concern about the number of immigrants who have come into this country and who are likely to do so. This Committee must not ignore that fact. But if we are to accept both those things, we have to be very careful that the legislation we pass is truly consonant with the international agreements we have. We also have to be extremely careful that we do not say, every time there is an amendment, that somehow there is something unsuitable behind it.

These amendments are technical. I do not agree with them all, but the Committee has to accept that they are important. To dismiss them as if they were merely the product of people who always oppose any kind of restraint on immigration seems unfair and unworthy. I also happen to think that many of us opposed the Rwanda proposal because it was a load of old rubbish—because it was not going to work. That is why we opposed it, not because we did not understand the importance of the issue but because it was not the right answer. Frankly, to suggest that because we did not agree with the Rwanda concept we are somehow wet on this subject seems untrue and very unfair.

We in this House are surely in the business of discussing these matters in detail and carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have rightly brought to our notice some important issues that we have to get right. They may not be the right amendments, but we have to discuss them without automatically believing what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has a long history of defending those who are not otherwise defended, has brought to our notice. I am pleased that we have been discussing it. I think we will find that he withdraws or does not move the amendments and thinks again about which ones he wishes to press.

I hope we will treat this with the seriousness it deserves, which means, first, recognising the national concern about numbers and, secondly, trying to make a proper distinction that protects people who flee from terrible regimes. I would like everybody in this Committee to think once again how blessed we are that we are not in that position. If we are blessed in that way, we should think carefully about those who are not.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, every time I speak after the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I feel as though I have taken on the headmaster. Having been admonished, I tread carefully. I have wanted to comment on this group of amendments from the beginning. The fact that the debate has become quite fractious and animated in some ways indicates what my original concerns are and why I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in particular, to clarify something.

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

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I had a recent trip to Israel, organised by Conservative Friends of Israel, to learn more about the consequences of the terrorist events of 7 October.

I had not intended to speak in this debate had it just been the statutory instrument in front of us. I was provoked into doing so by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which I think is misplaced. I have to say that my experience is that, when Members advance arguments and are not willing to take questions, it is usually the sign of a very weak argument. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for taking an intervention. That shows somebody who has confidence in their arguments and is prepared to have them challenged. The fact that the noble Baroness was not even prepared to take an intervention from a single noble Lord I think demonstrates that she does not actually think her arguments are that strong.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Of course I will take an intervention.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord had little choice then.

First, I think it is entirely inappropriate in this discussion, which is fraught enough, to assume you know which side people are on around the Israel-Gaza situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I disagree wholeheartedly, but I agree with her that there is real concern over this particular issue. Secondly, when you are trying to make a contribution and are heckled, with people standing up and calling out, and you are basically on a minority side, I think it is perfectly respectable for noble Lords to accept that you do not want to take interventions. To draw any other conclusion from that has a really unpleasant, nasty vibe about it.

I am actually shocked. I am generally on the side of the people backing this proscription. At one point, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I thought maybe people were being proscribed for misinformation. I have got to the point now where I do not know what the terrorist act is. However, I think it is completely wrong to assume that there is cowardice involved in not taking points from other Members.

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

I suggest we take the heat out of this a bit. Interventions are welcome, but noble Lords are not obliged to take them, and they should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have a few short points. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said.

First, I hope that when we vote, if we vote, we will entirely put out of our minds whether we sympathise with the Palestinian cause, as most of us do, and whether we regret what Israel has done in various respects. We are concerned with a violent group. It really does not matter whether the cause it articulates and supports is justified. The law in a civilised country simply cannot accept people using violence against people and property in support of a cause they believe to be right. No such law can survive in a civilised society.

Secondly, if I understood him correctly, the Minister has explained why it is not sufficient for the law simply to prosecute people who commit criminal acts of the sort that are alleged—I agree that we have to be very careful here, for sub judice reasons—against members of Palestine Action. The point, if I have understood the Minister correctly—and he will say if I have not—is that there is a vital public need to prevent these people organising and recruiting, and the only way in which the law can do that is to take the action that the Minister is proposing today, which I strongly support.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am a little concerned about how the sides are being laid out in this discussion. I have some serious worries about proscribing Palestine Action and have a lot of sympathy with the regret amendment, but not because I consider Palestine Action to be some idealised, cuddly, heroic campaign for peace. I have no sympathy with its destructive, wanton, often violent and nihilistic assaults on factories, air bases and so on. The individuals deserve criminal prosecution and punishment. God knows, we have enough draconian laws on the statute book to throw the book at them.

