Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. I want to take a slightly a bigger picture view to explain why I support the Motion. My greatest fear, as a severely disabled person, is that the overall benefits bill, particularly the cost to the taxpayer of those benefits mentioned in the Motion, becomes so big that the welfare system itself collapses. That would be catastrophic for the most disabled people in our society.

I recently asked the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, what advice the UK Government were giving to the Scottish Government about managing the growing devolved benefits bill in the event of our being at war by 2030, which is what many commentators are saying is likely. In his reply, the noble Lord said that he did not agree with the assumption underlying my question and that while, of course, we must spend more on defence, we must also continue to support those who need that support the most. I say to the Minister, whom I, too, welcome back to her place, that I do not criticise her noble friend for the well-meaning desire underlying his answer, but I also say to her that the current level of benefit spending would not survive contact with the enemy.

One only has to read the fascinating wartime diaries of Chips Channon, edited by my noble friend Lord Blackwater, who is no longer in his place, to realise how much taxes would have to shoot up overnight were we to find ourselves in a wartime situation. It is worth noting that Chips Channon was penning his diaries before the creation of the welfare state and without the crippling backdrop of £3 trillion of national debt and an annual bill of around £130 billion in interest payments. Which one of us could argue that those figures are not astronomical? I do not even know how many noughts there are in a trillion. It is absolutely mind-boggling—so mind-boggling, it might as well be meaningless.

Only, it is not. The situation we have got ourselves into is dire, particularly for disabled people. We fool ourselves if we think that raising taxes in a wartime emergency will be enough; it will not. It will have to be accompanied by an urgent shift of resources to defence—defending our country, of course, but also defending the NHS, the welfare state, national infrastructure and our freedoms. For us to be able to defend them will inevitably involve a recalibration of resources, which is why today’s debate is so important; because right now, not only are we nowhere near being able to fight a war, but we are in denial about the implications for disabled people of our having to do so.

Unless and until we ask ourselves the question as to how we got into this hole—the root cause, as my noble friend has just described it—and how we plan to dig our way out of it, including through appropriate reviews as called for in this Motion, disabled people will remain in grave danger, because it is they who will be most vulnerable to the recalibration of resources that I mentioned.

Yet the answer to that question is, I suggest, relatively simple. Politicians of all persuasions uttered warm words but did not respect disabled people enough to tell them the truth. They implied that the system was too big to fail when, actually, we have allowed it to grow so unsustainably big that it is, I fear, doomed to fail. Indeed, I would argue, in sorrow, in fear and as a stakeholder, that the very viability of the welfare state is threatened by the exponential growth in benefits.

If I respect someone, I level with them. They may not like it, but I will not lie to them just to make my life easier. As we dig ourselves out of this hole, we urgently need to reflect on what respect looks like for disabled people. I suggest that it involves taking a number of practical steps, as well as being straight with them about the scale of the challenge and the fact that there will be casualties of any changes. That is unavoidable, but we can plan now to mitigate the impact on those whose disability means that they depend most on the system. We can take steps to convey respect, build trust and give hope, including combining any recalibration of resources with measures such as ensuring that the existing anti-discrimination legal provisions are upheld and enforced; I will shortly write to the chief executive of the law firm CMS on this very question.

This will also include the Government honouring their manifesto pledge and mandating disability employment and pay gap reporting through the introduction of the equality (race and disability) Bill in this Session. The IoD backs mandatory reporting. The 300-plus signatories to the Disability Employment Charter, the brainchild of Professor Kim Hoque of King’s College London, back it—as does, I am delighted to say, the Business Disability Forum, which today has committed to signing the charter. All that remains is for the Government to do likewise by introducing the Bill in this Session.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not want to delay the House for very long. I will just add my voice to Amendment 1, which I added my name to. The Government are very clearly warning about hostile state activity. Therefore, the probing amendment gives the Government and the Minister the opportunity to say that espionage is included in the state threat. The amendment seeks to add it and to give clarity to the clause. However, I hope that the Minister can be very clear that the foreign power threat activity includes espionage. If he is able to say that, it will be very helpful. It is very clear, after the recent case involving the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office—which, as far as I am concerned, should no longer have any status here in London and should be disbanded, but that is for another day—that the British state was penetrated, dissidents have been targeted and, indeed, our colleagues in Parliament have been under surveillance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that in his closing remarks.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 1 in the name of various noble Lords, including, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I say “of course” in tribute to the noble Lord’s indefatigable illumination of the threat posed to this country by the odious Chinese Communist Party regime. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, in thanking him for his enduring efforts to ensure that we are alive to the CCP’s deliberate, cynical and relentless attempts to undermine our democracy and the West as a whole.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, in what has been an informative, if alarming, debate—alarming because it has highlighted the degree to which the freedoms which my grandparents’ generation fought and died for are now under grave threat. The need for this Bill underlines how much the social context has changed, as my noble friend Lady Verma alluded to. I doubt that the older generation could have anticipated just how strong a sense of entitlement to those freedoms their great-grandchildren would develop. It is as if their great-grandparents’ sacrifice, made in blood, sweat and tears, was ancient history, something that belonged in a Hollywood blockbuster, but which was irrelevant to today’s apparently so much more sophisticated world.

