Disability Services

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing such an important and timely debate. I also thank Scope for the excellent briefings it made available, and the Equalities National Council for its very insightful report and studies.

There are at least 1 million disabled people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds in the United Kingdom. We know that many face considerable difficulties in their daily lives yet are unable to access the services that they need. We heard in the most recent census about the demographic changes in our society that mean that there will be many more BME disabled people in future. It is therefore important that provision and policies are developed in a timely way for disabled people who rely on these services.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, I care for my disabled mother, who is 80 and whose language skills are not very good. She cannot read English very well, despite being in this country for many years. I do not know how she would cope without me. She probably would not be able to remain in her home without my family’s support.

I will talk today about the plight of disabled children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. I declare a personal interest in the issue; I have a grandson who has disabilities and special needs. He receives support from a number of excellent voluntary agencies. The report rightly highlights the problem that BME disabled people’s needs and views have fallen between the two policy areas of disability and race equality. Finding ways to bring these two policy fields together is becoming more urgent and important for developing effective support. This is a classic example of how people from BME communities struggle and face double discrimination.

Yesterday I was in Grand Committee, arguing against proposals to make changes to the Equality Act and to the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The case was made very strongly by many noble Lords that we need to retain a strong and robust commission that retains its general duty to promote work that enables disabled people, as well as people from other protected groups, to participate in society with dignity. That phrase came across quite strongly yesterday. The commission should also retain a duty to promote and encourage favourable treatment of disabled people and to work towards eliminating prejudice and hate towards disadvantaged groups, which include disabled people from BME communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, asked an important question about the Red Tape Challenge that I will repeat because it is so important. When it was launched, I was very concerned that the Equality Act, a piece of primary legislation that affects the lives of so many people, was included in its remit. Will the Red Tape Challenge be used to reduce the public service equality duty? This is exercising and concerning many groups that rely on it.

Nearly half of all minority ethnic disabled people live in household poverty, compared with one in five of the population as a whole. Overall, we know that families from minority ethnic groups caring for a severely disabled child are even more disadvantaged than white families in a similar situation. Families’ experiences, needs and circumstances vary across ethnic groups.

Carers for people from BME communities are not always aware of the support that is available to them. A key way of addressing this would be for social care services to develop stronger links with local BME communities. I was struck by the case highlighted in the report of Anwar, a 16 year-old boy with complex physical needs and learning difficulties. It is a very good example, and sadly by no means unusual. For several years, Anwar lived alone in an unadapted flat above his family’s corner shop. He had no wheelchair and no way of getting down the stairs independently. He was not in school or able to access any services, and his only contact was with his family. Although they visited regularly, if he wanted to leave the house he had to be carried down the stairs by his brother. It was not until a neighbour told the family about a local support group, which he learnt about having met them at the local mosque, that Anwar’s circumstances changed. A support worker ensured that he was allocated a social services care package, given a wheelchair and eventually rehoused in an accessible ground floor flat, where he is able to live independently. As I said, this is a typical case.

Stigma is also a big issue that affects many minority communities. It can lead to social isolation, with families and carers struggling to cope behind closed doors for fear that they will be made social outcasts and blamed or in some way held responsible for their child’s disability. During my 16 years as a councillor in inner-city boroughs in Hackney and Islington with high levels of disability among BME communities, I spent much of my time on casework when people came to me to raise these issues. Many Turkish families came to see me because they had got nowhere with mainstream services. Because I could talk to them in Turkish, I was able to act as an advocate and try to get the most basic services for them. It was heartbreaking that they had to come to their councillor to get these services. What would have happened had I not been there? That is the test.

The report mentions that it is more usual for Muslim and Hindu communities to face social isolation and stigma. Recently I heard of a Turkish father struggling with his severely autistic child whose behaviour was extremely challenging. His wife had attempted suicide because of the strain of the situation and the lack of support. The father, whose English was not great, was the main carer and was unaware of the support that was available to him to apply for. Thankfully, he was referred to an excellent charity, Centre 404, based in Islington, where a Turkish specialist worker was able to help him apply for additional services such as much-needed respite support. We have heard how interpreting services and advocacy play a key role in this sort of case and in many others. Are the Government encouraging local authorities to ensure that advocacy is available to BME communities and carers? It can make such a difference in enabling a better and dignified life as opposed to an existence.

