Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the support that I have received from RAMP as one of its principals. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for creating this important opportunity to take note of and discuss the Government’s new single protection interview process, introduced through the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules. I acknowledge that procedural changes will often need to be facilitated through secondary legislation, but the nature of the changes before us raises substantial questions, which I am pleased can now be explored with Ministers in this House.

Organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture have argued that the changes represent a “substantial shift” in procedure, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted. It therefore seems appropriate that time is allocated for proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is particularly pertinent if the Government wish at a future date to expand the use of a single protection interview. Can the Minister provide reassurance that, if that were to happen, there will be a further opportunity to discuss the merits of such an approach and consider the necessary safeguards that might be required?

The Government’s objective to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of our asylum system is entirely legitimate and welcome, but we must distinguish carefully between administrative efficiency and justice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, speed must not come at the expense of fairness. Are the Government confident that the new process will be able reliably to distinguish an unfounded claim from a genuine one that has not yet been fully understood and where additional information might be required?

The purpose of an asylum system is of course not simply to process claims but to identify people who genuinely need protection. The scrutiny committee’s key concern is pertinent here. If I am right in my understanding that the Government have confirmed that applicants will retain the right to submit further information, why then remove the Immigration Rules’ explicit guarantee of that right?

The SPI relies on the Home Office identifying appropriate cases before vulnerability, trafficking indicators, trauma, sexual orientation or safeguarding concerns have been fully explored. But as the Government know, evidence consistently shows that many survivors of torture, trafficking and other forms of serious harm do not disclose these experiences at the earliest stage of the asylum process. Even if these characteristics are identified, there will presumably need to be an assessment of whether the safeguarding or vulnerability indicator meets a threshold to qualify for rerouting out of the single process and back into the standard asylum process. Can the Minister provide further information on how suitability decisions will be made and how applicants can challenge inclusion in the process?

The Home Office recognises that survivors of torture, trafficking and those from the LGBTQI+ community often disclose relevant experiences only after trust has been built up. Trauma, shame, fear, exhaustion, unfamiliarity with the asylum process and language barriers can make it difficult to disclose experiences coherently at the first interview, and the most vulnerable may need specialist support to fully disclose evidence. An incomplete first account should not automatically be mistaken for a dishonest or unfounded claim. Can the Government offer reassurance that the new process will not lead to decision-makers reaching premature conclusions before the relevant evidence has been assembled? Does the Minister envisage that identified survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious trauma will be excluded from the SPI process?

The Home Office acknowledges that interviews are often the most important evidence-gathering opportunity. Curtailing that process for this vulnerable cohort risks unfair outcomes. It is also important to remember that, even if a country is generally safe, an individual may face persecution because of their particular circumstances. The assessment must therefore remain individual, not presumptive.

I expect that not every asylum case will require two interviews, but it is important to remember that an unjust refusal, made potentially more likely through the loss of a substantive interview, is not merely an administrative error—it might expose someone to persecution or serious harm. It could also lead to costly litigation and further delays, undermining the very efficiency that the policy is seeking. The risk of refoulement is a serious potential consequence. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that every SPI decision may be unlawful, but I urge the Government to commit to further parliamentary scrutiny and to consultation with expert stakeholders and publication of evaluation data ahead of removing the procedural safeguard of an additional interview from other groups and for other purposes.

The Government are right to want to resolve clearly unfounded claims quickly to reduce delays and to avoid keeping people in prolonged uncertainty. The policy guidance allows for further investigation and interviews where necessary, which is of course welcome. The issue is whether, in practice, those safeguards will work consistently. I therefore ask the Minister: will interviewers be trained to recognise trauma, vulnerabilities and inconsistencies that may have legitimate explanations? Also, will there be a clearly applied process for transferring a case to the usual process? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer all the questions that I have asked today, but I would be grateful if he could commit to write.

The measure of an asylum system is not simply how quickly it can refuse a claim but how reliably it can recognise a person who genuinely needs protection. A fair system must be capable of refusing unfounded claims but also capable of recognising when a person’s right to asylum is evidence-based, even when they struggle to explain it at first or to provide corroborating information. The questions I have asked are in an effort to understand whether the new process has sufficient safeguards to distinguish effectively between the two. Where the consequences of error may be persecution, torture or even the loss of life, the burden of getting that distinction right is profound. I therefore hope that the Government will take seriously the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, explain the removal of the express safeguard for further evidence, and commit to transparent monitoring of the new process.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two such powerful and caring speeches focused on the justice of our asylum system—which, after all, in many cases addresses issues of life and death. I agree with virtually everything that both noble Baronesses said, so, rather than repeat what has been said, I will seek to add a couple of points to it.

We are focusing on the fact that we are talking about people whose lives have all too often been marked by torture, trauma, abuse and other suffering. The reality is that it is difficult for them to just sit down and talk about that. Although I almost always agree with her, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described a lot of the language and process here as rather Orwellian. I will take away that “rather” because our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reflected, in paragraph 4 of its report, on the term “merged registration”. That is where one interview covers the registration, the screening of the individual and the establishment and assessment of the basis of the claim. The scrutiny committee says of that term that

“‘merged registration’ does not accurately describe what the process will encompass”.