I suspect that, having made that sacrifice in order that we might be free from the racist, genocidal, Jew-hating Nazis, my grandparents’ generation would appreciate far more than we do the trouble we are in and the urgency of getting the measures in this Bill, and perhaps others, on to the statute book. They would see the extent to which the threat to our democracy posed by hostile states’ use of proxies and malign non-state actors is exacerbated by society’s privileged, desensitised indifference to the danger they pose.

The Lord Privy Seal said shortly before we began this debate that the public do not appreciate the threat. I agree with her, but I would go further. I fear that some are in denial, desperately clinging to a delusion that peace is permanent, that the welfare state is inviolable and that deterrence does not matter enough to justify the necessary recalibration of resources. Meanwhile, hostile states and their proxies exploit our weakness ruthlessly and insidiously, turning those hard-won freedoms that we take for granted against us.

Take racism as an example. This country outlawed racism based, among other criteria, on ethnic origin, 61 years ago. Yet our enemies cynically weaponise democracy, exploiting demonstrations featuring pernicious racist chants as if they were somehow a celebration of democratic rights rather than a concerted attempt by some to single out and intimidate a particular race—our Jewish brothers and sisters—and thereby undermine our social and cultural cohesion. Shamefully, we let them do it. We let them undermine a crucial aspect of our democracy, supposedly in the name of democracy.

I welcome this Bill because it goes some way to addressing the threat we face. My question is whether it goes far enough. Are its measures truly commensurate with the scale of that threat? I will not rehearse the points already made, but I join with those who wonder whether it takes into account sufficiently the rise of what could be termed “hatred for hire”, such as we saw in the arson attacks on the Jewish community ambulances and the attack on the Prime Minister’s former home, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, mentioned.

I close with three points. The first is a thank you to our wonderful security services, who work so hard within difficult democratic constraints to keep us safe, particularly in our case as parliamentarians. The second is to highlight the importance of pre-emption as a means of prevention. One only has to consider that the odious Chinese Communist Party regime operated a secret police hub here in London to spy on and intimidate Hong Kong dissidents to know that in some cases, our enemies are running rings around us. Their aggression and hostile intent are palpable. I ask the Minister, who we all appreciate is dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of our country, whether he is absolutely sure that the powers in this Bill are sufficiently aggressive and pre-emptive in return.

My final point is this. Is the Minister confident that the Bill takes account of the incredibly unstable context in which we consider it? The Hormuz sell-out seems to be unravelling as we speak. A previously reliable partner is becoming reliably unreliable, yet some would say that we are still tripping over ourselves to observe legal niceties. I fear that we make our enemies laugh. I hope that our combined determination to close any gaps in the Bill, mentioned during this debate, will ensure that they have no reason to laugh at us—either today or in the future.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. That she spoke as powerfully as she did—and I hope to echo some of her words—draws attention to the fact that so few of us in this House have a severe disability and therefore look at these issues from first-hand experience.

I was not intending to speak on these amendments—Amendment 334 in particular—and I obviously let my Chief Whip know, but I have listened very carefully to the debate and, as I say, I come at this from a purely personal experience. The noble Baroness mentioned the Disability Discrimination Act, which, of course, your Lordships’ House passed about 30 years ago. It was so exciting, because it was meant to herald a new dawn of non-discrimination and equality. Thirty years later, discrimination on grounds of disability is rife—and I know that because I experience it several times a day, day in and day out. It may be low-level abuse—smirks, nudging as I go past, laughter—but the effect it has on a person’s self-esteem and morale, when they are having to cope with so many other challenges in life, cannot really be described. It has to be felt to be believed.

I simply say to the House that this is a new development. I referred to the Disability Discrimination Act coming in 30 years ago this year. I was on the National Disability Council, advising the Government on its implementation, so we were developing codes of practice 30 years ago, almost to the day. I would say that the law is inadequate and needs this amendment. It needs to be updated for this simple reason: the message needs to go out from your Lordships’ House that the sort of behaviour the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has described, and the case studies she has shared with the House, are completely unacceptable. I do not believe a single member of your Lordships’ House would disagree with that. They are completely unacceptable. This amendment sends that message. Notwithstanding my personal support for the wonderful work that the Free Speech Union and my noble friend Lord Young of Acton do, I support this amendment.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for the introduction of this amendment. It is a vast improvement on the amendment laid in the other place. We discussed it at Second Reading and in Committee, and it is great to see it on Report.

However much we might like to reconsider the wording of the Gender Recognition Act, the way in which we consider hate crime, and the Equality Act, that is not what this amendment does. We can talk about the GRA, we can talk about hate crime and we can talk about the Equality Act, but that is not what this is about. This is about extending to disability and LGBT people and sex aggravated offences that already exist for race and religion and belief. That was a recommendation made by the Law Commission in 2021, which feels like a different country was indeed only five years ago.

What aggravated offences do that is different from increased sentencing is very specific. First, it leads to stronger sentences and a higher maximum penalty. However, in order to do that, hostility must be proven as part of the offence itself and not just considered at sentencing, so you need significantly stronger evidence than you currently do. For those who are concerned about the lacklustre way in which people are accused of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, that will have to be put through a much more rigorous process to be tested before this kicks in. You also get a longer time to report because it is considered in the Crown Court, which gives victims more time to report and gives the police more time to investigate. Therefore, again, there is a much stronger need for substantive evidence before those cases can be considered and people can be found guilty. It is changing in the sentencing, but the nature in which that investigation takes place will be much more rigorous than the current provision that is made on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. That increased sentencing was introduced circa 2020—forgive me, but I do not know exactly when—as an easier way of kind of levelling up the law, because this was too tricky to do then. This is now about just levelling up.

