Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(5 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and to join the, I am sure, widespread view around the House in welcoming the continuing presence of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in her position. Personally, I consider that a delight, even though I am often pushing her on the departmental decisions for which we hold her responsible.
For the second statutory instrument in a row, I find myself thanking the Conservative Benches for securing this debate while disagreeing by 180 degrees with the position they are taking.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
If Hansard did not catch that, the comment from the Opposition Front Bench was, “What is new?”
I begin by making a very simple point. The way in which the outcomes of the reviews of all the payments we are discussing have been conducted, particularly the personal independence payments, are causing a great deal of unnecessary distress, fear and the wrongful withdrawal of essential benefits. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, set out, this is a modest, short-term, limited measure. But we cannot discuss this situation without looking at the broader context, which, indeed, is what the Conservative Front Bench did.
I make a call here for realism. We have an ageing population, healthy life expectancy that has declined by two years in the past decade and one in 10 local areas where the healthy life expectancy is less than 55 years. We have a mental health crisis and a lot of focus on benefits for mental health issues. We need to tackle the issues behind that: schools forced to become exam factories; inequality; insecurity; and child poverty. We need to take the focus away from individuals, and trying to crack down on individuals, and acknowledge that we have a societal problem that we need to tackle as a society, and the Government need to tackle as a Government, rather than continually pounding away rhetorically at individuals.
In that context, I do not think there is enough awareness that the Timms review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred was given guidance that it had to stick within the currently predicted future spending levels of PIP—and there is talk of reductions. Let us be realistic about this. I refer to the reactions to the Timms review from organisations that would not be considered radical. The British Psychological Society, with which I entirely agree, said:
“Those that apply for PIP should not feel demeaned and deterred from applying”
by the process. We are talking about reviews here, but people get so fearful about the reviews that they just give up. The British Psychological Society also said:
“Everyone who has been signed off with long-term sickness, including those living with a mental health condition, deserves support”.
It rightly points out that, for those with financial difficulties, the stress of reviews can cause further mental ill health. That has to be taken into account. It is awful for the individuals concerned and also very bad for the whole of society.
An organisation with which some in your Lordships’ House may have even more sympathy is the RNIB, which says that PIP assessments and reviews
“fail to properly understand the realities blind and partially sighted people face. Too many are then forced to challenge decisions that are later overturned”.
I finish by referring to a report in the Times last week, which I urge noble Lords to look at if they have not seen it. The Times sat through a full day of a hearing of the social security and child support tribunal at Swindon magistrates’ court. Problems with PIP now make up about two-thirds of that court’s caseload. In the first three months of this year, more than 27,000 PIP decisions were appealed, and 67% of those appeals were successful. For all those who were saying, “Isn’t it terrible that this is being done by remote assessments and these remote assessments may be wrong”, many of them are wrong in a way that the court later finds is clearly detrimental to the individuals who need that support.
I cite one case from that report. Appearing before the tribunal was a 63 year-old retired GP practice manager. He was
“there for his 22-year-old nephew who has a neurological impairment, learning difficulties, epilepsy, a severe tic and Tourette syndrome”,
and had
“loss of mass in his brain on the left side, responsible for language comprehension, analytical skills and controlling the right side of his body”.
A phone assessment took away his benefits. The tribunal took a very brief look at the medical evidence and restored those benefits. We have a huge problem here. This SI will possibly do a little bit of cleaning, tidying and sorting, but there is far more to do.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I support the regret Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott for the reasons that she set out so clearly in her excellent introductory speech. But before I go into that, I too want to say what a delight it is to see the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on the Front Bench.
As has been said already, these regulations look like they are just simple administrative regulations. They look like they might be just fixing the backlog and look like they might be benign. Of course, nobody wants vulnerable claimants to lose their entitlements to those really important benefits because the department has not conducted a review on time. But that is not what we are debating here today. What we are, in effect, saying, is that it is acceptable for the Government to respond to a system that is failing by suspending one of the few safeguards that exists within it.
If we all cast our mind back to when the personal independence payment—or PIP—system was introduced, it was never intended to be a benefit that just rolled on indefinitely after it had been awarded. When Parliament debated and agreed the PIP system, the whole point of it was supposed to be based on the fundamental understanding that conditions can change over time and can get worse but can also get better, so you should not just lock somebody into a system of benefits and never look again. That is a fundamentally pessimistic way of looking at human lives.
I listened to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and he was obviously very critical of the former Government. I am sure that he is probably right on a lot of those points—I am not an expert so I cannot possibly go back over 14 or 16 years of that history—but, at the end of the day, the current Government have been in power for more than two years, so there must come a point when they now need to take the responsibility for fixing what is currently presenting in the system and looking at the things that have happened on their watch.
If the department does not have the capacity to conduct the reviews, the answer cannot be to abandon them. We need to look at the root cause. Why do we have this backlog? Why do we have so many more claims in the system and this lack of capacity? It is due to the unprecedented rise in the number of people claiming disability and benefits. The growth, as has been said, is particularly striking among younger people claiming on mental health grounds. We have a social security and welfare system that is increasingly being asked to compensate for not just severe disability, which we all agree it should do, but a large and growing number of mental health conditions, such as anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, which would not have been recognised as disabling just a generation ago or even more recently.
Before I came into the Chamber, I saw somebody putting a comparator on X. I do not have the citation, but it is very interesting and I urge the Front Bench and everyone to look at it. The rise in mental health conditions and mental health disability is proportionately much greater in this country compared to about 40 other developed nations. We in the UK are not biologically different or biologically more likely to be disabled because of mental health than people in countries such as France, Germany, Canada, Korea, China, Singapore and so on, so we need to start asking ourselves some of those hard questions. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Does the noble Baroness acknowledge that we should look at our society and ask why we might be suffering from higher levels of those conditions, and why people are not able to find a place in our society, as well as looking at biology?