We should think about those people, very often with English as a second language, being in a really confusing situation. I have a direct question to the Minister: could we not at least call it something that would be immediately understandable if it was to be translated? I note that the committee also said:

“The Home Office may wish to consider using a more helpful, descriptive and easier to understand name”.


Are the Government taking that on board?

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to a really important report in the context of what we are debating: the June 2026 report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. It is worth revisiting its conclusion, which said that the quality of decision-making in the asylum system

“had declined … and was at an unacceptable level”.

It focused particularly on the problems of hiring staff—the appropriateness of the way in which staff are hired and who is hired—and the retention challenges. Four in 10 decision-makers left between April 2024 and May 2025, and those decision-makers had typically been in position for only 11 months. Again, I ask the Minister directly: will this simply be a cab rank system? Will the people using this process just be whoever is next in the queue or, if this system is to be used, will it be applied by more experienced and, I hope, more skilled and knowledgeable staff, who will have had the chance to experience seeing claims previously?

I also express concern about the Government’s intention to focus on a small number of countries. I will anonymise this quite heavily because I do not know the situation now of the individual concerned but, some years ago, I met a woman in Bristol who told me—I have no doubt that the fear that she was expressing was absolutely genuine—that she was the divorced wife of someone from a very powerful family on the Indian subcontinent and that she feared for her life if she was forced to go back to her home country. That is not a country issue but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, individuals may indeed be in a position of genuine fear of persecution in those kinds of circumstances. To know and understand that and be able to read a person’s explanation is a complex thing.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of political funding, because, of course, we are conducting this debate under the shadow of one number, £72 million, or rather one sum—two times £36 million. This has led to far more attention being paid to the issue of political funding. Your Lordships’ House very often is facing the Government Benches and saying, “You’re heading in the right direction, but you need to go further”. Well, now there is a very clear direction from the country that we need to see this Bill going far further in capping donations to political parties wherever they come from.

There is another factor that I am sure the country does not know about. If it did, it would ask us to please cut the amount of spending that is allowed on elections—particularly given the fact that it was massively increased under the last Government at very little notice, very late in the Bill, with very little attention.

There are specific factors that influence the issue of political funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady May, and share her scepticism about cryptocurrencies. They are good—no, great—for fraudsters and criminals, but there is no evidence that they in any way contribute to the public good. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, said, as I have heard him say on many occasions, that we have invited into this country corruption from around the world over many years—from Russia, China and other countries, and we are now seeing money from very dubious sources in the US coming into our UK politics. We need to take action on these issues.

Those two contributions help me make the point that this is not, however, a new problem. Political funding has been a huge issue in British politics for decades. We have had big money choosing what kind of politics we get. We get the politics it has paid for. Where does it come from? It comes from financiers, the City, gambling companies, property developers, fossil fuel companies and other giant oligarchic companies from around the world. This has to stop if we are going to restore trust in our politics.

One specific point that I will raise, as my honourable friend Ellie Chowns did in the other place, is the issue of donations from companies. I rely here on analysis from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation. Almost £1 in every £10 donated by companies comes indirectly from individuals who are likely to be ineligible to donate directly. Around a quarter of donor companies are opaque, meaning it is not possible to identify who controls them. Currently, the tax system provides an implicit subsidy of up to 39% for political donations routed through companies. It is very easy to get around what the Bill is supposed to be trying to do. So why not ban political donations from companies altogether? The Bill accepts that a company’s right to donate depends on the rights of its individual owners. If they can donate directly, why are we allowing corporate donations at all?

I want to pick up a couple of other points from the debate. It rather stuck in my craw when the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, complained about a lack of consultation, given the way in which the last Government’s Elections Act was railroaded through. I was disappointed and surprised that she repeated totally debunked, clearly politically motivated allegations about family voting from Gorton and Denton. I refer your Lordships’ House to the Manchester Police press release of 27 March, which found

“no evidence of any intent to influence or refrain any person from voting”.

We need to stop undermining our own system when there is no reason to do so.

We have heard many powerful testimonies, particularly from the Learn with the Lords programme, about why we should have votes at 16. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked why not 15 or younger, and that is a good question. I very much agree with the many contributions saying that we need more political education. However, having visited schools and colleges with Learn with the Lords, I have found that 16 year-olds are, on average, as well-informed about politics as 60-year-olds. That is not to say that both groups do not need a great deal more political education, understanding and help with critical thinking in our current media age.

Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the case for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. Unavoidably, it sounded like something out of the 1970s, rather than something fit for the 21st century.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, although my perspective is very different from his. One of my regrets about his amendment is that it is only a regret amendment, for there is clear evidence that there is strong local opposition to the creation of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—and there is very good reason for that. It might be said to be the last thing the city, its residents and its environment need or want. You would think it is also the last thing the Government should need or want, given that we have a new Prime Minister acknowledging that far too much focus has been put on, and resources sunk into, the development of a small area of the country, while the north, the Midlands, the south-west of England, many parts of Wales, and far too many coastal communities and market towns have been ignored and stripped of resources by austerity.