The world feels more hostile. This amendment demonstrates that the Government, and indeed this House, take that very seriously. It incentivises people to provide better evidence of crime. A tweet misgendering would, I think, not likely pass muster, but misgendering while you kick someone’s head in possibly might be an aggravating factor in sentencing, and that feels quite reasonable.

I would say that being counted matters—these crimes being counted matters. I said at Second Reading and in Committee that, when the hate crime law did not exist for people like me, I presumed that the crimes I was experiencing were an okay thing to experience. When Governments from both sides—I say that as a loving Cross-Bencher of all of you—have introduced legislation that protects me, that makes me feel more like I belong in this country. This amendment therefore signals that, as a member of the lesbian, gay, bi and trans community in this country, I am protected from hate crime and that will be taken seriously. I can report it and the police will do their job to find substantive evidence if it exists. If it does not exist, they should send me on my way. This does not give us an opportunity to unpick that, but I absolutely welcome this amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I conclude by saying that we need to restore safety to our pavements and pedestrian spaces. We, as individuals, have to reclaim our pavements once again for the law- abiding people of this country.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 344A in my name, which neatly follows on from that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I begin by saying how grateful I am for the expressions of support from across your Lordships’ House when I introduced this amendment in Committee. I particularly appreciated the empathy from noble Lords, because it showed that the fear I have is real. It is a fear that is caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling to people who perhaps have a mobility impairment like mine, or a visual or hearing impairment, or even to people who are not necessarily in the prime of life.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, who said in Committee:

“Holding companies responsible, or at least requiring a public review of their practices, would help deter irresponsible riding and shift the burden back on to the companies that profit from high-speed delivery models. A review … would also allow us to examine the employment models used by these companies, the incentives placed on riders and the adequacy of training, supervision and enforcement mechanisms. It would provide a valuable evidence base for any future legislative change”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 747.]


I agree, and I am grateful for his support, as I am for that from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who in Committee made the important point:

“At the very least, this review might want to consider that an employer”—


or indeed contractor—

“could do more positive things than just employ sanctions. They could start to educate their cyclists and reward them for better behaviour”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 742.]

I also welcome the insightful comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who said in Committee that

“the challenge is that most riders and scooters … are not employees of these companies, whose legal advice is that they do not want to go anywhere near that, because then they may be responsible for their cyclists’ or motorcyclists’ behaviour”.

Surely that is all the more reason for a review that includes contractors, as my amendment proposes. I thank the noble Baroness for acknowledging that the group of committee amendments in which my amendment was placed

“raise an important safety point”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 746.]

It is wonderful to know that our Lib Dem colleagues are so supportive of disabled people, and I look forward to hearing that they will follow through on their warm and very welcome words by supporting my amendment.

My third point is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I am avowedly pro cycling. I believe that cycling is a good thing: I just happen to believe that responsible cycling is even better for pedestrians, for all road users and, most importantly, for cyclists themselves. Responsibility is the issue that lies at the heart of my amendment. What right-thinking person would disagree with the theory that every cyclist should cycle responsibly? Yet we know that there is a widening chasm between theory and practice. We know that, in practice right now, there is a culture of “anything goes”. As we heard earlier in the debate on this group, a culture of complete impunity is taking root, with the most frightening but inevitable consequences.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the dangerous, careless and inconsiderate behaviour of bicycle couriers, who career through red lights and along pavements, and the wrong way down one-way streets, with increasingly reckless abandon. It is the behaviour of what some noble Lords have described as “the worst perpetrators”—bicycle couriers—that my modest and reasonable amendment seeks to address.

The amendment would require the Home Secretary to institute a review

“assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure”—

or, for legal clarification, take steps to ensure—

“that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 121”.

The review, which must be published within a year of Clause 121 coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law that it determines are necessary. The rationale for this amendment is similarly simple. It seeks to probe how the law can be changed to ensure that companies that contract the services of bicycle couriers bear some shared responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists on the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I think it will please the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to hear that that is exactly not what I am about to do—I ask him to hold on a second.

As I was saying, we want to understand this in detail, including evidence on the extent to which the business practice of food delivery companies may influence the rogue behaviours of their riders—that is very much the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. To that end, the Department for Transport is commissioning research to look into that, which we expect to start at the end of this month. It will take about one year, and the DfT will publish its findings. This research will look at the impact of the business practices of food delivery companies on rogue behaviours and illegal bike use. In effect, it will be a non-statutory version of the review that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, proposes in his amendment. I hope that that will satisfy his concerns—I will find out now.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. Can he give an undertaking to the House that this non-statutory review will consult disabled people on their experiences? Can he write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, saying which disability organisations will be consulted?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library with further details of the research and how it is being commissioned by the DfT.

In addition, the DfT’s road safety strategy, which has been referred to already this afternoon and which was published on 7 January, makes a clear commitment to the Government piloting a national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them, whether using cycles, e-cycles, motorcycles, cars, or light or heavy-goods vehicles. The charter will aim to promote good practice and improve compliance with current requirements. It will be developed in collaboration with businesses and industry and will be informed by existing schemes. The pilot, which is voluntary, will run for two years and will be monitored and fully evaluated.