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I am sure the noble Baroness is right, and I thank her for that point. She has posed a very broad question, and I fear I would detain the House for much too long if I tried to answer it with the seriousness it definitely deserves.
I want to touch on a few themes. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about what I and a growing number of others regard as the growing medicalisation of ordinary human experiences—just life experiences. We do not do people any favours if we do not distinguish between severe and enduring mental illness, and the very broad spectrum of distress and difficulty that finds its way into our welfare system in one way or another. This is at the root of my worries about these regulations, because every change that reduces scrutiny or delays reassessment sends a signal that says to that person, “Now you are in this system, we expect you to remain there. Just carry on. You are getting the benefits. We have decided that this is the thing that is making your life difficult, and we are going to support you”. It is not saying. “We are looking at you through an optimistic lens about what we can do to help you move off this system”.
Reviews are not just a mechanism for saving money, but that is important. People have mentioned the Timms review, and I am sure it is an excellent piece of work. There are many good points in it. My real worry is that the Minister, when interviewed about this, said that he did not have any worries about the level of welfare spending. That is completely unrealistic; it is fantasy. We should be concerned about the level of welfare spending in this country. It is completely unacceptable, unsustainable, wrong for the taxpayer and wrong for people who are on welfare.
This debate and these regulations risk masking the true scale of the problem. We should be expecting Ministers to explain why they think this is acceptable. It is great that the Minister is here today, but we should be having a much more in-depth debate. We should be asking much bigger questions. Why do we have so many young people, in particular, in this system? Why are we diagnosing them with these mental health conditions that mean they are receiving welfare, PIP and other benefits? Why are we allowing this welfare system to reinforce itself and reinforce a life on benefits for some of these people?
I support my noble friend’s regret Motion, and I will certainly vote for it if she divides the House.
Drugging and Sexual Assault of Women
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are some times when my gob is smacked, and this is one of those occasions. The Conservative Government caused the backlog in prisoners and the failure of prisons being built, which has led to the backlog that we currently have in our prison system. I say to the noble Lord that we are ensuring that we put public safety at the heart of our reforms and that prisoners judged the most dangerous by the courts are excluded from early release. Offenders of the particular type he mentioned will not be early-released in that way; he should have known that when he asked that question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, about the National Crime Agency findings, I draw on a statement today from the CEO of Rape Crisis England & Wales, which notes that many women will be wondering whether they were affected and, quite rightly, directs them to Rape Crisis’s 24/7 support line, whether they fear the events may have been recent or years ago. This has the potential to significantly increase demand for that service and other relevant services. Are the Government prepared to put more resources in to support victims and those who fear they may have been victims?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have put an additional £13.9 million into the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls, and we want to ensure that measures are brought forward so people can respond and bring forward reporting on those issues. We have also put a range of other measures in place which I think are important, including domestic abuse protection orders. The noble Baroness makes an important point. Ultimately, I want individuals who have been victims of crime, or even think they have been victims of crime, to report them and to be taken seriously. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, every indicator at the moment in terms of prosecutions, convictions, reports and police action is up over the past 18 months.
Commercial Payments Bill [HL]
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsTuesday 9th June 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commercial Payments Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Commercial Payments Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have an economy that is heavily dominated by giant—usually multinational—companies. There is nothing inevitable about that: it is a result of political and policy decisions made over decades by multiple Governments. It can and must be different. The Green Party sees the Bill as a modest step in the right direction of levelling the playing field between very large, powerful companies and those who are often their suppliers and who are inevitably in a supplicatory position towards them.
Like many other speakers in this debate, I bring family stories. I am a builder’s daughter; my father was a manager for a subcontractor in Australia. I learnt early on, as soon as I was old enough to understand, that one reason my father was angry or stressed was that he was often concerned about his firm going broke because it was not getting paid or the payment was being delayed. Sometimes, that payment would arrive eventually; other times, it would never arrive. That does damage to a great many small and medium enterprises.
An illustrative case study is that of Carillion, which went down in 2008, taking with it many SMEs. This shows the link between the two problems of late payment and financial collapse. I draw on the excellent—as always—Library briefing to quote the economist Orcun Kaya, who notes that, unlike the 30-day terms that some offer,
“Carillion imposed payment terms of up to 120 days on its smaller suppliers and contractors”.
That meant that there was three months’ work—with debts incurred—for which people were not paid. We can clearly see that when a company starts to delay payments and stretch out its terms, it is often a sign of financial stress within the company. It should be regarded as a red flag. I cannot see anything in the Bill on that. I wonder whether there is any way to use the Bill to introduce a red flag system. There is word of mouth in various industries—people start to talk to each other and explain the problem—but word of mouth is not a legal or formal framework.
This case study also needs to be used to raise a broader point: we have huge structural problems in many sectors of the UK economy, which the Bill on its own tackles only at small scale. There is the disaster of the outsourcing of public services to the lowest possible bid, and the disaster of business approaches and business culture. In that respect I cross-reference today’s debate with yesterday’s Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The parliamentary inquiry into the collapse of Carillion said that it was
“a story of recklessness, hubris and greed. Its business model was a relentless dash for cash”.
Three directors were later fined by the FCA for financial misreporting. These issues are all interlinked and all relate to the nature of our business culture, which holds back so many SMEs in our society.