I return to Cambridge. The corporation model is designed to accelerate growth far beyond what local infrastructure, water supplies and fragile ecosystems can sustain, while stripping democratic control from Cambridge and Cambridgeshire residents. Developers, not communities, stand to benefit: the corporation risks becoming a vehicle for speculative development, with profits privatised and costs—from water shortages to traffic congestion—pushed on to residents.

The structure of the corporation is profoundly undemocratic, taking away from local councils control over planning decisions, thereby undermining the power of representatives whom local people voted for. The consultation showed majority resident opposition. The local Green group has told me that it is apparent from the debates that have taken place in the newly elected Cambridge City Council—no party now has overall control, but there is a ruling Labour group, the Greens are the second-largest party and the Lib Dems are close behind—that none of the parties supports the corporation.

More, the corporation plan is severely underfunded. What it is due to receive will do nothing to address the existing shortfall in infrastructure. It focuses on all the wrong outcomes, including growing the bioscience and IT sectors. Before any more commercial development happens, what needs to be addressed in particular are the chronic water shortages, the transport bottlenecks, the acute social housing shortfall—which new, high-priced housing estates will not resolve—the insufficient electricity supply, the limited sewage capacity, the lack of sufficient hospital places and the overstretched schools.

The inadequacy of the infrastructure there has been demonstrated by the conditions in Addenbrooke’s Hospital during the recent heatwave. Media reports indicated that four staff members went home ill and two more collapsed at work—and that is the staff. There is a clear need for significant investment there, as well as in the more than 60 schools that either closed early or indicated that pupils could leave because they were too hot. We need to fix the existing infrastructure before we think about going further.

Water stress is, of course, the biggest issue. No one has provided a substantive answer as to where the water will come from for future significant development proposed under the corporation—Lincolnshire or Wales, maybe. Both of those places in this heavily water-stressed land might well have something to say about that. The Environment Agency, as is well known, has opposed local planning applications already, such as the west Cambridge site, due to the lack of water supplies. The trees in the area—this is filling the local media at the moment—are dying because there is not enough water for them. That has been absolutely dominating the local press in the last few days.

I note that recently, the Labour group on the Cambridge City Council amended—downgraded—the Green group’s motion on the rights of the River Cam. Even though it was downgraded, the Labour motion still said:

“We regard the river as an integral part of the life of our city. Threats to our rivers are a threat to us all”.


I hope that the new Government are listening to their local representatives.

This development corporation is an idea that comes from the 20th century—a failed model that has caused the climate and nature emergencies, the terrible state of public health and the rampant inequality of the UK of 2026. It is ironic that this is happening while we have a new Prime Minister who says that he wants to give a greater say to communities. This corporation takes away that say. To quote local Green councillors, this is a “power grab”, not a plan. I realise that the Minister may not be able to provide a fresh perspective today, but I hope that a fresh approach does appear in the new Government over the summer.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful that we will debate that issue tomorrow, because at one point this afternoon I thought we might not. I am very pleased that we will debate the Cambridgeshire development corporation tomorrow.

In relation to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, local government reorganisation is a fundamental change that will affect residents for generations to come. Given the significance of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for national economic growth, which I know the noble Lord will understand from very close quarters, it is very important that we take the time required to get this right. The Secretary of State has indicated that we will aim to reach a decision on which option to implement by October at the latest. We are still committed to the existing timetable, but we wanted to take account of some of the growth issues that are still emerging as we go through the next phase of this decision-making.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the NALC. The Green Party shares many of the concerns expressed from the Front Benches, and indeed the Back Benches, all around your Lordships’ House on the question of process and the imposition from Westminster of arrangements on local areas.

My question follows on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about parish and town councils. The Minister said in responding that there would be support, because these are obviously going to be the remaining local representatives who people can go to with very local issues. The Minister said that this would be strengthened. But, of course, many areas of the country do not have parish and town councils. Very often, they are newer-developed and generally poorer areas. Are the Government seriously looking at expanding the coverage of parish and town councils, so that people will have a local representative that they can go to, rather than a far-distant unitary councillor?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First of all, I do not think that they will be far-distant unitary councillors. In my experience, councillors have a great connection with their local area and they will continue to do so. I will answer the noble Baroness’s question in two ways. There is still a process where people can apply to have a parish or town council for their area. That process remains in place. If people wish to set up a town or parish council, they can do so. The other thing that is coming through very shortly from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act is the neighbourhood governance process. The details of that will be set before the House very shortly, so we can debate that as well.

Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this excellent Bill, enabling us to have a crucial discussion about transparency. We have a huge problem with public trust in government. Just 27% of the population trust the national Government. There is very good evidence that transparency is one of the key drivers of trust. Others have already referred to Transparency International research showing that the current lobbying register covers, at most, 4% of those engaged in lobbying activity. I do not think that, if you went out on the street and surveyed 100 people, many people would know that figure, but there is a strong and rightful sense that a lot of murky things happen here in Westminster, and that damages trust.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said when introducing the Bill, a lot of lobbying is positive and we need to keep that sense when it is lobbying in the public interest: by NGOs and campaign groups, patient or consumer groups, or communities affected by proposed developments. However, most lobbying is not in the public interest but for private interests, such as that by big oil and gas, big tobacco—and boy did we see some shameless examples of big tobacco lobbying in the recent Tobacco and Vapes Bill—big supermarkets, big developers and big finance, including, of course, the City of London Corporation, whose special access I am addressing in other areas.

