Employment

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we now have the real-time information system working, whereby we know what people are paid every month. That gives us a new opportunity with the Work Programme in its next stages to look not just at sustainment in work, which was the key new feature of the original Work Programme, but at progression in work. It will be entirely possible to devise ways to encourage providers to help people make that important progression.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister agrees that many women want to work part-time, because it fits in well with their life plans. Can he reassure me that men have equal chances, in their employment, of getting part-time work? As I understand it, many men are felt to be able to work full-time and therefore not given the other option.

[Lord Freud]

We have one of the most flexible structures of work in Europe. In other countries you see a huge concentration of people working the full number of hours, whereas here there is a much smoother position. We have systems to support people doing partial and full work hours. In fact, in the way in which it is devised, universal credit will make the situation even more flexible in the future.

Video Recordings Act 1984 (Exempted Video Works) Regulations 2014

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Grand Committee

Your Lordships’ House has only recently amended the Public Order Act to remove the word “insulting” from Section 5 because the view was that the threshold of “threatening, abusive or insulting” was too high. It therefore seems very odd that today we should be contemplating the extraordinarily low threshold in paragraph (o).

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have a number of issues to raise but, first, I welcome these new regulations. Like the noble Lord, I seek assurances from the Minister about some of the content.

As we know, the Video Recordings Act currently exempts, music, sports, educational and religious DVDs from having to be classified, unless they show to a significant extent certain types of material. Sadly, that approach has opened the door to abuse. Music and sports DVDs, for example, have been found containing adult content and, in that context, it is right that such videos should not be exempt and children should be protected from such content.

We debated an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill in 2010 that would have caused similar outcomes to those sought in these draft regulations. The then Government gave an assurance that they would revisit the issue. Since that time, the Bailey review also recommended legislation to close the loophole. The resulting regulations that are before us make it clear that exempted works that depict content such as suicide, self-mutilation and sexual activity that is not deemed to be mild must be rated. Depictions that result in the DVD work losing its licence are listed in the regulations in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (o) and have been explained, but I shall refer to them.

I warmly welcome these provisions, although I have some concerns about the use of the word “mild”. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I believe that there is cause for some concern. The provision states that any exempted work should lose its exemption if,

“it includes words or images that are intended or likely (to any extent) to cause offence, whether on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation, or otherwise”.

Why is this cause for concern? Unlike the conditions listed in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (n), “offence” is a very subjective category with a low threshold. Moreover, that is compounded in paragraph (o) by two facts. First, the issue of whether of a work was designed to cause offence is irrelevant. Secondly, it does not matter how minor the offence is—if it causes some offence to any extent, the work loses its exemption.

It seems to me that all religious DVDs would have to be rated. Consider a DVD that includes a hymn declaring that Jesus was the son of God. That would be offensive to Muslims, who believe that Jesus was only a prophet. What about a Muslim DVD that says that Jesus was not the son of God but only a prophet? That would cause offence to some Christians.

The Government seek to reassure us in paragraph 8.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum that there is no need for concern. It states that,

“the BBFC already makes determinations about whether the content is or is not discriminatory for other video works … and it does this from an objective viewpoint and based on principles set out in its classification guidelines”.

However, there is no reference in the Video Recordings Act to the detail of classification guidelines and how they might impact on a particular film or other work. The Government are right that the BBFC guidelines already cover discrimination. Page 5 of the 2014 guidelines says:

“Potentially offensive content relating to matters such as race, gender, religion, disability or sexuality may arise in a wide range of works … the classification decision will take account of the strength or impact of their inclusion. The context in which such content may appear also has a bearing”.

None of this nuance is in the legislation.

The Minister will no doubt respond by saying that such a condition of words and images that may cause offence is already in effect for video games— Section 2A of the Video Recordings Act—and, of course, that is correct. This insertion to the law was made through Section 40 of the Digital Economy Act 2010, the debate on which I have already referred to. However, the Secretary of State can amend these criteria by regulation and under Section 2A(6) these regulations,

“may make provision by reference to documents produced by the designated authority”.

