Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Lord Low of Dalston

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and my family decided that I should give evidence on their behalf—believing undertakings by the former Prime Minister that Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations would be implemented. One of those recommendations, as we were all aware, was Section 40 of the Crown and Courts Act 2013, which Parliament enacted with cross-party support, but which the Government have so far failed to commence. This leaves victims of press abuse without affordable access to justice and leaves the royal charter hamstrung with no incentives for its use.

In response to the Government’s failure to follow through on their undertakings, I tabled amendments to the then Investigatory Powers Bill to replace Section 40 of the Crown and Courts Act with a similar provision. Government Ministers and others, in resisting those amendments, suggested that the Digital Economy Bill would be a better vehicle to resolve the matter—particularly because of the urgent nature of the Investigatory Powers Bill. Although my amendments were in scope and the Bill had been amended with a large majority by your Lordships’ House, I agreed to withdraw them when they were returned by the other place.

I will very briefly explain the effect of the amendment I am proposing today. It would make a similar provision to that in Section 40 in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in so far as is possible within the scope of this Bill. Lord Justice Leveson recommended that all newspapers should join an independently approved regulator that is independent and effective, and that such a regulator would offer guaranteed, low-cost arbitration as a cheap route to justice for the press and free for the public. If a newspaper refused to join a system that Lord Justice Leveson set out and to offer low-cost arbitration, the judge said that, in order to prevent the power and work of newspapers being used to bully and intrude on ordinary members of the public, the newspaper would have to shoulder the court costs of any claim brought successfully against it. To avoid having to meet the costs of claims brought against it, and indeed to benefit from costs protection if sued in court, a publisher need only join a recognised regulator and resolve any claim far more cheaply through that regulator’s arbitration system.

It is this provision that the former Secretary of State decided not to commence. The amendment I am moving today would bring a Section 40 lookalike into effect for online publications. That would include, of course, the major print publishers, which all have significant news websites. Given that it relates only to the online publication of libels or other illegal abuses as they relate to online publication, it is slightly narrower in effect than the provision agreed by Parliament in 2013. It is a weaker substitute for Section 40. But in the absence of any of the access to justice which Section 40 would provide for families and individuals attacked unfairly by the press, it is far better than nothing at all.

The Government may argue that a consultation on these matters is ongoing. Lord Justice Leveson consulted publicly throughout 2011 and 2012. Section 40 was one of his many recommendations. My family and I went through the traumatic process of giving evidence at Leveson because we expected that his recommendations would be taken seriously. The consultation now being considered in private, with a government Minister presiding over it, does not, to be honest, inspire the same confidence.

My second amendment, Amendment 234A, simply provides for immediate commencement for reasons that I do not need to explain. I hope that the Committee will support these probing amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments because they provide the Government with yet another opportunity to deliver on their commitments to the victims of press abuse and bring this critical access-to-justice measure into force.

Amendment 233F would not bring Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act into force in full, as we have heard. That is regrettable but it is as much as can be done within the scope of the Bill. However, it will demonstrate to the Government that this matter is not going to go away, and that people like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will keep bringing back amendments such as this and seeking to insert them into any Bill into which they can plausibly be inserted until the Government keep their promises to the victims of press abuse.

It is now almost four years since the cross-party agreement was reached and Section 40 was enacted by Parliament. This House, as the noble Baroness reminded us, voted for it again as an amendment to the Investigatory Powers Bill before Christmas. The press lobby believes that by intimidating the Government with the threat of negative headlines and causing maximum delay, it can prevent it coming into effect. I support the amendment because I do not believe that people such as Mr Murdoch are sovereign and because I do not believe that the Government should override the will of Parliament to placate the interests of newspaper owners.

The consultation that the Government have launched, which has recently ended, is offensive to the victims of press abuse, whose evidence was accepted by Lord Justice Leveson, and should be offensive to Parliament, which enacted this measure in 2013. The former Prime Minister David Cameron, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has again reminded us, undertook to implement Leveson’s recommendations unless they were “manifestly bonkers”. Retrospective consultations to undermine the recommendations of a public inquiry whose recommendations were not manifestly bonkers, as well as the will of Parliament, are an affront to any understanding of what is meant by “good governance”. It is no wonder that the consultation exercise is facing a legal challenge.