It is worth saying that it is up to the Government to decide who to meet, who to hear and who to listen to. Successive Governments have very much balanced access in favour of these big interests, not in favour of those lobbying for public interests. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter said, the current way the register is arranged means a lack of transparency for big lobbying and creates extra work and barriers for those lobbying in the public interest. It might seem to be a deliberate weakness in the law, and I commend the noble Baroness for seeking to fill it.

It is worth noting that we rely very heavily on journalists to dig and burrow to find out links. They make an expensive investment in finding out what is going on in companies that are trying to get windfall profits while the public good is ignored. It is worth noting, as a number of noble Lords have said, that we are effectively relying on stronger laws in other jurisdictions—we have to note the much stronger laws in Scotland and the EU—to occasionally draw back the veil. I note the publication this week on the substack Democracy for Sale of an article by Adam Bychawski and Peter Geoghegan that is an interesting case study of that. I do not know whether this Bill would solve that problem, but it is concerning. Andy Burnham’s incoming chief of staff, James Purnell, was until very recently the chief executive of Flint Global. Flint has said that its British client list is confidential and has declared just two clients in the UK in five years. But, on the EU lobbying register, it emerges that Flint works for Uber, Amazon and Diageo. You might say that they are very clearly big interests.

That is one interesting case study but we have heard some horrific case studies, and reference has been made to those. We have to think of Greensill, Westferry and the Covid-19 VIP lane. I declare, in the interests of transparency, that the rest of what I am going to say has been informed by lobbying from Spotlight on Corruption, Unlock Democracy and Transparency International UK, and it is they who stress those examples of the transparency gap that the Bill could partially fill. I understand that the noble Baroness kept the Bill narrow and focused—in my upcoming Bill, I have gone very much in the other direction of having a very broad Private Member’s Bill—but it is important to raise some of the gaps, which I hope the Government will say they intend to act on, and other issues that this Bill does not cover that we need to see action on.

The VAT registration requirements represent a problematic loophole, and other similar registers of consultant lobbyists do not present these exemptions. There is a real problem with timeliness, and it has not got better. Knowing what has happened before a Government make a decision is important, but, too often, we find out only months after the fact. That is something the Government themselves should be promising to solve.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and a number of other noble Lords, said that we get descriptions of meetings from Governments that do not really tell us anything meaningful about what was discussed or what the subject of the meeting was. We have registrations of lobbyists saying they are working for a particular company, but how do all these pieces match up? That has to be solved, so that the public can see who indeed has Ministers’ ears. We should know what the purpose of the meeting was. If it was a meeting to discuss “trade issues”, what does that mean precisely? Are you meeting to discuss Australian beef imports or sanitary and phytosanitary standards? Knowing those details is crucial to understanding what is going on.

I again commend the noble Baroness. This is an interesting and important discussion. I hope that the Government—whatever “the Government” means—are listening.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of Right to Buy(1) The Right to Buy scheme is abolished.(2) The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows—(a) omit Part 5 (the right to buy);(b) omit schedule 4;(c) omit schedule 5;(d) omit schedule 6;(e) omit schedule 6A;(f) omit schedule 9A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to abolish the Right to Buy scheme.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I begin with an apology for not taking part at Second Reading. My fellow Green Peer, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, took part but is unable to be here today so we are doing a little tag team effort. I am afraid that I will not be here on Wednesday, but I expect that she will be back on Report.

I also begin with a little bit of explanation, because the groupings today are technically complicated. Clause 1 would abolish the right to buy. To introduce that involves me opposing various clauses in some subsequent groups. I am opposing Clauses 1 to 9. This is all for technical reasons. I have not pulled this out as a separate group. That is how it was arranged. That is why we have this slightly odd-looking arrangement—it is for technical reasons.

Clause 1 provides for the abolition of right to buy. This is heading in the direction that the Government propose for the Bill but going further. Others who are opposing other elements in the Bill are seeking to reverse the Government’s direction, but to be clear: I am aiming for us to go further. The case for abolishing right to buy is not some theoretical proposal. Scotland and Wales have already done it successfully. We have a central question here: should social housing be treated as a long-term public asset or continue to be sold off during a housing crisis?

In Scotland, right to buy ended on 1 August 2016. It has been estimated that since then, 15,500 social homes in Scotland have been saved for the public. That is a lot of housing—a lot of households living in their community and children being able to continue to go to the same school. The sort of stability that social housing has provided has continued in Scotland, but here in England we continue to see families torn out of their communities and a continual turnover. In Scotland, Dr Mary Taylor, the CEO of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, said:

“SFHA is delighted that all forms of the right to buy policy in Scotland have now come to an end and this hasn’t come a moment too soon. Right to buy has had its day and has no place in modern Scotland”.


Wales came somewhat after Scotland with the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018. The Labour Welsh Government said that these sales were increasing waiting times for social housing and reducing the access to affordable housing, which is a statement of the obvious. Ministers also argued—I acknowledge that the Government are doing something about this—that councils and housing associations had the confidence to build without fear that they would immediately lose that housing.