Before I conclude, I want to pick up a point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in Committee and repeated this afternoon on issues around the employment status of some of these delivery drivers. The Government are absolutely clear that bogus self-employment is unacceptable. Employers should never seek to deny people their employment rights and avoid their own legal obligations by claiming that someone is self-employed when in reality they are not.

We understand that many delivery riders in the platform economy value the flexibility that that kind of employment status can bring, but new technologies and ways of working have made it more complex for businesses and workers to understand and apply the current employment-status framework. That is why the Government are committed to consulting on a simpler framework which allows to properly capture the breadth of different employment relationships in the UK and ensure that workers can continually benefit from flexible ways of working where they choose to do so without being exploited by unscrupulous employers. We understand that this employment space of delivery drivers is a particular issue, which is why this is very much an important issue to act on.

In conclusion, I am afraid that I cannot follow up the call of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for all-out vigilante action from pedestrians. I am not entirely sure that even he and his chariot—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—might expect me to. However, I want to take this opportunity to really acknowledge the frustration and fears of all noble Lords, and, indeed, many members of the public, about the abhorrent and dangerous behaviour of a minority—I stress that—of cyclists.

However, I come back to where I started. Any new legislation in this area must be proportionate and must be mindful of the potential adverse impact on law-abiding road users. I want to encourage micromobility to reduce congestion and promote healthy living— very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We need a clear evidence base, and, as I have indicated, we are undertaking research concerning the road behaviours of delivery riders. I just want to repeat what we were saying. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility in the round, including on e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. For now, therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw his Amendment 318 and other noble Lords not to move their amendments.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shinkwin]

346C: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling: review(1) Within one year of the day on which section 106 comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106.(2) The review under subsection (1) must recommend any changes to the law which may be necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies who contract the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists on the road.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 346C, I welcome the other amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl of Dulwich.

Amendment 346C is a modest and reasonable amendment, which would do exactly what it says on the tin. It would require the Home Secretary to institute

“a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106”.

The review, which must be published within a year of that section coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law which the review determines may be necessary. The rationale for this amendment is similarly simple: it seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies which contract for the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of those cyclists on the road.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I approach this issue from the perspective of a severely disabled person, whose condition makes me extremely vulnerable to the impact—and I use the term advisedly to mean the actual physical impact—of being hit by an individual riding one of these e-bikes in, to use the legislative terminology, a “dangerous, careless or inconsiderate” way. To put it bluntly, the impact would be catastrophic; I would not expect to survive. So I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said on day six of Committee that you take your life in your hands when you cross some roads in central London. I do so, quite literally, every day, on my way to and from your Lordships’ House.

Now I entirely appreciate that whether I live or die is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. It would be a shame if I were killed, but the earth would continue to turn. I know that. Equally, I know that I am just one person. I think of all those people with visual impairments, for example, who literally risk life and limb just stepping outside their front door. So the review should consider the impact on them as well, and not just in terms of their independence, mental health and well-being, all of which will of course bring associated costs for the NHS and social care services, but of their employment prospects. For why would anyone want to risk going to work, given they could end up in hospital before they have even got to the office as a result of being hit by a courier cyclist on an e-bike while they were walking along the pavement or trying to board a bus from one of those so-called floating bus stops?

I cite this group as just one example—and of course there are people with mobility impairments like mine, or simply older people whose reflexes are not as sharp as they once were—to highlight how the dangers presented by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling on e-bikes, particularly by courier and delivery cyclists, are having a far greater impact on our society than we perhaps realise. I would go so far as to say that the effect has been to airbrush out of the bigger social picture whole swathes of society. So while I am not suggesting that an assessment of impact should be disability-exclusive, I would argue that such an impact alone merits a review.

I say to the Minister that I am not laying the blame at the door of Government per se. The Member’s explanatory statement accompanying the amendment refers to the companies which contract the services of delivery cyclists bearing

“some responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists”—

the point being that the responsibility is shared. But none of us, either in Parliament or the Government, can deny that we also share responsibility for addressing the problem; in our case, by providing the most effective legislative framework to facilitate the change we all want to see—safer streets.

I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said on day six in Committee, about us having made a “huge strategic mistake” by not factoring in the need for safety from the outset when these e-bikes were introduced. I agree with him. Sadly, some people, especially those in the Department for Transport, appear not to. They—and I dare say they are non-disabled and a bit slow on the uptake, bless them, so we need to make allowances—still do not seem to have woken up to the fact that this experiment has gone badly wrong.

That needs to be the starting point of the review. There must be a recognition—a fact which I sense the Minister implicitly acknowledges—that there is a significant and growing problem, which cannot simply be dismissed by officialdom’s obtuse obfuscation of, “Well, we are where we are”, because if we do not recognise that where we are is bad then we cannot move on.

Lime, the other e-bike hiring companies and companies such as Just Eat deserve to be in the dock and not in the saddle when it comes to this review. Yes, they will be part of the solution, but right now they are doing very nicely thank you very much from being a big part of the problem. They cannot be allowed to set or influence the review’s terms of reference or to sit on the review panel. That should be done by those most affected by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, not by those whose irresponsible indifference means they are profiting from putting people’s lives at risk.