What we are challenging here is whether the concept of them being proscribed as a terrorist organisation is appropriate, not whether they are nice, peace-loving, wonderful Greenham Common types. That is the wrong way to look at it. In an earlier intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked whether these could indeed be terrorist acts. I think that they could well be assessed as acts of terrorism without proscribing a whole organisation.

These are my reservations. I am worried about criminalising the vocalising of support for this organisation. Vocalising support for a reprehensible law-breaking protest group is one thing, but once it is proscribed, we are talking about the possibility of prison sentences of up to 14 years. All of this was brilliantly explained legally by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. You could, even if you only say that you support them, end up in prison.

The problem we have is that it is true that Palestine Action’s cause and its broader support are very popular —we have heard it here today. I do not mean that it is populist; I mean that many young people support that outlook. I do not. I spend a lot of time at the moment going around arguing with those young people about what I consider to be the growth of casual antisemitism and an intense hatred of Israel that seeps into Jew hatred. I talk a lot about that wherever I go, but it is certainly the case that I am not on the winning side on this one. If you go into universities and sixth forms, many support them. I am worried about the consequences of proscribing this organisation because it can threaten free speech. There are also going to be a lot of people who could be classified as in breach of it.

We should note that, for the first time since records began, this week the UK is no longer classified as an open country in the global expression rankings, which is shameful. In case noble Lords think the global expression rankings are some JD Vance-like prejudice or something, it is actually an annual report by Article 19, which noticed that free speech is seriously deteriorating in this country, so I put that warning out. We have to be very careful that this proscription does not have a chilling effect or, even worse, give some credibility to the idea that supporters of Palestine Action are some kind of free speech heroes and martyrs along with, undoubtedly Bobby—what is his name?

[Noble Lords]

Bobby Sands.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

No, I do not mean Bobby Sands. That made me laugh. Bob Vylan was where I was going. What I mean is that there are these people, whose views I despise, who, once you start banning them, suddenly develop some kind of heroic free speech status. That is the point I am making.

Finally, I am slightly worried about making a mockery of the anti-terror laws and even confusing our definition of what constitutes terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others have implied that the definition of terrorism is absolutely clear-cut and that we know what it is in the law. We have had a wide range of controversies from the Government on what Prevent interprets as terrorism and extremism. There has been some confusion. If it was so black and white then recent confusions would not have emerged.

My concern here is quite straightforward: we might end up relativising what constitutes terrorism if we put Palestine Action on the same list as the likes of Hamas, ISIS and Hezbollah. It seems that it could create a moral equivalence. It could, unintentionally, confirm a prejudice in western activist circles that the likes of the Houthis and Hamas are legitimate resistance groups, a little bit like those encampments on university campuses, and everybody thinks, “They’re just resisting; we’re resisting”. I always make the point about the butchers and rapists of Hamas. The Jew hatred that goes on in their camps is slightly different from standing around with a flag or going on a demo. If we flatter Hamas and say that it is just like Palestine Action then surely that undermines the very thing that we are trying to do.

At the very least I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do not think that this is something where you can be so certain of yourself that you think, because you are on one side, that something should be banned as terrorism and, because you are on another, something should not be banned. It is much more complicated and we have a responsibility to acknowledge that.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made a number of important points. I accept much of her analysis, but come to a different conclusion on proscribing Palestine Action. I strongly endorse the statement made by the Minister today and the Government’s action. It is something that I called for last year in my review Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, in my then role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I certainly support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron. The first of my amendments, Amendment 22, is very straightforward in saying that the commander should publish financial accounts. Clause 4 refers to the financial year but not the publication of financial accounts. It is very important that we have discipline around what the purpose of the organisation is and what will be the return on the investment the public are making in it. When the Minister comes to respond on this group, perhaps he will guide the Committee as to whether the £150 million that has been mentioned is, in effect, new money being put into this organisation or whether it represents a reallocation of existing budgets. Perhaps it is a blend of the two.