The Labour Welsh Housing Minister at the time, Rebecca Evans, said:

“By protecting the stock of social housing in Wales, we are ensuring it is available for the long term to provide safe, secure and affordable homes for the people of Wales”.


This is no longer an experiment. It is established policy across much of the UK.

We discussed the negative impacts of the right-to-buy policy extensively at Second Reading. I do not intend to go over all the same ground but will highlight a couple of points. I draw first on the public wealth aspect of this. A report from the Common Wealth think tank, Wrong to Sell: How Right to Buy Gave Away Billions in Public Wealth, described right to buy as one of the largest giveaways in UK history. It has led to a situation where one in six private tenants in England rents a former local authority home, with much greater cost and often worse maintenance, without the democratic oversight that you get with council housing.

Considering the overall value of that, the report estimated that homes sold by English local authorities through right to buy are now worth £430 billion in 2024 prices. This is only part of the great privatisation, but this estimate says that this a bit more than the £400 billion that we have lost by selling off public land into private hands. This has also meant a structural shift towards higher-cost private renting. We know how much the cost of private renting is affecting so many households—so many communities—particularly the young. There is also increased long-term housing benefit expenditure. I hear from my right a lot of concern about the welfare Bill—this is one of the very significant drivers of it. There is also the exposure to market volatility.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address the amendment, perhaps I may declare an interest, and in doing so apologise that I neglected to declare it at Second Reading. One of my daughters works for a housing association. I should have said that at Second Reading; it is in the register of interests. I also add my congratulations to those offered to my noble friend Lady Curran, who is appearing on the Front Bench for the first time today. I have already had a chance to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her new role, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She is not in her place today, but we have worked together for all the time I have been in the House on some very long and complicated Bills, and I am very grateful to her. I would like to put that on the record too.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Before I respond on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, let me say that I am pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Social Housing Bill. As I set out at Second Reading, this is critical legislation that goes right to the heart of our current housing crisis. More than 1.3 million families in need of a home languish on local authority housing waiting lists and the number of children growing up in temporary accommodation continues to climb, so we must act now to turn around decades of losing more social homes than we are building.

This legislation brings forward measures to protect much-needed social housing and incentivise new building, as well as groundbreaking reforms to create a safer and fairer system for those experiencing domestic abuse. At Second Reading, I was clear that this Social Housing Bill sits within a much wider programme of social housing action which clearly demonstrates our Government’s ambition and commitment to deliver the hope for the future that decent affordable social housing represents. Together with the Government’s wider package of reforms and the £39 billion of investment, this Bill will ensure that we can provide decent, safe, secure and affordable housing for generations to come. I look forward to getting into the detail of the Bill’s provisions over the course of Committee, and to engaging with noble Lords on these important measures.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, intends to abolish right to buy. The noble Baroness has also given notice of her intention to oppose all the right to buy clauses, with the exception of Clause 6, standing part of the Bill, making it clear that this amendment accompanies that intention. The Government have no plans to abolish the right to buy. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership, to own their own homes, boosting social mobility and opportunity, and supporting aspiration for families across the country.

Following the commitment in our manifesto, we are reforming right to buy through this Bill. This will deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme, where long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years can buy their own homes—but, crucially, where councils can replace them and contribute to the urgent and rising need for social and affordable homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the long called-for ability for councils to retain 100% of receipts, and this Government have facilitated that. By reforming the right-to-buy scheme, we will protect much-needed housing stock and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, more homes will be available to house those on waiting lists and those who are homeless.

We have committed to the biggest funding boost for social and affordable housing for a generation. I remind the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Jamieson, that many of the homes sold have never been replaced. Between April 2012 and March 2025, there were around 133,000 council right-to-buy sales, with only around 51,000 homes replaced over the same period. Not only has this depleted much-needed homes for households in need but it has reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, and it has restricted broader investment in council housing. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that through the Renters’ Rights Act this Government have significantly strengthened renters’ rights, including with regard to rent increases.

We think we have the balance right here, making sure that we address some of the issues around right to buy but also continuing to give that opportunity and aspiration for those who want to purchase their own homes. We therefore oppose this amendment, and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who contributed to this short but passionate Committee debate. I join others in welcoming the noble Baronesses, Lady Curran and Lady O’Neill, to the Front Benches.

I think the Minister agreed with me that right to buy and the way it has been implemented up to now have done enormous damage. We are in agreement about the loss without replacement of so much social housing. I also acknowledge her points about the Renters’ Rights Act, which is a step in the right direction, although the Green Party would like to see this going much further, with rent caps.

In saying that, I respond a little to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have the greatest respect. He compared the percentage of social renters in the UK with other parts of Europe. Of course, the conditions and the arrangements for private renting in many parts of Europe give people far greater security of tenure and far greater security of life than our arrangements do, even with the Renters’ Rights Act.

A couple of other points from the noble Lord, Lord Young, really need to be referred to. On the idea that housing will be sold and then ploughed back, later we will come to Amendment 16 about buyback. If we see an extension of buyback, it is possible to imagine a home being sold under right to buy and, very quickly, the council buying a house so that another one is available immediately. But the more typical situation will probably be that a house is sold under right to buy and maybe 10 years later a new social housing unit appears as a result of that money. That is a very long gap, and of course there is still disruption to the community. It will not often be an immediate response.