In conclusion, I believe that the case for a review is compelling. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said on day six in Committee, courier delivery service e-bike users are “the worst perpetrators”. It is time we reviewed the situation. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 416K supports a targeted, enforceable measure that holds delivery platforms to account where their operational model and oversight failures contribute to dangerous cycling on our streets. This is not about blame for individual riders alone; it is about closing a regulatory gap so that companies that profit from rapid, app-driven deliveries also carry responsibility for foreseeable harms linked to their business models and practices.

If noble Lords want a bit more excitement in their lives than the excitement of participating in this debate then I invite them to accompany me, when we rise tonight, to walk along Millbank, Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, past the Home Office. The excitement will come from them dodging out of the way of dozens of Deliveroo couriers belting along the pavements delivering to the thousands of flats in this area.

Even more excitement may come when I manage to confront one of these riders and we have an exchange of views, but not usually a meeting of minds. When I see them belting along the pavement, I drive straight for them. My chair is heavier than theirs, so they are the ones who are forced to dodge out of the way. When I manage to stop one on those massive, fat tyre, illegal bikes and speak to them, I can say with all honesty that every single one I have seen is a recent arrival to this country. Half do not speak English and do not know the law on riding killer bikes on the pavement. The other half do know and tell me to go away sexually, that they will do what they like, and who will stop them.

If I had said that a month ago, I might have been accused of racist comments, but on 4 December this year, the Home Office issued a press release to say that, in targeted action, it and the police had arrested 171 food delivery couriers for criminal activity, and 60 of them were illegal migrants facing deportation. The Home Office press release said:

“It comes as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been targeting people working unlawfully in the ‘gig economy’. Border Security Minister Alex Norris has also met representatives from food-delivery firms to encourage them to do more to tackle the issue—such as using facial recognition checks to prevent riders sharing their identities with people who do not have permission to take up work in the UK. Norris said that November’s action ought to ‘send a clear message: if you are working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed’. He added: ‘We are tightening the law to clamp down on illegal working in the delivery sector to root out this criminality from our communities’”.


Good on you, Minister, and good on the Home Office—they have provided proof of what I have encountered every night for the past two years on the streets of Westminster, within hundreds of yards of this building. Good luck to you in trying to send them back to Eritrea, Somalia or wherever, because there is bound to be some immigration judge who will block you and cite bogus human rights reasons for why they cannot be deported. But that is your problem and not for today.

My amendment supplements what Minister Norris was doing. He exhorted the food delivery companies to do more to tackle the issue. My proposed new clause would give the police the power to penalise the food delivery companies financially, since money is the only thing that will make them change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a very useful debate that has brought the Committee together on an issue that has affected and is affecting so many of us.

The Minister was very kind in his remarks to me personally. Can I reciprocate by applauding the loyalty with which he stuck to the Department for Transport’s brief? It is entirely commendable, but I do feel that that script will not wash. He will sense from across the Committee that there is real alarm at the situation that confronts us in the immediate vicinity of Westminster and beyond.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that all these amendments, and, of course, as I would say, my own, are proportionate and necessary because, as my noble friend made clear, this is a case of our laws being flagrantly abused and broken. My noble friend Lord McColl is absolutely right, as I made clear in my speech, that this is really affecting those who are most vulnerable in our society, particularly those who, like me, have a mobility impairment or those who have a visual impairment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his remarks, because, as he said, this does matter. A review could be an incremental step to, in effect, reclaiming our streets and making them far more safe. Employers are falsely claiming wilful ignorance, and we need to stand up to them.

I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen, and I agree with him. This Bill presents the Committee with a unique opportunity to do something about this situation; this is, as he said, our moment. I also agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that it is nonsensical to allow crime to continue. I simply say to the Minister that I do not think his comment that the Bill will be subject to post-legislative review in three to five years quite reflects the urgency of the situation.

In closing, my condition means that I have to be a risk management expert, whether I like it or not. I have no choice. We have a choice here, and we need to act. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he is happy to meet in advance of Report. I believe that cycling is a very good thing. I use my manual chair for exercise—it is crucial for pain management—but cycling or using a manual chair also has wider health benefits. Equally, this sort of cycling, predominantly by delivery service couriers who frantically break every rule of the road to deliver a takeaway, is not good for pedestrians or cyclists. I look forward to bringing this back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 346C withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Perhaps so. It is not a question of having ineffective enforcement; I would say that we have no enforcement whatever—at least none that I have ever seen. If you have a law that is not enforced at all and is defined by people ignoring it, you have a serious problem. We should not be making additional laws on the subject if we do not have a high degree of confidence that they will be enforced, or else we are wasting everybody’s time here.

I invite the Minister, in the context of all the amendments in this big group, to give us a broad overview of what the Government are going to do about enforcement. I know there are other amendments later also talking about enforcement, but unless he can convince us about that, I suggest that there is not much point to many of the provisions in this part of the Bill.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with whom I agree on many aspects of this and other Bills, knocks the ball into the Government’s court to come up with a registration scheme for cycles. This causes me some reflection. I think it would be extremely difficult to do and would be a very large step indeed, so my preference would be for more enforcement—in essence, people being stopped for those offences—rather than the amount of complication that such a scheme would generate. Children riding cycles on their way to school, for example, cannot have points because they do not have licences. I can imagine any number of unintended consequences. However, we need to do something, and if it is a licensing scheme for the heavier, faster e-bikes, maybe that is what has to happen, and I think the Government need to grasp that.