I hope that the Government will keep their promises and implement Section 40 without delay, and I hope that they are under no illusion about the strength of feeling on all sides of the House on this matter. There may not be too many people here at this hour to demonstrate that, but the Government should make no mistake: it is the case. I attended a meeting the other evening where constructive proposals were discussed that seemed to some of us to have the makings of a settlement between those pressing for the implementation of Section 40 and the newspaper editors. Surely the Government should be trying to broker such an agreement instead of just sitting on their hands. Until they do, as I say, amendments such as this will keep coming back.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Lord Low of Dalston

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 62C. In the summer Budget, the Chancellor announced that under universal credit there will be no automatic entitlement to support for housing costs for 18 to 21 year-olds. This is to make sure that young people are unable to leave home and start claiming housing support unless they have a job. It is intended to mirror the choices made by young people who choose to live at home until they can afford to support themselves. The Government have been clear that vulnerable groups will be exempt, but have not yet confirmed how this will work in practice. Amendment 62C is intended to fill this gap by setting out the vulnerable groups which should be exempt. I am grateful to the organisation Crisis for briefing me on this amendment. It is also supported by Nacro, the Salvation Army, Caritas Social Action Network, Centrepoint, Shelter, Action for Children, St Mungo’s, Homeless Link, the YMCA, the Prison Reform Trust and the Albert Kennedy Trust, so we can be sure that there is a good deal of consensus as to the groups which should be exempt.

The Government have committed to protect care leavers, those with dependent children and those receiving the equivalent of ESA or income support. Young people living in homeless hostels or domestic violence refuges are also expected to be exempt given that they will continue to be funded through housing benefit and not universal credit, at least in the short term. If the groups listed in the amendment are not exempt, there is concern that we could see a further rise in youth homelessness. This could also damage the prospects of the young people affected finding employment. In four years, the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled, and 8% of 16 to 24 year-olds report recently being homeless. For young adults who are trying to rebuild their lives following a period of homelessness, failure to provide the safety net contained in this amendment—if the protections for the most vulnerable are not sufficient—may make it much harder to keep their lives on track.

For many young people housing benefit is all that stands between them and homelessness. This includes those who have experienced violence or abuse from family members. Some younger adults may be unable to live with their parents because of relationship breakdown but find this difficult to prove—for example, if they have been thrown out because they are gay or if a parent has remarried. To make sure that all young people at risk of homelessness are protected, the list of those who will be exempted from the proposals must take into account all the reasons young people may need support with their housing costs.

The projected savings from this measure are small in relation to the overall savings from the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The Treasury has estimated that this measure will save the public purse £25 million in the first year, rising to £40 million a year in 2020-21. However, if the Government’s exemptions are not sufficient to protect young people at risk of homelessness, greater costs will be incurred. Homelessness is estimated to cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year. Investing in homelessness prevention on the other hand can make significant savings. Recent research commissioned by Crisis found that tackling homelessness early could save the Government between £3,000 and £18,000 for every person helped. The report uses illustrative vignettes, each based on qualitative data from 165 interviews to give an overview of the costs of homelessness. Each vignette explores two scenarios: one where homelessness is prevented or resolved and the other where homelessness persists for a year. One of these vignettes concerns a 19 year-old who is expected to leave the parental home and exhausts sofa-surfing arrangements with friends. In the first scenario she is helped into immediate temporary accommodation in supported housing for four weeks. She then receives a low-intensity floating support service during a short-term return to the parental home, which enables her to make a planned move into suitable shared private rented accommodation. Parental relationships become positive while she is able to live independently and she secures paid work within a year.

In the second scenario the local authority finds her ineligible for the homelessness duty. She receives a list of private rented accommodation but no other assistance. She relies initially on sofa-surfing but negative experiences from these arrangements lead to a deterioration in her mental health. She makes increasing use of homelessness services and uses drugs as a result of stress and depression. She has a non-elective long stay in hospital as a result of the deterioration in her health. She is admitted into a residential detoxification service for six weeks but lack of settled suitable housing presents major challenges. The research calculated that preventing her homelessness in the first scenario cost £1,554. By comparison, this cost rose to £11,733 when her homelessness was not properly resolved, as described in scenario 2. If this young person were unable to meet the eligibility threshold for claiming the housing costs element of universal credit, the first scenario would not be open to her.

