People with Disabilities Standing for Elected Office

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s desire is to facilitate participation. I think the House is unified behind that. The question is how we best overcome the barriers, both financial and non-financial, and that is what we are all working on.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says about the responsibility resting with political parties. However, enormous costs can fall on those who have additional needs. What plans do the Government have in conjunction with political parties to encourage the disabled to stand in this coming May election, which is only around the corner?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I commend what political parties are doing to seek to involve disabled candidates. We have evaluated the central fund’s run; the access to elected office fund was expensive to administer, and the evaluation published in 2018 found that its impact on increasing participation by disabled people had been negligible. Going forward, we have to consider all these factors but keep the central objective of more disabled people in Parliament and council chambers in sight.

Budget Statement

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the OEP—the office for environmental protection—was heralded by the Government in October 2019, with its offices to be in Worcester. It took two years to appoint an interim CEO on 28 January this year, but this post will last only until December, just 12 months. The G7 summit in Cornwall and COP 26 will both happen this year, but the Government’s green agenda will be no further forward. The Environment Bill, having been stalled, is now seriously threatened as the Bill team has been disbanded.

I welcome the levelling-up including rural areas, but am not holding my breath. There is much in the Budget to help the environment—green gilts, green national savings, offshore wind, hydrogen and energy storage—and a plethora of strategies in the pipeline to come soon, but no mention of just when “soon” will be. The UK infrastructure bank is to assist, among others, farmers to move to net zero. It will also support new entrants into farming and tenant farmers but, as ever, there is little detail of how this will happen.

Green technological investments are one side of meeting environmental and carbon targets. The other side is an independent regulator, the OEP, to set challenging targets and enforcement to penalise the polluters. Can the Minister indicate just how the OEP is be funded so that it can begin its essential work, and when this will happen?

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the EU trade deal is a momentous occasion for our country. The TCA agrees ambitious commitments towards liberalising market access with zero tariffs and quotas on all goods from day one. Without this, our farmers producing meat, dairy, poultry, and cereals, including some processed foodstuffs, could have faced tariffs of some 50% under WTO rates; processed fish products would have faced tariffs of up to 25%. Can the Minister say whether lamb produced by our hill farmers in Cumbria, Wales, Yorkshire or on the Derbyshire Dales will be specifically included in the zero-tariff category?

Chapter 2, on the rules of origin, sets out labelling requirements. The rules are supported by low-cost administrative arrangements for proving origin. Exporters will be able to self-certify the origin of their goods, making it easier for traders to prove their origin, thus reducing red tape. I am in favour of less red tape, but what I am hearing about Scottish shellfish exporters having to fill in more than 20 forms does not inspire confidence. On the other side, reassurance on provenance is important. I am concerned for producers and exporters that have iconic products, for which geographical indicators are a large, in some cases the only, factor in their trade.

Like other countries, we have a wide range of products relying on authenticity. Producers of Scotch malt whisky, whose flavour comes partly from the water used, regional cheeses such as Cornish Yarg, and other goods all rely heavily on geographical indicators to sell their products. If there is little or no regulation on labelling, this could seriously undermine the market and the price of such goods. Can the Minister give reassurance that GI products will be adequately protected? Like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, I fear that the Government are making it up as they go along.

Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have briefings from the LGA, the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives and the BMA. All have the same concern—that lower-paid staff will be adversely affected. 

The Government’s aim to reduce the large redundancy payments made to highly paid staff in the public sector is one to which the public readily subscribe. But the way the Government are implementing this not only breaks the law but affects those on lower pay. 

The pension strain payments should not be included in the cap. In 2019, ALACE indicated that including pension strain would affect long-serving staff earning well under £40,000. For these staff in their mid to late-50s, with service between of 35 and 39 years, earning between £31,000 and £34,000, the strain would exceed £100,000 if made redundant. Their redundancy payments would be well under £20,000. The regulations would mean that they would all suffer a reduced pension for the rest of their lives. I ask the Minister to confirm that this is, indeed, the case. 

Junior doctors are similarly affected, in some cases having to make declarations for sums as small as £200. These are the very people who, up and down the country, are currently saving lives on the Covid-19 wards. 

 What the Government are proposing is for contractual arrangements between employers and employees to be broken and for those on very low earnings to be penalised. For local authorities, this is direct interference with the role and responsibility of elected councillors, who are well able to deal with these matters through full council. Instead, it will be dealt with by the Secretary of State. 

