Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Howe of Idlicote

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill offers an excellent opportunity to simplify and improve the consumer rights and redress landscape across the UK. Much of the Bill is certainly to be welcomed, consolidating and simplifying the existing landscape surrounding consumer redress as it does. However, it is notable that reference to alternative dispute resolution —ADR—as provided by ombudsman schemes and strongly backed by Which?, is absent from the Bill.

ADR provides benefits to both customers and businesses. For consumers, it offers free, fast and effective redress when things go wrong. For businesses, it provides a cost-effective way of improving the trust in and performance of their organisation. However, the current landscape surrounding ADR is complex and confused. ADR is available in some sectors but not others. In some sectors, ADR schemes cover only part of the market; in others, multiple ombudsman schemes exist. This patchwork of provision means that consumers face a complicated and confusing landscape and are often unaware of what support is available to them. I believe that my amendment would help to improve the situation.

In keeping with the ethos of the Bill, the amendment would simplify the ADR landscape and, importantly, strengthen access to redress for consumers across all sectors. Importantly, too, the new clause would formally set out the existing rights to redress that consumers have and ensure that all ADR schemes are consistent in standards and quality of services, improving the support and protection available to consumers. It would also ensure that the Bill complements work currently being undertaken as part of the transposition of the EU directive on ADR. The directive, to be transposed by spring 2015, requires businesses across all sectors to offer redress via an ADR scheme, either as a specific scheme or as part of a wider residual scheme. Lastly, and equally importantly, it would provide for a single point of contact for consumers, who could then be directed to the relevant ADR scheme depending on the nature of their problem.

The amendment would materially benefit consumers across all sectors by formally establishing the right to redress through ADR, paving the way for wider coverage of ADR schemes and achieving simplification in the system. I beg to move, and would welcome the views of the Government and others on the amendment.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on Amendment 23. At the moment, in so many areas of retail, the primary route to a remedy if there is a dispute is to go to the courts, but going to a court is far too daunting and complicated for many people. The paperwork may well put them off. The court fees may act as a disincentive, especially if the goods purchased are modest in monetary value. Even if a consumer wishes to begin by going to the small claims court, if a case is considered complex by the judge, it may be transferred to the normal county court list, which would definitely deter and daunt most people.

I realise that mediation has been introduced in small claims cases, but the psychological impact of going to court—its legalistic aura, the language of the courts and dealing with the necessary paperwork—can all still be off-putting and a deterrent. The behavioural response of consumers to alternative dispute resolution and the courts is very different. The court system is not really fit for purpose for many ordinary consumers, certainly in respect of smaller consumer rights claims. As the noble Baroness put it so compellingly, alternative dispute resolution is essential, otherwise consumers will have their rights enshrined in a new Bill but many will be deterred from exercising them. Consumer inertia in pursuing rights and securing remedies will remain strong—an assumption, unfortunately, that some traders build into their responses and their market behaviour.

Consumer rights and access to an effective means of enforcing them need to be inseparable. You can give consumers all the rights in the world, but if they are deterred from exercising them because the process is off-putting, complicated, disparate or whatever, as was clearly set out by the noble Baroness, their rights will not be effective and the market will remain dysfunctional in part.

The Bill has several clauses that relate to redress, but it does not lock into an alternative dispute resolution scheme. It seems extraordinary that a Bill so focused on securing and improving the position of consumer rights does not seize the opportunity to lock into ADR. I know that the Government are consulting on the details of such a scheme in the light of the EU directive, but that in itself is not a reason for missing the opportunity to use the Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to implement such an alternative dispute resolution scheme. As the noble Baroness pointed out, a key purpose of the Bill is to consolidate, simplify and strengthen consumer law.

The Government agree—it was confirmed by the Minister, Jenny Willott—that if we are to have a consumer rights system that works, ombudsmen and alternative dispute resolution will be critical parts of it. Having conceded that fundamental analysis and intellectual point, we have this big omission in the Bill. Although the Government are working on implementing the EU directive and looking at the different options, the amendment does not inhibit or undermine that detailed work. It does not prescribe exactly how the directive will be implemented; rather, it makes clear in the Bill that the right to redress for consumers must include access to an effective, independent alternative dispute resolution regime and that the duty is on the Secretary of State to ensure that that happens. The amendment would not prejudice the outcome of the consultation on the implementation of the ADR directive but would clearly place the duty on the Secretary of State. Having followed the debate on this in the Commons, it would appear that the only argument mobilised by the Government is that somehow it would prejudice the outcome of consultation. I do not think that it does, because it enshrines a fundamental principle which the Government concede is essential to an effective system of consumer rights. The detail of implementing that principle can be left to the outcome of consultation and subsequent regulation.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Howe of Idlicote