I was very taken with my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 337E. Stating for the avoidance of doubt that if you cycle on a pavement, you are by definition cycling without due care and attention seems eminently sensible, just to make the law a bit clearer. Amendment 346B on e-bikes in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is very important. I should declare an interest in that I have a mountain bike and an e-bike. I have two, as it happens, and I use them occasionally—not at the same time, I have to say; that would be too difficult.

People who want to move around London quickly have a choice. Either they buy a motorcycle and pass a complicated series of tests to get that motorcycle licence—if they go for the full licence; it is a lesser standard for smaller machines. They need to tax the vehicle; they need to insure it; and they need an MoT if it is of that age. Or they could ignore all that and get an illegal electric cycle with comparable performance to a moped, and no one seems to be stopping them, as far as I can see. They have no insurance, no tax, no registration and, happy days, no one is stopping them for any offences whatever.

There are, of course, proper electric motorbikes where you have to wear a helmet, have a registration and so forth—indeed, I think there are a few Peers who come to your Lordships’ House on such machines. We have a very broad spectrum, but at the moment a lot of people, particularly delivery drivers, are riding vehicles that are not being pedalled; they are just pushing an electric throttle, in essence. These are obviously illegal: even as an amateur, I can see that a policeman would have every right to stop them and impound that vehicle, so I think we have to make that clearer. I think by 15.5 miles an hour, we mean a maximum powered speed, because of course if you head downhill, you will go much faster, as with a conventional cycle. However, I think we have to say, for the avoidance of doubt, “That is a motorcycle”, if it does not meet the criteria, “and if you ride that without tax, registration, insurance and so forth, you are committing a series of significant offences, and you will be arrested and prosecuted for such”.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being in my seat when my noble friend Lord Blencathra began his remarks on Amendment 330. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for taking into account the rather pathetic speed with which I can get from the Library to the Chamber. I thank him for that.

At 429 pages in length, with 16 parts, 21 schedules and 159 pages of amendments, this Bill is truly a legislative Christmas tree. I am worried it is about to topple on the Minister, which would not be very festive. I will therefore keep my remarks disproportionately brief and save the bulk of them for my related amendment, Amendment 346C, which is due to be considered later in group 9.

However, I thank those noble Lords who tabled these important amendments on dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling. In my view, they are pure common sense. I would say that we are reinventing the wheel in ensuring public safety on our roads and pavements, but I am not sure we have progressed that far, such is the scale of the anarchy that currently plagues our streets. We have, as we have heard, so much to do to reverse it.

The worst thing is that the situation we find ourselves in is entirely self-inflicted, predictable and even logical. Our response needs to be equally as logical. That is why I support these amendments; they point a practical way forward in the struggle—and there is no denying this is a struggle—against the very real threat posed by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, especially to anyone with a mobility, visual or hearing impairment.

In conclusion, I welcome these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, most of what I wanted to cover has already been spoken to, so I have very little to add. I did, however, want to pick up on a couple of points the noble Lord, Lord Russell, covered. For me, this is about disorder. There is a sense of unfairness for a lot of people that if you are a driver, you are subject to a huge number of restrictions—especially in London, with tighter-than-ever speed limits—and yet cyclists ride along in a way that seems to be flouting the laws of the road.

I will also pick up on something my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady McIntosh covered about the length of the trials that go on for e-scooters. I believe the same can be said for the seemingly never-ending approach to the consultation on pedicabs. We legislated for pedicabs to be subject to regulations 18 months ago, and it took us years to do that. TfL has done one consultation, has just completed another and it will be 2026 before regulations for pedicabs are in place. The length of time it takes for us to actually do anything which is seemingly common sense adds to people’s sense of frustration and disappointment that things that should not be happening are allowed to happen just because there is no simple enforcement.

The other thing I want to add is about delivery bikes. Often, they are the worst perpetrators of cycling on pavements, going through red lights and cycling at speed. We know they are doing this because there is a commercial imperative for them to act in that way.

Rather curiously, I was approached recently by one of the big digital delivery service businesses. It is concerned that the new provisions for additional protection against assault for retail workers do not apply to its delivery drivers. I am not advocating for what it is asking for, but, as I said to this particular company in reply to its email to me, my question to the company is: what is it doing as a business to make sure that its delivery drivers actually obey the law and do not drive in an anti-social way, on pavements, and so on?

Public Order Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to which I have added my name. I do not support the review in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Everybody has been careful not to say that there is no evidence but that there is insufficient evidence. I think there is clear evidence that there is a problem. In fact, the international response of other jurisdictions shows that it is not just a UK problem; I am afraid it is a more widespread problem than that. I think there is a need for a new law, and I support this particular amendment because it is a reasonable response to an unreasonable challenge at the moment.

I did some research with officers who are trying to deal with these problems at the moment to see whether this response looked reasonable. First, those who oppose Amendment 45 say that it prohibits protests. Of course, that is true, but we had that this afternoon here: you cannot protest here. It is not the only place in the United Kingdom where people cannot protest. We are talking about 150 metres around a relatively small group of places, that are the only places women can approach for this sort of treatment—it is a legal treatment though I accept that people have strong views about it. One hundred and fifty metres is really quite a small area.

