Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
“Proxy purchasing of tobacco products on behalf of children
(1) A person commits an offence if he or she buys or attempts to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers on behalf of a person under the age of 18.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 56NC, in the names of my noble friends, makes tobacco proxy purchasing an offence, punishable by a maximum £5,000 fine—the same penalty as for alcohol. It is illegal across the UK to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18. However, it is not an offence for someone to buy tobacco products on behalf of a minor. We believe that that is a significant loophole in our system. Proxy purchasing of alcohol is already illegal across the UK, but that is not the case with tobacco products. That is why we want this to be remedied. Getting someone else to buy on their behalf is one of the chief ways in which young people access tobacco products. Trading Standards has estimated that nearly half, or 46% of underage smokers, regularly get their tobacco from a proxy purchaser. Given the Government’s latest extremely welcome U-turn on plain packaging, I should have thought that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, would be seeking to deal with this issue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness is right to raise that issue. As someone who worked in local government for 10 years, I am aware of the budgetary challenges faced by local authorities, irrespective of which Administration is in control centrally, and they need to establish priorities. The noble Baroness made an important point about enforcement. If this were to be made an offence, we would need to consider how it would be enforced. Even if a local authority took it upon itself to increase its number of trading standards officers to enforce this measure, it would be very difficult to do so given all the retail outlets that would need to be monitored. It is important to see what happens in other parts of the country, particularly in Scotland. We have an open door on this issue. If local authorities come up with a good initiative, I hope that they will share it with us so that it can be replicated across the country.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for his reply and I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for her contribution. As the Minister is a fairly recent newcomer to tobacco issues and I am not, I gently say to him that all the initiatives he mentioned were introduced by the previous Labour Government in the teeth of great opposition from the Benches opposite, if not from those to the left. We are pleased that those initiatives are being carried through, including the introduction of plain packaging—there is absolutely no doubt about that at all. However, the arguments that the Minister has deployed on proxy purchasing are the same ones that the Conservatives have deployed in all the discussions we have had about tobacco regulation over the many years that I have dealt with the issue. It was argued that because one initiative would not solve the whole problem it should not be introduced. We know that making it an offence to proxy purchase tobacco products on behalf of children is not the complete answer—of course it is not—just as we know that plain packaging is not the complete answer, and just as we know that covering up tobacco products in supermarkets is not the complete answer. We know that the provision we are discussing is not the complete answer. However, that does not mean that it is not important to consider it.
I am pleased that the Minister said that the door was open on this issue. Perhaps I may push at that door a little and say that if this amendment is not acceptable to the Government, perhaps they need to consider taking a power to introduce an offence of proxy purchasing at the next stage of the Bill, which can then be implemented in due course. That might resolve this problem. I hope the Government will think about that between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I gave notice of my opposition to the Question that Clause 110 stand part, and I did so for probing purposes. I am still not clear that the Government are fulfilling the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. I accept that the Minister addressed himself to the first report of the committee but I think I am right in saying that it is very unusual—it may never have happened before—that the Delegated Powers Committee has twice recommended to the Government that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I should like clarification on that.
Clause 110 amends provisions which confer these powers to make regulations relating to the police. I listened to what the noble Lord said but I am not completely clear that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In paragraph 5 of its report produced today, the Delegated Powers Committee said that,
“we remain of the view that, if the House considers it appropriate to transfer control of the content of the regulations to the College of Policing, the regulations should in all cases be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
I am still not sure whether that is the case. If I am right that the Government have made some regulations subject to the affirmative procedure but not these, then that is a cause for some discussion and concern. If I am wrong, I apologise to the Committee.
Secondly, I seek some explanation of the wording that has already been referred to by the noble Lord. In new subsection (2ZA) introduced under Clause 110(1), paragraph (c) says that,
“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so”,
in relation to the Secretary of State’s right of veto. Therefore, the Secretary of State is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. My honourable friend David Hanson raised the same question in the House of Commons. It seems contradictory, and I should like the Minister to explain to the Committee why the Government reached that view.
I want to make one other point in relation to the noble Lord’s final remarks. He said that the College of Policing will be subject to further scrutiny concerning its fees and other matters, as well as its financial and commercial viability. I just want to ask how on earth the Minister thinks that being accountable to Parliament for one’s financial and commercial viability will work.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, regarding the noble Baroness’s first set of questions, she is indeed correct. I mentioned that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had issued a second report. She quoted from paragraph 5 of that report. Earlier on in that paragraph, the committee says:
“The Government have accepted this recommendation in so far as it relates to regulations under section 53A of the Police Act 1996”.
I believe that that was very clear from the points that I made. She then asked which regulations remain under the negative procedure, and perhaps I may expand on that a bit more. We have said that in respect of regulations under Sections 50 and 51 of the Police Act 1996 and Section 97 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 the Government believe that the negative resolution procedure should apply, and I shall expand on that.
These regulations relate to limited aspects of the governance, administration and conditions of service of police forces and to police training. Clearly, as I said earlier, these matters do not have the same level of sensitivity and public interest as police practices and procedures. During debate on an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that she has been in your Lordships’ House far longer than I have, and I am sure she can relate to the fact that no regulations have been made in relation to training since Section 97 of the 2001 Act came into force and that the existing regulations under Sections 50 and 51 of the 1996 Act concerning ranks, appointments, promotion and personal records have been the subject of limited and infrequent amendment.