We often refer to the construction sector, and that is one of the issues that I will come back to the Minister on. Thinking about the great state of disarray in the construction sector, one awful symptom I have to raise is that the latest report on mental health in the sector from the CIOB—formerly the Institute of Builders—shows that male construction workers are three times more likely to die by suicide compared with those in other industries, and that 28% of respondents have experienced suicidal thoughts at least once over the past year.
We must acknowledge that we have a real problem in the structure of the industry. Late payments are part of this story, but they are only a small part. There are also the issues of subcontracting and fake subcontracting, where, in effect, individual workers are forced to become their own small business. They, of course, can encounter all the problems that the Bill attempts to cover. But how will a quite low-paid worker forced to firm their own business be able to hold late payments against a giant construction firm? That will help us to frame the shape of the Bill. On that point, I draw on a very useful and detailed briefing from the ECA and Actuate UK, seeking clarity on the Small Business Commissioner’s role in terms of construction. Perhaps the Minister could address that in wrapping up or, if he prefers, he could write to me about that.
Another quite technical point—I am again drawing on the briefing—is the issue of retention in new Section 113A. Retention is of course what the Bill seeks to prevent happening, and it mentions related agreements. Perhaps there is the thought that the judiciary will interpret attempts to recreate retention clauses by calling them something else and will interpret the ban very widely in terminology. It is important to address how we will make sure that retention bans are not just called something else but are still in effect retention bans.
The briefing also raises important issues about the transition period and last-day retention. There will potentially be a cliff edge at the end of year three, where all transition-retained sums could become due simultaneously, and that could create a state of real chaos. Again, that might be something the Minister will want to write about. The briefing raises some very serious issues.
Also on the detail of the Bill, there is the penalty for unlawful retention. That will potentially be very useful as a penalty, but it will become a reality only if SMEs can afford to enforce it. I do not see in the Bill any resources provided to help SMEs with enforcement, so what will happen with that?
We have had discussions about 60 days, 45 days or 30 days. It is important to note and demonstrate what might be possible. In the UK defence sector, the Ministry of Defence direct contracts specify that 90% of undisputed SME invoices must be paid within five working days. It is interesting to note that when we think about what is actually possible.
It is also useful to think about comparative terms here. Presumably, this does not cover the supermarket, food and farming sectors. We have the Groceries Code Adjudicator there. How does the Bill interact with the Groceries Code Adjudicator? What is the interaction?
Finally, I turn to an issue that has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Like him, I draw on the briefing from the National Housing Federation, which delivers a cry of concern from the heart about the Section 106 provision. We are talking a lot about inequality of arms and an inequality of power between suppliers and purchasers; here, we have to note that a major construction company versus a housing association in some ways turns that balance of power around. If there is a problem with, say, a block of flats that has been constructed and purchased for social housing, housing associations may not have the capacity to carry out repairs themselves. They may also find it extraordinarily difficult to bring legal action against a major developer. This is an issue that the Minister is going to have to address as the Bill progresses, if not today, because the National Housing Federation has identified an issue. I do not know what the solution is, but we certainly need to address it.
Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Home Office on its direction of travel, but I have a few points I think it needs to consider to get this right. It would be helpful if the Home Office were to publish more regularly the gender breakdown of asylum seekers so that we can be clear that it is a representative proportion of those to whom we may have an obligation.
It would also be rather helpful for the Home Office to do more in the international context. I recall going with the former Bishop of Durham to Burundi, where a third of the entire population had sought asylum in a neighbouring Commonwealth country, Tanzania. It is part of the Commonwealth and was previously part of the Empire. It seems to me that part of our obligation to those seeking asylum is to ensure that those large numbers who temporarily felt obliged to move to a safe haven in Tanzania were able to return—as they did, but with some difficulty—to one of the most impoverished countries in the world, Burundi.
Similarly, I visited the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, where more than 1 million have fled from Myanmar—again, a country with which we have a very long-standing relationship. These are all asylum seekers, but it would be rather absurd for us to have a policy that suggests that the way to address those problems would be to facilitate those people coming here via organised crime gangs.
It is interesting to observe how low, or non-existent, the number of rough sleepers is in certain parts of the country. That is not correlated to wealth and income in those areas; it is correlated to the amount of casual work available—work on farms, for example, or in vape shops. There is a new mania in this country for everyone not to wash their own car but to pay someone else to do it. The evidence I have seen would suggest that many of these businesses are impossible to trace, and yet the Home Office is meant to have a system to ensure that illegal working is clamped down on. What further will be done about the registration of businesses to ensure that a business on a set and identifiable premises, which someone could go in and ask for work from, is in fact a legitimate business operating within the law, rather than a cash business facilitating the work of organised crime gangs in trafficking people to this country? In the same way that we have an electoral roll that we are required to be on, would it not be worth considering requiring a local authority to hold a business roll of who is operating a business, so that we can start to cut through? We have done this with some of the manipulation of Companies House from abroad in illegal working in this country. It would give both the country and those seeking refuge a better deal, and the criminal gangs a worse deal and less profit motivation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was going to rise after the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, to say that they gave two absolutely magnificent speeches. I agree with them both and I will not aim to repeat them. It is quite telling that I am now speaking after we have heard strong support from the Conservative Benches for the Government’s policy, and I suspect we may hear the same from the Conservative Front Bench. As I said, I do not aim to repeat what has already been said— I agree with everything that both noble Baronesses said—but I want to make a couple of points. One is to pick up on some words from the Minister, who rightly said that most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the Government are under pressure on these statutory instruments. On being challenged by our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Home Office said:
“We are developing our policy”
in this space. I have a question for the Minister on something that could save a great deal of the need to house asylum seekers. Is that “developing our policy” considering allowing asylum seekers the right to work, as they have in many countries?