 This is at a time when MHCLG, as the Minister said, is currently conducting a consultation on the Local Government Pension Scheme. The regulations under this SI are due to come in immediately, well before the consultation on the LGPS has finished. It would seem that the right hand of government does not understand what the left hand is doing. 

 In addition to there being little communication between government departments, no equality impact assessment has been produced. Why not? Are the Government afraid that, if they produce one, it will be obvious that the bread-and-butter staff of public service are being caught in this trap?

However, I note that the Armed Forces and security services are exempt from this regulation. “Good,” many will say, “our service men and women deserve to be exempt”. But what of the rear admirals, air vice-marshals and lieutenant-generals, in cushy jobs at the Ministry of Defence, earning £120,000 to £150,000? Surely, they should not be exempt. The Government have got this wrong and should realise such and withdraw this SI.

Finance Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 17th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this debate. I shall speak on the temporary reduction in stamp duty as part of the Government’s plan to get the economy moving again. People moving home for a variety of reasons, including downsizing or upsizing, may have a small effect in stimulating the economy, but the building of desperately needed new homes could have a definite positive effect. The timeframe is exceedingly short in terms of stimulating housebuilding. Planning permission has been given for more than 1 million homes in the past 10 years, as my noble friend Lord Shipley said. Seventy per cent of the planning permissions are held by 10 developers and work on the houses has not yet started. It could be started this weekend. What measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those developers start and finish the sites as a matter of priority? People need decent homes and they need them now. The stamp duty holiday is a bonus, but unless the housebuilding industry gets a move on, many potential purchasers will lose out.

The stamp duty measure should be a boost to first-time buyers, but it is unlikely to be so. It is more likely that those with spare capital looking for holiday homes will snap up homes from under the noses of those trying to get on the housing ladder. Fishing villages in Cornwall and cottages in our national parks in Cumbria or the Peak District are very attractive to those escaping the towns and cities. This measure does nothing for those living and working in rural and coastal areas who are able to afford only properties in the shrinking rental market. The stamp duty holiday is a golden opportunity for potential second home owners.

There is of course the issue of geography. The Resolution Foundation has said that a non-first-time purchaser looking for a home at the average English house price will save £2,500 as a result of the stamp duty holiday, but the average buyer in the north-east will see no gain, while those in London will be more than £14,000 better off.

I would have liked to welcome this measure in the hope that it will assist families with young children and newly-weds to live in rural areas of their choice, rather than being forced into the towns, but I doubt that will happen. The cost of this measure is £3.8 billion —money that could have been targeted at improving the supply of low-cost housing for those on lower incomes. This is a wasted opportunity.

Somerset West and Taunton (Local Government Changes) Order 2018

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA and a district councillor in South Somerset. Taunton Deane and West Somerset have been collaborating successfully for some time and share several services and offices, as the Minister said. Taunton Deane now wishes to terminate its collaboration. Instead, it wishes to take over West Somerset. I have received many submissions from local councillors and others who are opposed to the merger, and none in favour. I shall try to briefly give the House a flavour of the communities being discussed this afternoon.

Taunton Deane Borough Council, as its name implies, includes the county town of Taunton. It has a large community and includes some rural villages and the market town of Wellington, but it can in no way be described as extremely rural. It has excellent infrastructure in the form of the main railway line linking down to Cornwall and up to Bristol and the north of the country. It is situated on the junction of the M5 spine, which runs down the west of the country, and has a thriving hospital, a sixth-form college and FE college, several secondary schools and numerous primary schools. There is a vibrant town centre. Generally, it has everything going for it.

West Somerset is a very different area and council. It is one of the smallest, if not the smallest, district council in the country. It has extremely poor connectivity to the surrounding area. The A39, which is the main route to the largest town of Minehead, has not been updated. Seventy per cent of the landmass of West Somerset is within the Exmoor National Park. This means that the area is extremely beautiful and, with its interesting coastline, West Somerset attracts a great many tourists. However, unlike Taunton, which can rely on the new homes bonus to boost its budget, it is impossible to build large numbers of homes in West Somerset due to planning restrictions in the national park.