That brings me on to Amendment 24, which could almost be thought of as post-legislative scrutiny on an ongoing basis for the new structure that is envisaged. It is a new layer—I will not use the word bureaucracy, but it is a new agency essentially—designed to co-ordinate other agencies, rather than necessarily operationally deliver outcomes itself. There is, therefore, undoubtedly a danger, which I am sure the Government recognise, that having another cook in this kitchen could destroy value rather than add value. We need to be clear about what the real outcome is, over a period of years, of the initiatives that the Government have brought forward. We certainly give them credit for doing so for all the right reasons.

Perhaps my drafting was rather inelegant, but this is not about the performance of the individual commander; I am talking about the commander’s organisation—the BSC. It is about asking whether the partner agencies continue to believe that the new agency is adding value and doing things that could not otherwise be done. If it does not work as we all hope it will, there must be an argument that it should be stood down and the co-ordination function perhaps be taken up by another agency or indeed by the Home Office itself.

These are two very straightforward amendments. The first point is that the Government need to be accountable for the money spent, and the second is that the partner agencies that will be the beneficiaries—or otherwise—of this co-ordination should be able to express their views about the efficacy of the structure. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading. I have put my name to a number of later amendments, but I wanted to say how much I support the spirit of this group. On the issue of boat crossings, there is a feeling in relation to smashing the gangs that there is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors and not enough transparency and understanding. I fear that there is a climate of public distrust in which politicians are just not believed.

These amendments would therefore be really helpful to the Government, because they give assurances that this will be fully accounted for and not just a slogan, as has been indicated. The area around these crossings is a territory for rumour and potential misinformation. All sorts of figures are bandied around and people, because they no longer believe in the official figures, are open to all sorts of untrue figures. These amendments would help pin down exactly what this Bill will have achieved, which is very important.

There was an interesting incident recently where journalists—Patrick Christys and a team from GB News—helped to smash the gangs themselves. They did this by going on Instagram and pretending to be trying to get a crossing; they organised one and had WhatsApp communications, voice messages and so on, partly as a sting operation to show how easy it is to infiltrate the gangs and get this information. They passed on the information to the appropriate authorities. They have chased it up, and nothing has happened. Even though they had the names and phone numbers—because they were WhatsApp messages—of two gang leaders, nothing has happened to those people. Those journalists understandably used this to say, “For all the rhetoric about the gangs and this new piece of legislation saying that it will smash them, will it really?”

The first two amendments in this group will tell the public what they want to know about this Bill—how many gang leaders have been arrested and what exactly has happened. I urge the Government to look at these amendments favourably, as helpful to their cause and to the general atmosphere, so that we do not have public cynicism about political rhetoric without action.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by Amendment 20 requiring a statement of

“the number of … gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action”.

As I understand it, that is very difficult to know. The characteristic of these gangs is that individual smugglers group and regroup. You have smaller fish who may be better known than the bigger ones. Obviously, the objective that is the subject of this amendment is exactly the right one, but I do not know that there could be any useful or meaningful reporting in quite the way that the amendment suggests. I am sorry not to be supporting it.

On Amendment 21, I note how important it is to have good data, whether or not the six headings here are precisely what the commander should be producing. The more general point—I will go on repeating it—is that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, not the commander. It is important to have full and accessible data much more frequently, and more up to date, than in an annual report published some time after the financial year to which the information relates.

I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that this is about accountability, but I do not agree—as he will have gathered rather tediously from me, and I am sorry about that—that the accountability is that of the director. It is that of the Secretary of State.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend said. When I was growing up, my father, who was in business, suffered the three-day week, and I understand the impact it had on his business and many like his. I also understand that productivity needs to be improved and increased. We need to look at what is happening across the world to be competitive enough.

I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, has a business and understands business. If he were sitting on this side of the Chamber, I suspect that he would be arguing in the same vein as we are. It would be right and proper not to shirk away from proper impact assessments and proper comparative assessments of what is happening across the world, because we all want a competitive country where we are leading at the helm. Denying and disagreeing just for the sake of denying and disagreeing does not do this debate any good.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, unusually, I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben; he and I are both surprised by that. That is not because I am a business owner—that has never been my shtick—but because I am worried about the unintended consequences of the Bill. I too simply want an opportunity to check—and if I am wrong, that is fine.

This group of amendments is very important because it will give the Government a chance to think again, to assess and to reflect. It does not have to be a U-turn; it can straightforwardly be something that is accepted at this point in the Bill that would then mean that those of us who are nervous about the Bill’s consequences can be proved right or wrong.