I note that I am going to applaud the Government here, because we have seen a very small advance in the past few weeks. We saw three weeks ago that doctors and other medical professionals who have been seeking asylum for 12 months will now be able to work in the NHS. Well, that is great, although I have to ask why they have to wait 12 months, given our great need for their services and skills, and the fact that they would inevitably benefit from being able to use their skills as soon as possible.
It is worth looking at the history of that, because it had been the case historically under the shortage occupation list, which the former Conservative Government replaced with the immigration salary list in April 2024. We have seen the BMA, REACHE—the Refugee and Asylum Seekers Centre for Healthcare Professionals Education—and others taking legal cases; it may have been that the legal pressure was enough to make the Government change their mind. But if the Government are doing that for doctors, even after 12 months, why not for engineers or scientific researchers? Why not for anyone who can contribute their skills, energy, time and talents to our country, which is, of course, everybody? Why not allow asylum seekers to work? The direct question that I put to the Minister is: in “developing our policy”, are the Government at least considering that?
I want to pick up on one other point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because it really deserves to be highlighted. It is the issue of support from friends and family, which picks up on the case study that the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, presented to us. Something that I have heard from visiting refugee support groups over many years is how often a situation where someone is offered free accommodation—possibly by quite distant family or friends, very loosely defined—can quickly turn into a situation that can only be equated with modern slavery. I am thinking of one case study that I heard of: a very small and frail older woman ended up sleeping on a mat in the kitchen and working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It appears that the Government are trying to force people to create that kind of situation, from what is being suggested with the friends and family situation.
I have a final point to put to the Minister. Having looked at the impact assessments, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said how inadequate they are. I also want to repeat the point that the idea that there is no significant impact on the voluntary and private sector is just a nonsense. I am afraid that is a nonsense statement in the impact assessment. If we are to understand the impact of these rules, my simple question to the Minister is: how many people are going to end up homeless as a result of these statutory instruments? I think that is a question we should have the answer to.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that there will be some repetition of what certain noble friends, in the best sense of the word, have said. These SIs have not surprised me but I am rather depressed, in that there is an echo in them of last week’s debate. These are changes brought in ahead of our knowing what will replace current provisions, which in fact are going to continue for the time being—not that I anticipate what is coming with any great enthusiasm.
I understand that the duties reflected in the regulations are part of what it is hard not to still think of as retained EU law, now assimilated law, and that the power to amend expires in June—the Minister is nodding at that. I understand that the Government may want to avoid primary legislation, with the opportunity for greater scrutiny and amendment—I hoped that the Minister might nod at that, but he did not. Understanding this is not the same as supporting it. The Home Secretary keeps telling us that the proposals must be taken as a package, but the elements are being disaggregated.
I wrote that I hoped that one change this week would be that the Minister would not be suffering the same sore throat. Last week, some of us were not quite within distance to chuck throat pastilles across the Chamber at him.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who makes the powerful point that there are enough resources in this country for everyone to have a decent life, and for us to look after climate and nature, if we share those resources out fairly.
I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. However, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in regretting this SI, I am going to depart in the 180-degree opposite direction from the noble Lord on the Tory Front Bench’s reason for doing so. The noble Lord was keen to quote the Tony Blair Institute. He is quoting an institute that takes its name and leadership from a Prime Minister who saw the wage share—that is, wages as a percentage of total national income—fall significantly; from the 1960s to the 1980s, it was around 60%, but in the late 1990s it fell as low as 51%. Yes, the Blair Government brought in a minimum wage, but then they allowed its real level to decline and workers to suffer, so the noble Lord’s comments were entirely in line with that Blairist approach.
I want to pick up some comments made by the Chancellor in introducing this measure. She said that
“the economy isn’t working well enough for those on the lowest incomes”,
and I agree. She said:
“Too many people are still struggling to make ends meet”—
with which I also agree—and that those on low incomes are not
“properly rewarded for their hard work”.
Again, I entirely agree, but this SI does not take us nearly as far as we need to go in those directions. Where might we actually go?
It is interesting that the statement talks about the national living wage. That term came in when George Osborne gave in to the argument of the Green Party and said there should be a real living wage and rhetorically, if not in practice, introduced the term. However, the so-called national living wage is not the real living wage. The real living wage is calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, and it is £13.45 an hour across the UK compared to the national figure of £12.71, or £14.80 in London. I am sure the Benches around me will say, “Businesses can’t afford to pay that”, but the real living wage is paid by more than 16,000 UK businesses that have chosen to transform their workers’ lives and raise the bar to a basically decent level of work. Nearly half a million employees are covered by this, and the range of employers credited by the Living Wage Foundation includes half the FTSE 100 big household names, including Nationwide, IKEA, Everton Football Club and Aviva, as well as many thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises.
I have a direct question for the Minister. Alongside this announcement is the suggestion that the increase in the rate for 18 to 20 year-olds may slow in future. I note that Labour made a manifesto commitment that the so-called national living wage would apply equally to all adults by the end of this Parliament. Is the Minister prepared to repeat that commitment tonight?
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has powerfully made the point that when 18 to 20 year-olds go to Tesco to buy their dinner, or when they pay their rent, they can ask for a discount because they are young but are, astonishingly, unlikely to get it. More than that—you have workers who are doing exactly the same job, shoulder to shoulder in the warehouse or in the shop, but one of them is paid less than the other simply because of their age. That simply cannot be right.
My final point is that the real living wage still does not take us nearly far enough. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has for a long time calculated the minimum income standard. This is enough to ensure that people who are working get enough to live a decent life, as identified by the people of Britain. These are real measures of how the Government—and this SI—are not going nearly far enough.