There are also many other challenges. The community college at Minehead takes pupils from 14 to 18 and covers an area of 600 square miles. This means that pupils travel large distances on school transport and consequently find it difficult to have any social life outside school, which the pupils in Taunton take for granted.

West Somerset is, however, the site of the nuclear power plants at Hinkley. Power station A is decommissioned but has never been removed, Hinkley B is still operational and Hinkley C is still under construction. Despite this, the roads serving Hinkley are, for the most part, rural, winding roads taking a great deal of extra traffic during the construction phase. West Somerset should have been able to count on the business rates from Hinkley. However, when the Government allowed local authorities to retain business rates, they did not transfer funds to cover historical appeals by businesses against their rating. This was an amazing sleight of hand of which many magicians would have been proud. Consequently, when Hinkley’s appeal was allowed, West Somerset had to refund £6.7 million from its meagre resources to Hinkley. Hinkley’s business rates were £5 million, but they have been reassessed at £29 million. Not surprisingly, Hinkley is trying the appeal route once again.

We have before us a David and Goliath situation. Taunton Deane is financially stable and able to plan for its future with confidence. West Somerset, although having some capital assets, has a revenue budget that is not solvent. This is due not to incompetence on the part of its officers or elected councillors but to the greatly increased costs of providing services in deep rural isolated areas, coupled with the business rates issue outlined above.

Central government does not accurately reflect rurality in its settlement for West Somerset, nor does the Boundary Commission reflect this when reviewing electoral boundaries. It takes no notice of sparsity or connectivity but focuses solely on the number of electors, hence the four county councillors who cover the whole of West Somerset have a great many parished areas to cover. In one case, that is 25 parishes.

Contrast that with the county town of Taunton, which is unparished. The draft Statutory Instrument refers to the Government’s commitment to,

“immediately carry out a Community Governance Review to ensure that the currently unparished area of Taunton is parished as soon as possible”.

I do not see any costs for that in the statutory instrument.

Now we come to the issue of democratic deficit—a subject close to my heart. Currently Taunton Deane has 56 councillors and West Somerset 28. The proposal is for 58 councillors going forward—a 32% reduction. One of the new wards will have five councillors. How is that going to work? There will be five people, potentially from different political parties, all trying to represent the views of the electorate. Many councillors cannot agree among their own party colleagues, never mind those from another party. If the number of electors demands five councillors, why not divide the ward into smaller sections and give those elected a fighting chance of doing a decent job?

West Somerset will now be covered by four divisions with a total of 13 councillors—more than a 50% reduction, while Taunton Deane gets only a 26% reduction. Who devised these massive, multimember wards for very rural areas? This whole thing reeks of political gerrymandering on a massive scale. A consultation has taken place, but this does not appear to have been satisfactory. Like a lot of consultations, the questions asked are often to produce the answers required. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was concerned about the nature of the consultation. I quote from a letter sent to that committee, which I received this morning:

“The public consultation was biased in many ways as noted earlier in HL Paper, but it is not mentioned that the proponents of the merger had promoted it in the local press as a fait accompli, (emphasising that the councils had already taken a vote and the proposal to merge had already been sent to the Minister) BEFORE this consultation took place. It was also repeatedly claimed, inaccurately, that the merger per se would save £3.1m”.


I turn briefly to the predatory and unwelcome bid on 2 May by the leader of the county council to form a unitary county. We can see from press reports in the Telegraph on Monday that Somerset County Council is running a deficit budget. It is, therefore, looking to the districts, which are solvent, to bail them out. The leader of the county council says:

“This is the start of the conversation. At this stage the situation is best described as being in ‘talks about talks’ and I’m adamant that I will enter into these conversations with an open mind and nothing on my agenda except delivering long-term sustainable services for Somerset’s residents”.


Still on the subject of unitary, he says:

“I know the announcements earlier this month may have been unsettling, and even worrying, to some staff within SCC and also the districts, especially where it was coupled with alarming headlines. That was not the aim of publicising our discussions and I’m happy to apologise to staff in all organisations if that was the consequence”.


I find these words somewhat disingenuous.

The press release from the five district council leaders who met last Friday, states:

“The leaders of all five district councils together with the County Council have pledged today to work together on a joint review of local governance in Somerset. The aim of the review will be to determine the best way of delivering local public services and meeting community outcomes in Somerset in the future.