These essentially administrative matters are more akin to regulations on pay and discipline, which are also made under Sections 50 and 51 of the Police Act 1996, and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. There is no need for regulations prepared by the college to receive an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny, when regulations made under the same powers on matters of at least equal significance, such as police pay, do not. The negative procedure has worked effectively for many years on all these issues without any difficulty. It seems right and proportionate to maintain those uniform arrangements going forward. That does not of course mean that we cannot rule out the possibility that the regulations might need to be made quickly. Therefore, the affirmative resolution procedure would make that more difficult. Typically, that would occur in response to some unforeseen emergency, a change to our international obligations, a court decision that existing regulations are unlawful or the discovery of some error in the regulations that requires particular correction.
The noble Baroness also talked about my right honourable friend the Home Secretary retaining the power of veto for any other reason and the reasons for that. The information on when it may be wrong to make regulations for any other reason are set out in the Explanatory Notes, to which I refer the noble Baroness. It covers circumstances in which the regulation, as drafted, is not sufficiently clear, as I said earlier, is flawed or would not achieve the policy intention for which the college had hoped. In such circumstances the Home Secretary could ask the college to prepare a fresh draft so as not to present flawed regulations before Parliament.
In proposing what they are, the Government have struck the right balance, which ensures sufficient scrutiny by Parliament and supports oversight by the Home Secretary, if required. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to this Chamber. We look forward to working with him over the coming years.
Other noble Lords have said that this is a Christmas tree Bill. I have always thought that Home Office Bills are more like snowballs: as they roll down the parliamentary hill, more and more things stick to them. My noble friend Lady Smith gave a very clear explanation of this complicated Bill and the areas where we on these Benches believe there needs to be probing, discussion, challenge and change.
I intend to address only two areas, Part 9 and 10, and will be raising these issues and probing them in detail in Committee. I give noble Lords notice that these will be the first parts to be taken in Committee on 12 November—the Bill is being taken slightly out of order—so that they can put the date in their diaries if they wish to take part in those discussions.
Part 9 concerns sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, which aim to improve the protection of vulnerable children at risk of sexual harm. Part 10 concerns forced marriage. As my noble friend Lady Smith said, we all agree that forced marriage should never be tolerated. We would like to see effective and properly resourced support for the victims and prevention through education and work in the communities concerned. We also believe that it is right to have a thorough discussion which makes a clear case for criminalisation and how it might work.
Turning first to Part 9, I thank the following organisations for their excellent joint brief about this matter: the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, Action for Children and Save the Children. They have extensive expertise in supporting children who are victims of or at risk of sexual abuse and exploitation. They generally support the sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders as set out in Part 9. The two new orders will replace existing powers, and the threshold for risk will be lowered to cover any case of sexual harm, not just cases of serious sexual harm. These orders seek to improve the protection of vulnerable children at risk of sexual harm.
If these orders simplify the current system, they are to be welcomed. In relation to non-conviction behaviour, reducing the number of acts of harm required for an order to be used from two to one means they can be more easily obtained. Extending the ability to use these orders to protect all children under 18, including 16 and 17 year-olds, recognises that older children are still vulnerable and can be subject to child sexual exploitation and abuse. The inclusion of vulnerable adults in the SHPO and SRO is welcome because we know that young adults with learning difficulties or special educational needs are targeted by individuals looking to exploit them.
It seems likely that further work needs to be done in relation to how young people under 18 subject to the orders are supported. Some young people who may be subject to the new order may have been the victims of sexual exploitation themselves or may have become involved as a means of self-preservation, as the brief describes. We will be seeking safeguards from the Government for young people under 18 who are subject to the orders to ensure that they receive the support they need, including an assessment of their emotional, welfare and behavioural needs, and therapeutic and/or educational support.
We are concerned that breach of the child SHPO without conviction, or the SRO, can result in five years’ imprisonment when a child has not actually committed a criminal offence. We know that custody may not be the most effective way to tackle children’s criminal behaviour, and custody for under-18s should be used only as a very last resort in the most serious and violent offences. One therefore has to question whether it is appropriate where children have not been convicted of an offence. We are very concerned about the use of custodial sentences for under-18s, and we hope the Minister can give us some guidance on this either now or in Committee. For example, what measures do the Government propose for under-18s subject to these orders? Will the Government consider prescribing in guidance the use of therapeutic support and/or education and an assessment of needs when the orders are applied to under-18s? Will the Government review and evaluate the effectiveness of the orders when applied to under-18s, such as the rates of reoffending and the effectiveness of any assessment of needs? Children’s organisations are not alone in their concern about this, as Liberty has included it in its brief on the Bill.
Turning to forced marriage, Clause 107 makes breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, and Clause 108 makes it a criminal offence for a person to use violence, threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage without their free and full consent. An offence is committed whether the violence, threats or other forms of coercion are directed at the victim of forced marriage or at another person. The maximum sentence in a magistrates’ court is a fine or six months’ imprisonment. In a Crown Court it is seven years’ imprisonment.
Sections 5 and 6 cover extraterritorial jurisdiction so that if the prohibited acts are committed abroad by a UK national or permanent UK resident, or to a UK national or permanent UK resident, it will be an offence under domestic law and triable in the courts of England and Wales.
Forced marriage is one of the manifestations of modern-day slavery. Thanks to the work of my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, the former Attorney-General, and my noble friend Lady Ashton, the former Children’s Minister, as well as the exemplary work of the Forced Marriage Unit and a number of charities, this country is a world leader in tackling this horrendous practice. The introduction of the civil forced marriage protection order has afforded some protection to victims or potential victims, but people who seek to consign their victims to a life of miserable servitude should face the full rigour of the criminal law.
All of us who talk about this issue should, however, be clear about the difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage and be careful in the language we use.
