Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make one simple point in support of Amendment 2, although it probably relates to Amendment 9 as well. In discussing the previous group of amendments, we talked about the mental and emotional health of children, and the Government’s amendment was about the promotion of mental as well as physical health. I cannot think of anything that could do more to undermine the mental health of children than to be torn away from relationships that are really important to them. Therefore, in the interests of making a reality of government Amendment 1, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 9. Subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in it refers to subsection (2). Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill refers to,

“persons aged under 25 who are former relevant children within the meaning of”,

the Children Act, and it is that part of the Bill that I wish briefly to address.

I agree completely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about the importance of relationships to children and young people. On Thursday last week, I attended a briefing organised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the Children’s Society at which I heard from two care leavers, both of whom spoke very passionately about their experiences. One young lady, who was 18, has now left care. However, she was removed from her foster placement one day after her 18th birthday, which seems unnecessarily hasty and somewhat insensitive. To date, no personal adviser has been appointed for her and she has no one to officially advise her. She made the very valid point that she and others in care really need advice, particularly on their likely financial responsibilities, before they reach 18 and not afterwards, as all money stops at 18. I will return to this aspect of financial advice in later amendments.

It is important that children in local authority care have someone they can turn to at all times. Children not in care have parents and relatives whom they can turn to and confide in. Looked-after children deserve parity with their peers, and I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Clause 78 not standing part of the Bill, although what I have to say applies also to Clause 79.

This policy is perceived by tenants as a punitive policy and one that goes against the Government’s own social policy objectives of promoting security, aspiration and social mobility, mixed communities and reduced bureaucracy. I think that Nottingham City Homes has written to a number of noble Lords—as I live in Nottingham, this is of particular interest to me—saying that it was “overwhelmed” when it organised a meeting on the Bill, with tenants angry and upset, particularly about the pay-to-stay proposals. One of them dubbed it “an assault on ambition”.

Welcome though the confirmation of a taper is, it in no way constitutes a U-turn, as was spun in the media, giving the impression that the Government have somehow climbed down on the policy. After all, a taper has been on the cards ever since the consultation document was first published. The IFS has warned that a taper would still “weaken work incentives”. There are two aspects of this that particularly concern me.

First, no account will be taken of family needs and the costs associated with children, as in a normal means test, nor of the costs associated with disability and caring, which I will talk about in the next group. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns,

“this proposed threshold may be too blunt to accurately reflect the differing needs of households”.

There is no “may” about it. I know that child benefit will be ignored in the income calculation, but according to Professor Donald Hirsch’s calculations of the cost of a child for the CPAG, it covers less than one-fifth of that cost, and that is without taking account of childcare costs, which the most recent survey by the Family and Childcare Trust showed can be astronomical, especially in London. Where is the fairness in treating a childless couple and a couple of two working parents, whose disposable income available for rent is effectively reduced by the costs of children and childcare, in the same way when assessing whether their income is high enough to warrant paying to stay? As the Social Market Foundation has argued, the assessment,

“must relate to equivalised resources”.

My second concern is the likely impact on second earners, mainly women. Despite what I think is now five requests, I still have not received an equality impact assessment for this clause. I can conclude only that one has not been prepared. But, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has argued:

“To be most effective, Government departments should analyse the equality implications of a policy proposal at a formative stage, so that the assessment can inform policy development and the content of legislation. This will also ensure Parliamentarians have the information they need in order to scrutinise and debate Bills”.

We do not have that information. As I said, I have sent I do not know how many emails, I have made phone calls, I have asked for it in a technical briefing meeting. I still do not have it, even though it is pretty obvious that the policy is likely to act as a particular disincentive to women in couples to stay in or enter paid work. At the same time, it undermines government policy on promoting paid work as the route out of poverty, as all the evidence suggests that the presence of a second earner reduces the risk of child poverty significantly.

Just what such a work disincentive to second earners could mean was brought home to me by a woman who came to see me with the support of TPAS. I think she has also written to a number of noble Lords. She has lived in north Kensington for 35 years and has lived in her current home and worked in a local primary school for 25 years. She kept saying how much she loved her job and the children. She is utterly devastated at the prospect of giving it up but that is what she fears she will have to do if the policy goes ahead because the combined modest earnings of her and her husband take them above the threshold. In her letter to some noble Lords, she wrote: “I have never felt so insecure as I do now and it seems so unfair that I’m being penalised for working”. It was quite clear that by no stretch of the imagination was this a well-off, high-earning couple. It may be that her worst fears will be unfounded when the taper is applied, but how can we know? Until the details are published she will no doubt continue to feel insecure.

We use the term, “the devil is in the detail”. As we have already heard, the crucial devilish detail is still missing. It is totally unclear how the compulsory means test is going to work—in particular, as has already been said, how fluctuating incomes are to be taken into account. Cross-national research, which looked at other countries that had tried something similar, concluded that the administrative burden could well outweigh any supposed efficiency or equity gains. Indeed, I understand they have been discontinued for the most part in Germany, partly because of the bureaucratic costs involved in keeping tabs on incomes. At least the Government have stated that recipients of housing benefit will be exempt, which will be a relief to local authorities and to them, but there remains a big question mark over the interaction with universal credit, which my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham underlined with devastating clarity—in so far as one can have clarity in the midst of all this confusion.

The tenants who came to see me about pay to stay said over and over again how bitter they felt. “Punitive” and “punished” are frequently used words because this is how people feel. It is clear that the thought of what might happen is causing acute anxiety. Another tenant from Kensington and Chelsea wrote to say that she and her husband are just about getting by. She said: “I am truly stressing out over this as I don’t want to move away from the area I have known all my life or my family and also leave the job I love”.

On Second Reading, the Minister advised us to keep coming back to the word “home” as we discuss the Bill. This is one of a number of measures that threaten people’s homes. While a taper will mitigate the worst effects of the policy, it does not address the basic fact that people on modest incomes will be affected by a policy spun as aimed at high earners in the name of fairness. There is nothing fair about this.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this important group. I shall speak particularly to Amendments 69D, 70E, 76A, 79C, and Clauses 78, 84, 85 and 86 stand part. I will try not to repeat previous contributions but I agree with the comments made, especially by the previous speaker.

There is something inherently abhorrent in central government imposing their will on locally elected councils and insisting that they must do the Government’s bidding. In some cases this may be justified, where they are protecting the very vulnerable in our society—children, the frail elderly, and the chronically sick and disabled—but not on housing. The provision of housing has always been, and currently remains, the responsibility of local authorities. They have discharged this duty for decades always with the needs of their local communities in mind, as my noble friend Lord Shipley has already indicated.

We now have a situation where a local authority must charge a high-income tenant a high rent. This might be acceptable if the tenants were, indeed, earning a high income. I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a taper and look forward to confirmation of what that taper will actually look like and mean for tenants. However, I would much prefer that we leave the discretion to local authorities, which know their communities, to determine at what point they start charging individual tenants higher rents. The words “may” and “enable” give all those involved the opportunity to assess actual incomes, individual needs and the likelihood of the higher rent being paid.

Absolutely the last desirable outcome is for the tenant to be evicted for non-payment of rent. They will have to move to a cheaper housing area, the wage earners will have further to travel to work or lose their jobs and the children will be forced to change schools. Where is the sense in this?