Domestic Violence Refuges: Charities and Local Government

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I thank all local authorities for everything they do. Interestingly, nearly 75% of local authorities say that they are spending more and doing much more than they did a few years ago in this regard. That is great, and I thank them for what they are doing. Yes, we should be supporting them and not always knocking them.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, four out of 10 local authorities are facing bankruptcy within the next five years and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said, even statutory services, including the provision of refuges, are already being cut to the bone, despite increasing demand. Women’s Aid research found that 61% of applicants for accommodation-based refuge are being turned away. Does the Minister agree that this failure to meet increasing demand now will not only put women’s lives at risk but leave public services with even more problems to deal with down the line?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in the last couple of months we have given £600 million extra to local authorities because we understand the pressures they are under. We are keeping an eye on those pressures, and we encourage all local authorities which have difficulties with their budgets to talk to us early on, so that we can work with them. Local authority budgets have been increased by 7.5% this year, and as my noble friend said, local authorities prioritise domestic abuse victims in their budgeting.

Inter Faith Network

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that we have kept the IFN informed of every move that we have made on its funding issues, and it has had the chance to discuss them with us. As for other funding, I absolutely agree with her that work facilitated and supported by government is really important for inter-faith work. I personally go and see a lot of inter-faith work going on, and we are still supporting more than 800,000 a year in organisations—people such as Near Neighbours and others that are doing this important work in our communities.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, whichever way you look at this, the optics are not good. It was news to me that the Government do not engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. Our group met its new, and first female, secretary-general only a few weeks ago. I have two questions for the Minister. First, this has been a long-standing non-relationship, promoted quite a few years ago; is it not time that the Government reviewed this non-relationship with the Muslim Council of Britain, particularly in the light of the current situation and the fact that it works with over 500 organisations to promote knowledge and understanding of the Muslim faith and counter islamophobia? Secondly, will the Government review this decision? It is petty, wrong-headed and counterproductive. It does not put the Government in a good light—but it could if the Government were prepared to review it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is not just this Government; successive Governments of different colours have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. British Muslims are a crucial part of Britain’s history and our way of life in Britain today. Each and every Muslim in every community in every corner of the United Kingdom should know that their religion will never act as a barrier to achieving their ambitions. The Government recognise the discrimination and intolerance faced by British Muslims, particularly at this time. We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and will seek to stamp it our wherever it occurs. This does not mean, however, that the Government have to use public funds to support the influence of organisations such as the MCB. We have no plans to review this decision.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and fellow Peers for our productive discussions on the Bill in recent weeks. I was honoured to sponsor it in our House, following the efforts of my colleague, the honourable Member for Bath, Wera Hobhouse, who introduced this important piece of legislation in the other place. Like me, she is deeply concerned about the scourge of workplace sexual harassment, which we know is a persistent and prevalent problem across the United Kingdom.

The Government Equalities Office’s own survey into sexual harassment in the workplace in 2020 found that nearly one-third of all employees surveyed—this is slightly different to the figure of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but it is what I found—had experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or work-related environment. That is one in three members of staff. The Bill sought to address this problem by protecting workers, specifically from workplace harassment. It would have amended the Equality Act 2010 to strengthen the legislative protections against workplace sexual harassment and harassment committed by third parties.

While I still firmly believe that the provisions of the Bill would have gone a long way towards tackling workplace harassment, I understand that several noble Lords have reservations about how it is drafted, specifically the entirety of Clause 1 and the word “all”, as in “all reasonable steps”, in Clause 2. Clause 1 would have instated protections for workers against harassment by third parties such as customers by introducing employer liability for such conduct. The Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, against Clause 1 standing part means that incidents of third party harassment will continue not to be covered by law, other than in extreme cases resulting in demonstrable personal injury or where a criminal offence has been committed. None of the existing legal routes will provide an effective alternative to the ability to bring harassment claims against third parties in the employment tribunal. For example, circumstances such as the reported harassment of hostesses by customers at the Presidents Club will still not be covered.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in Clause 2 will narrow the concept of “all reasonable steps” to simply “reasonable steps”. I have listened carefully to her comments on this issue, and her understanding of it is somewhat different from mine. The Equality Act 2010 already contains a statutory defence that requires an employment tribunal assessment to say whether an employer took all reasonable steps to determine legal liability. The amendment will not change the Act’s existing statutory defence but will create a different test for the new duty on employers. That could be considered as setting a different and lower bar than “all reasonable steps”, and as such could be considered to be a watering down of provisions.