I am particularly concerned about the impact the Bill will have on productivity, and Amendment 311 is therefore key. I am concerned that the Bill is not doing what it says on the tin and will have a diametrically negative impact on workers’ rights, jobs and wages. I am interested in Amendment 312, which simply asks for real wage impact reporting.

Of course, the big amendment that would cover all the things that have been argued for so far is Amendment 319, which calls for an impact assessment of the regulatory burden of the Bill on businesses. In the past, people who have complained about overregulation have been considered to be on the right of politics—the idea is that those people are so irresponsible that they do not want any regulations and are prepared to take risks. I have never understood it like that at all.

I was therefore delighted to find that I agreed with the Government and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he made some tub-thumping speeches about the problems of

“the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats”

stopping investment and growth. He called them an “alliance of naysayers”, which I thought was good, because I have always been worried about this. I am not from the Tory fold, but that goes along with what I thought. I was genuinely excited that the Labour Government were embracing this way of understanding what can get in the way of economic development and growth, which is necessary for workers to have jobs, wages and rights under an industrial policy that we are hearing about today—all the infrastructure things.

Last December, the Prime Minister infamously blamed Britain’s sluggish growth on

“people in Whitehall … comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.

As we have been going through the Bill, I have felt like I am in the tepid bath of managed decline at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster. Therefore, I urge the government representatives here to remember their own Prime Minister’s words when deciding how they should approach the Bill, rather than just being partisan.

Between 2015 and 2023, the Conservative Government set themselves the target of a £19 billion reduction in business costs through deregulation. Instead, the Regulatory Policy Committee watchdog calculated that even exempting most Covid regulation, the regulatory burden increased by £18.4 billion in that period. I am saying this because people keep declaring that they are going to tear up the regulations getting in the way of growth, industrial capacity and so on, and then, the next minute, unintentionally, regulations grow. The Bill is so jam-packed with regulations that workers’ rights do not stand a chance of breathing.

One of the fears I have about the Bill, which I have raised in a number of amendments and which I hope Amendment 319 will address, is that it is a recipe for huge amounts of lawfare. Day one rights and protection from unfair dismissal both sound progressive and admirable, but the Government’s own analysis predicts a 15% rise in employment tribunal claims. There are already huge backlogs of between 18 months to two years, even before the Bill is enacted, so there is a real threat of a litigious clogging up of the system. Of course it is important that employees are treated fairly. As I have argued throughout consideration of the Bill, I am not frightened of trade union and workers’ rights at all, but I am concerned about this growth, encouragement and incentivisation of the use of lawfare.

I have just read a fascinating report, which I will send to the Ministers, entitled The Equality Act isn’t Working: Equalities, Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace, produced by the anti-racist, colourblind organisation Don’t Divide Us, which assesses the unintended consequences of the Equality Act. Nobody thought this would happen, but it has led to a real fractiousness in the workplace: people are suing each other, all sorts of things are going wrong, and, in many ways, it has clogged up the system. The last thing we need is the Bill adding to that burden, leading to lawfare and people taking matters even further by suing each other.

Either an impact assessment is going to show that some of the concerns raised are overhyped, or in some instances ideological or raised by nay-sayers; or the Government can take the opportunity to say, “We never intended the legislation to do this, but we have seen that in some areas, it needs to be tweaked to make sure that it is not over-regulatory, damaging workers’ rights and wages and so on, in which case we are prepared to be honest and hold our hands up”. That is the very least legislators should do when they introduce a law that is going to bring huge change the whole business and workplace arena.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who does business from time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it strikes me that the Bill comes at an unfortunate time. Of course, we should always look at regulation, and there will always be an argument about what is over-regulation and what is under-regulation. But at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI, we should surely be looking at a low regulatory framework. I urge the Government to take this into consideration during any impact assessment.

The Minister knows about business. He is a businessman and has a successful business, and I too suspect that he identifies with many of the points we are raising, although he cannot say it. But it strikes me that, just at a time when people are very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older, so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news. If businesses are now saying it is simply not worth the candle, that will contribute to the unemployment that will surely follow as many of these jobs are replaced by AI anyway. So I urge the Government to look at that.

