Women: Domestic and Sexual Violence Services

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Donaghy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for women’s domestic violence and sexual violence services in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy sets out our assessment of the need for women’s domestic and sexual violence services. It pledges increased funding of £80 million over this spending review period to support refuges, rape support centres and FGM and forced marriage units, helping local areas to ensure that no woman is turned away from the support that she needs.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will know that on a typical day 155 women and 103 children are turned away from refuges because of a lack of suitable space. How will the Government guarantee the special status and address the desperate need for refuges and for sustainable funding in the light of the proposed new funding model for supported housing?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a valid point about the demand for services. That is why the Government have taken a whole-picture look at the services for domestic violence—in other words, freeing up spaces within refuges by moving on accommodation, preventive services and of course some of the services within the woman’s own home, such as the domestic violence prevention orders, to try to keep the perpetrators of violence away from the home.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, for introducing the debate. I hope that I will not be considered a fraud by taking part in a topic which has a global dimension. My international involvement in women’s campaigns took place in the 1980s and 1990s, and I will be concentrating today on the impact of government policies on women in the UK.

In all the globe-trotting that I did, whether it was to a women’s conference in New York in the 1980s, with Gloria Steinem as the guest speaker and where I think I made a speech about the Greenham Common women, or to South Africa—I was in Soweto in the late 1980s to witness the founding of NEHAWU, a healthcare workers’ union with a majority of women members—I learned three things: first, that it is inspiring to be among women who are dedicated and supportive of each other; secondly, that role models are important; and, thirdly and most importantly, that women globally need no lessons from us in the UK about how to improve their lot. I was humbled by their commitment and by the sacrifices they had made.

However, in my contribution I want to say more about the pay gap in the UK, the care economy and the gender impact of taxation and social security policies. I turn, first, to the pay gap in the UK. Tuesday was a significant day in more ways than one—not just because of the debate on Brexit, where women had to fight to be heard on both sides of the debate, but because it was the day when the average woman worker stopped working for free before they caught up with men. In the 66 days since the start of this year they have been working for free.

The reasons are the same as they were when the Equal Pay Act became law 45 years ago: the undervaluing of roles predominantly undertaken by women, unequal caring responsibilities and outright discrimination, and all the factors recently confirmed in a report by the Fawcett Society. One key way in which this discrimination could be tackled was by making a claim to an employment tribunal. However, the introduction of fees by the former coalition Government has seen the number of applications fall by 80%. From January to March 2014, just 1,222 sex discrimination claims were made compared with 6,017 in the same quarter in 2013. This is a denial of justice. The introduction of mandatory pay-gap reporting is welcome, but it will work only if there is a requirement to publish an action plan on how employers intend to deal with the problem, with penalties for those who take no action.

I turn to the care economy. A new report by the UK’s Women’s Budget Group for the International Trade Union Confederation shows that investing public funds in childcare and elder care services is more effective in reducing public deficits and debt than austerity policies. If 2% of GDP was invested in care industries in the UK, it could create up to 1.5 million jobs. The women’s employment rate would rise by more than five points in the UK and the gender employment gap would be reduced by up to 25%. This is surely better than the Government’s unimaginative and unnecessary austerity policies.

Not surprisingly, we even have gender bias in economic thinking. As the ITUC report states:

“Under the UN-mandated System of National Accounts, investment in physical infrastructure counts as capital stock, whereas investment in social infrastructure is considered as government annual current spending”.


One is an investment, the other a cost. If the 2% of GDP on the care economy was applied in other countries, it would mean 24 million new jobs in China, 11 million in India, 2.8 million in Indonesia and just over 400,000 in South Africa.

The gender impact of taxation policies is one of the most insidious forms of sex discrimination. The Women’s Budget Group has welcomed the Chancellor’s promise to consult on ways to ensure that the taxation of different ways of working is fair between different individuals. It is to be hoped that those consultations will be meaningful. As the group has said:

“Income tax cuts benefit men disproportionately more than women because women earn less than men and rely more on public services that tax revenues fund”.


It continues to say that,

“poorer local authorities can raise less money but need to fund greater use of vital services. Women stand to lose most from this inequality”.