The amendments proposed today will change and ultimately attenuate the provisions of the Bill, but I am a firm believer in not allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. While it is disappointing that the Bill as sent to us will be changed by these amendments, I recognise the need for compromise in order to retain its core purpose, while allowing it to progress and reach the statute book. Noble Lords and I have reached an understanding whereby we can assure the passage of the preventative duty in respect of sexual harassment in exchange for accepting the amendments we are discussing today.

I am therefore happy that we have reached a consensus on a pragmatic way forward. As we in this Chamber all know, it is vital that we send a clear signal to prevent this behaviour. I am glad that, even in the Bill’s amended form, that remains the case.

I thank the Minister again for her ongoing engagement and steadfast resolve in seeking a way forward that the House Could agree on. I hope she will be able to confirm that the Government are also willing to accept the proposed amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising the risks to free speech and the potential impact on burdens for business that the Bill could bring by introducing employer liability for third-party harassment and requiring all reasonable steps.

I thank my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for the constructive discussions we have had on the Bill. The pragmatism shown by all to ensure that a version of the Bill can progress with support across the House, while respecting the strongly held views that noble Lords hold, is most welcome. I therefore assure my noble friends that we hear the level of concern that has been expressed about the reintroduction of third-party harassment. While the Government believe it important that workers be protected against this form of harassment, having heard the debate, I recognise the strongly held views of those who have spoken.

I will answer a few of the questions raised today by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Leicester asked about sending staff on an external training course. I can assure him that employers are not currently liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties. Following the removal of Clause 1 from the Bill, that will continue to be the case, meaning that the employer in question would not be liable for harassment of their staff by such a trainer.

Domestic Abuse Refuge Spaces

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend brings up a really interesting point, and one that we need to do much more work on. Prioritising prevention is one of the four pillars of the tackling domestic abuse plan, and part of the tackling violence against women and girls strategy. The objective has to be to reduce the amount of domestic abuse, domestic homicide, and suicides connected to domestic abuse by stopping people from becoming perpetrators and victims in the first place. In the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, the Government have committed to invest £3 million to understand this issue better: what works to prevent violence against women and girls in the first place?

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, despite the incredible work that refuges do to keep abused women and children safe from their abusers, they face severe shortfalls in the funding that they need to do the job. Over half of referrals are turned away, mainly because of lack of space and capacity. There is a one-third shortfall in funding at the moment between the £189 million of projected need and the £127 million received from DLUHC. Will the Minister undertake to review funding for refuges? I appreciate that there are a lot of other alternatives. As I understand it, a report is coming out today on community funding and availability of services, but does she agree that every woman and child facing abuse should be able to flee to safety?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness’s last point. Since 2021, my department has committed £507 million to local authorities for the delivery of new duties. This year, £127.3 million will cover the estimated cost of unmet need to support victims and their children in safe accommodation. There is an issue with the Women’s Aid estimate because it includes the costs of all other services, including funds that already exist, so there is a slight disconnect there. The Government have also put in place—this is quite important—support for charities that look after victims and do a lot of work. I thank them for all the work they do, particularly with specific groups of women who need extra support. The Government are supporting them, particularly through the cost of living crisis; for example, with their energy costs.

People of African Descent in the United Kingdom

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

The statement of the UN working group foretells what the report is going to say in September, so we have had fair warning. If the Government disagree, why do they not start formulating a plan now for tackling our structural, institutional and systematic racism instead of meekly waiting for the report to land?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think I have already said that we are not waiting. We have a strategy called the Inclusive Britain strategy, which has been going for a year. Today, we published the first results of that strategy. We will wait until the September final report and look at whether there is anything further that we have to do, but, actually, we are doing it before we get that report.

Criminal Justice: Imprisonment for Public Protection

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, public protection has to be the Government’s priority. We recall only those IPP offenders who are assessed by those managing them to present an unacceptably high risk of harm to the general public. However, of course, we need to look after them, support them, and try to help them to stay out in our communities safely.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

With recalls in the last five years up 187%, at this rate some IPP prisoners will never be released, under a sentence that has now been discredited and abolished. Does the Minister agree that we need to give them a date after which they cannot be recalled, as well as proper resources, planning and support to help redress the injustice they face every day and to help them make a success of life on the outside?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said before, public protection has to be our priority. We recall only those assessed as posing an unacceptably high risk of harm to the general public. But of course we need to keep this under review, and each of those cases and offenders is under constant review.