I shall go through the groups of young people who would be protected by the amendment. Crucially, the system must be flexible enough to cover more difficult or complex cases. First, I shall address those who are owed a rehousing duty under the Housing Act 1996 and the comparable Scottish and Welsh legislation. By definition, people who are already homeless have nowhere else to live and should be exempted from these proposals or they will be at serious risk of street homelessness. Young people who approach their local authority and meet the statutory definition of unintentionally homeless in Scotland, and of being in priority need in England and Wales, should automatically qualify for support. Local authorities have a statutory duty to house those who meet this threshold, which they will be unable to meet if the young people owed the duty cannot claim the housing costs element of universal credit.

Secondly, I shall address those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness being supported by local authority housing options teams. In England, the threshold for priority need is high, however, and most single people will not meet it. Nevertheless, they are owed a general duty of advice and information about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness. Across England, Scotland and Wales, many homeless people are supported by local authority housing options teams to prevent or alleviate homelessness. In England, statutory homelessness guidance advises housing options teams to use family mediation services to prevent homelessness when family or friends are no longer able or willing to accommodate. It is therefore vital that those who fall short of the statutory homelessness threshold, as well as those young people at risk of becoming homeless, are protected.

Thirdly, I address those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and are being supported by voluntary or statutory agencies into more settled accommodation. While many homeless young people are housed in supported accommodation which will continue to be funded through housing benefit, homeless hostels are not right for everyone who has experienced homelessness. Others may struggle to find a bed space since numbers of beds are declining. Those being supported by homelessness organisations to find and sustain alternative forms of accommodation should therefore be protected. This includes private rented sector access schemes and supported lodgings. Withdrawing support from young people using such schemes would undermine the Government’s own efforts, including significant investment to tackle single homelessness.

Fourthly, I address those who have formerly been homeless as young adults aged 16 or over. People who first become homeless when young are particularly vulnerable to repeat homelessness. To mitigate the risk of people becoming homeless again following a period of stability, it is important that young homeless people who qualify for the housing cost element of universal credit can continue to do so following a change in circumstances up to the age of 21. Young people ready to move on from a homeless hostel or domestic violence refuge must be able to access financial support to maintain a private tenancy, or moving on will be impossible. The chance to move on in this way will in turn enable other young homeless people and those experiencing domestic violence to access hostel and refuge places.

Fifthly, the amendment refers to,

“a person without family or for whom the home environment is not suitable to live in”.

The Government have been clear that those who cannot live at home will be protected. We welcome this commitment, since relationship breakdown is a leading cause of homeless young people no longer being accommodated by parents. A broad exemption to protect young people at risk of homelessness due to family breakdown will prevent young people having to become homeless before they can access support. This protection must apply to those without living parents or parents in the UK, and to those for whom it would be damaging to remain in or return to the family home. For example, up to 24% of homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual, and in 69% the primary cause identified is rejection or abuse after coming out to parents or caregivers.

Some young adults need to leave home because the family home is unsuitable or puts them at risk of harm. This may be because of overcrowding, for instance, if the family has downsized due to the social sector size criteria. Overcrowding is a form of hidden homelessness with implications for family cohesion and well-being. In some cases of severe overcrowding, councils may offer to rehouse adult children independently, rather than move the entire family. If young people in overcrowded homes can no longer access housing support, this will not be possible. For some young people, the neighbourhood may be unsuitable: for instance, due to risk of involvement with gangs or other anti-social and unlawful activity. A 2011 cross-government report, Ending Gang and Youth Violence, committed to roll out schemes to rehouse former gang members wanting to exit the gang lifestyle and cited joint police and council projects which seek accommodation for people at high risk from gang violence. This work will be significantly undermined if young people in such circumstances cannot access support for their housing costs.