We know forced marriage is a serious concern that affects thousands of young people across the United Kingdom, but there are no reliable figures on it. The Government’s Forced Marriage Unit indicates that the number stands at 1,500 to 1,700 a year, but experts and agencies alike admit that it is a hidden problem. There may be as many as 5,000 or 8,000 or possibly more.
In Committee, the Commons received written evidence and interviewed witnesses from two organisations, the Freedom Charity and Karma Nirvana. The Freedom Charity was set up with the primary aims of making forced marriage a criminal offence and working on its prevention. It made the powerful point that many schools fail young women who are victims of forced marriage. The schools are not equipped to recognise the signs, they have not trained their teachers, and occasionally they have not responded to pleas for help. I think we must explore this in Committee. Karma Nirvana said in Committee that it did not think this went far enough. In other words, both these organisations are in favour of the Government’s proposals.
There was, however, written evidence submitted to the Home Office inquiry and to the Committee from several long established women’s organisations, including the Southall Black Sisters; Ashiana, which runs the only forced-marriage refuge in the country; and Imkaan, a much respected BME women’s organisation consisting of academics, judges and others who disagreed with the evidence given to the Committee. I have read the evidence of these organisations. They raise serious questions about criminalisation, and they give proposed alternative routes. I think it is a shame that these organisations were not interviewed by the Committee at the time because, as a result, balanced scrutiny of this issue did not adequately take place in the Commons, and there was little recognition that there were two sides to this argument. That was recognised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which makes exactly this point on page 28. Concerns have also been raised by the Children’s Commissioner.
That is why, on these Benches, we would like there to be a much more considered debate about criminalisation and its implication. We take very seriously suggestions that victims may be more reluctant to report an offence if they believe that their family members, such as parents, may be criminalised and sent to prison. Some of these organisations have suggested that, rather than create a specific offence of forced marriage, we could treat forced marriage as an aggravating factor of those serious crimes. Did the Minister consider that approach? Has he heard the arguments on the other side of the debate on criminalisation? What is the evidence that this is the right road to take? We need to see it. We need the Minister to agree to meet these organisations if he has not done so.
Liberty said to the Committee that it believed that the Government needed to make the case for criminalisation. We are not at all opposed to strengthening and building on the work done to stop forced marriage, but we hope to see the evidence and arguments spelled out in Committee.
Crime: Women's Safety
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, there is no doubt that this piece of research is invaluable. I thank my noble friend Lord Desai for initiating this debate, and commend the work that has been carried out by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics to provide an overview of the available statistics on sexual offending. I will not repeat all the somewhat depressing statistics that this research reveals, but what an important job there is still to do to reduce sexual offending and other violence against women and girls.
The plight of women suffering violence is about to have the spotlight shone on it, starting on Thursday of this week with the One Billion Rising campaign, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gale. I hope that all noble Lords will consider joining the amazing events that are taking place all over the country on Thursday, not least outside in Parliament Square during the morning—singing, dancing and joyful as these events will be. Noble Lords can access the full menu of events if they put OBRUK into their search engine, or pop into the opposition Whips’ Office and pick up the pamphlet. These events will be joyful and respectful for women and those who love them, but they have a serious message—that violence against women is endemic across the world—and call upon Governments, parliaments and justice-makers to make this violence end. The events aim to increase awareness, raise money and revitalise existing anti-violence efforts.
The report that we are discussing tonight makes it clear that we in the UK still have a long way to go. Part of the build-up to the activities on Thursday were small events and discussions held all over the country involving thousands of women, young and old, from all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicities, and on one thing they were clear: to prevent violence against woman and girls we need to do much more to ensure that both young men and women are supported to develop positive and equal relationships with their peers. This must, of course, be true. When one in three 16 to 18 year-old girls in the UK say that they experience “groping” or other unwanted sexual touching at school; when more than 70% of 16 to 18 year-old girls and boys say that they routinely witness sexual harassment at school; and when, according to NSPCC research, “sexting” is linked to coercive behaviour, harassment and even violence in which girls are disproportionately affected, we know that more must be done.
There is a call for statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, become a requirement in schools. Does the Minister agree with that? Will the Government support the proposal that is being called for? I invite the Minister to send a strong message of support to the One Billion Rising international campaign and to the millions of women across the world who will be making their voices heard on Thursday.
Violence against women and girls flourishes in societies where prejudicial attitudes towards women are deeply entrenched. In its excellent brief for this debate, End Violence Against Women makes the important point that, similar to the long-term investment that successive Governments have made in, for example, road safety campaigns to change attitudes and behaviours, there needs to be sustained investment in work to prevent violence in order to save lives and reduce the emotional, physical and financial cost of violence in the long term.
The Home Office’s strategic narrative Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls is grounded in the principles of equality and human rights and has prevention at the heart of its approach. Nevertheless, I feel that this remains the weakest part of government actions. For example, a joint inspectorates report into sex offending by boys found that in almost half the cases they examined, there had been previous harmful sexual behaviour that had been either minimised or dismissed as a one-off. In the light of this finding on boys’ sexual offending, how are the Government ensuring that all schools teach young people about sexual consent, gender equality and respectful relationships?
In a 2006 ICM poll for End Violence Against Women, 405 of 16 to 18 year-olds said that they did not receive lessons or information on sexual consent or they did not know whether they had done, and 68% of 16 to 20 year-old girls said that they did not feel they had enough information and support about abuse.
I echo and support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. An important part of this problem is media sexualisation and access to inappropriate images and behaviours involving new technology and young people. Will the Government either support the very practical Bill introduced by the noble Baroness or bring forward legislation that deals with ways of combating the illegal sale of violent and grossly pornographic films depicting all manner of degrading and violent sexual behaviour directed towards women? So far the Government have failed to take decisive action on this, so will the Minister please ensure that robust action is taken on issues such as age verification and combating children’s, particularly young men’s, access to such material?