This implies that the classification guidelines produced for video games by the Games Rating Authority—an arm, of course, of the Video Standards Council—could be referenced for exemption criteria for video games in the legislation.

My difficulty is that, as the letter of the law we are asked to sign off today has a different threshold from the guidelines, there would be nothing to stop an easily offended person from going to court claiming that something that had caused them offence should not be exempt. In this context, the judge would have to apply the law as it is set out before us today with its extraordinarily low threshold and find in favour of the person who is easily offended. This would then force the BBFC to change its practice.

In raising this concern I want to be clear that I am not arguing that all religious DVDs should be exempt. My concern is simply that the threshold in proposed new paragraph (o) is so low that we risk moving from one extreme—where all religious DVDs are exempt—to the other where, as a matter of practice, most, if not all, would not be because of their potential to cause offence to those from a different faith tradition or radical secularist point of view.

I also want to be very clear that I am not suggesting that people have such a low tolerance of views contrary to their own that most would claim to have been offended. As the regulations before us today are defined, however, it would only take some to explain why they were offended for a judge to have to rule with the effect that most religious works would lose their exemption. I have a similar concern relating to the robustness of the use of “mild” in the regulations. Of course, I understand that the BBFC has a good definition, but a judge will have to interpret the law and these regulations make no reference to the BBFC’s guidelines.

I hope that the Minister can explain, first, the mismatch between the letter of the proposed paragraph (o) on the one hand and the BBFC’s guidelines and stated intent in the Explanatory Memorandum on the other. Secondly, can he explain the extraordinarily low threshold in (o) where the potential offence is subjective and the intent of the producer and the extent of the said material is irrelevant? Thirdly, can he explain the rationale for allowing reference to guidelines for video games in statute but not video works? Finally, perhaps as a very minimum, can he provide a reassurance that if judges apply the letter of new paragraph (o) such that most religious DVDs, including DVDs of religious services, find themselves having to be rated, the Government will then amend the legislation?

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is clearly one of the points of getting a better match for our very scarce housing. There are long waiting lists for social housing and substantial overcrowding. Depending on the data at which you look, there are more than 250,000 overcrowded homes in the social rented sector. On the census basis, that figure rises to 361,000.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the interim review will include an assessment of how the underoccupancy charge affects people with conditions such as Parkinson’s, which can involve night terrors and uncontrollable movements that make it completely impractical for their partners to sleep in close proximity?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, for obvious reasons, I have not seen the report. It will be published but I am not aware of that kind of detail at this stage. Clearly once the report is out we can look at the issues that remain uncovered. There will be a full report, which will be published next year in 2015.

Child Support Fees Regulations 2014

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I want to comment on Regulation 7(3) of the fees regulations and, incidentally, on Regulation 8(2). I have interests in children’s charities and care organisations, which may or may not be relevant to what I am going to say now but I declare them for caution.

It is rather remarkable that the Explanatory Memorandum comments on this provision and puts the point rather succinctly:

“The introduction of fees is politically significant. Child maintenance elements of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 had a difficult passage through the Upper House and charging persons with care, often single mothers of limited means”—

I do not know how many people are of unlimited means, but anyway it is quite clear that these are people of rather limited means—

“remains a controversial issue for stakeholder groups, service users and the wider public”.

I assume that I am included in the wider public.

I am entirely in favour of everything that can be done, and that this Government are doing, to try to help people who have had a relationship that has broken up. I am familiar from long ago with divorce cases; I did a lot of them but, as the Committee knows, that was a long time ago. However, the difficulties of interpersonal relationships were as formidable then as they are now, and I wish every success to the moves that have been made to try to help people by the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education, which are involved in the Children and Families Bill, which is having its Third Reading tomorrow. I went to a meeting that Ministers organised in connection with that Bill, and I had to remind them that the DWP was also working in this area of trying to help people. Of course, they said that they work very closely together, so I am glad to hear that. The closer they get together, the more chance that their measures will be successful. As I say, I wish them every success in that. Unfortunately, so far those efforts have not produced universal success, and the regulations contemplate at least the possibility that they will not have universal success in future.