Whilst the details of the review are still to be finalised, the leaders have committed to some important principles including … Ensuring the review is independent of any one or group of organisations and that the focus of the review is on what is best for Somerset and its communities … Considering a range of options for the future”,


with all options having,

“a robust business case analysis … Inviting others, including health care, to work with the councils on the review … To engage with communities and stakeholders through the review process, keep people informed and undertake community consultation before any final decisions are made”.

Work will now commence on drawing up detailed plans and timetables for the review, and further updates will be issued in due course.

There was a debate in the other place on the proposed unitary yesterday—this despite the leader of the county council taking the trouble to go to London to lobby the MPs on his proposal. However, his proposal did not meet with unqualified support. I do not doubt that West Somerset is in desperate straits but, if Taunton Deane does not wish to continue its collaboration with it, why not look to Sedgemoor District Council? It also has a boundary with West Somerset and together they form one parliamentary constituency, represented by Ian Liddell-Grainger, who, incidentally, is opposed to the merger that we have before us today. He is recorded as saying that he was gobsmacked at the unitary proposal—and I take that from Hansard.

The costs of the merger are large, setting up a shadow authority on 1 April to be overtaken by the new authority in May 2019 and then, again, by a possible unitary authority. This seems like a desperate waste of taxpayers’ money. I regret that I do not think now is the right time to be progressing this proposal.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This is another set of proposals that seems fraught with local difficulty and, as I said before, the lack of clarity from the Government on their plan for local government in England as a whole is not helping matters. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House has brought these two statutory instruments to the special attention of the House, on the grounds that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation which relates to these instruments. Inadequacy in these sort of consultations is a matter that I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer on what the department will do to improve the situation.

I am very much in agreement that, for a consultation exercise to carry any credibility, those who organise it must be open-minded about its results, otherwise there is no point in the exercise. I also have some sympathy with the residents of Taunton Deane in respect of their concerns about this merger, as the independent auditor considers West Somerset District Council to be financially unsustainable. The merger may be the answer, but that has not been established to the satisfaction of many people locally. We then have various other individuals giving their views, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said. The leader of Somerset County Council, the Conservative councillor David Fothergill, who lives in Taunton, wants a countywide unitary, which he claims will save the council £28 million. Marcus Fysh, the MP for Yeovil, who is a former county councillor, also wants the county unitary model. James Heappey, the Member for Wells, also wants a county unitary, but Rebecca Pow, the Tory MP for Taunton Deane, is firmly sitting on the fence, saying that she will wait to hear more proposals before she makes her mind up.

It is all a bit of a shambles again, which is not helped by the general approach from the Government, with no clear vision of how local democracy should be delivered in England. It just makes matters even more difficult to get right, although I accept that these things are very difficult. It would in my opinion be better, as we were saying, to see unitary local government in England, and we will work with local councillors and local communities to come up with the best options in each county to deliver that with full consultation.

I wonder whether the Minister can help me, because I am getting a little confused by all these mergers, and how it all works. I think that he said in our previous debate that when we have districts coming together in mergers, any one district can oppose that. Then he said that any unitary proposals are decided in the round, so a council cannot oppose it. But what happens if you get a county district wanting to merge with a unitary? Is that done in the round again, as well, or is there a third option? I am thinking of somewhere like Oxford City Council, which is a unitary and does not want to merge with Oxfordshire. Has it got a veto? I do not know. It all seems very confused to me, and we need to be clear because I think that the Government are very muddled on this.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. May I just address one point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has raised in both debates? What he describes as a muddle is a reflection of the Government’s approach—which we think is the right one—which is to respect what local communities want. We are responding to locally led proposals. Both the statutory instruments we have just agreed, and this one, are proposals that local people have asked the Government to approve. The alternative, which may be the option that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, prefers, is a top-down approach whereby government states its desired structure and then imposes that uniformly throughout the country. So I reject his description of our policy as a muddle: we think it is locally responsive. We considered the proposals in the round and we think this is a more satisfactory approach to local democracy than the alternative.

Let me deal with some of the points that were raised during our debate. Rebecca Pow is on record as supporting the proposed merger. On the electoral arrangements, the proposals in the order are a back-up option put together by the local authorities. The Local Government Boundary Commission will re-ward the whole area into appropriate wards. Once the number of councillors is reduced, the number of electors to each councillor will remain approximately 1,900, which is the average for the United Kingdom.