Sixthly and finally, regarding “those leaving custody”, young people leaving custody are at particular risk of homelessness due to their higher levels of need, vulnerabilities and chaotic lives. Thirteen per cent of young homeless people are offenders and 22% have an offending history. Accommodation is critical for effective resettlement. A return to the family or neighbourhood may expose them or their families to risk of harm and the negative social networks which they are trying to leave behind. An exemption for young people at the point of release will provide stability and support to help them adjust at this critical time, when the risk of reoffending is greatest.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

I support Amendment 62C, as spoken to by my noble friend. I do not usually speak on homelessness but I have a keen interest in the mental health and well-being of young people. I am also a huge admirer of Crisis and other charities offering support to people experiencing homelessness. I was extremely concerned to hear that the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled in four years, and that 8% of 16 to 24 year-olds report having recently been homeless, for reasons such as those outlined by my noble friend—being victims of or at risk of violence or abuse, or a breakdown in family relationships. According to Crisis, tackling homelessness early can save the Government between £3,000 and £18,000 per person. Can the Minister describe exactly which homeless young people will be entitled to the housing costs element of universal credit?

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Lord Low of Dalston

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment and I wish to give my full support to my noble friend Lord Rix, who moved it. It would place a duty on local authorities to deliver the social care services identified in education, health and care plans. The contention of the noble Lord, myself and the other noble Lords who have their names on the amendment is that there is very little point in assessing a child or young person’s needs, identifying social care needs and putting them in the education and health plan, and then not making the plan enforceable in respect of social care as it is in respect of education provision.

As I think the noble Lord, Lord Rix, indicated, the amendment would add no new duties on local authorities to provide social care in addition to those that already exist. It merely brings together the legislation on education, health and care plans and existing social care legislation. There is currently a misconception that the social care duties in respect of disabled children are not specifically enforceable for an individual child. However, as I think the Government accept, this duty does already exist under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The proposal contained in this amendment would help to correct this misconception.

The Government have argued that a proposal to create an individually owed duty in relation to social care would prioritise one group of children in need over another. However, there is already an individually owed duty to disabled children in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, as I indicated, which is not enjoyed by other children in need. We had a good discussion about this in one of the Minister’s meetings with Peers, which I think we all found very valuable in developing our understanding of the Bill. I think we managed to elucidate in that discussion that if one were going to establish priorities between different groups of recipients of social care, it would have to be done at a prior stage to the formulation of the education, health and care plan. If the authority has got to the point of identifying social care needs and putting them in the plan, it really does not make any sense in terms of integrated education, health and social care provision not to make the provision identified in the plan enforceable.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, add my support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rix, which aims to ensure that children and young people receive the care to which they are entitled. I empathise with the battle to get health, education and social care agencies to work together; it is one that I waged on behalf of my son in the past. I know, of course, that I am not alone here and that parents across the country face this uphill struggle.

The absence of a duty to deliver the social care elements of the plan sends out the dangerous message that care is unimportant alongside education and health provisions. It is, as my noble friend says, the poor cousin. For children and young people with a learning disability and their families, this could not be further from the truth. Good social care plays an important part in helping the child or young person achieve their educational goals. That is accepted, whether it is in relation to independent living, supported employment, employment or moving on to further learning. Good social care prevents burnout in families. I understand and am glad that the Government have accepted that there is an issue here, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Lord Low of Dalston

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I understand that short speeches are the order of the day so that we may make progress. I shall therefore try to make a short one. I put my name to this amendment because I feel very strongly that the proposal to time limit contributory ESA to one year is one of the most retrograde features of the Bill. At Second Reading, I identified as many as five things wrong with the Government’s position. I will not repeat all those here but I will refer to a sixth, which I did not quite crystallise at Second Reading. The matter was gone into in great detail in Committee, although I was unable to be present. However, I have carefully read the debate twice, most recently through the long watches of last night as I travelled back from Bangkok on an overnight flight with an active two year-old for company.

In any case, the argument emerges most starkly if one sticks to its bald outlines, which have to do with the basic unfairness of the proposal. This was incisively encapsulated by the Disability Benefits Consortium in the words of a woman with Parkinson’s disease. She said,

“There’s no guarantee that I’ll find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer”.

At this point, one might interpolate, “especially in current economic conditions”.

She continued,

“I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all this support could have an arbitrary time limit is both unfair and stressful”.

