My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 136, to which I have added my name, but I support all these amendments, which attempt to mitigate the injurious effects of Part 4 on one of the most marginalised communities in our society. I will leave to the end my more general comments relating to the clause stand part debate, and I apologise for not being able to make it to Second Reading, because I was away.
10.15 pm
In an earlier consultation, the EHRC expressed concern about more powers to evict or ban encampments and reminded the Government that all such powers
“must be exercised with a full awareness of the occupiers’ welfare needs, human rights, and, where applicable, their entitlement to protection under the Equality Act”.
They emphasised that
“These cannot be circumvented by new powers.”
As has already been made clear, there is a widespread fear that the powers contained in this Bill will circumvent these important principles.
For now, I will focus on welfare needs. We are talking about a group of people who already suffer significantly worse health, both physical and mental, than the general population and who can look forward to significantly shorter life expectancy. Their children do worse in the education system, including being more likely to be subject to exclusions. The National Equality Panel, of which I was a member, was quite shocked by the level of disadvantage suffered by the community, which we found “very troubling”. While that was a decade ago, the Minister then responsible for these issues, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, acknowledged
“that members of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities continue to face some of the steepest challenges in society”
and that
“Health, education and housing inequalities are considerable”.
These inequalities, as we have heard, are likely to increase as a result of this Bill, and in particular it is likely to lead to an increase in homelessness. Have the Government really thought through what it means to have one’s home confiscated?
The impact of eviction, or fear of eviction, on children in particular can be frightening and traumatic, as Children’s Society research has shown. As has already been said, we are potentially talking about children experiencing homelessness as the result of forced eviction from their home, which could lead to them being taken into care, particularly if their parent, parents or carers are jailed. Has the Home Office calculated the potential knock-on costs for local authorities? In what way can such a measure, which potentially interferes with the child’s right to family life, be “necessary and proportionate”, as required by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? In what way can this possibly be in the best interests of the child in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
I agree with Friends, Families and Travellers, whose briefings have been invaluable, that, in the Government’s failure to take into account the impacts on Gypsy and Traveller children, particularly of repeated eviction, parental imprisonment, interactions with the social care system and lack of respect for cultural identity, the Bill may be in breach of the convention.
I do not doubt that the Minister will respond that the draft guidance to police makes clear they must make proper welfare inquiries in line with their equalities and human rights obligations before taking action. But this injunction is totally undermined by the statement that the police, alongside other public bodies,
“should not gold-plate human rights and equalities legislation”.
Could the Minister explain exactly what is meant by “not gold-plate”? On the face of it, it would appear to be an invitation to set aside human rights and equalities and welfare concerns when deciding whether or not to apply a law which could criminalise people in vulnerable circumstances for causing supposedly “significant”—and we have already heard the problems with that word—damage or distress; this could, it would appear, be as trivial as smells or smoke from a bonfire.
Ministers repeatedly have said that they remain committed to delivering a strategy to tackle the inequalities faced by the communities most likely to be affected by this legislation. While that is a welcome recognition of the disadvantages they face, this strategy was promised well over two years ago, in June 2019. Yet when I asked those at FFT about the strategy, they said that they have seen nothing since that amounts to such a strategy. Apparently, it has been held up by Brexit and the pandemic. Could the Minister please update us on where the strategy—which is supposed to be a cross-departmental strategy—has got to, and give us an assurance that full details will be published before Report? Otherwise, any reference to this strategy is just empty words when we are considering legislation that will increase the “entrenched inequality”, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when Minister, faced by Gypsies, Roma and Travellers.
More generally, I believe that these clauses should not stand part of the Bill. I will expand briefly on the reasons already given. First, they criminalise one of the most marginalised communities in our society on extremely flimsy grounds. Secondly, they give rise to several human rights concerns, as documented so well by the JCHR, and also voiced by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, in a most unusual letter to the Lord Speaker, which asks us not to accept these provisions. Thirdly, in the words of the JCHR:
“The proposals self-evidently discriminate against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, putting at risk their right to practise their culture without being unfairly criminalised in the absence of adequate sites.”
I suggest that the Government have been somewhat disingenuous in how they have responded to accusations that these proposals are discriminatory. On the one hand, they assure us that the proposed offence will not apply to various groups about whom concerns have been raised, such as the homeless, although here they have ignored the extent to which homeless people might sleep in vehicles; on the other hand, they argue that it is not targeted at any particular group, meaning the GRT community. Yet clearly it is targeted at this group. Could the Minister explain who else is likely to be the target?
The equality impact assessment acknowledges that there may be an indirect discriminatory impact but argues that this can be objectively justified, albeit not to the satisfaction of the JCHR or the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. Ministers repeatedly counter accusations of discrimination with the assurance that the proposals will not affect the vast majority of Travellers, who are law-abiding citizens. We agree that the vast majority are law-abiding. The whole point of our concern is that this punitive legislation, with its imprecise wording, is likely to turn many of these law-abiding citizens into officially second-class, non-law-abiding citizens. The draft guidance has done nothing to assuage this concern. It will disproportionately affect the Traveller community either directly—because they are unable to avoid its requirements in the absence of adequate sites—or indirectly, because of the fears to which it has given rise. Can the Minister say to what other group the Government expect the legislation to be applied, and on what basis? I have yet to hear or read any convincing rebuttal of the charge that this clause will be discriminatory in its impact.