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 267, which would bring family and friends carers and special guardians in employment within scope for statutory entitlement to pay and leave when taking on the care of a child. The Bill extends the right that adoptive parents have to take ordinary and additional adoptive leave to approved adopters who have looked-after children placed with them. By contrast, the vast majority of family and friends carers who are raising children outside the looked-after system are not currently entitled to even a day of statutory paid leave when they take on the indefinite care of a child. Many have no entitlement beyond a few days’ unpaid emergency leave. That is a public policy that conveys that kinship carers have less value or make a lesser contribution than other carers of children, even though the children they care for often have complex needs. That cannot be right.

The amendment would extend the same employment rights to family and friends carers who have special guardianship orders, and to family and friends carers who take on the care of a child in certain defined circumstances. It would give the Secretary of State the authority to define those circumstances, and would extend the right to additional adoptive leave to family and friends carers and those with guardianship orders, again giving the Secretary of State the authority to define the prescribed circumstances.

There is a stark imbalance in the proposed employment leave entitlements for adoptive and prospective adoptive parents when compared to the lack of entitlements for kinship carers. That is unfair, irrational and inconsistent with the Government’s policy on the welfare and protection of children. It is unfair in that kinship carers voluntarily take on the responsibility, often in very difficult circumstances and at considerable cost to themselves, saving the taxpayer considerable amounts of money and achieving better outcomes for the child than if they had entered the care system. It is irrational in so far as the statutory rights to leave for parents, adopters or prospective adopters have been or are being improved, but no statutory rights are extended to the kinship carers of thousands of our most vulnerable children. It is inconsistent with current welfare policy in that the absence of a statutory right to leave, on taking care of the child, raises the barriers to carers’ continued workforce participation and increases the likelihood that they will become long-term unemployed and dependent on benefits. That undermines participation in the workforce as a route out of poverty for the children and the carer.

During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, the Government recognised that family and friends carers make a valuable contribution by caring for vulnerable children, and exempted those carers from work conditionality under the universal credit during the first 12 months of caring for a child. The Government have time-limited that exemption in the expectation that many carers should return to the labour market after a period of adjustment, so why not make provision for a statutory entitlement to leave and reduce the incidence of kinship carers leaving the labour force in the first place?

However, the problems that kinship carers face do not lie only in the requirements of the welfare system, they also suffer from the complete lack of recognition in employment law. The imbalance in their right is inconsistent with the protection of child welfare, in that kinship carers need to take leave to settle the children, who have often been through so much. This often comes after a long period of family crisis; the children can be traumatised and insecure, and they need to know that someone is there for them. That is precisely why social workers often want or require carers to take time out of work. There are also the practical requirements of making appointments with schools, solicitors and social workers, arranging legal orders and so on. Often, the children arrive unexpectedly in just the clothes they are wearing, but there is not even the most modest statutory provision allowing employed carers leave from their employment. Yet kinship care is the most common permanency option for children who cannot live with their birth parents. The same arguments apply to the extension of parental leave to kinship carers as were advanced for the introduction of adoption leave in the Employment Act 2002: the need for time for children to settle with and bond to carers and the advantages of enabling carers to remain in the labour market.

To scope the problem, an estimated 60,000 kinship carers have dropped out of the labour market to bring up children. The reasons for this include the needs of the child, but the fact that they are not entitled to time off increases the likelihood of their leaving the labour market, so contributing to the high proportion of kinship carers living in poverty. Family Rights Group research found that one-third were living on incomes below £350 a week. Grandparents Plus found that 73% of kinship carers were working before the children moved in, but that almost half of those who had been working left their jobs when the children arrived. Some 83% of those who gave up work say that they would have liked to have remained in work, while of those who gave up work just 13% are now back in work. Similarly, a Family Rights Group survey found that 38% of family and friends carers had left their job, lost their job or taken early retirement when they took on the care of the child.