The point that I want to stress is that when it comes to the obligation to maintain a child, the parents’ obligation is absolute. It does not matter what sort of dispute they have had with the other party to the arrangements in the past. I accept immediately that there are many different types of squabble that can emerge, and it is by no means clear that the non-resident parent is always fully responsible. I entirely understand that for the question of the break-up of the arrangements, both parties usually have some degree of responsibility. When it comes to the payment of maintenance, though, that obligation is absolute and is not qualified by the fact that the other party to the arrangement has been terrible, difficult or whatever. That is what these fee regulations are concerned with.

The collection fee that I have referred to appears when the collection system comes into operation. That happens only when the Child Maintenance Service, not the other party, is satisfied that without the collection service, maintenance is unlikely to be paid. That is in Section 137 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. The decision that the collection service comes into operation, with its charges, is entirely the responsibility of the Child Maintenance Service and has nothing whatever to do with any responsibility of the parent with care. In that situation, the imposition of the collection charge on the parent with care is unjustified in principle.

Of course, this is not by any means the first time that I have raised this issue, and I thank the departmental Ministers, who have changed over time, for the courtesy with which they have listened to the same thing being said again and again. That has not been an altogether unproductive process, because concessions have been made that I warmly welcome. The concessions are narrated in the Explanatory Memorandum; I will not weary the Committee by going over them but I agree that they are quite substantial. The most recent one was the reduction from the 7% to 12% charge that was originally thought of to 4% in the case of the parent with care. As I say, I welcome that very much and am glad that it has happened. However, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, this charge remains controversial, and I think it is unjustified in principle.

I did not feel inclined to table a Motion of Regret or a Motion to set aside the regulations, for pretty obvious reasons but primarily because the Government know what our House decided about this matter long ago. Of course, it was overcome by the financial protection of the House of Commons and therefore went through. But as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the passage through the upper House was not entirely easy. That vote is there and, as far as I know, opinion on that point remains.

I submit that the review that is to take place 30 months after the matter comes into force will take particular account of this point, which I am sure will remain controversial until the inquiry is completed, whether or not I am here to promote it—although that may be a matter of opinion. I do not intend to weary your Lordships further but I do wish to indicate the principled objection to this that remains.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, your Lordships may remember that I was one of those who supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the very important amendment that he has just referred to. I, too, remain concerned that despite the concessions made by the Government in reducing the application fee for a child maintenance calculation to £20 and reducing the parent with care collection charge by 4% on every payment—on which I congratulate them—there is a real danger that the effect of the new charging regime will be that fewer children end up with fair and reliable child maintenance.

In this respect, I share the conclusion of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which found that,

“although the transfer scheme may make savings it may imperfectly achieve the overarching objective of providing financial support for children”.

I want to press the Minister for assurances that the Government will closely monitor what happens to maintenance for children whose CSA cases are closed during the next three years. After all, the department has details of the parents and children so can track what happens to them, case by case, in terms of future maintenance arrangements—or the lack of them.

It will not be enough for the Government to congratulate themselves if fewer parents apply to use the statutory maintenance service, unless they know for certain that the parents concerned have made private arrangements for maintenance that result in regular payments of realistic amounts for the children concerned. Similarly, it will not be enough to be satisfied that fewer parents are asking to use the collection service and have opted for a direct payment arrangement—again, unless they know for certain that those direct payment arrangements are resulting in regular payment of the liabilities that have been calculated by the Child Maintenance Service.