So far as support for the proposals before us is concerned, Taunton Deane Borough Council voted in support of progressing the merger at its full council meeting on 26 July 2016: 32 voted in favour, 16 against, and two abstained. Somerset County Council supports the merger, and there is no proposal from the county council or any of the districts for further unitary councils in Somerset. Should, in time, any locally led proposals come forward, we would of course consider them, but there are none on the table.

Looking at the parish councils, the majority of parishes supported the proposition: 10 were supportive and five were against. A strong majority of businesses and voluntary sector organisations—18—were supportive, and four raised no objections.

The thrust of the noble Baroness’s case was that the merger would be to the detriment of Taunton Deane residents. I do not want to go through all the arguments that I rehearsed when I introduced the instruments, but we do understand that, should the merger not be implemented, the financial unsustainability of West Somerset Council is considered to jeopardise the financial benefits of the current partnership, thus forcing Taunton Deane Borough Council to remove itself from the partnership agreement, which for both councils would risk the savings already generated. As I said, the independent auditor notes that,

“if the ‘One Council’ was not to go ahead and TDBC sought to unwind the collaboration the financial gap would be exacerbated”.

The two councils are clear that the merger will safeguard annual savings of £3.1 million—£2.6 million from transformation and £0.5 million from the governance changes.

I have listened with respect to the arguments put forward, but I think there is a strong case for agreeing to the proposition put to us by the two borough councils concerned.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point? I thought I heard him say that each councillor in the new council would have an electorate of 1,900. How can that be, when no single-member wards are proposed? In one case, it is a five-member ward.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That would be an average, dividing the number of electors by the number of councillors. I have not drilled it down to an individual ward basis.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, as has been said, this is an extremely complex and legalistic Bill. While I may be able to cope with the complex, the legal ramifications are beyond me and are much better left to those who have had the necessary training and experience. Nevertheless, the Bill and all that it stands for will have huge implications for people in what was the United Kingdom. Many are extremely frustrated at how long it is taking to extricate the country from what they see as the “clutches of Europe”. Others are extremely apprehensive about what their future will be in a stand-alone island.

Today’s debate is important, as it sets the tone for the debate to take place during Committee and Report, when those here today will drill down into the detail. The Bill seeks, as the Leader of the House so eloquently set out, to ensure that our laws under the EU are transposed into UK law at the point in March 2019 when the country no longer has EU membership; it seeks, that is, to align UK law with that which pertains before March 2019. There is a great deal of disquiet about exactly what this will mean and how it will affect businesses in the agri-food sector.

Agriculture in 2015, was 1.4% of the GVA in England, 2.7% in the south-west and Scotland, and 4.8% in Wales. But—and it is a big but—it represented 70% of the land use across the UK. Food growth feeds into food production. Food supply is one of the 13 critical national infrastructure sectors. In 2015, the food chain relied on imports of £40.3 billion, of which £28.4 billion came from the EU. In terms of food manufacture, 25% of employees were born outside the UK.

The current subsectors of land use are: agritech, which is very important for new and innovative ways of both growing and harvesting crops; plant breeding, another area where investment brings huge returns; and forestry. According to the 2014 VAT statistics—goodness know why there are not more up-to-date statistics—there are 3,685 forestry businesses, 555 sawmills, 130 wood-based panel businesses and 230 pulp and paper businesses. Of the private owners, 90% have holdings of less than 10 hectares. This equates to 30% of privately owned forests. Yesterday’s debate on the 25-year environment plan showed that forests are essential to the quality of the air we breathe. We must preserve these businesses after the exit from the EU.

Post Brexit, what will happen to the National Office of Animal Health—aptly named NOAH? Veterinary medicines are essential. As with food production and safety, the UK needs access to developments in animal welfare and medical advances in order to ensure healthy crops and livestock. Currently, EU rules protect livestock from foot and mouth, blue tongue, avian flu and the Asian longhorn beetle. These diseases have a damaging and long-lasting effect on farmers. EU rules ensure there is immediate cessation of trade from infected areas, and swift resumption once appropriate controls are in place. Farmers and growers will wish to have the security of such controls post Brexit.