Finally, how are the Government working across government to deal with these issues? For example, and following the wise words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worchester, how is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, for example, supporting the Government’s efforts to tackle media sexism and sexualisation, which provide a conducive context in which violence against women and girls flourishes?
The contributions tonight draw on the level of expertise and commitment that we have in this House to deal with these problems. This report reveals the scale of the problem. The question now is: how will the Government step up to tackle the evil of violence and sexual assault against women?
Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very good explanation of this rather straightforward order. The order arises out of the Equality Act 2010, which my noble friend Lady Royall and I took through the House before the general election. There are two areas that I want to explore.
We welcome the implementation at last of Labour’s age discrimination legislation and the fact that that the Act will come into force in October. What preparatory work is being undertaken to explain and publicise this important legislation and which government departments are involved in its implementation and rollout? Is it, for example, BIS or the DWP? Is support being given to employers and employees? Perhaps the Department of Health—to which I will return—is involved as well. Who is leading on the preparation for rollout of the legislation in October? Is it the Government Equalities Office or the EHRC? What quantum of resources might be applied to it? The impact assessment, which came with the helpful notes accompanying the order, explains what the impact might be on businesses, charities and voluntary and public sector bodies; it does not say what resources might be put into explaining and promoting the legislation.
I welcomed the Minister’s mentioning the Government’s awareness of issues relating to discrimination in health services, because, even at Question Time today and as the Minister will know, a noble Baroness mentioned that older people with depression are not being offered talking therapies because of their age. The breast cancer charities produce enormous amounts of evidence that suggests that older women with breast cancer are routinely undertreated.
Are the Government still refusing to implement the dual discrimination provisions in the Equality Act which will make it easier to challenge the multiple layers of discrimination that older people face, such as the toxic combination of ageism and sexism? The Secretary of State said on 15 May that there would be a delay to the commencement of the dual discrimination provisions. What does that mean? How long is that delay going to be? When can we see orders which implement those provisions, or an intention to do so?
During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Minister’s colleague, Lynne Featherstone, put down an amendment which suggested that the Bill be implemented within six months of its passage, because she did not trust what might happen after the general election and she feared that the party elected, if it was not sympathetic, might not implement it. The Minister will be pleased to know that a combination of my then right honourable friend Vera Baird and her honourable friend Mr Harper persuaded Ms Featherstone that this was not necessary and that the Bill would be implemented, albeit perhaps with a delay—as is the case.
I turn to the orders in front of us today. Of course we welcome them; why would we not? They directly arise from commitments given during the course of the Bill in February and March 2010. There were serious discussions during that period with Saga, Age UK and organisations that provide financial services about what those exceptions should be. The continuing consultation seems to have covered most of those points. My only question about the consultation arises from the fact that Age UK mounted a campaign objecting to the proposed specific extension of financial services, because in its view that would continue to perpetuate the culture of ageism. What is the Government’s view of that campaign? The 17 campaign letters received from Cornish self-catering holiday home workers seeking a specific exception to ban young people from their accommodation have my total sympathy, when one hears about what young people get up to in Cornwall after their exams.
We welcome this measure. We think it is important, and I hope that the Government are going to put resources into supporting organisations and people during its implementation in October. During the debate in March 2010 there was cross-party agreement in the House about these exceptions, and I think that the Government have covered all the issues that needed to be covered. My only questions are about its implementation, resources and publicisation, and ensuring that all the people who should know about this will know about it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on the great deal that has been achieved. I have memories of the heavy support for Saga initiatives and so on, which clearly have been very well handled subsequently.
I have a specific question about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I happen to have been seeing the commission about another matter today, and as a result have received some comments about the articles that we are discussing. My general question, and I will back this up in a minute with a specific one, is whether the Government have had more recent detailed discussions with the EHRC and made certain that it is satisfied. I am thinking particularly about Article 4, “Exceptions for concessionary services”. The commission says:
“In its 2011 consultation response, the Commission noted that the exception for general beneficial concessions was limited by a test of reasonableness. The exception also contained a requirement that the concession (or more favourable term) did not have the effect of preventing persons of other age groups from requiring the services. However, in the version of the Order currently before Parliament”,
apparently,
“both these limitations have been removed”.
The commission, having analysed Article 4, advises that,
“as currently drafted, the exception may fail to meet the policy intention of the exception, as stated by the Government Equalities Office in its 2011 consultation paper: ‘The exception will not, however, allow concession to be a deterrent to people who do not qualify for them or unreasonably to inhibit access to the service concerned by those outside the target age group’”.
The commission says that:
“There is a risk that, as currently drafted, the exception could be used to create artificial pricing structures designed to exclude older (or younger) people from access to particular services”.
A number of examples are given, including a fashion retailer which wishes to maintain a younger customer profile. It inflates its prices for clothing while offering a 50% discount for the under-30s, thereby allowing them still to pay reasonable prices.
As regards my main point, have the Government had discussions? Is the Commission reasonably satisfied, from its independent perspective of not being part of a government department—its independence is crucial to the way in which it operates—with what the Government are doing? Have the Government at least explained why they are doing things in a specific way? Has the Commission accepted that as the Government’s right?
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am very pleased to take this opportunity to speak on the gracious Speech and I do so partly with my new hat on. From about now, I shall be the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities on these Benches, and it is about equalities that I intend to speak today.