Secondly, people say that public space protection orders should be used as an alternative. I am afraid that the problem is that they are not working in the way that was intended because they were not intended for this problem; they were intended to help local authorities deal with various unspecified problems. In some areas, drivers were parking up because they were trying to get to a certain place and people who lived in that area were having problems with engines running all the time, so it was used for that sort of thing. It is a very vague power which has been useful with many problems, but it has not proved particularly helpful with this one.

One of the challenges is that local authorities have many priorities, and this is not always one of them. They have challenges around budgets, so they cannot always go to court—so often, even if there is a problem, these protection orders are not being applied for.

The second problem is that, with each local authority approaching this in its own local way, the wording is inconsistent. The police are asked to apply them consistently, but each wording is different—whether there is intent there or whether there is not—and that really has caused a challenge.

The police have been criticised a couple of times today for their lack of action sometimes, but they are taking action in some of these cases: in fact, there have been complaints about the fact that they have arrested people who were praying. Although that has been used as an example of something draconian, in the cases where people have been praying the CPS has declined to prosecute. All that the police have done is make an arrest. They do not decide to prosecute: that is the decision of the prosecutor. In these cases—for example, in the West Midlands case—the decision has been based partly on the fact that no one can be sure whether a person who is praying is going to protest against or support abortion, so how could they possibly make a decision about prosecution?

Secondly, there was a case where an individual had displayed within a zone a protest sticker or protest banner within their vehicle that talked about murder and abortion. In that case it was not about a lack of evidence; the CPS decided it was not in the public interest to continue. So I am afraid we are not seeing prosecutions and we are seeing dilemmas, and people are saying that there are complaints about people’s behaviour.

Another challenge is that the women who are most affected by this do not want to make complaints. Why would you? You are at your most vulnerable. You do not want to be identified. You certainly do not want to go to court and be a witness. In some people’s cases, they have come to mainland UK to receive abortion services, not having been able to obtain them in another part of the UK—so why would they want to advertise the fact that they have got involved in an abortion service? So this has relied a lot on the staff.

The staff’s view is also important. Every patient who is affected—badly, in my view—is affected only on the occasion when they seek assistance, but the staff are there all the time, day in, day out. Imagine the pressure on them as they go to their job, which they take to be helping somebody to improve their life, or at least to travel forward in a different way.

The aggravated feature for me of the behaviour being complained about is that these women are en route to a treatment that they cannot obtain anywhere else. As I mentioned earlier in my question, I do not really think these are protests. Where there is not an order in place, the people protesting are directly outside the entrance or exit of these buildings, directly approaching the women who are going to seek a service. This is not about trying to convince the Government. It must be the least effective form of protest if it is trying to influence the Government. People in here are saying they did not even know there was a problem—so how can it possibly be that that has been an effective form of protest? I am afraid that is not really a sound argument.

If that is the best place where somebody can seek to influence someone, there is already a law saying that when someone is seeking abortion services, they should seek advice about other options. If they need financial support, adoption or any of the other things that might help somebody in these terrible circumstances—the dilemmas that I sure they must face—the law says they are entitled to that support from the medical advisers and from other people who will help them. The least effective way, surely, has to be shouting across the street or handing out a leaflet at the point where somebody is trying to get treatment and already has a dilemma. I cannot see that that is a sensible way to address the particular problem that we are talking about.

It seems that this gets worse at certain times of the year. More protesters turn up at abortion clinics during Lent. Why should women who have to go during the Lent period have to face more pressure than the women who go at a different period? That is someone else’s view.

I want to address the point about prayer. I think we all understand why prayer is particularly sensitive. Of course nobody wants to ban it, but not everybody finds prayer a supportive thing. I say this with respect to the bishop and as a Christian, but not everybody reacts in the same way. You cannot assume that a prayer expressed on the street is something that everybody wants to receive, and in my view they have every right to resist, or not to be faced with that dilemma. We have to keep that in mind too.

The only final thing I would like to say is that we have talked about behaviour in very general terms, but some of it has been abhorrent: handing out dolls in various stages of development, handing out protest leaflets that are very explicit on what people are complaining about, and judging people at a point when they have a very difficult decision to make. I say finally that this chanting carries on can be heard in the clinics—it is very obvious when you think about it, but I had not until the weekend. At the point at which women are receiving treatment, they can hear this chanting and hymn singing outside. Would you like it, in any medical treatment? It is just not acceptable and something needs to be done.

I like the tone and broad direction of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, but I worry, that with people’s human creativity and that 150 metres around the clinics, they would be very creative and the only people who would suffer from that would be the women. So I cannot support that amendment, but I understand why it was made. Finally, I will say that I support Amendment 45 for the women’s sake, for the sake of people who are employed there, and for anybody else who might be visiting at the very time that these protests are being made.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the pragmatic way forward, provided by cross-party Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey. I thank them for tabling it, and I do so for a particular reason. Some would have us believe, as we have heard in this debate, that this is simply about abortion. Noble Lords should be clear: it is not. There is so much more at stake that should concern us all. This amendment gives your Lordships’ House the opportunity to chart a more measured way forward that avoids the perils of passing a law that undermines a hard-fought fundamental freedom: the freedom of conscience—a freedom that, surely, it is our responsibility and our privilege to champion and, most certainly, not to undermine.