In the past, the department has said it can assume that every direct payment arrangement is paid in full and on time because, if not, parents with care would ask to use the collection service. Even if this assumption were true now, it will certainly not be true in the future, given that the collection charges are expressly intended to deter parents from asking to use the collection service, regardless of the circumstances. I therefore seek full assurances from the Minister that the department will track in detail how children fare as their CSA cases are closed down and charges are brought in.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my two colleagues in this important debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay led the House in earlier stages of the Bill in a commanding and profoundly serious way. His weight being added to this question is something to which I hope that the Minister and department will pay careful attention; that is also true of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

I underscore what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay emphasised at earlier stages of this discussion: the fee money that we are talking about is actually the child’s. My noble and learned friend is right to point to the clause in the memorandum that says that this is controversial; that is why it is controversial. This money which is being taken out of the system should be going to the assistance of, mainly but not exclusively, poorly paid families who are doing their best to struggle to bring up children in very difficult circumstances. That controversy is not going to go away. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for the work that they have done in the past.

I also acknowledge that there have been concessions, and I do not think that my noble friend the Minister needs an alibi. He has other fish to fry; this is none of his business. It is a very bad change. I actually take a more fundamental view. I have been of the opinion since 1991, when I started on all of this, that charging was wrong in principle. I am long enough in the tooth to remember the period during 1993 and 1995 when we tried charging. I have said this before: it was a disaster. Why? Because nobody collected any money. They were not collecting fees or enforcing debts, so people were saying, “Why are we paying these fees when we are not getting any money?”. The scheme was quickly abandoned. We need to learn lessons about that. I do not believe that even the new, all-singing, all-dancing Child Maintenance Service—while the improvements are welcome—can offer guarantees that the enforcement will be effective.

Changing the balance of my concern, because I have always been really worried about the parents with care more than anything else, some of the charges which are going to be levelled at the non-resident parents are eye-wateringly high. There are a lot of non-resident parents out there who do not understand the difference that will be made with the combination of a recalculation and a collection fee. I wait with bated breath to see where this new co-operation which is going to break out all over the place is going to start. It is fantasy. A long time ago I was a divorce lawyer, and I know what people can do to one another when they separate. It is sometimes quite unbelievable. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, with his previous distinguished legal career and all his work with children’s charities, would reinforce that. I object to fees in principle. I do not think that they will work. I hope that I am wrong, but that has always been my position and it is worth restating.

Secondly, this system that we have used for charging fees is flawed. Again, I agree with everything that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has said, but I want to add a point which has been drawn to my attention by Gingerbread, which is right in saying that if the Child Maintenance Service has the weight of decision in testing the question of “unlikely to pay or not”—to allow the parent with care to join or stay in the service—that is a contestable decision. It is an important decision for both parents. It is an administrative decision which is taken out of both their hands. I do not know what assurances have been given, or whether there is anything that I have missed in the regulations which makes it a requirement to explain in detail why that decision has been taken, but it seems to me contrary to natural justice. In any other area of public life where such an administrative decision is made an inbuilt independent appeal is automatically attached to it. That is entirely absent from this new system. I appeal to my noble friend to go away and look at the provisions in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, Section 6(5), where, I think, the Secretary of State is given discretion about introducing an appeal. As part of the undertaking that I hope my noble friend will give to the Committee to continue to monitor all this carefully there should be the possibility of the Secretary of State making that discretionary decision, so that we can have an appeal available, if it becomes obvious—as I believe it will—that it is necessary.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, as in Committee, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. As he has pointed out, the amendment represents a crucial opportunity to ensure that the introduction of same-sex marriage in this country is achieved with exactly the same basic benefits and insurance rights for male/male and female/female as for male/female. If we do not address this final discriminatory hurdle now, it will be several decades before all gay couples achieve equality. For gay men and women, it will mean decades of waiting as they continue to live with the reality that their loved ones may not be provided for when they die; decades in which individuals who have worked and contributed to their pensions, planned and been prudent, are subject to the whim of employers and pension providers, who may choose to pay a pittance in survivor benefits for no other reason than the gender of their spouses. If we do not remove this last remnant of historical injustice, the “second tier” of marriage will continue in contradiction of all the calls for exactly equal treatment that we have heard again and again over the past few days in your Lordships’ Chamber.