Although agriculture is vital, many will point out that food manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and non-residential catering produce 10 times the GVA. However, without a sustainable, vibrant agricultural base, will food manufacturers increasingly have to import from all over the world? Our fishermen currently land cod in UK ports, where it is sent to China for filleting; China then sends it back to the UK for breading. What total nonsense is this? No doubt it is then served up in the restaurants in and around the House.

We live on an island with brilliant coastlines and countryside. Ireland has a similarly vibrant fishing industry which needs protecting. As we all know, fish are not respecters of borders—how can they be? I look forward to both the agriculture and the fisheries bills coming forward later this year. In the meantime, I have flagged up my concerns about how this Bill will align our laws in reality and how important it is to amend it to make it fit for purpose.

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, laid before the House on 23 February, be annulled (SI 2017/194).

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by drawing the attention of noble Lords to my interest as the patron of South Somerset Mind. I am grateful to Mind, the Disability Benefits Consortium, Sense, Citizens Advice, Scope and Rethink Mental Illness for their briefings, which I am sure others will also have received.

Like most of your Lordships, I take my mobile phone into the Chamber set on silent to receive messages from the Whips’ Office. On the afternoon of 23 February, during the Report stage of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, my phone buzzed. Most unusually for me, I left the Chamber to answer the call. It was the Minister ringing from Copeland to tell me that, following the two High Court judgments, the Government were, that afternoon, going to alter the criteria for qualifying for PIPs. I and my colleagues searched around and eventually found the changed criteria relating to emotional and psychological conditions. What a perfect day to release bad news. While the Minister and his colleagues were knocking up voters in the fresh air of the Lake District, government officials were bringing forward regulations that would penalise people who, because of their very complex conditions, are not able to go out freely into the countryside or towns, and in many cases would now be confined within the four walls of their homes.

The essence of the changes proposed is to limit the higher mobility element of the previous disability living allowance for those people who find it difficult to leave the house because of anxiety, panic attacks and other mental health problems. These claimants are as restricted in their independence as many people with physical mobility problems. They face higher transport costs because they are unable to use public transport or drive, as well as the costs associated with hiring a support worker. The Government’s changes to PIP will affect more than 160,000 people with mental health problems, both in and out of work, who face extra costs related to their disability. These changes mean that people who need help to make journeys because of psychological distress will not receive the same level of support as other disabled people. This is discrimination.

In 2012 the Government made a clear commitment that people who experience psychological distress would be eligible, but they are now changing the criteria. The Government further said that a person with a cognitive impairment alone would still be eligible for the highest mobility rate. Cognitive impairments are not the same as mental health problems. Specifically excluding psychological distress undermines the stated purpose of PIP as a benefit which treats disabled people as individuals rather than labelling them by their condition. The proposed changes create a legal distinction between mental health problems and other kinds of impairment when it comes to benefit assessments, again demonstrating discrimination.

This change is out of step with previous government statements. On 7 February 2012 the former Minister for Disabled People, Maria Miller, stated:

“The Government have made clear that they want personal independence payment … to take fairer account of the impact of mental, intellectual, cognitive and development impairments than DLA does currently… For example, when considering entitlement to both rates of the mobility component we will take into account ability to plan and follow a journey, in addition to physical ability to get around. Importantly, PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type”.


Esther McVey, also a former Minister for Disabled People, stated on 26 November 2012:

“The personal independence payment assessment will look at disabled people as individuals, rather than labelling them by their health condition or impairment”.


As a result of the ruling by the Upper Tribunal, the Government have introduced legislation which would mean that psychological distress can be relevant only when considering two specific criteria for planning and following journeys. This would mean that people who experience psychological distress would be eligible for only the lower element. These changes undermine rather than restore the original intent of the legislation. The Government say they are committed to giving mental health the same priority they give physical health, but I am afraid that is not borne out by the changes to these criteria.

The PIP criteria are already too strict and have led to almost 50% of disabled people and those with long-term conditions losing access to some or all of their support when being reassessed for DLA. This is of particular concern in the context of the mobility component, where more than 750 people a week are returning their Motability vehicles because they are no longer eligible for support. The original descriptor does not go far enough in acknowledging the significant psychological impact that many people with long-term physical conditions also experience, for example, as a result of cognitive and associated mental health symptoms or their ability to follow a journey. This is substantially different from the impact of a person’s physical ability to walk, which is assessed under the “moving around” descriptor.