First, I pay tribute to the health team on these Benches, including my noble friend Lord Beecham, whom I was privileged to lead for two years. I assure them that I shall be with them in spirit, and occasionally in body, as and when required by the new shadow Minister, my noble friend Lord Hunt, ably supported by my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lord Collins. Of course, I need to add that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I have been opposite each other for more than four years. Although we have done battle over some issues, I hope that I have always treated with respect his knowledge and forensic questioning, and certainly I could not have had a more charming and able opposite number. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, with a similar good relationship.
I intend to limit my remarks to three matters: equal marriage, the fact that the Government’s comprehensive spending review failed the equality test in some significant areas, and today’s announcement concerning the outcome of the Red Tape Challenge and reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I regard these matters as perfectly relevant to our debates on the humble Address either by their omission or due to the effect of government policies or legislation.
One of the many things not in the gracious Speech was a commitment to follow through on the consultation on equal civil marriage and to bring forward legislation in this Session. Appeasement of Conservative Back-Benchers seems to have been unkindly suggested. Indeed, Craig Whittaker, MP For Calder Valley, in his blog on 8 May warns the leader of his party that he will vote against equal marriage because he believes that it will lead to polygamous relationships. He says that in British Columbia there were major attempts to legalise polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage. Of course, Ms Nadine Dorries can always be relied upon. She says:
“Gay marriage is a policy which has been pursued by the metro elite gay activists and needs to be put into the same bin”.
She goes on:
“The policy is divisive, unpopular with the public, is tearing the Conservative Party apart”,
and then in somewhat contradictory fashion she says,
“and will influence absolutely no one in terms of the way they vote in the future”.
I can see why David Cameron might not wish to expose some of the more eccentric views of some of his Back-Benchers in this debate but, as Trevor Phillips, the respected and retiring chair of the EHRC, said on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, the truth is that, because there is policy agreement across the main parties, we should “get on with it”. We managed to get the Equality Act through Parliament at the end of the previous Government’s term largely through cross-party co-operation. The Liberal Democrat Benches, the Conservative Benches and the then government Benches worked together to get through those parts that we could agree on. Surely equal marriage must be a candidate for such expedition. Certainly we on these Benches would welcome such a move.
The consultation closes on 14 June. Depending on its results, the Government could easily commit to having a draft Bill in Parliament in the autumn and have equal marriage on the statute book by the time of the next Queen’s Speech. How wonderful would that be, and why not?
Yesterday’s report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission shows serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to meeting their responsibility to assess the impact on equality of their policies—in this case, the public spending cuts. The Equality Act set out specific duties on all public sector bodies to assess the impact of their policies by gender, disability status and ethnicity. As figures emerged that around 70% of the additional burden from tax credit changes, benefit cuts and changes to public sector pensions in the spending review and emergency Budget would fall on women, unsurprisingly doubts emerged about whether this duty was being taken seriously by the Government.
It seems from the report that Ministers were in such a rush to make cuts that decisions were being taken without stopping to make sure that their impact was being properly analysed. So while in six of the nine areas that the commission examined in detail it believes that the basic requirements of the duty were met, it points out that the Government often cited insufficient data as a reason for not examining the gender impacts of cuts, an assertion challenged by the Institute for Fiscal Studies among others. The Home Office—the Minister for Equality's own department—is particularly singled out for criticism as providing,
“no data or analysis on the potential impact of the Home Office's measures on race, gender or disability equality, to take into consideration when deciding the Home Office's settlement”.
That is a remarkable statement.
In three key areas—the introduction of the household benefit cap, the impact of cuts to the bus service operators grant and the abolition of the educational maintenance allowance—the commission was,
“unable to establish whether or not the decisions were in full accord with the requirements of the duty”.
For example, the gender impact of the household benefit cap was listed as “unknown”, despite the fact that subsequent analysis revealed that 60% of those affected would be single women and just 3% single men. I could go on.
Notwithstanding the Government’s inability to provide statistics, the House of Commons Library’s research showed that of nearly £15 billion cuts in tax, benefit and pensions announced in the emergency Budget, spending reviews 2011 and 2012 and the 2011 Autumn Statement, 74% of that—£11 billion—is being shouldered by women. That might possibly explain why the Government were having such trouble attracting women to their cause.
I turn to the announcement that we had today. The Home Secretary told the media that she has the EHRC under control through her response to the outcome of the Government's equalities Red Tape Challenge and the reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. My honourable friend the shadow Equalities Minister, Kate Green MP, said that at a time when many people across the country are losing their jobs and feeling financially squeezed and are increasingly worried about poverty, it is disappointing that the Government have chosen to continue watering down those provisions in the Equality Act that are intended to protect and support those who face discrimination and disadvantage. She is correct. I ask the Minister whether it is the Government’s intention to cut further the resources available to the EHRC and, if so, by how much. I specifically want to raise the Government’s proposed framework for the EHRC, which seems to see it reporting to the Home Office rather than directly to Parliament. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? I shall be happy to receive a letter on that.
I am old enough to remember the destructive work of the previous Conservative Government in this regard. I can remember the Equality Commission having its funding and powers cut. I can remember the Commission for Racial Equality finding itself under attack. It feels as though the salami slicing of resources and powers that went on then may be going on now. I am afraid that the warm words of Theresa May, Lynne Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, saying how much they are committed to the equalities agenda—I know that they are—will only amount to something if they are judged by their actions and by the outcomes of discriminated groups. The test will be if people, individuals, groups, organisations, public bodies, businesses and employers understand their responsibilities, rights and duties and if people can easily access information and advice about discrimination and be supported to take action. I think that I have just written my own job description and I look forward to it.
International Women’s Day
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for opening the debate. I am looking forward to the contributions of many noble Lords who are speaking today.