A brief look across the Atlantic may help to illustrate the point. Two weeks ago, in the landmark case of United States v Windsor, the Supreme Court considered the case of Edith Windsor and her spouse and partner of 44 years, Thea. They lived together in New York, a state which recognises same-sex marriages, and when Thea died in 2009 she left her entire estate to Edith. Had they been a heterosexual couple, Edith would have inherited the entire estate tax free. However, US federal law prevents their marriage being recognised for the purpose of inheritance tax and Edith was hit with a bill for $363,053. The Supreme Court found the law to be unconstitutional. A key plank in its reasoning was that the treatment of Edith and others like her had the effect of creating a separate sub-set of legal marriages that were treated less favourably. To use the words of Justice Kennedy,

“it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition”,

and,

“the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in lawful same-sex marriage”.

The effect of this judgment was to grant legally married same-sex couples access to the same federal entitlement available to heterosexual married couples including tax, health and pension rights.

Questions of taxes and pensions may seem mundane to some, but I can confidently say that this change in the law would mean the world to those people whom it affects. Among them is a client of Liberty, John Walker. I mentioned him when your Lordships debated this issue in Committee. John and his partner have been in a loving, committed relationship for more than 20 years, and they registered for a civil partnership at the earliest opportunity. Yet John’s partner is currently entitled to a fraction of the survivor benefits which would be available to a female spouse, even one John met and married today.

It cannot be right to continue a two-tier discriminatory marriage system. Surely John deserves the peace of mind of knowing that his partner will be equally provided for. Is that not exactly what the Government’s commitment to securing real equality for gay couples really means?

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I too have put my name to this amendment. After two such full speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, it would be a waste of your Lordships’ time for me to say anything more than that I agree with both of them, but I also believe in the art of the possible. That is why I very much hope that manuscript Amendment 84A, or some form of it, will be agreed by the Government, because in that way we will have some hope of getting real change.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, treating a gay employee less favourably than a straight colleague under an occupational pension scheme purely because of the gender of his or her partner, is direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was the conclusion of the employment tribunal when giving judgment in the case of Walker v Innospec. Rather than heeding these conclusions and reflecting on the inherent injustice that this case addressed, the Government have applied to be joined to John Walker’s case in support of his employer and pension provider. They also seek to legislate in this Bill to extend the discrimination so that it applies not just to civil partners but to same-sex spouses, too.

As we know, this issue is not new. During the parliamentary passage of the Civil Partnership Bill, we considered the position of public service schemes. Initially, the then Labour Government claimed that benefits under such schemes should accrue only in relation to future service, arguing against imposing retrospective burdens. Thankfully, on that occasion the Government had a change of heart and recognised the need to secure equal treatment. The situation was similarly equalised for contracted-out schemes, while the law in relation to the state pension was also changed to allow civil partners to draw on the contribution record of their civil partners. These were welcome concessions but, sadly, the discrimination ultimately banished from other schemes remained in the case of contracted-in occupational pension schemes.

That this inequality remains on the statute book will surprise and sadden many who believed that the Civil Partnership Act gave civil partners all the same legal entitlements as spouses. The reason that the Government have given for extending rather than remedying this discrimination is a reluctance to impose retrospective costs on pension schemes. The fact that this discrimination has already been rectified in relation to public schemes rather undermines the Government’s objection to retrospection. It is far from unprecedented to take such a step but perhaps it is the Government’s position that in relation to public schemes, for which they have more direct responsibility, the basic demands of equality prevail over concerns about retrospection. I would argue, however, that the Government should not only refrain from discrimination but refuse to sanction direct discrimination by the private sector. This is the principle which underlines much of the substance of all our equality legislation.