The high successful appeal rate demonstrates in far too many cases that disabled people are relying on tribunals to assess their condition accurately and then to interpret and apply the descriptors appropriately to capture the impact of their symptoms. For many disabled people, such tribunal judgments have improved a system that is too often ineffective as a test of their needs. The original intention behind the PIP assessment was to take a holistic view of the impact of disability, fairly taking into account the full range of impairments. The Upper Tribunal judgments do not undermine this approach; rather they ensure that functional impact is assessed accurately regardless of the symptoms of the condition causing it. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has looked at this change in criteria and warns that the regulations could have unintended consequences. It has called on the Government to review the PIP assessment criteria prior to the changes being implemented.

I shall give two examples of what we are talking about in practice. Mrs D suffers from severe depression with psychotic features, including auditory hallucinations. She is under the care of a psychiatrist, has irrational fears for her safety when outside and has not been out of her house unaccompanied since 2011. She needs assistance from another person to plan the route of a journey to get to either a familiar or unfamiliar location. When she goes out of doors her husband has to accompany her. She was assessed as not being entitled to any mobility support. Mrs D appealed on the basis that she cannot navigate any journey on her own and, because of her poor memory and concentration, she would become confused very easily. The tribunal thought that her complex mental health had been underestimated and awarded the enhanced mobility rate. This is one of the two tribunal decisions that led to the Government amending these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and I thank all those who have taken part in this critical debate, as well as those who were not able to speak because of the time limitations. Time prevents me from commenting in detail on all the contributions, although I would have wished to do so.

Naturally, I am disappointed that the Government are reluctant to move their position so as to support people whose lives are blighted by psychological and anxiety disorders. That was not the original intention of the coalition Government’s move from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, and I do not believe that the changes bring either clarity or parity. The role of PIP as a successor to the DLA is to support disabled people to meet some of the additional costs of disability. Unlike other aspects of the welfare system, PIP is not an income replacer or booster; it is to help tackle the financial penalty of disability.

I regret that these regulations do not engender trust, and a great many people in the community and those charitable organisations that support people with mental health and psychological disorders will be bitterly disappointed by the Government’s response.

I understand the position of the Labour Benches and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her, as always, formidable approach to this matter. However, this is an extremely important matter that affects a whole range of people in society, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks and psychotic disorders. The Minister may have spoken to charities but clearly he did not convince them, as Scope, the Disability Benefits Consortium, Sense, Citizens Advice, Rethink Mental Illness and Mind have all said the same—that this decision should be reversed. I therefore want to test the opinion of the House.

Deregulation Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

In moving the amendment I will also speak to Amendments 46AB, 46BA and 46HA. These are all amendments to the amendments proposed by my noble friend the Minister. Before so doing, I must declare an interest as an owner of rented-out residential properties.

Amendment 46AA would allow for a landlord to be away when a letter of complaint arrives. He or she may be absent for whatever reason—business, holiday, et cetera. In spite of what my noble friend said, I believe that it would be sensible to allow for this possibility when imposing a time limit. There may also be a need to seek professional advice to be able to give an adequate response to a complainant, so the time period should be adequate to allow for those items.

Under Amendment 46AB, the situation would be avoided when a tenant makes a written complaint and the local authority does not react promptly, say for four months, and the authority then issues a relevant notice, and when that relevant notice is issued a new six-month period begins. In effect, the ability to issue a Section 21 notice will have been blocked for 10 months—four months starting with the tenant’s written complaint, which was not acted on by the authority, followed by the six months starting with the issue by the local authority of a relevant notice. I do not believe that that was what was intended. I may have misunderstood it but perhaps my noble friend can make that clear.

That point becomes particularly relevant when I come to Amendment 46BA. It allows a Section 21 notice to be served if a tenant is in arrears of rent for two or more consecutive payment dates, even if the tenant has made a written complaint. My noble friend referred to Section 8 of the Housing Act but I understand that the only method of controlling the situation would be the issue of a Section 21 notice. Any tenant not wishing to pay his rent only has to put a complaint in writing to the landlord, and the tenant has security of tenure without paying any rent for the next six months—or if the local authority delays in its actions, an even longer period. This creates a situation that is open to abuse, and although most tenants would not dream of doing so, there will be occasions when such action is taken deliberately. It could be argued that my amendment is too lenient because, in effect, sanctions against non-payment of rent are taken away the moment a complaint is issued.