In picking up a couple of points from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not start a whole debate about where the rise in house prices comes from, but a study from King’s College London in 2018 estimated that, without foreign investment money coming in, prices would have been 19% lower then. Of course, we saw a great financial liberalisation—part of the whole right-to-buy scenario, where we have turned what had been secure and affordable places for people to live into something regarded primarily as a financial asset.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who suggested that social housing should be only a short-term replacement until you move on with your life. We want people to have a secure and affordable place to live for life, if that is what they want. That should be the foundation of our communities. We are not stressing enough the impact on communities of right to buy; we are focused very much on the impacts on individuals. The turmoil that right to buy has brought communities should not be ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I outlined in our debate on Amendment 1 why I am opposing all these clauses, specifically Clauses 3 and 4 in this group. My opposition to Clause 2 was because I wanted to go further, not to ensure that there is no double-dipping within households or by individuals. I also make it clear that on Clause 3, I am not opposed to the extension of the period of eligibility and on Clause 4, I am not opposed to anti-fraud measures. There are people opposing these clauses for different reasons, but mine is a desire to stop right to buy altogether.

Clause 3 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

They might just decide that they are not going to install the bathrooms or the kitchen just so that none of these houses will be eligible for right to buy in the future. I am not sure I like the sound of that, and I wanted to test with the Minister how she would be certain that this sort of behaviour would not happen.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to the clause stand part notices and to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have attached my name. Just for clarity, for the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, his reasons and mine for signing the Clause 6 stand part notice are—I think we can safely say—directly opposed. As I have made clear all the way through, all my clause stand part notices are because I was seeking to end right to buy entirely with Amendment 1. I think that is made obvious by my signing of Amendment 16, a buy-back right to buy. This is also known as “buy the supply”, and my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place has been a particular leader in this area, not surprisingly when you look at Brighton and Hove, which has lost almost a third of its social housing since right to buy came in in 1980.

If you look at the figures across England, by the end of this Parliament we are talking about more than 1.3 million homes lost. What we want to do is get some of those homes back—those homes that were very often built with high-quality build standards, good-sized rooms—a better provision of housing, I dare say, than pretty much anything we are likely to build today. We want to get those homes designed for social housing back into social housing. I note also that my honourable friend—who was previously a London Assembly member, and a member of its housing committee—urged for us to be able to buy back those lost homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to families in temporary accommodation. Of course, this is a huge issue. It is everywhere, but particularly so in London, where we are seeing often very vulnerable families shipped out of the city very far away to produce huge profits for private landlords in far-flung parts of the country. If London could buy back the supply, that would be potentially transformatory, either for permanent homes or for being able to buy back temporary accommodation. It is also worth noting that my honourable friend—for those noble Lords who have not seen it—has a zine out urging us to buy the supply. It is a lovely, cheerful cartoon publication that noble Lords might like to look up.

I want to make one other comment about the state of where we are now. We have, of course, a struggling housing market. Broadly, the average price of homes in England did not change from March 2025 to March 2026. In fact, there has actually been a decrease in the price to May. I note one market commentator said that we were in the strongest buyer’s market we have seen in years. Surely this is a great time for local councils to be able to be the buyers, to start to reverse some of the damage that has been done. The structure of the amendment reflects the limitations in your Lordships’ House of what we can do in terms of directing the Government to spend money. I will put this on the record here to note that my honourable friend in the other place will be going further, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has given us a very good start.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, indeed I agree that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has given us a very good start, and she was quite passionate in what she was saying. I did tell her there would be a “but”, but it is only a very small one. We absolutely agree in principle that the right of first refusal should apply in perpetuity, but I have concerns about how this would work in reality, and I have raised these with the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, outlined some very serious questions and points that I think we would all appreciate being answered, just about the sheer logistics of how this would actually work for buyers as years go down the line. I am worried that there would be unintended consequences and I am looking forward to the Minister’s answer.

My fear is that in reality this will actually be less effective as a means of getting social housing than we might wish it to be. If a council does have a buy-back fund, there absolutely is no reason why it cannot buy houses on the open market, as indeed I did when I was Mayor of Watford. I just think this one sounds like something that is really going to be good and should happen—and I do believe that; I just think there may be unintended consequences, the logistics might be difficult, and it might not be the silver bullet. But because I believe in retaining social housing stock, I will hope that I am wrong about that.

I want to just pull together a few thoughts about the rural amendments, because one thing I think that we have all noticed in relation to the Bills that we have done—first with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and now with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—rural housing and rural issues do not seem to be given the importance that they absolutely deserve. I am an urbanite but I sit here, time after time, listening to those who know better than me, and colleagues on my own Benches who feel very strongly about this, and I guess my message to the Minister is that the nettle must be grasped on rural issues. I think we would all appreciate seeing a real improvement in that, which is why I found that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Lord, Lord Best—as ever—brought clarity and expertise to this group of amendments that I cannot better.