A society in which the state refrains from discrimination but in which you can be turned away from a restaurant or hotel because you are gay is not a fair society. For decades, the love and commitment shared by gay couples was not afforded any form of recognition by the state. Prior to the Civil Partnership Act gay couples did not have access to the legal benefits available to straight couples in so many areas of life, from property rights to pensions. If this Bill is, as I believe it to be, about correcting these injustices, why are we relying on historic discrimination to justify real, ongoing inequality?

The argument goes like this. Before 2005 we did not formally recognise gay relationships, therefore gay couples cannot expect to receive the benefits they would have received had we awarded their relationships the respect they deserved at an earlier juncture. Discrimination should not beget discrimination in this way. It is surely wrong, and against the whole spirit of the Bill. I warmly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and very much hope that the Government will do what he proposes.

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The best thing I can do is to endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate has said. If this is a Bill about equality, we have to treat people equally. As that is what we are told it is, that is what I expect will happen.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, it is good to get back to the subject of the Bill. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. Although everyone is inevitably suffering under this economic disaster, it is surely completely counterproductive for the Government not to make specific arrangements for those who produce and support children. This is a particularly important generation of children. We will all need to depend upon them and will need to help them develop to their full potential if we are to have a brighter and more economically successful future. Not to do so will also specifically disadvantage—I would argue even discriminate against—women.

Whatever hopes there are for both parents to share childcare in future, to include statutory maternity pay at present would clearly disadvantage women, on whom the main responsibility remains for their children’s upbringing. It will also particularly disadvantage single parents, the vast majority of whom are women. While 30% of all households with children are affected, 95% of lone parents—that is 2 million—are affected by the Bill. The Government have already estimated that the Bill will push a further 200,000 children into poverty, so what effect will this economic deprivation have on this vitally important next generation of children and their well-being?

First, there is their health: the 2010 Marmot review highlighted how poor health is strongly linked to low socioeconomic status. Children in the lowest-income households, for example, are three times as likely to suffer mental health problems as their more affluent peers. At the age of 33 they are at increased risk of severe long-term and life-limiting illness.

Next is their education. The link between economic disadvantage and educational underachievement is widely recognised by academics, as well as by parliamentarians. Children’s cognitive development, related to parental social status, is evident as early as 22 months. The earliest high-achievers from deprived backgrounds are overtaken at five years, with this gap widening by the time children reach 10. DfE figures also show that only 26.6% of secondary school pupils eligible for free school meals achieved five or more A* to C GCSEs, compared with 54.2% for all the rest.

In employment, inevitably, the educational and health inequalities drive a similar divide. Young people who are NEET are more likely to have grown up in socially disadvantaged households, for example, from single-parent households and those where parents also have low educational qualifications.

Finally, there are family relationships and children’s subjective well-being. Living on a low income is stressful and difficult and can, and often does, adversely affect family life and intra-familial relationships, as well as children’s assessment of and satisfaction with their lives. Poverty can make strong parent-child relationships more difficult, and research shows that children growing up in poverty are more likely to suffer from low self-esteem and to be socially isolated.

Having listened to the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and a range of other subjects also brought into the conversation, I hope that the Government will find a way to accept this very reasonable amendment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I must say to noble Lords on the Benches opposite that we have had a number of debates about the economic context in which we are making these changes, and I have been disappointed that more noble Lords have not found themselves moved to contribute to them so far. I am glad that there have been more contributions to this debate.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, listening to the range of subjects covered already, it is quite clear that there is no shortage of issues to do with achieving equal opportunities for women that we can debate today. I fear the road to achieving equal opportunities is a long one and will continue to provide ample material for speeches on International Women’s Day for many years to come, before the goals that we are all seeking are at last achieved to everyone’s satisfaction. I will confine my remarks to two issues: women at the top, which has been covered already today; and women in the penal system.

I will start with women at the top. Clearly, the 2011 report by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, Women on Boards, was a major step forward. It reflected what had become, at last, a cross-party agreement; that is, that percentage targets for female company board directors should be set and backed by compulsion if voluntary efforts continued to fail. For the FTSE 300 companies, this involved both targets and a requirement to set out detailed plans of how their percentage of women would be achieved. The aim for the FTSE 100 companies was to achieve a full 25% representation by the same date, 2015—but that is only 25%.