Equally, at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and the other things you need nowadays for coding and so forth, we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics—dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up. So by all means, let us properly protect our workers, but let us not overregulate to the extent that we do not have any workers to look after or to regulate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord for their contribution, and I have listened intently to each and every one of them. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my previous business career.

We return to the important issue of impact assessments. I appreciate the continued efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, here. It will be no surprise to your Lordships’ House, given the number of separate debates—I think there have been about eight now—we have had on this topic, that the Government view these amendments as unnecessary. Let me recap. We have already published 27 impact assessments, available on GOV.UK, which have been updated where needed as policy has been added to the Bill during passage.

Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research. For example, Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, said:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society”.


All this evidence is laid out in our impact assessment, which was developed in consultation with external experts. Business supports the view that this will be good for productivity. In a survey undertaken by the Institute of Public Policy, seven in 10 employers said that strengthened employment rights will boost productivity, compared to just 7% who disagreed, and six in 10 employers thought stronger employment rights would have a positive impact on business profitability, while fewer than two in 10 disagreed.

We have worked hand in hand with businesses, trade unions and civil society to understand the impacts of this Bill—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

There is no doubt that people who are happy at work are likely to contribute positively to the workplace. Nobody, I think, is arguing against that and wants miserable workers with no rights. However, what we are trying to explore is not whether people will have job satisfaction but whether they will have jobs. It is about the unintended consequences of the Bill that might mean that people are not employed; or, indeed, that new jobs are not created because productivity will not go up; or that it becomes too risky to employ, for example, young workers, and so on.

With all due respect to Warwick University’s academics—I went there and I know some of the people who wrote that research, and I am sure that they are happy in their workplace—the truth is that if some piece of legislation ended up unintentionally closing down Warwick University, they would not be happy and productivity would not go up. That is what we are concerned with. It is not a theoretical academic argument about how being happy at work makes you work harder—I know that. But if there is no work, then you are not going to be happy, you are not going to do any work and productivity will go down.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. If she can be a bit patient, I have some more positive news for her.

We have worked hand in hand with businesses and trade unions, as I said earlier, to understand the impacts of the Bill on industry and will produce further analysis as required under the Better Regulation Framework. It is worth noting that more doors are opening than closing. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created, up 2.8% on last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%. This Government are backing British businesses and British workers, and our Modern Industrial Strategy, published yesterday, is making that real. To give one example, we have boosted the British Business Bank’s capacity to £25.6 billion, unlocking billions for innovative firms, especially SMEs. For the first time, the British Business Bank will be able to take equity in fast-growing tech companies. This has never happened before. That is helping crowd in tens of billions of pounds more in private capital, fuelling growth, creating jobs and driving long-term prosperity. I hope that gives comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in a previous life, I used to work in further education with many young people who were non-traditionally successful. In more current times, I have worked on matters relating to prison reform and I am very interested in former prisoners gaining employment. In all the instances of working with young people who did not have traditional qualifications or were trying to get into work, or with former prisoners, you were in a situation where you were talking to local employers and asking them to take a punt—a risk—on people. You would say, “Look, the worst that can happen is that you try this person out, it doesn’t work out and no one’s lost anything, but actually I’ve got every faith they will be brilliant”, and so on and so forth. You had to say, “Take a risk”, and I am afraid that in all the responses from employers they are saying, whether we like it or not, that the Bill—if enacted as it is presently constituted —will mean they become risk averse and will not take risks on a former prisoner or a young person who is a bit of a scally. So it is key to assess social mobility.

In addition to that group of people, one of the key ways in which work contributes to social mobility is often through young entrepreneurs or young people who, again, might not be conventionally the kind of people who will pass the Civil Service exam, will not necessarily fit in as an ideal employee and might be slightly eccentric or risk-takers, but who will set up their own micro-business. We know that they are the kind of people who might well be successful, although sometimes they might not be.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been a lot of amendments tabled about micro-businesses—not SMEs, as they are traditionally still quite large businesses whereas micro-businesses have around 20 staff, or even two, three or four. If you talk to young entrepreneurs—the sort of young men who drop out of college but set up semiconductor manufacturing organisations, like some people I know, a builders’ business or a small hairdressers’ business—they realise that many parts of the Bill, which I have opposed throughout, will affect them. They do not have huge HR departments, they are not lawyers and they do not know what they are going to do, but they will be held liable for swathes of regulatory rules mandated by the Bill about the way they run their micro-businesses.