The Bill presents the opportunity to extend parental leave entitlements to kinship carers who take on the indefinite care of a child, and to give them parity with prospective adopters. The majority of family and friends carers are not entitled to even one day of statutory paid leave. That cannot be fair. The arguments for providing a right to leave are equally compelling, whether looked at from the perspective of the carer or of the child.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I have been reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that we have had this discussion in the past. It struck everyone at the time how completely unfair this whole system was. Now that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has spelt out so many comparisons, it is, frankly, almost embarrassing to think about the disadvantage that kinship carers suffer when they take on this responsibility and often—most likely, I would say—produce much better results for those children, giving them a likely prospect of a far more fulfilled life than if they had gone into different forms of care.

In supporting what has been said, I would say to the Minister that I would love to hear that this area was going to be looked at hard and, as far as possible, a range of comparable systems would be considered for kinship carers, those coming into care and those who are to be adopted. If he could give us that assurance, or indeed tell us that a lot of this is already in process, that would be very helpful in settling our minds until Report, if nothing else.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Howe of Idlicote

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the efforts that he has clearly been making and I am grateful for the changes that have been brought forward in the other place. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Prime Minister was made somewhat uncomfortable by all these protests and has perhaps looked rather deeper into the effects on the generation with which we are concerned.

I, too, am still very concerned about the age group which is most severely affected. The people in that group entered employment as far as they were able with their caring responsibilities. We should not forget the cost to the public purse of bringing up children—in an orphanage, say—if their parents do not look after them. We all know that it is mainly mothers who carry that responsibility, and that has definitely had an effect on the amount of time that they have been able to devote to whatever employment has been within their reach. Therefore, we still have a duty towards this group of women.

I accept that £11 billion is a lot of money, but there have been complications over equality and I would still like to see more done for this group. I would regard it as fair, just and proportionate if this group were given a full year. Although I should have liked to go along wholeheartedly with what the Government have achieved, I am sad to say that, with my background knowledge from many years of fighting for equality of opportunity and much greater equal treatment for women, I do not think that what the Government are proposing has gone far enough.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I recognise that amendments have been made by the Government but I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. This is not an argument against raising the state pension age. It is not even an argument against accelerating the increase in the state pension age in the face of rising life expectancy to achieve the long-term sustainability that was articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I frequently heard the quote from the noble Lord, Lord Turner, but if one gives it in its totality, he went on to say that he would also have been more radical on state pension.

As for my own situation, in 2004 I travelled the country attending public events and platforms telling people at a time when it was most unpopular to do so that the state pension age would have to rise not once but consistently. I have no difficulty in articulating the case for the need to respond to rising longevity. However, this is an argument about the manner and timing of this particular increase, which fails to take account of the need to give people sufficient time to adjust their lives and their planning for the increase. It means that a particular group of older women will disproportionately bear the burden of achieving these savings. That will happen for five simple reasons.

First, they will have lower state pensions for legacy reasons on the treatment of carers. Secondly, they will have lower private pension savings because of their economic and social position and the past incidence of gender discrimination. Thirdly, they are more likely to be undertaking caring responsibilities and less likely to be in the workforce. Fourthly, they will have lower incomes. Fifthly, they are less able to mitigate the loss of the income in the limited time available. The debate is about this particular increase, its manner and its disproportionate impact. It is not a challenge to the intellectual analysis of what you need to do to respond to rising longevity over the long term.

Those five reasons provide the essence of why the policy on this increase upsets people. It is seen as unfair. Consistently surveys show that women believe that coalition policies are seen as particularly harmful or harsh to women. We hear organisations such as the Women’s Institute articulating these concerns. At the weekend the Daily Mail highlighted the results of a Harris Poll survey showing that government support among women is slipping away. These proposals are an example of why that is so. They are very real in their impact on ordinary women. There are others, such as the change to the tax credit system, child benefit and childcare to name but a few. Yes, tough decisions have to be made. I do not disagree with that at all. But that mantra cannot be used to justify policies that consistently and disproportionately impact on women, particularly those who are carers and on low or moderate incomes. Until that is recognised there will be many more surveys revealing views of women similar to those reported by the Daily Mail at the weekend.

To get back to the point that I made in opening, the amendment of my noble friend Lord McKenzie—I know him well and we discuss these things frequently—is not a challenge to the need to respond to increasing longevity or the fact that accelerating the increase in the state pension age is part of that. In fact, the amendment does accelerate the increase in the state pension age compared with the existing proposals, and no doubt we will come on to look at ages 67 and 68. The amendment concerns the unfairness of the manner of this increase on a particular group of women for the reasons that I have laid out.