A year ago, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett asked a question about the impact on women of the raising of personal tax allowances. Of those who will not benefit at all from any rises in such allowances in this Parliament, 66% are women and 41% have dependent children. Raising the higher rate threshold benefits men. According to Treasury figures, 68% of those taken out of the higher rate tax band last time were men. That proportion will rise as the threshold is raised further to 2020. Those extremely costly measures worsen gender equality in two ways. They raise the disposable income of most men and erode the tax base for those who rely on government funds for benefits and public services. By 2020, the lost revenue due to the changes to personal income tax thresholds since June 2010 will be approximately £19 billion. This will be paid for by freezing working benefits and by cutting work allowances and reducing income disregard under universal credit. The latter alone will cost £3.5 billion a year. Both of these affect women: we still have a long way to go.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendments in this group, which set out the Government’s proposals for the new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. We also have an amendment in this group calling for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the existing, highly successful and effective Gangmasters Licensing Authority, with a view to extending its remit to enforce labour standards and protection wherever it is believed abuse and exploitation of workers may be taking place.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as the Minister has said, has already expressed its views, through the use of an exclamation mark, on the number of last-minute amendments the Government have submitted. In its speedily produced report on those amendments—for which we are, I am sure, all very grateful—the committee made a number of recommendations relating to the latest tranche of government amendments. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend to adopt those latest recommendations and will therefore be bringing forward appropriate amendments as necessary. It would be very helpful to know what the Government’s position is on that point.

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority, as has already been said, was set up in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay tragedy in 2004, when 23 Chinese cockle pickers drowned while working there. In the past two years, the GLA has prevented the exploitation of over 5,000 workers. The question that has to be asked, in the light of the changes proposed by the Government and the setting up of a new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, is whether these changes will address the problem of labour exploitation and abuse across the board, or will the effect be to extend across a broader front a watered-down and less effective version of the current Gangmasters Licensing Authority? If that is the case, this would do little to help eradicate labour exploitation or abuse or, equally significantly, do little to encourage those being abused to come forward.

According to the Association of Labour Providers, which conducts a survey of Gangmasters Licensing Authority licence holders once every two years, this year—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said earlier—93% of licence holders said they were in favour of licensing, 73% perceived the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to be doing a good job and 67% deemed the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to have contributed to a significantly or slightly improved level-playing field. The point about regulation and achieving a level playing field is important because, as the chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee told the Public Bill Committee in the Commons,

“It takes away the cowboys … and the people who do the undercutting”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 20/10/15; col. 20.]

The proposed new or revamped authority, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, will have the power to enforce the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and relevant parts of the Modern Slavery Act of last year across the entire labour market. It will also engage in criminal investigation and enforcement. The setting up of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, as the changed name suggests, will also lead to a move towards what the Government are describing as,

“a more flexible approach to licensing”.

Before putting forward their proposals on the proposed Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Government conducted a consultation on tackling exploitation in the labour market. In the part of the questionnaire on licensing, the Government asked respondents to say whether they agreed that the Government,

“should introduce a more flexible approach to licensing, based on a risk assessment, judged on a sector by sector basis and agreed by Ministers and Parliament”.

Since, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already pointed out, almost twice as many respondents answered no to that question as answered yes, it looks, frankly, as though the Government had already made up their minds on the issue of flexible licensing before the consultation started. Otherwise, what was the point of the consultation when almost twice as many respondents answered no to that particular question?

Unscrupulous gangmasters can of course also be flexible and simply move to a sector where the proposed flexibility of the licensing arrangements may enable them to carry on their exploitation and abuse in the labour market. What firm assurances can the Government give that this would not happen under a “flexible approach” to licensing? Can the Minister give an assurance that flexible licensing does not mean a reduction in licensing? I suspect that he cannot give such an assurance. If it means a reduction, that could threaten efforts in the Modern Slavery Act to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation and to reduce cases of modern slavery. Will the Minister also confirm that there will be no shift away from licensing towards voluntary schemes? Witnesses before the Bill Committee in the Commons were clear that the enforcement of labour standards across the board is the only way to level the playing field.

The issue raised most frequently by respondents to the consultation related to resources, and comments have already been made on this issue. Having sufficient resources attached to ensure that the new authority had the ability to match its mission was a recurring theme, and overall respondents were clear that any reforms would need to be sufficiently resourced and enforced. No doubt this clear response was in part conditioned by the fact that labour inspection authorities have seen steep declines in their budgets over the past five years, including a cut of more than 20% to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Not only will the GLA, in its changed role, see its remit extended to the whole labour market but it will receive new criminal powers of investigation and enforcement that could require significant resources which, if not provided, could then distract from core licensing and monitoring functions.