I wondered whether I could find a phrase other than “my Lords” to address the House collectively in an International Women’s Day debate. There is, of course, the term “noble sisters”, which we can take to embrace the men who are going to speak today, just as we have to accept that the words “my Lords” cover women too. Perhaps today they might do the reverse and accept that the term “noble Baronesses” covers them also—if the term “noble sisters” is too radically feminist for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has asked us to celebrate the contribution of women to economic growth. That is a good thing to do in our women’s day debate and, of course, it does not just concern women’s role in the workforce, as the noble Baroness, said, but the whole of women’s lives in society. Where the noble Baroness and I may part company is on the question of whether this Government deserve that much credit for their contribution to the position of women in our economy today. Expecting to be congratulated on now supporting policies which any enlightened person or organisation might do, and some of us did decades ago, is perhaps going too far.
It would be churlish of me to remind the noble Baroness, for example, that her party branded me and the London Labour Party as “loonies” because we embraced workplace nurseries, the expansion of childcare and employers supporting their employees with childcare and job sharing as positive measures to support women in the workplace. We heard from all quarters of the Conservative Party that this would be the end of civilisation as we know it and would undermine the family, but I rejoice at a sinner repenting.
Of course, I congratulate Conservative women on their achievements in increasing the number of women representatives in Parliament, for example. However, it is worth saying that, come the next general election, it is possible that unless both of the parties in the coalition take positive action to address the gender imbalance of MPs and prospective candidates, when Labour makes its gains—which I think it will—this may be disastrous for the representation of Liberal Democrat women MPs in particular, because they are in marginal seats. It will also not be good for women Conservative MPs. That is a matter of great concern for our democracy. I think the parties opposite need to address that issue very seriously indeed. Perhaps they might look at the examples that we continue to set in the Labour Party about how one increases the number of women representatives in Parliament and other places.
In the few moments left to me I should like to reflect on the lessons from the struggles that women have had. As we used say in my women’s group at the LSE in the 1970s, the personal is political. So I am going to look at a struggle that took place where I grew up, in Manningham, which is in my title. Samuel Cunliffe Lister, the first Baron Masham—not related to our dear noble Baroness, Lady Masham—is celebrated in Bradford as a former industrial giant and a benefactor to the city. There is a statue of him in Lister Park, the local park. Many may be aware of his great monument: the Italianate splendour of the towering chimney of Lister’s Mill, Manningham, which still dominates the city skyline more than 100 years after he breathed his last. He may have been the head of a dynasty of worker-bashing mill owners, but a closer look reveals that he could have been responsible for helping to create the Conservative Party’s deadliest rival, the Labour Party. I am referring to the Manningham Mills strike, lasting from 16 December 1890 until 27 April 1891—nearly 19 weeks. This was a war of attrition that was symbolic, in all aspects, of the clash of interests between capital and labour, particularly among the textile workers in the West Riding. The dispute was initially around pay but escalated into a dispute about solidarity, freedom of speech and how the Poor Law criminalised the poor. Unfortunately, the workers in that strike were starved back to work and returned after 19 weeks with the reduced wages that they had been offered.
However, the lesson for us today is that the unintended consequence was that tens of thousands of workers in the mill industry—the strike was led by women, which is why it is important—joined trade unions. Two years later, the Independent Labour Party was founded in Bradford. I claim for the women of Bradford the fact that we helped to found the Labour Party and all the consequences that have led from that. The lesson we might take from that today is that we need to pay tribute to the brave working women who have improved working conditions throughout the past 100 years or so—the women of the match girls’ strike, the Asian women in Grunwick and the women of Dagenham. We should pay tribute to those women in this debate and be grateful to them.
This Government and their policies for women, particularly working women, are an example of where the reality does not match the rhetoric. We know that women are suffering hugely from redundancies and that unemployment among women aged between 50 and 64 has rocketed by almost 20 per cent in the past year. According to Netmums, in February 2012, 70 per cent of families were financially on the edge, women were missing meals to feed their children—a survey of 2,000 mothers found that one in five was missing meals so that her children could eat—and a quarter of families were living on credit cards. It is the women who bear the brunt of this. Of course, I congratulate this Government where they have helped women at work—I have worked with the noble Baroness on that—but we need to address the very real issue that this economic downturn and this Government’s policies are having a very detrimental effect on women’s lives in this country.
Baroness Northover
I remind noble Lords—I should have done this at the very beginning of the debate—that this is a time-limited debate, and when the clock hits six minutes noble Lords have had their time. Could we be as disciplined as possible, because there is another major debate and a Third Reading following on after this?
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
“Information to be communicated
(1) In section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (general right of access to information held by public authorities) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Should the communication of information under subsection (1)(a) and (b) be delayed beyond the time limit for compliance specified under section 10(1), the applicant will be given the option of requesting that the information communicated is the information extant at the time of final release, taking account of any amendment or addition of information made between the time the request is received and the time when the information is to be communicated, unless there are grounds for significant new concerns as to the exempt nature of any new information under Part 2 (exempt information).””
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part for a short time in this distinguished Grand Committee, whose debates I have been following with interest. I suspect that I am not the first noble Lord to realise the relevance and immediacy of the debates that have been taking place here, particularly on this part of the Bill, concerned, as it is, with the use of and access to public information, or, in the case which I wish to draw to the Grand Committee’s attention, lack of access.