At the current levels, a couple with two children where one parent is working full-time on the national so-called living wage and the other is not working reach 66% of the minimum income standard in 2025. That is actually worse than it was in 2024; it is a 1 percentage point decline. A single working-age adult working full-time on the national living wage reaches 76% of the minimum income standard for 2025, compared with 77% in 2024—so, again, a 1 percentage point decrease. We are going in the wrong direction.
I have one final point. I am aware that Jeremy Hunt no longer speaks officially for His Majesty’s Opposition, but he is of course still a Tory MP. He told Radio 5 yesterday that the kinds of measures that we are all looking towards to deal with energy bills—the Government helping in this crisis situation—are unsustainable. He said:
“We are going to have to wean ourselves off the habit”.
But the reality that that fails to acknowledge is that, after decades of workers getting less and less of the share of the product of their labours, they do not have any reserves left for the next shock. People have been left on the edge, and I am afraid that this SI does nothing like enough to help them re-establish stability and security in their lives.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Sharpe, I ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who has vast, successful business experience, why he thinks that Sir Tony Blair said, via his institute, just two weeks ago that Labour’s policies—such as this SI—are
“harming growth and undermining young people’s job prospects”.
Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful and can reassure my noble friend that the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from inward tourist economy issues. We have, in discussing the proposals to date, worked with a range of partners, including the Northern Ireland tourism association, to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively and ultimately will not prove a barrier to people wishing to come to Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom to support their tourism objectives. We have looked at, and will look at, with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency the impact of this issue, but I say to my noble friend that I cannot offer an exemption for visitors to Northern Ireland, because that would undermine the rationale of the scheme as a whole, which is to strengthen our borders, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the rules say that the personal details on the two passports must match, but Britons in Greece are among the those highlighting the fact that this is extraordinarily discriminatory against women, given that, for example, in Greece—and this applies to a number of other countries—there are rules about the name they must have on the Greek passport. If they are married to a Greek, they must have their maiden surname as well. The Minister may say that the Government have said that, under extraordinary, exceptional circumstances, the two names do not have to match. Can he confirm that that applies in this case, where people have no choice but to have two different names on their passport? More than that, can he guarantee that every agent for every airline and other travel company will understand that when people turn up to travel?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will look at the specific instance that the noble Baroness has mentioned with regard to Greece, because that has not been drawn to my attention to date. I will contact her directly. We have made a strong effort, since the last Government introduced the principle of this, to inform and work with carriers to ensure that they understand the situation. Without repeating what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see that there are a number of mechanisms whereby individuals who feel they have a problem now in this temporary period of transition can follow that up with a range of authorities to make sure they get proper access. As ever, when a date is introduced, there will be a little friction, because that is always the case. But, in the long term, the ETA arrangements and the ability to provide stronger borders is a task worth working for.
Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Joint Committee for this excellent and important report. It refers to concern about transnational oppression by China and Russia, as have many noble Lords in this debate—and you do not get much more extreme than attempted and actual assassination by Iran and other states. Speaking as the founding, now former, co-chair of the All-Party Group on Hong Kong, and having often spoken about concern for Hong Kong and other Chinese students at UK universities, these are very grave concerns.
Today, I am going to talk about another state—a rising threat. At the moment, most of this is in the form not of physical threat, obviously, but intimidation. We know that intimidation and physical threats are often closely linked, and that intimidation can have very serious effects on people’s lives.
I start with what is really a quite mild case, involving the head of a British public relations company about whom that state’s embassy—the official representatives of its Government—complained to the companies for which his firm worked. They complained not about the quality of his work or his representations but about private social media posts, which were critical, in very mild terms, of the leader of the state that the embassy represents. The individual has now left the company. It is called Hanover, and one of its key clients is the American Pharmaceutical Group. Yes, the state is the United States of America.
The Financial Times reports that the embassy refused to continue to support the US pharma firms unless the executive was fired. These, of course, are the same pharmaceutical companies which, with embassy help, have considerably raised the costs of drugs for our NHS.
Some might say that that is just the rough and tumble of capitalism, the unequal and all too often subsidiary position the UK finds itself in in relation to the US—“it is only that individual’s economic rights that are affected”. But, of course, what about his successor, and what about his and others’ free speech rights?
Let us look at the other end of the scale: the top of society. The US Vice-President JD Vance last year shocked Europe at the Munich security conference by attacking democratically agreed laws, debated in this very Chamber, to protect women’s healthcare rights. JD Vance suggested that the US might not live up to treaty obligations unless we changed our laws. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke about Chinese assault on the rule of law here; we are seeing an assault from the US on our rule of law.
This year, of course, the speech from Secretary of State Marco Rubio was much better received. The tone was much more conciliatory, but the content was no different. It attacked the obstructions of international law, the very human rights we are talking about, and suggested that this hamstrings future western colonialism. He asked—you might say demanded—that Europe join again with the US to expand with missionaries and soldiers to build vast empires extending across the globe, which is definitely not in line with human rights.
What does this mean practically? I spoke earlier today in the EU debate about the precautionary principle. Whether we are talking about Chinese technology or other forms of transnational repression, we might wish that we acted earlier. Perhaps we should apply the precautionary principle, particularly when it comes to US tech firms and their hold over our society and individuals, and to protecting not just British individuals or the US diaspora, but our whole rule of law and human rights, against a new threat of transnational repression.
Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the basis that they are legislative overreach; they extend the definition of “critical national infrastructure” beyond its appropriate meaning; the practical need for such an extension has not been adequately justified; they represent a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest; and sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for both outlining the statutory instrument and explaining my amendment to decline to approve it. I am going to structure my speech in an unconventional manner, starting with the points that I know the fewest people in this Chamber will agree with, moving backwards through the order in the amendment to the point that I believe that most people in this Chamber, particularly the Benches to my right, might be persuaded to agree with. I will finish not on points about animal testing or the right to protest, but on the basic constitutional understanding that statutory instruments are a way in which the law can be illegitimately extended well beyond the original intentions manifested when it was democratically debated, pored over and scrutinised, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. This statutory instrument is a notable and dangerous piece of legislative overreach.
I start with animal testing, the phasing out of which, as the amendment says, is not going nearly quickly enough under the replacing animals in science strategy. Why do I argue that this is too slow? It is for morality and for efficacy. There is public revulsion, yes, which results in widespread peaceful protest about the treatment of more than 2.5 million animals a year used in medical research here. More than that, there is a recognition of the inadequacy of animal testing, the “valley of death” that sees drugs apparently showing promise in animals failing to work in humans. Animal Free Research UK reports that that is the case for over 92% of drugs, and that failure makes up 75% of the cost of drug development. As an entire edition of the journal Frontiers in Immunology published in 2024 points out, there are 90 million years of evolution between humans and rodents.
However, there are alternatives. Our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, said last November:
“Now, new advances in technology—particularly AI and genomics, but also organoid and 3D cell systems—finally allow us to see a path to changing our reliance on animals in science”.
But this SI will be an active discouragement to the commercial companies to push on in this direction, the direction in which the Government say they want to head and for which public pressure—democratic forces—is clearly important.
My second argument, to quote the amendment, is that the SI reflects
“a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
That was the key concern in the debate on the SI in the other place of many of the 26 Labour MPs who voted against it. The Mother of the House, Diane Abbott, was among the 110 “no” tally. Among the Labour opponents were Stella Creasy and Kerry McCarthy, former Shadow Minister of State for Defra and a former Minister for Climate. As was suggested after the debate by Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole:
“This proposal treats private, often American-owned companies the same as airports, motorways and utilities. It shields private profits from fair criticism and puts them above our right to protest. That is not right”.
Protest is part of our political system, and it is a crucial part of delivering democracy. The Minister suggested that recent developments in protest had demanded that this SI be brought in. I can go back to the 19th century, when the UK was a leader in protest movements, such as anti-vivisection, through the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
I have circulated two briefings to noble Lords. One of those represents some 21 signatories, among them Protect the Wild, Camp Beagle, Medicine Without Cruelty and the Network for Police Monitoring, known as Netpol. It says that some 30,000 emails have been sent to noble Lords; I apologise to the many who have written to me personally, but I do not have the capacity to respond individually. Together with the other briefing written by Naturewatch Foundation, and supported by 26 other signatories, including Cruelty Free International, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Lush cosmetics and the Animal Law Foundation, this indicates that the SI in question represents a significant and unprecedented expansion of public order powers—already some of the most far-reaching protest-related restrictions in recent UK law—and would extend them to a broad and very loosely defined sector. When it comes to animal testing, the Government have failed to demonstrate why existing laws covering harassment, obstruction, criminal damage and public order are not already sufficient.
I turn to what I believe is my point of broadest appeal, and an appeal of considerable constitutional significance. I thank Jennifer Scotney, our staff member, for going through all the debates on the original Bill. In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the right honourable Kit Malthouse stated:
“The offence will cover major roads, railways, airports, harbours, and downstream oil and gas infrastructure”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill list transport and energy, and add newspaper printing infrastructure, but Parliament did not scrutinise life sciences as key national infrastructure. Its later inclusion relies solely on delegated powers and was not the original legislative intent. KNI was identified as specific, identifiable physical systems whose operation underpins daily life. Life sciences, by contrast, is a broad sector, operating largely on private land, consisting of thousands of sites of varying importance. To quote the right honourable Kit Malthouse again:
“Minor infrastructure such as undesignated roads and small-scale power stations will be out of scope”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 14/6/22; col. 134.]
If minor or diffused infrastructure was deliberately excluded, a whole commercial research sector cannot logically fit within the definition. The National Police Chiefs’ Council testified that it would have concern about an explicit duty being placed on policing to deal with an activity on private land.
Emergency services, health, and food services were explicitly rejected as not being suitable for inclusion in the Bill; Ministers said that they were not in scope. In Committee in the Commons, Sarah Jones MP proposed adding emergency services; this was rejected by the Minister. The response in the Commons to a proposal suggesting adding farms and food production was that this would
“significantly increase the scope of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/22; col. 606.]
In our own House, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the then Conservative Minister, said
“we do not believe it is necessary to add … into the list … at present”.—[Official Report, 16/11/22; col. 936.]
referring to other sectors. If ambulances, hospitals and food supply were excluded for being too expansive to be included in the Bill, life sciences represent a clear shift beyond Parliament’s stated limits for the Bill.
Ministers justified the secondary legislation power on the basis that new forms of infrastructure might emerge, or novel protest tactics might target previously unforeseen sites. Protests at animal testing and life science facilities, however, are long established—going back to the 19th century, as I said—well known and were explicitly referenced during the passage of the Bill. Martha Spurrier of Liberty, at the Commons Committee stage, said:
“If someone locks themselves to an animal testing centre … the police have to work out at what point that person’s right to”
protest
“becomes an infringement of other rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 09/06/2022; col. 72.]
Parliament was already aware of protests at animal testing facilities and discussed them as part of the existing protest landscape, managed under existing regulations and human rights law, not as a justification for redefining infrastructure.