Those people are part of the great success of social mobility. They start out and make a success of it, but now it might not be worth it. They are not always poor and impoverished people. It can be young people making good through small businesses.

If it is the case that this is scaremongering about the worst fears or people just being paranoid, fair enough. But this Labour Government, of all Governments, should want to assess whether the Bill inadvertently, not intentionally, damages social mobility via employment. I therefore urge the Minister to accept this harmless but important amendment.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who covered quite a few of the points I planned to make. I want to speak specifically about young people.

Speaking very recently in front of a committee, Employment Minister Alison McGovern said that

“the situation for young people is a big worry for me at the moment”

and that:

“A lot of our young people—nearly 1 million—are effectively on the scrap heap”.


Those are not words I would have chosen myself; they are her words to a cross-party committee.

We have heard a lot of statistics during today’s debates. I will just add a few more. There are 1 million people not in education, employment or training, which includes a lot of young people. In addition, we have massive numbers of people receiving sickness benefits. All these young people will be a risk for employers.

The Minister is quite right that there has been an uptick in new businesses starting, but there is a serious downturn in the number of jobs created; unemployment is rising year on year, month on month since this Government took power; and the tax rises in the Autumn Budget are beginning to really kick in. We have seen that in the written submissions by numerous business organisations to the Government, other groups and Peers in this Chamber, begging—pleading—with us all to make their case about the significant costs they are already facing due to the national insurance rises. We can see it in real time. This amendment is a request to monitor the situation and come back with an impact assessment on perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society.

To show that these young people really want to succeed and want to have an opportunity, I will read the Committee a couple more numbers that the Minister is probably already well aware of. Some 60% of young people under the age of 30 would love to start a business, 9% of them have done so and 18% more of them would like to do so this year. These are the most vulnerable young people in our society. They are our future, as our demographics are getting older, and we are going to become more and more reliant on the economy that they generate. I have said it before, and I will say it again and again in this Chamber: Governments do not create growth; businesses create growth. We are now looking to these young people to start businesses and take risks on employing others. I urge the Government to, at the very least, come back having monitored that there is no impact on them and no further impact on the loss of employment that could ensue.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may paraphrase the Prime Minister, I think he was referring to the fact that people on the far right were using this to exploit fears and prejudices and to stir up fear and hatred.

What I am trying to do—I am sure the noble Lord will share this aim—is find concrete solutions by accepting the recommendations here and accepting into legislation, as far as we can, the recommendations of the IICSA report, and by taking positive action to encourage the police to go after particular groups that we know now can have their cases reopened, and so improve the prosecution rate accordingly. It is absolutely right that the core duty of police officers should be to follow the evidence and the truth and not worry about the ethnic background of the individual who may or may not be the perpetrator—they should bring the perpetrator to justice, whatever background they are from. I will ensure that guidance is given by our chief constables to ensure that the police understand that duty, as I believe they now do.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I urge more humility and a little less complacent gaslighting. No parties have clean hands. Too many people, including the victims, were smeared as racists for even raising the issue—and that includes in this House, as an aside. Will the 2020 Home Office paper on group-based child sexual exploitation be immediately withdrawn now that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has exposed its much-cited false claim that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly white, which the audit says does not seem evidenced by research or data—in other words, it is misinformation? It is a Whitehall policy wonk version of the literal Tippexing out of the word “Pakistani”. Can the Minister assure us that that report will now be taken out of public circulation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I will say two things to her. The 2020 report, as I recall, was not produced this Government or this Home Office. I will look at that report and the action, but the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, herself said only yesterday at the Home Affairs Committee, “If you look at the data on child sexual exploitation, suspects and offenders, it is disproportionately Asian heritage. If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, it is white men”. We need to accept the discussions and focus we have had to date and look at positive solutions for dealing with this.

When the noble Baroness says we need less complacency and more humility, I say that I have stood at this Dispatch Box on behalf of this Government and accepted all 12 recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. I have accepted the bulk of recommendations from the IICSA report from Alexis Jay, and I have put in place additional police support to take action on historic cases and bring 50% more offenders to justice. I do not think that is complacent. I ask the noble Baroness to try to work with us constructively; let us look at the solutions. I will accept constructive criticism, but I am not going to be called complacent when we have accepted every recommendation, done the things we have done on IICSA and brought more people to justice.