I hope that the Grand Committee will forgive me as an interloper into its deliberations but I wish to put a particular issue before it which seems pertinent to the matters it is discussing. I wish to move Amendment 151E and speak to Amendment 151F. Amendment 151E aims to tackle the problem of information that is communicated post the appeals process being out of date by granting applicants the option of receiving the most up-to-date version of the said information, if relevant. The relevant part of the amendment states, in proposed new subsection (4A):
“Should the communication of information under subsection (1)(a) and (b) be delayed beyond the time limit for compliance specified under section 10(1), the applicant will be given the option of requesting that the information communicated is the information extant at the time of final release, taking account of any amendment or addition of information made between the time the request is received and the time when the information is to be communicated, unless there are grounds for significant new concerns as to the exempt nature of any new information under Part 2 (exempt information)”.
I will go on to talk about the dilemma that we face in the House in general at the moment, but we have tabled this amendment because, if you go through the whole freedom of information appeal process, it could be many months before the Information Commissioner grants that appeal and says that that information should be released. If the information you are seeking is updated regularly, obviously the information that you need may be that which is available now, not that which was available eight months ago when you started down the road of putting down your freedom of information request, so this is about up-to-date information.
Amendment 151F seeks to insert a new clause. This aims to prevent a government use of appeals to block the release of evidence for a specific period of time—that is, when a Bill is being debated—by prohibiting the Royal Assent of any Bills where the release of key information is still subject to an appeals process. The amendment seeks to appeal against information notices by public authorities. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:
“In section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (appeal against notices served under Part IV) after subsection (2) insert”,
the points as outlined in our amendment.
In all the time that I have been in your Lordships’ House—since 1998, and certainly since the passage of the freedom of information legislation—I do not recall a situation like the one facing the House at the moment. In a nutshell, the House is being denied what might be—and probably is—pertinent information during the passage of legislation, and is being expected to scrutinise a very large and important Bill without full information that might influence its view about parts or all of it. I bring this dilemma to Grand Committee for consideration, and amendments that might remedy the situation. I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I have no intention of exposing the Committee to the rights and wrongs of the Health and Social Care Bill. However, I would appreciate the Committee’s consideration of an important issue—one which might occur again.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to this Bill. When I saw she was going to be moving this amendment I wondered whether I should have asked my noble friend Lord Howe to step in and deal with it, but I think he has quite enough on his plate at the moment. As the noble Baroness made quite clear, she does not want me to deal with this from the point of view of the Department of Health. She accepts it has every right to appeal the issue and that the Government can appeal it further through all the appropriate courts. Although this is a matter for the Department of Health, it obviously has implications for wider government. Therefore it is of concern and they have the right to appeal these matters.
As she asked me to do, I will confine my remarks—particularly when I get on to Amendment 151F, the second of her two amendments—to the broad principles, because that is what she wants me to address on this occasion. No doubt she has had and will find ways of debating these matters further, and at some length, when she continues the debates on the health Bill. I want to deal first, rather briefly, with Amendment 151E, which proposes that where a response to a freedom of information request is not issued within 20 working days the applicant must be given the option of requesting any updated or new information,
“unless there are grounds for significant new concerns as to the exempt nature”
of such material. I want then to deal with the broad principles relating to Amendment 151F, concerning,
“Appeals against information notices by public authorities”,
and why we do not accept that her amendment is an appropriate way of dealing with this.
First, with regard to Amendment 151E, I accept that we would certainly want to encourage all public authorities to provide the most up-to-date information in such circumstances where it is appropriate and reasonable to do so, but the proposal we have here is fraught with difficulties. It could make it very difficult to conclude a request taking more than 20 working days, even where the deadline has been extended for legitimate reasons, given that new information might continuously be produced and the existing information would be continuously updated. That could have real disadvantages for the requester of that information if previous versions of the information that they might be interested in seeing were not ultimately disclosed because the obligation to disclose those versions had been superseded by an updated request.
Further, the effect of the option to request updated information being exercised will be to create in effect a rolling request for information each time the 20-day limit is exceeded. That might delay the information originally requested from reaching the requester, and will mean that the public authority expends time answering one version of the question only to see that work disregarded if it is superseded by an updated request. Neither of those are sensible results. I also believe that the amendment could lead to the undesirable outcome where public authorities rush decisions to complete cases within 20 working days, even where there are legitimate grounds to take longer. Therefore they either withhold uncontentious information or release sensitive information inappropriately.
I turn now to the second of the amendments—
Baroness Thornton
I would be grateful if the Minister could address the issue. The register of risk is a very good example of this. Were my honourable friend and the Evening Standard to have succeeded ultimately and were the Government to have acceded to the Information Commissioner’s ruling to release the information, the register of risks of November 2010 would not have been the relevant document. It was mentioned that it would not be very much use to my honourable friend because it would be that of November 2010, not November 2011. There is a genuine issue here which I would be very grateful if the Minister could address.
Lord Henley
I do not really see how it applies in the particular case that the noble Baroness is referring to, when she is talking about a 20-day limit and, if that is exceeded, how it would affect the November 2010 or November 2011 health risk register.
I shall come on to what I think is the more important part—
Baroness Thornton
I am very sorry to press the Minister on this matter, but I think I have been completely clear about this. I explained that a register of risks is a living document. It is a traffic-light process of red, amber and green in terms of the risks in any given policy area. The Minister must be very familiar with it because all government departments use them. A register of risks published in November 2010 would not be relevant in November 2011 when we in the House of Lords were discussing the health Bill.
I am perfectly happy to accept that this may be an incompetently worded amendment, but the Minister has not answered the question. Are the Government saying that when, under freedom of information, people ask for information that is then outside the 20 days and it goes to appeal, and the Government lose that appeal and the information may therefore be a year old, the Government will ensure that the up-to-date information is made available, if that is relevant?