Female Offender Strategy

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and I repeat that we have put in £2.5 million this year particularly for community sentences. For female offenders, community sentences often can be far better than sentencing them to prison. We will work to support the women’s centres—of which we have, we think, around 200 across the country, run by different private or voluntary sector organisations.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, two years ago the Government saved £50 million by not building five women’s prisons and, as the Minister said, £5 million has since been spent on community provision, with an additional £2.5 million to come. The MoJ’s advisory board has urged the Government to allocate £20 million. Would the Minister agree that £20 million would still be a small price to pay in terms of the social value that it would bring?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. Yes, of course, the more money we have the better but, when we talk about the prison estate, we are investing £2.5 billion and some of that will, of course, will go to the women’s estate. It is not just about additional places. It is also about really good modern purpose-built accommodation within the closed estate, and good outside experiences for women who are suitable for open conditions.

Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, both these instruments refer to offshore and maritime workers who, because of their special work circumstances, have never fallen conveniently into any standard worker treatment regarding almost any working conditions you can think of. Indeed, the uncertainties and unusual working hours for these individuals have caused employers as well as government a problem in trying to squeeze them into legislation that would be appropriate for most other categories of worker.

As the Minister said, included in this group are offshore workers, such as those working on oil rigs, and seafarers, from people managing ocean liners to those on container ships. This variety of work types and circumstances has made the very issue of automatic enrolment for pensions a case in point, and the legislation embodied in the Pensions Act 2008 was no exception. As the Minister said, these workers were finally covered from 2012 following consideration of a series of complex issues relating to how the changes would fit in with international maritime law. However, the concept of “ordinarily working” in terms of periods of employment has been reasonably successful in ensuring that offshore and maritime workers are covered.

Today we discuss the renewal of this legislation, which is due to expire in the sunset clause on 1 July 2020. I would be intrigued to learn why the sunset clause was originally built in, since presumably automatic enrolment must be a good thing for all workers, even hitherto relatively prosperous oil-rig workers who have enjoyed better working conditions than many. I anticipate that it would be particularly appropriate in the case of the challenging circumstances of most seafarers, who may well endure a patchy working life, with long periods away from home potentially interspersed with periods of unemployment. I am sure that it would be particularly difficult in these uncertain Covid times for individuals to save regularly and build up their pension pot.

In the first two weeks of lockdown, 40% of North Sea oil workers lost their jobs. Supply ship workers have been hailed as heroes, keeping our supply lines going, while cruise ships are largely stuck off coastlines, unable to sail and their crew stuck on board. I ask the Minister if the challenges of having 150,000 workers in need of a crew change—who are waiting to leave or join ships—have been resolved as far as the UK is concerned. I gather that unions and employers have given the Government one month to facilitate these crew changes, but clearly the delays are taking their toll. Tragically, suicides have been reported as individuals suffer mentally, trapped on board and trying to get home, but unable to because of the lack of organised transport.

On the subject of Covid, on 14 May the Chamber of Shipping asked the Government whether the shipping and offshore industry would be exempted from the reported 14-day quarantine period for travellers entering the UK. Could the Minister please give us an update on that?

I for one am very glad that calls from employers, in the 2018 post-implementation review, potentially to relax some of the regulatory burden have not been heeded by the Government. The Explanatory Notes refer to potential “industry-specific carve-outs”, which could result from a relaxation of the compliance regime. Surely the overriding consideration is that individuals in those somewhat precarious industries are properly protected.

I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions on paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum for both statutory instruments, which deals with the impact of the legislation. The total equivalent annual net direct cost to business is reported as only £22 million, and the total annual net benefit to all individuals is—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness that we have a three-minute time limit.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

I was not aware of that, and I do apologise.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

I am sorry, but we are very tight on time. Thank you.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

Understood. I shall draw my comments to a close.

I welcome the legislation: it seems a pragmatic way to protect the interests of workers who have very varied working lives and experience but all need security in their eventual retirement.

Equal Pay Legislation

Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

I understand that both men and women think that it is a good idea but, practically, it is quite complex for anybody in a workplace to ask a colleague how much they earn. I do not know whether you can make that a statutory duty because it is somebody’s right, but this is being looked at and we will come to an agreement on it. We need to wait, look and spend this year deciding what needs to be done on this issue.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, one fundamental reason why pay discrimination continues to be so prevalent is the lack of pay transparency in our workplaces. Given that eight out of 10 companies pay men more than women, would the Minister back the Fawcett Society campaign and the Equal Pay Bill so that women can have early access to the information they need? If she needs any help with contacting Fawcett, I can help too.