I come to the broader position in which we are debating the SI. The Public Law Project website says that
“for as long as delegated legislation has existed there have been concerns about the way it is used. Sometimes the Government leaves difficult and controversial matters of policy to Statutory Instruments so that the Government can avoid the difficulties of having to pass a law”.
I posit that this is happening here.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years, so I have heard many debates along the lines of a 2014 report from the Hansard Society titled: The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation. That report says, and this is the key part of my argument, that:
“The House of Lords should make greater, albeit judicious, use of its power of veto”
when referring to SIs. I put it to the House, and particularly to the Conservative Benches, who I know in general are extremely reluctant to vote for fatal Motions, that this would be a judicious—indeed, a critically important—use of their vote on this occasion, a vote for something we often hear championed from those Benches for free speech.
I state only the obvious when I say that politics is now in a great state of flux and the future is highly uncertain. The principle of far extending the original intentions of a Bill—which could be stopped through a mechanism that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have in their hands but decline to use—could, in the future, be a far graver threat to the nation’s liberty than even what we have before us today. Does Parliament make the law, or have the Executive morphed into a monstrous Henry VIII hologram, saying that the law means whatever they say it means? In this age, particularly, that is a very dangerous precedent to set. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Just Stop Oil blocking motorways and I do not agree with her now about animal testing, which must be carefully controlled but is still essential, but I come to the same conclusion as she does for the constitutional reason that she gave as the last of her indictments.
I strongly agree with the Government about the importance of the life sciences sector. I was chairman of Imperial College; I know a bit about it. The point where I disagree with the Government, and strongly agree with the noble Baroness, is on whether a research laboratory can properly be designated as key national infrastructure under the 2023 Act.
Section 7 of the Act makes it an offence to interfere with the
“use or operation of any key national infrastructure”.
It defines key national infrastructure rather precisely, as the Minister read out. There are eight categories; seven are to do with transport and the eighth, rather oddly, is about the production of newspapers—presumably the connection is communication. Section 7(7) of the Act permits the Secretary of State to add further infrastructure. Hence this SI.
In all our debates, no one ever mentioned laboratories. When we were passing this Act, animal welfare did not come up. We thought we were dealing with oil, gas, rail, road and air, because that is what Ministers and the Bill said. If we were thinking of what extra—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part in this careful, informed and widely acknowledged to be important debate. I express my great sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and all his colleagues who have been subjected to utterly unacceptable and illegal pressure as a result of their work. All the things that have been alluded to are illegal, remain illegal and I am sure will always be illegal. That is not what this instrument is talking about.
On the point of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, the noble Lord indeed was very helpful and we had a great deal of useful interaction when it was a Bill. I always opposed that Bill and I look to an article I wrote for Left Foot Forward on 25 January 2023, saying that this Bill should not go forward. That was, remained and still remains my position.
I will pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who said that international standards demand animal tests. Besides the UK there are, of course, many other countries looking to move at pace to get away from animal tests. I point in particular to leading action in India, the Netherlands and even the United States. As in the UK, all those actions are informed, and to some degree driven, by protests. That is part of the political process that is pushing in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, also unintentionally provided an argument against the Minister’s claim that this SI has be approved now, otherwise we will halt the approval of biocides and medicines, et cetera. The noble Lord referred to his time as Minister for Science. I looked up the dates: it was from 2010 to 2014. He said that even then unacceptable protests were happening. There is no evidence of anything new happening that justifies this SI.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who said that peaceful protest was not in any way stopped. I will pick up also on points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This was published without a full rights-based assessment. Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions have failed to rule out online activity or information sharing as not falling within scope. That puts NGOs and campaign groups at risk of criminalisation for lawful and utterly reasonable advocacy of boycotts, for public awareness campaigns and for education programmes. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made the point that people are not allowed to know where these facilities are but could be criminalised for protesting near them, which really does identify the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out that there has been only one direction of travel over many years: the rights of people are going backwards while the rights of corporations are being advanced. That is what is happening and, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, we are seeing juries saying, “Enough is enough, this is not acceptable”. That is a true expression of public will.
I also thank the Minister—and I will round up on this point—for pointing out that this SI is rejectable, this House has the power to do this and this is within the constitution. The reasons why the SI should be rejected were laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who said that this is the clearest abuse of legislative power she can remember in 27 years. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I ask the noble Baroness to bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This is my last sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, conjured up for many of us very fond memories of the noble Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this pushes the boundaries too far. Your Lordships’ House has a choice. This is so constitutionally important that I must ask to test the opinion of the House.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. This Statement concerns the transition of citizens who have come here through an immigration route to work to having earned settled status.
Last week, we discussed another Statement on asylum claims. Persecution for religious faith would be a ground to seek asylum. We have also had a policy statement on how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that that is not an automatic barrier. However, it is certainly a significant barrier and how that person has arrived can be examined. For those asylum claims, we will meet our obligations under the international refugee convention and our human rights obligations, and those claims will be based on an individual’s personal circumstances.
The key point of the Statement we made earlier in the week is that, instead of five years, it would now be a two and a half year period. If the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago. It may be, in which case the asylum claim would still be processed.
The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine. If so, we allow status. If that happens, they will fall under the routes of this particular Statement. If it is not a proper asylum claim, they will face removal from the country. That is a two-stage operation. This is not just around people who are coming on small boats; these are people who are coming on work visas who wish to have long-term settled status. Here, we are just putting some more guard-rails around that settled status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed and, on the four key issues, are citizens that deserve the right and privilege of being British citizens as part of their consideration.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“Fairness is the most fundamental of British values”.