Amendment 20 is actually a modest, targeted fix to stop the right to buy quietly hollowing out our rural communities, which is happening; but I am also going to be a bit controversial, because one thing that I follow very closely with my housing brief is planning issues, and I note that there are very often major planning disputes. In fact, councils have changed control over rural communities’ campaigning: “Stop the housing development in our village. We do not need this sort of housing”. It is really worrying to me that that is often the case, and it is evidentially the case. The nimbys are absolutely going bananas. There is no doubt about that, and I think that somewhere, we need some leadership around those areas. If you do not have a housing estate that has homes for children, then the local school will undoubtedly die.

There are real issues for regenerating our rural communities, and I think that, unfortunately, they are being hollowed out. I feel very much that the need is greater. Somebody mentioned that phrase in relation to rural communities, but I would also say that the consequences of not doing so are of greater significance; for example, the young people who cannot get to the college in the nearest city or big town. The issues around rurality are huge.

Turning briefly to Amendment 17, I think “warden” is a horrible word. I absolutely agree that the Government should change it. I am not sure about “manager”, because I am not sure of the context, but I absolutely understand why they do not want wardens.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have said to my noble friend before that I do not always share his conspiracy-theory approach to life. However, the new legislation will introduce “know your donor” schemes, where recipients of donations over £11,180 will be required to consider the risk of those donations being from illegitimate sources, to prevent the risk of foreign interference. There are serious penalties where those laws are not followed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

I think we have concluded the Private Notice Question.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in 2011 the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the amount that any organisation, individual or institution can give in political donations should be limited. It is now 15 years later. A few years ago, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said from the Front Bench that, hypothetically, he agreed that there should be some kind of limit on the percentage of funding that one party should be able to get from one individual donor. Will the Government act after all this time?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of change principle. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she decides to test the opinion of the House, she will have the support of these Benches.

Not a lot has changed as a result of the votes that we made last week; there has been some amelioration, but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. I welcome any improvement to those that the Government are able to come up with and have come up with, but I think we have some movement yet to achieve.

I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence of the Bill, and I am sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find that this amendment will make a difference to the way in which the Bill affects their service delivery and environment.

I place on record too our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her support and that of her team on this particular issue. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, from the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years. I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of the Bill.

I have Motion C1, which relates to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular who decides what the governance structure should be. It is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved and which was agreed by your Lordships’ House last week. The central issue remains. The Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, so I ask the Government again: why cannot a community decide for themselves their own model of local governance for their local council?

The Minister in the other place said that the Government wanted to create

“strong local authorities that can deliver for their people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 265.]

It is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their governance structures. A committee system is more transparent and democratically accountable than a cabinet system, and it will involve more people—more elected councillors.

Since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together, because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision-making processes of a local authority. The scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after a decision has been made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.

In conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or local people? I submit that it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area. When we get to Motion C1, I will beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.

Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Government have conceded, first, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of competences for mayors. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities are not left behind or treated as merely secondary. They should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the Bill.

Turning to Motion B1 on brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the Government’s concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again: prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are a small island with finite land. The choices that we make about development are therefore not abstract. They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and, ultimately, our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short-sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land.

This is not only about protection. It is also about opportunity. A “brownfield first” approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure that we already have. It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not been willing to match their stated ambitions with action. Last week, the Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high-level documents. But let us be clear: they are the strategies that will inform local plans.

Furthermore, the Minister said that we should not judge the effectiveness of the brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law. However, we believe that we should entrench the “brownfield first” approach from the start rather than look back, potentially years from now—years when more developments on greenfield land have taken place—to conclude that the Government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. For those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a “brownfield first” approach should be embedded from the outset. Therefore, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling Motion C1 on governance models again. It invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governance. We believe the Bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support Motion C1 to leave out Clause 59. Removing the requirement for a leader and cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances. Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single, prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity. Allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and their judgment.

The same principle of local discretion brings me to town and parish council governance. I am very grateful to the Minister for her amendments and for the commitments made from the Dispatch Box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward and we recognise the progress that has been made on this issue. However, engagement now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to take this forward? Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils, and how will that engagement help shape implementation? If we get those assurances, we will support the Government’s way forward.

I move on to Motion E1 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I am grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we have listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister. We hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure that new developments integrate well with existing communities and with businesses, but by narrowing this amendment to just noise, and particularly to music, we have great concern that the other issues—such as smell, light from existing businesses, et cetera—that were originally in the amendments will be negatively impacted, because the agent of change would relate only to noise. We have concerns around that and think that more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the Motion stands, we cannot support it.

Finally, I move on to Motion F1. I also note that the Government have tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent. This is welcome, and I thank the Minister that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in Schedule 1. This is fundamental to protecting successful devolution and ensuring that local consent is at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. The Government are not moving fast enough on this. We are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1 when it comes to a vote.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Without the cast-iron commitment to parish England from top to bottom, we risk making perhaps one quarter of our population second-class citizens, including by far the majority of Redditch. From start to finish, the Bill has been mis-sold. It is not about empowerment that any reasonable person would recognise but about the wholesale disempowerment of entire communities in the most historic corners of our country. I commend Motion F1 to the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I simply say that I entirely agree with Motion F1; in the interests of time, I will not go further. I declare my interests as vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, which have particular relevance to that Motion.