However, although this was the most frequently raised issue in the consultation, the Government failed to address it in any meaningful way in their response. Instead, there is a suggestion that the Director of Labour Market Enforcement will help to pool resources between labour inspection authorities. Given the existing budgets on which they operate, though, such pooling could not ensure that the proposed increase in workload was adequately funded. I ask the Minister to tell us, either now or well before Report, in the letter that he earlier undertook to send on resources, what the Government’s estimate is of the resources that will be needed by the new bodies that they are creating under the Bill, including, importantly, the new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, to undertake the role and remit that they are being given in future under the terms of the Bill—a role and remit that, in many cases, are extended over those that currently apply. Presumably, the Government do not set up new statutory bodies or organisations with defined roles and powers without having a view on the resources that will be needed to enable the remit to be carried out, and the powers given to be effectively applied and enforced.

We have also expressed concerns, in the discussions on previous amendments, about the relationship between labour standards enforcement authorities and the immigration authorities. There is a reference in one of the Government’s new clauses to the new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority having a working relationship with immigration officials and,

“any other person prescribed or of a prescribed description”,

over requests for assistance. Since there is evidence that, the greater the overlap between labour inspection and immigration control, the less likely victims of exploitation are to come forward for identification, could the Minister spell out in some detail what the parameters will be of the working relationship, set out in the Bill, with immigration officials and others undefined, to which I have referred?

The Bill’s provisions also bind officers from, now, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, in future, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the provisions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s strategy. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has already expressed her reservations about that. Why do the Government believe—I ask this despite the previous explanation that the Minister gave—that this is necessary, as opposed to requiring the GLA, and, in future, the GLAA, to have regard to the director’s strategy? What difficulty do the Government see arising if the primary functions and overall strategy of the GLA and GLAA are set by their own board after having regard to the director’s strategy? What is it that the Director of Labour Market Enforcement could conceivably require the GLA to do that that body might not want to do, and thus appear to justify the Government’s proposal that it will be bound by the provisions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s strategy? I hope that the Minister will respond in some detail on that point.

I hope that I am not abusing my ability to speak on this group, but I also invite the Minister to respond, under this group or in the letter that he earlier undertook to send, to a question that I asked in an earlier group about the protections given under the Bill to workers irrespective of immigration status, and what role the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the agencies that he or she will oversee, including the new GLAA, will play in addressing labour exploitation and abuse in the workplaces of those who do not have the required immigration status to be in this country.

As always, I will listen with interest to the response of the Minister, who I hope will be able to reply, either now or prior to Report, to the points made in response to the Government’s proposals, including the latest batch of amendments following their consultation on labour market exploitation.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, I am a refugee from the employment relations world and the language of immigration is not familiar to me. I know that the Minister himself has a lot of personal experience of employment relations so I hope he will understand that, in supporting my noble friend’s amendment, I have real concerns about why these issues have come up under an Immigration Bill at all. Obviously, I must not be self-indulgent and make a Second Reading speech at this stage, but I echo what has been said that, if this is associated with immigration matters then reporting by vulnerable workers will be even less likely, and that is a matter of some concern.

My other concern is that vulnerable workers can also be British-born. We have heard a lot about how some adults with special needs have been housed in tin shacks and exploited horribly. When I produced a report for the previous Labour Government on construction fatalities, I identified that there were also vulnerable groups of workers who were British-born: the very young, who would not necessarily challenge the authority of their employer, and—how shall I put it?—the quite mature, who were perhaps reaching the end of their working life in construction and thought that they knew rather more about it than they actually did, or perhaps were not familiar with a piece of machinery. So I would regret it if this were seen entirely as an issue of immigrant and migrant labour. Because of where it has appeared in the legislation, there is a danger that that could happen.

I take some comfort from the fact that the consultation exercise was shared between the Home Office and BIS. I look for an assurance from the Minister that BIS will have a very full role to play so that the employment relations aspect of all this—the labour market issues as I know them—rather than immigration issues, will be fully taken into consideration.