Is it fair that people who have uprooted their lives, moved their children here and made their lives here should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? In responding to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the Minister said that there might be transitional arrangements and that they are consulting on all this. But that means that people who might have been here for four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair?
I look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of someone who is either already here now or comes in the future—a carer or maybe a nurse in a care home. The five years are kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after 10 years’ service, she injures her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns to work? What happens to her child, after 15 years, when they are unlikely still to be dependent? Perhaps they push to remain dependent to be able to stay in the country that is the only one they actually remember. Is all that fair?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me answer the first point. The announcements were made on 20 November. The consultation closes on 12 February, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a three-month or four-month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. It is important that we make the policy statements that we have made and allow for consultation. The points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.
The noble Baroness asks, “Is it fair?”. It has to be fair if we want to ensure community cohesion and that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not an automatic citizenship privilege. I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. There are many political parties—I do not accuse the noble Lord of this—that would go much further, removing people from this country who have settled status and doing things like that. We have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government—it is difficult in government—but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties. We have to find a way to ensure that the fairness that is appropriate for the system is generated in the rules that we are consulting on now.
Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Act 2026 View all Crime and Policing Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (14 Nov 2025)
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and thank her for tabling this important amendment. The noble Baroness has laid out the arguments extremely carefully and clearly. Romany and Traveller people experience stark inequalities. They are subject to a wide range of enforcement powers against encampments. Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, introduced in 2022, created a new criminal offence relating to trespass and gave police tougher powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for up to 12 months, alongside powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers.
This draconian amendment was tabled and supported by the previous Conservative Government. It took no account of whether elderly relatives or children were on site, or whether a woman might be in the late stages of pregnancy. It was a broad, sweeping power which the police had not asked for; nor did they want it.
On several occasions I called on the previous Government to require all local authorities to provide adequate permanent sites for Romany people and Traveller people, as well as temporary stopping sites to accommodate the cultural nomadic lifestyle—but to no avail. His Majesty’s official Opposition prefer the scenario where, due to the absence of authorised stopping places or sites, illegal camping is dealt with in a draconian manner. The Gypsies and Travellers are evicted and thrown in prison; their caravan homes and vehicles are seized; and their children are taken into care—all a burden on the taxpayer, with no thought to the humanitarian impact on the Romany people and Travellers themselves. Making a nomadic, cultural way of life a criminal activity was and is appalling and is out of all proportion, and it is in breach of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
In Somerset there was previously adequate provision of both temporary and permanent sites for the Traveller community. I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get those sites up and running, against huge opposition. Some of those sites have since been closed. I now live in Hampshire, where I am to all intents and purposes surrounded by Traveller sites. They live round the corner; they live at the bottom of the road I live in; their children go to the local schools, both primary and secondary; their babies are baptised in the church. One baby girl was baptised yesterday, surrounded by over 100 well-wishers from her extended family. We bought our logs from the man who lived down the road. Sadly, he died earlier this year, and we now buy from his grandson, who has taken over his grandfather’s business. There is nothing but good will and respect between the Travellers and the rest of the community.
There will, of course, be those who live close to very large, unmanaged, sprawling Traveller sites. I have some sympathy with those people. However, if their local authority had made adequate provision in the first place, with sites having adequate toilet and water facilities, maybe they would not be in the current unfortunate circumstances we hear about.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for reminding us how Gypsies and Travellers are still treated. It is a disgrace. It really is time that proper provision be made for those who have a culture different from those of us living in bricks and mortar. Now is definitely the time to ditch the legislation of 2022. It was not needed then, and it is not needed now. I fully support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with pleasure to join the three other proposers of Amendment 49. I apologise for not taking part at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb said then, there are two specific issues that we will be dealing with, and this is one of them. The case for the amendment has already been overwhelmingly made, so I will not repeat what has already been said. However, I will take your Lordships back to December 2021, when I called for a vote in the House on whether Part 4 should be part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, as it became in 2022. I said then that this was a moral issue: to have legislation explicitly targeting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, given what it was doing to them, was such a moral issue that it could not be allowed to drift by. I note that first on the list of the people supporting me in that vote was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There were four Cross-Bench Members who supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady O’Loan. There were nine Labour Members who supported me in that vote, and 54 Liberal Democrats. I thank all of them for supporting me then and for hearing the strong words from the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell, now.
It is worth looking back to that debate. At Second Reading, the then Conservative Minister said, in effect, “We have to have this; we are delivering on a manifesto commitment.” I believe and hope that maintaining Part 4 of the Bill was not a Labour manifesto commitment. This is an opportunity for Labour to undo something the previous Tory Government did, and which absolutely should be undone. That could be achieved very simply, as shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is such a champion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues in your Lordships’ House over such a long period, and who leads all of us who follow that path so well. This is a chance simply and clearly to do something that needs to be done.
I will also go back to the discussion around that time. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—who is not in his place, unfortunately—wrote a very powerful piece for the Independent opposing Part 4, which is what we are essentially undoing here. Like the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, of course, is a Kindertransport survivor, was thinking of the situation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, who
“could see their worldly possessions wheeled away, their warmth and shelter seized, their parents potentially imprisoned”.
That is what this part of the Bill, which we seek to remove, actually does.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I think the point is that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion.
As for the issue of incompatibility, it is worth noting that, when a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike-down power; it is not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches believe that there have been too many instances of judicial overreach, as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. If we cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, that is an indication that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He speaks about so-called judicial overreach, but building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, in a consultation in 2018, 75% of police said they did not want these extra powers and 85% said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. This is across the justice system; it is not just what the judges are doing.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.