I will chiefly speak to, and offer the Greens’ the strongest possible support for, Motion E1. We believe in democracy; this is about democracy. I was intimately involved in the Sheffield tree campaign that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, set out. I will just tell noble Lords of one occasion at the end of that story, when the cabinet model was falling apart. The cabinet member responsible for overseeing the cutting down of trees stood in the council chamber and brandished a slice of a tree that had just been cut down. It was a memorial tree to two twin brothers killed in the Second World War. He celebrated how they cut down that tree. That was where groupthink and that model of governance had led us to: the council was set against the people of the city.

I will not go into any more depth on that; it is an issue I have majored on since Second Reading. Instead, I will refer to something that has happened very recently in Bristol, where we have a similar situation to Sheffield and where the people decided they wanted democracy and did the very difficult job of delivering that democracy against the current, the push, from Westminster. There was a glowing peer review for the Local Government Association just this month, specifically noting how in Green-led Bristol council the committee system had strengthened democratic engagement and transparency of the council.

If an independent, non-political overseer can see the benefits of the committee system, surely the Government can too. I am not saying that they should mandate a committee system—I believe in local democracy—but surely they should see that they cannot apply their own authoritarian ideology to local communities up and down this land. That is unacceptable at any time, but it is particularly so in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution and community empowerment. This makes no sense. I urge your Lordships’ House, in the strongest terms, to oppose and to keep opposing Clause 59.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. At this very late stage, this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill. This is like a map of Sheffield—Manor Castle, Tinsley and Hunters Bar, and I am a former leader of Sheffield City Council—and the reason why we are speaking on this issue is not just because we saw what happened in Sheffield. We understand the power of giving local people the ability to hold others to account, not just at election time but in how they are governed, the administration and the powers devolved through all 84 councillors. This not only changes behaviour but helps to make the correct decision for a particular community.

I notice that a noble Lord opposite is shaking their head but, for Sheffield, it was the right decision. People turned out at the ballot box and decided that this was what they wanted, and—surprise, surprise—it has not created chaos. People in our city know who to go to about their bins or roads; they know who the chair of the committee is. They know that when they go to their local councillor, they have some power to influence the committee system, unlike the cabinet model where it is down to 10 people. My noble friend Lord Shipley has moved this Motion because if another Sheffield happens, once this Bill has gone through, there is no way the system can be changed. The community is left with an administrative system that they are completely locked out of other than at the ballot box in four years. Under the strong leader model, when I was leader of Sheffield I could have decided to hold all except reserve powers. I could have decided to have a cabinet of three people deciding what happened strategically.

The reason for this amendment—and why the Government must go away and rethink—is that we need to ask the Minister to answer this question. If another Sheffield arose in a year’s time after this Bill was passed, how would the local community change that system to make sure that local councillors had powers to ensure they were not held to ransom by three people within the strong leader model? If that question cannot be answered, it is really important to understand that communities are going to be left with systems that do not necessarily meet their requirements. It is really important. The reason why three people from Sheffield have spoken is because we understand what happens when it goes wrong, and we have faith in local people to use their knowledge and their votes to put that system right.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

As I set out at the beginning, the purpose of this Motion is to affirm the importance of our elections going ahead and to call on the Government to ensure that they do so without further delay, disruption or difficulty. Confusion erodes trust in our democratic processes, and this is a problem of the Government’s own making. I ask the Minister to acknowledge this and to ensure that it does not happen again. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, very briefly, and perhaps with a little surprise, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on the Conservative Front Bench: we have to regret what happened about these elections. We can also celebrate that eventually democracy won out. I am looking forward to the affected elections on 7 May, not just because the polls suggest that they, across these islands, are going to work out rather well for the Green Party.

Regret is the right term, but we might also say that what has happened—the mess of the Government’s creation in terms of these on again, off again, on again elections—has helped to highlight the weakness of our constitutional arrangements, which really cannot be described as a democracy. We have a situation in which Westminster is dictating far too much what happens on these islands, not just in terms of elections but in so many other ways. We have local councils that have enough money and power to carry out only their statutory responsibilities; that is, those dictated from Westminster.

We really need to think about so many other issues on these islands, not just because of the outcome of the Brexit referendum in 2016, but because of the slogan that people very clearly expressed then. They wanted to take back control. People do want to take back control in their local communities and to have the power and resources there; and, crucially, they should know when the elections are going to be. That should be a regular schedule that cannot be interfered with for political convenience. I commend the noble Baroness for persisting with this, because it is an issue we need to keep highlighting. We need to keep stressing that this is just one example of the way in which our current uncodified constitution, accreted over centuries of historical accident, is not meeting our needs in the 21st century.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly by referring to the example of Suffolk. I entirely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about these issues. I draw attention to the fact that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and support the Norfolk and Suffolk Development Forum, although I do not chair that. But for these purposes I am speaking simply as a Suffolk resident.

There we were in Suffolk, keen, certainly from my point of view, to progress the devolution priority programme for Norfolk and Suffolk. We were then told that the mayoral election for the Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority was to be delayed. That decision has not been revoked. The decision to delay or to postpone the county council election in Suffolk has now been revoked, which means we will have county councillors, who I think were originally elected in 2001, serving all the way through to 2027—