I will not rehearse the points I made when we last considered this clause. Suffice it to say, it frightens me, because it threatens freedom of conscience and creates a precedent with potentially huge ramifications, which should surely alarm and unite all of us who value democracy. Some noble Lords have mentioned urgency—even emergency legislation. This is why we cannot afford to rush headlong without a review—just a review, not a final decision—being conducted first so that, in line with subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 44, the proportionality of the measures proposed in Clause 9 can be carefully considered in the round, taking the views of all the stakeholders, including, of course, abortion providers, into account. We talk in this Chamber about the danger of passing legislation with unintended consequences. This clause proves our point perfectly. It has danger written all over it.

I say to any noble Lord who does not care about the risks of undermining freedom of conscience, about setting dangerous precedents or about passing laws brimming with unintended consequences: please, go ahead—vote for this clause and for other amendments. But if any noble Lord has so much as a shred of doubt, I urge them to vote for the review which, I repeat, is not a final decision. It is simply a review, proposed by Amendment 44.

Public Order Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and to be educated by him.

I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer and those listed on the Marshalled List. I should reiterate at the outset, lest anyone be in any doubt, that I do not take a position on abortion per se. However, as a disabled person I take a position on equality and, I am afraid to say, absolutely object to human beings diagnosed with my condition—brittle bones—being denied their equal right to grow up to be strong women and men on account of their diagnosis. That those who supposedly champion equality can reconcile such a claim with such lethal disability discrimination is something I will never understand.

My reason for speaking in support of Amendment 98 is not dissimilar. For me, as a disabled person in particular, Clause 9 simply does not make any sense. It is perhaps worth remembering that Christians were prepared to be torn limb from limb by lions in defence of their faith, so the idea that some will not see this as an opportunity to take a stand and go to prison for their beliefs, and to bear witness to freedom of conscience, as other noble Lords have mentioned, strikes me as completely unreal. For me to pretend that this is not an inevitable outcome of Clause 9 would be the height of naivety; of course they will do so.

For me, the question is twofold. First, as other noble Lords have touched on, is this really what we want? Do we really want to put the state in the wholly invidious position of locking people up for exercising their freedom of conscience when their only crime would be to bear witness to the serious belief that two hearts beating equates to two lives, interdependent and interconnected but no less individual for that? Since when has that been a crime? I thought it was a medical fact that a beating heart was a giveaway sign of a live human being, and the absence of a human heartbeat, conversely, a clear indication of death. I suggest that the state does not want to go anywhere near Clause 9 and would be much better off conducting a review, as set out in Amendment 98.

Secondly, there is another party in this debate which I suggest has no interest in this clause becoming law: those who support abortion. After all, why risk making martyrs of one’s opponents? We should be in no doubt that, if passed into law, this clause will deserve to be known as the “own goal clause”, because that is precisely what would result: a spectacular own goal. I spent all my career before I came to your Lordships’ House campaigning, much of it in the charity sector, and I would never in a million years have advised any of the organisations for which I worked to pursue such a counterintuitive, counterproductive strategy as Clause 9 encapsulates. No matter how passionately one believes in the clause, giving your opponents both the moral high ground and the oxygen of publicity—because the media will inevitably cover the story of people going to prison for their beliefs—simply does not make sense. It is surely what is known as a lose-lose situation. I wholeheartedly support this pragmatic, common-sense amendment as a way out of the minefield created by Clause 9.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 93A in this group. In the spirit of scrutiny, I wondered what “an abortion clinic” and “abortion services” actually meant. To me they include professional counselling which puts both sides of an issue and all the options. I say that because it seems as if we have got into a rather binary state where this is just about the abortion procedure.

I am convinced that there is a serious problem for women attending some clinics who are seeking an abortion. I am also aware of how activities can move around geographically. I understand that there is not a problem now with the activities that we have been talking about outside places where abortions do not take place but counselling does. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, activities have moved to new sites; she mentioned one that has been affected for the first time in many years. My amendment is to raise that issue, bothered that what is a problem now could be displaced and become a problem elsewhere. Obviously it is probing the position, but as we are seeking to tackle this, we should do so comprehensively.

E-scooters

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is probably worth saying that it is not out of control. The statutory instrument for the trials was laid in June 2020, and you can own a private e-scooter but you cannot legally use one on the road. So the rules are clear and I have gone through the figures for how many e-scooters have been seized. But I do not think that there should be an outright ban on them. We should evaluate the trials as and when they finish next year.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the end of the trials, but, as we have already heard, for disabled people the unchallenged use of e-scooters on pavements is a nightmare that is happening now and needs to be addressed now. When will the Government take responsibility for ensuring that the law is enforced and pedestrians protected?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I thank my noble friend for his question, which he asked me a few weeks ago when we had the previous Question. I can inform him that DfT Ministers have held four round tables with groups representing vulnerable people. He is absolutely right that e-scooters can be extremely hazardous to people who are hard of sight or not swift on their feet. The last round table we had on this matter was last month. Clearly those groups have raised concerns about the trials and, when the trials finish, we will be able to evaluate the framework for the use of these scooters.