However, there has been significant progress. All-male FTSE 100 boards have fallen from 21% to 7%, as we have already heard. Without doubt, too, the annual published updates of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the progress of these companies will certainly keep things moving in the right direction. However, for this debate, it was helpful to hear from the Minister about the plans the Government have to ensure that a satisfactory supply of qualified women candidates are aware of, and trained for, these opportunities at appropriate earlier stages in their life. Education in their school years will of course be vital and relevant careers advice is absolutely essential. Girls’ interests and aptitudes need to be taken into account, but so do national and international employment trends and, more locally, the likelihood of job vacancies and remuneration levels.

It would be useful, too, to know what further action the Government are planning to take to encourage employers to allow men as well as women to work flexibly or part-time, thereby opening up more opportunities for women as well as men to continue their careers while their children are young.

However, we all know that the percentage of women at board level is not the whole story. It is also about those other areas where power exists, whether for good or evil, a subject we have heard rather too much about during the past few weeks. It is here that the Sex and Power 2013: Who Runs Britain? report, which has already been referred to, tells rather a different story about women at the top. We learn from that, as well as the figures we have already been given, that women have slipped from 33rd to 57th place in international power rankings since 2001. So it would be helpful to hear a little more about the plans and priorities the Government will be pursuing to help increase the percentage of women featured in all categories ranked in Sex and Power.

Turning to women in the penal system, I want to draw urgent attention to the continued neglect by our criminal justice system of women held behind bars. In the UK we imprison more women than almost any other western European country. Decades of research and reports testify to the disproportionate harm that this does to women themselves, their children, families and the wider community. Although women comprise just 5% of the prison population, they account for a third of all self-harm incidents in prison, and every year nearly 18,000 children are affected by the imprisonment of their mothers. Just think of the range of the ways in which they and their future lives are affected.

About 13,500 women are sent to prison every year. One in seven of these women are foreign national prisoners, and recent research has shown that many of these women have been trafficked into the country and coerced into offending. Many of them have been subjected to appalling abuse and multiple rapes but are too terrified to report these crimes. They also have little English. However, only a quarter of these women have been identified and are referred through the national mechanism for the help and support to which they are entitled as victims of trafficking.

Seventy per cent of women entering prison every year in the UK are on remand. Most of these women have committed non-violent and petty offences for which they will not ultimately receive a custodial sentence. Many are imprisoned for breach of a community order, meaning they are sent to prison, often for a very short period and often for not turning up to appointments because of childcare responsibilities.

Women’s offending is linked to underlying mental health problems and a history of child abuse and domestic violence. Thirty per cent of women in prison have had a previous psychiatric admission, while more than a third of those who are sent to prison have previously attempted suicide. These women need help to turn their lives around, not imprisonment in conditions that make it impossible for them to take responsibility and address the causes of their offending. I welcome the new programme from the Prison Reform Trust, supported by the Pilgrim Trust, to reduce women’s imprisonment, as well as excellent organisations such as Eden House and the ISIS women’s centre in Gloucester. I want to stress how important it is to bring all these schemes together and publicise them well so that everyone around the country will see them as ways forward.

Alas, I have to end on a less happy note. Your Lordships’ House was able to secure an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill that would have ensured the necessary statutory requirement to provide community support and supervision services designed with the particular needs of women in mind. Sadly, I have to report that the amendment was struck out in Committee in another place. I only hope and pray that somehow the Government will see sense on this. It is time that all the hard work in this direction by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, which resulted in her report, is put into action. We have put this off for far too long.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I shall intervene just briefly. I was in hospital when this was debated in Committee, but I was very taken by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton—the Surbiton charioteer, as I think of her—who spoke with a verve and passion and with considerable conviction. Everybody has spoken in like terms and it seems to me that there has to be a convincing answer from my noble friend on the Front Bench if we are not to go along with this amendment in one way or another.