Amendment 46HA allows any money owing to a landlord to be deducted when returning rent to a tenant. Frequently a deposit is taken to cover damage by tenants over and above normal wear and tear. These deposits are regulated and held by a third party. It is only fair that where there is a reasonable claim for dilapidation, that is deducted from any rent due to be repaid to a tenant.

Finally, I would be grateful if my noble friend will say what is to happen when a landlord does not have the resources to make necessary repairs or improvements quite reasonably asked for by the tenant. In this context my noble friend might like to consider that where I live and rent out properties a full repair costs on average 16 times the annual rent, and a minor refurbishment five years’ rent, and that does not allow for any tax. That makes it difficult for many people to finance repairs. I am not trying to say that they should not make repairs but the Minister should consider what happens when people cannot pay.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 46A, as well as Amendments 46B, 46C to 46H and Amendment 46J in the group. In supporting this amendment, I pay tribute to my colleague, Sarah Teather MP. On 28 November, she secured a Private Member’s Bill, the Tenancies (Reform) Bill, to deal with the problems caused by retaliatory evictions. Sadly, some Members in the other place that day were landlords and did not share the ethos of the Bill, and they talked it out. It is a great privilege for me to support the essence of the Bill in this amendment and to help to protect vulnerable tenants.

This amendment is not about penalising conscientious landlords; nor is it about protecting bad tenants who do not respect the property that they are renting. It is about protecting the rights of both groups and giving security to tenants who, when reporting a fault which affects their ability to live happily in their home, will not dread an eviction notice landing on the doormat as a result. It will give a clear signal to those landlords who currently ignore the state of their properties that this is no longer acceptable and that, if they engage in a regular programme of maintenance, they are likely to have a much better relationship with their tenants. Costly tenancy turnover will be lower and they will be less likely to face expensive repair bills for major incidents, such as collapsed ceilings due to persistent leaks, later.

I am sure that we can all give examples of where tenants have lived with poorly maintained and damp properties but have been too afraid to report this to the landlord. They may have seen other tenants who complained suffer eviction. Such evictions put pressure on local authorities, housing associations and others in the rented sector, and cause expensive, temporary accommodation solutions. These are a potential burden on the council tax payer and bring misery and uncertainty to families and children.

I am grateful to Citizens Advice and Shelter for their tireless efforts to bring the plight of those who are suffering from the injustice of retaliatory evictions to the notice of a wider audience. These and similar organisations have done all that they can to alleviate the suffering and uncertainty of those affected in our communities. It is often those on the lowest incomes and with the least options who are the most penalised in the housing market. They frequently have no choice but to turn to the private sector for accommodation.

It is long overdue that we seek to protect this section of our community and to give them some security, as well as decent homes to live in and in which to bring up their children. At the same time, we must protect those landlords who are assiduous in maintaining their properties. Without these landlords there would be an extreme shortage of properties to let around our cities and countryside. This amendment is all about establishing and maintaining a balance between the tenant and the landlord, and I am pleased to support it.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment to the amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Howard. In principle, preventing retaliatory evictions is a very good idea for all the reasons that have been given by my noble friend and the noble Baroness. I want to focus on two aspects, one of which my noble friend raised in one of his amendments; that is, the 14-day limit provided for under subsection (2)(b)(i) of the new clause proposed under Amendment 46A. I query with my noble friend the Minister whether 14 days is a reasonable timeframe. I declare an extremely modest interest as a landlord of one property.

I just cast my mind to what might happen. I often go on holiday for more than 14 days. If, God forbid, one were ever in a dispute with a tenant—I have no current expectation that I would be in that position—it would be quite easy for a tenant seeking to make use of these provisions generally to cause trouble and to take advantage of one’s being out of the country and not being available for 14 days. As my noble friend’s amendment suggests, 28 days seems more reasonable on that basis.

The second thing I want to raise with the Minister is what would be an “adequate response”, as provided by subsection (2)(b)(ii) in the amendment, which is defined in subsection (3). I ask my noble friend the Minister: how will the adequacy of the response be judged? What is a “reasonable timescale” and who will judge what that is? I could not see in the amendments how any disputes about this process were capable of being dealt with. There needs to be certainty about how the processes will work. It is not entirely clear to me that a response can be quickly identified as being adequate or not, given the wording in subsection (3) of the amendment.