There are two aspects to this unfairness besides the one which I have just interpolated. First, the condition of sick and disabled people in the WRAG is such that their likelihood of being able to get into work within a year is remote in the extreme, especially in present conditions. As my noble friend Lord Patel has told us, the Government’s figures show that 94 per cent of people in the WRAG need support for longer than a year and a DWP research report entitled Routes onto Employment and Support Allowance, which was published last September, revealed that, despite its name, after 18 months, only 9 per cent of claimants who had previously been out of work on incapacity benefit had found work and still only 25 per cent of those who had entered ESA from work had found new employment. In these circumstances, as the lady quoted by the Disability Benefits Consortium said, to limit ESA to just one year is both arbitrary and unfair. It is in no way evidence-based and is simply cost-driven. The DWP estimates that by 2015-16, 700,000 people will lose their entitlement, of which 280,000 will lose it entirely, which will mean a loss of £94.25 a week.

The second unfairness resides in the breach of the contributory principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was so concerned about in Committee; that is, the breach of faith of citizens who have paid their national insurance contributions perhaps for 30 or 40 years in the belief that the support would be there if needed. A correspondent who wrote to me said:

“I believe it is totally wrong that people who have worked and paid tax plus national insurance for many years—36 in my case—should have their entitlement to state support time limited in this manner. It seems that the state is breaking its side of the contract at a time when people are most vulnerable”.

The Minister dismissed this in Committee. He said that national insurance contributions were to cover a wide range of contingencies, including the state pension and the NHS. He argued that a year was a reasonable amount of support to give someone when they got into difficulty. In a letter dated 10 January 2012 addressed to Cross-Bench Peers, to which my noble friend Lord Patel has referred, the Minister said that it strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of sick and disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost. But you might as well say that it was enough to give someone a pension for, say, three years to help them with the adjustment to retirement, after which they are on their own. Perhaps that will come to be the Government’s position: who knows? Anything is possible. Who would have thought that we would be reducing ESA support for which people have been contributing all their working lives to just one year?

Finally, I come to my sixth point, which I failed to develop at Second Reading. Ministers are constantly pointing to the unprecedented amount of support that they are putting in place to help people back or in to work. Only last night a statement was read out on the radio from a DWP spokesperson, which said:

“We are absolutely committed to supporting more disabled people into work. That is why this Government has protected the budget for specialist disability employment services. Aside from our disability employment advisers, we also have specialist teams at Jobcentre Plus who actively work with businesses to encourage them to interview disabled people with the right skills. Work Choice is expected to support more disabled people into employment each year than any of its predecessor government programmes”.

As regards specialist teams, Ministers have little idea of the reality. No Minister could go on the programme and this statement was read out in response to a blind woman—an able person with a lifetime of successful, professional employment, who had been made redundant last May. She told a woeful tale of the poor advice and lack of support that she had received. She received none of the interviews or training that had been promised. She is very eager to find a new job but few, if any, openings have been drawn to her attention. Despite repeated requests, no information has been provided in an accessible form. Her adviser seemed to have had little training. I know the woman concerned and on one occasion she told me that she felt she could do the adviser’s job better than the adviser.

The Work Programme is not working. In these circumstances it is not only unfair but downright cruel to time-limit contributory ESA to one year. At present it is unlimited. To reduce the level of support to just one year at a stroke is draconian in the extreme. I would drop Clause 51 entirely but I am a realist and recognise that, to have any prospect of success, compromise will be necessary. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Patel is surely the least one could make to ameliorate the draconian nature of the Government’s proposal. I very much hope, too, that in the light of their conference’s decision to oppose the time-limiting of contributory ESA last September, Liberal Democrat colleagues will search their consciences and also give my noble friend’s amendment their support.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, local health charities and services are also very concerned about the impact of time-limiting ESA. They are well aware of how difficult it is for people with severe and enduring mental illness to obtain and to sustain employment, especially at a time of deficit. My postbag is full of angry letters. One correspondent wrote to say that her brother took his own life largely due to difficulties in his working environment. She wrote:

“I personally have only ever managed a very chequered career due to living with complex mental health conditions and welcome any effort on the part of our Government to encourage a mental-health friendly workplace and specialist schemes to support people with mental health conditions into work, but”—

and here is the rub—

“on a voluntary basis because I am deeply concerned that any system built on a backdrop of conditionality, sanctions and time limits will prove to be totally counterproductive, leading to fear, anger and disengagement”.

I could speak at great length about some of the many issues that have been raised with me and I support this amendment.