There is a place for the declaratory. This House said that last Thursday, when, by a pretty large majority, it passed what was in effect a declaratory Motion. There is a place for the aspirational in legislation. There are many precedents and it would take too long even to begin to give examples, but I hope that my noble friend will, at the very least, say to the House this afternoon that she will reflect further on this, if she cannot accept the amendment now, and come back on Third Reading with a definitive answer. I hope that the door will not be shut today.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I also intend to be brief. Having listened to all these speeches, which are so resonant of what has been said on many other occasions, I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Campbell on her brilliant speech. Equally, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a marvellous argument from the legal viewpoint about why it would be quite absurd to get rid of this clause. Section 3 helps us to achieve that commitment to equal opportunity, and to dignity and respect for others from different ethnic backgrounds, for those with disadvantages and for older people who, as we have just heard, will live much longer and have to cope with increasing disabilities as they grow old.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Indeed. I am looking at the Treasury Autumn Statement 2012, Table 2.1, which has a category headed, “Exchequer savings resulting from 1% uprating of benefits and tax credits”. This is over the three years, not just the two years in the Bill. The table also has a category headed, “Universal Credit: finalise disregards and increase by 1% for two years from 2014-15”. The figure given suggests that the saving for 2015-16 will be £640 million. However, my honourable friend Steve Webb, in a Written Answer to Stephen Timms on 13 February, identified universal credit additional savings as £20 million in 2014-15, £100 million in 2015-16 and £150 million in 2016-17. I am not sure how these figures relate to one another. I may be misreading the statistics and the tables may be drawn up using different bases, but between now and Report I would like to understand how these figures are worked out.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, the assumptions about how many people will be translated on to universal credit are best guesses, to put it mildly. I think the roll-out programme will take much longer, for the reasons that I explained earlier, and the story in the Financial Times compounds my anxieties in this regard. I think the figures that the right reverend Prelate gave of 10% of claimants being on universal credit by 2014-15 and 30% by 2015-16 are ambitious, to put it mildly, so can we have some greater clarity?

This is an important Bill. I understand the significance of the situation in which the Government find themselves. If I did not believe that before this weekend, all the financial circumstances of the past few days have confirmed the difficulty of the situation. However, before Report, we must try to get a better fix, in particular on the savings related to the universal credit inclusion in the Bill, because it is unclear to me. It is important and, from where I am sitting at the moment, I do not think that the savings are worth the candle. I would be much happier leaving universal credit out of the Bill. Let it be the future and let us all work on it, try to protect it and build on it in the best way we can. The Bill is a retrograde step as it affects universal credit, and I support these amendments for that reason.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I want to say a very brief word about two groups—children and families. Before I do so, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester on his excellent briefing on these very important areas. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said.

We know that the Government are not on target to meet the Child Poverty Act commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The right reverend Prelate referred to that. We are told by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that there can be almost no chance of eradicating child poverty, as defined in the Child Poverty Act, by 2020. It predicted that there would be an additional 500,000 children living in absolute poverty by 2015. However, that leaves out a further 200,000 children who will be pushed into relative income poverty. How on earth will this Bill help the Government to meet their commitments under the Child Poverty Act?

I am even more concerned about the disproportionate impact that all this is having on women. The Bill disproportionately affects women, including through the cap on child benefit payments and statutory maternity pay. Furthermore, those in low-paid work, who are more likely to be women, will lose the most. It is estimated that 300,000 nurses and midwives, 150,000 primary and nursery school teachers and 1.14 million admin workers and secretaries will be affected by the cap. Some 98% of child benefit payments are paid to women. Child benefit has already been frozen for three years, meaning that over five years there will be a total of a 2% increase; for the same period, CPI will have risen by 16%. Of different family types, lone parents, who are mostly women, as we know, will lose the most: £261 a year by 2015.