Lord Henley
Obviously we want to provide the most up-to-date information that is appropriate. If this goes to appeal and it is found that we should be providing this information, we would provide that November 2010 information, but it would then be open to the noble Baroness to put in a request for the later information. Having had that decision by the tribunal, the court or whatever, that information would then be provided in the appropriate manner, because we would have lost that case and it would have become clear that that sort of information was that which should be provided.
Baroness Thornton
For the record, if the Government lose this appeal and publish this register of risks on this Bill, it will be not the November 2010 register of risks but the November 2010 risks plus the up-to-date version. Is that what the Minister is saying to me?
Lord Henley
I am not going to give an absolute guarantee of that sort without proper notice at this stage. However, I would have thought that it is fairly obvious that if something has been through the courts or the tribunal, or at whatever stage the Government decide that they are not going to appeal any further, and the courts have decreed that that sort of information ought to be available, it would be proper to provide the later information because it would be the same information that was being requested, other than the fact that it was at a later time. It would still be the same request being made, and it would have been decreed that that was appropriate. We would be bound by that decision.
Perhaps I might move on to the noble Baroness’s second amendment, with which I have even greater problems. In Amendment 151F, she proposes that no Bill may be submitted for Royal Assent where information directly relevant to that Bill has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act and where an appeal against an information notice issued by the Information Commissioner in the course of an investigation into the handling of the request is under consideration.
Baroness Thornton
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but did I understand him to say that it was disproportionate to delay the passage of a Bill? But what if the information is relevant to the passage of the Bill? This is the problem we have now. I am sure the noble Lord intends to enlighten me on that point.
Lord Henley
Yes, I think it is disproportionate to use the FOI process to delay the passage of a Bill and I do not draw back from those remarks— particularly when the appeal is under way for entirely legitimate reasons, as my colleagues in the Department of Health have made clear.
Perhaps I may go on, if the noble Baroness will let me. It also brings a political dimension into the process. The commissioner, who again I stress is independent of government, would obviously have to be mindful of the likely impact on the passage of a Bill were he to issue an information or decision notice during the passage of related legislation that he might expect to be appealed. Given that a decision on whether and when to issue a notice might indirectly impact on the passage of legislation, there is a real risk that his actions could be viewed through a political prism. That is not what we want and would have an adverse effect on his ability to act in a way that is—and is seen to be—both proper and impartial.
Baroness Thornton
Is the noble Lord saying that the ruling of the Information Commissioner—and the words he used, which I quoted to the Committee earlier in my remarks—was political in some way?
Lord Henley
I have not said that at all. I have said that what the noble Baroness is saying in her amendment would bring in a political dimension because it could cause delay to the passage of that Bill.
Obviously that risk could be avoided by the commissioner simply refusing to issue a notice while any Bill that he thought was related to the request was passing through Parliament. However, that would then cause even greater delay in him deciding whether or not to issue the notice, with an obvious disadvantage to the parties involved, particularly to the person who has requested the information. In either case, this would be to the potential detriment of the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act and to the perception of the commissioner’s independence.
Baroness Thornton
This is really very important. Is the Minister saying, suggesting or even inferring that the use of freedom of information by Members of Parliament—and I have put the odd one in myself, and been a victim of it, from time to time—is not appropriate during the passage of any legislation, because a Member of Parliament may want that information to assist them in their deliberations or their input into that scrutiny?
Lord Henley
I regret to say that the noble Baroness is now getting to the stage where she is deliberately trying to misunderstand me on every occasion. There is no desire to stop people putting in a request for freedom of information. All we are saying is that her amendment, which in effect delays the passage of the Bill while that process is going on, is not an appropriate way in which to deal with it, and brings in the political dimension to the Bill. The amendment also undermines the premise that the Freedom of Information Act is motive blind by introducing a requirement to consider whether information has been requested in connection with a particular Bill.
Lord Henley
I can give the assurance that the coalition Government have given again and again of our desire for genuine transparency. That is why we were committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work as well as it can, which is why we have brought forward amendments to the Act in this Bill. I can go no further than that in trying to reassure the noble Lord. There is a genuine commitment by this Government, and I do not believe that any Ministers would wish to subvert our processes by deliberately withholding information as the noble Lord seems to suggest. He will just have to take my word for it.
The noble and learned Lord put it best. It would be a novel and dangerous proposition and one that I cannot believe is in the best interests of Parliament that some outside party could restrict the passage of legislation through Parliament and in effect govern how Parliament does its business by putting in requests of this sort and causing delays. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness at this stage will not press the amendment—well, she cannot do so because we are in the Moses Room. I hope that she is content to withdraw the amendment, but I also hope that she has further discussions with my noble friend Lord Howe. No doubt they will keep those discussions to the Health Bill as it proceeds through this House.
Baroness Thornton
I cannot guarantee the last bit from the Minister—that this issue is over for this Committee or for the progress of this Bill. This is a matter of constitutional importance to this House and an issue between the Government and Parliament. The Government had a choice. When the Information Commissioner ruled that this information on the register of risks was relevant to the passage of this Bill, he made a very important constitutional point. By denying the House that information, the Government are asking the House of Lords to consider a Bill without the information that it needs to do so. We are not saying that any third party should seek to stop the passage of any legislation—and I am perfectly happy to take advice and redraft the amendment. But the Minister has completely failed to address the constitutional point that it raised here, which is not about the Health and Social Care Bill but about what happens if an Information Commissioner says that some information is relevant to the passage of legislation through this House and any Government deny it to the House. That is a very serious matter indeed. Of course, I will withdraw the amendment, but I do not think that the matter ends here or that it is limited to the Health and Social Care Bill.