The examples I mentioned illustrate the reality that the mainstream social care system—my noble friend Lord Addington touched on this—is effectively adversarial. In effect, people compete for services. The most articulate and assertive—or those whose families or carers are the most articulate and assertive—are more likely to succeed and to get the right services. Specialist knowledge and research is also needed into ways of accessing support. For many families and carers from a BME background, it is incredibly difficult to navigate through the system to get the additional support that can make such a difference to their life chances and to their ability to fulfil their potential. Stigma and social isolation are widespread among carers for the disabled from a BME background, especially women.

The report highlights the importance of services operating at local level having close relationships with community groups such as mosques.

One of the key recommendations, which has already been mentioned, is that following the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination there have been recommendations from Scope and other race equality groups that the Government develop a national race equality strategy. I want to underline the importance of this and ask the Minister if this is being taken seriously. These issues urgently need national leadership. Some of the concerns that I and others have raised are that, going by the proposals to reduce the duties that I mentioned earlier, the present mood music and signals are not encouraging. I will also ask the Minister about equality impact assessments. When producing new policy or legislation, as recommended, will these important matters continue to receive support?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 27 and associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and other noble Lords who tabled it. I will try not to repeat anything that has been said. I, too, am dismayed and frankly puzzled that the Government are proposing to remove Section 3 and the general duty on the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This was discussed at some length in 2006. That was before my time in this House, but I followed the debate very closely. It was a relatively short time ago and all parties at the time agreed to these principles. I understand that the objectives were discussed extensively with business, NGOs and others in the field.

I will draw attention to one interesting quote. Eleanor Laing MP, speaking as shadow Minister for women and equalities, said:

“The important thing about clause 3 is that we all admire the aspirational nature of the general duty within it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/05; col. 36.]

If we fast forward to the present day, we see that having a wide-ranging, aspirational duty is seen as a hindrance to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in carrying out its work effectively. In briefings that I have attended it has been mentioned that the duty is too wide-ranging and that the commission is not able to focus sufficiently on a narrower remit. I apologise for not declaring an interest: I was a commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission for three years until last month.

I would like to know what has changed. I still have not heard any compelling or rational argument about what has changed, and why it is proposed that the commission should no longer have a duty to promote work to eliminate prejudice and hate towards these protected groups. What has changed in our society since this relatively new Act, which is still bedding down, came into force? Are we a more equal society? Has something happened that some of us may have missed? Is racism declining? Is hate crime falling? As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, mentioned, just today we read in the newspapers that Stephen Lawrence’s brother has launched a legal battle against the Metropolitan Police, claiming to have been stopped by the force up to 25 times purely because of his skin colour. This is still a very common experience for many black and Asian people. This comes at a time when one in five young men—21%—in young offender institutions identifies himself as Muslim, compared with 13% in 2009-10. We have 60% unemployment among young black men. Race and disability hate crime is unfortunately still rising. What has changed such that we need to take away the general duty from the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

I would also like to know what is wrong with promoting good relations. Why is that now seen as a hindrance to the commission’s work? What is wrong with promoting good relations between different sections of society? No other statutory body has this remit. If it were to be taken away who would do this work? Who would show the leadership that is needed to tackle these issues? Who would understand them? Which non-government statutory body would be able to take this up? I strongly suggest that this is not the time to weaken the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s remit.

Is this the time to be sending out negative signals, which were mentioned earlier, and to be seen watering down and neutering this country’s main race, equality and human rights watchdog? I have heard it said in briefings that this will make no difference. If this is to make no difference, why are we doing it? Surely it is better to have a wider remit that is aspirational and that allows the commission the freedom to tackle some of these issues and carry out in-depth reviews, as has been done before. What is wrong in allowing this to happen? Surely the perception and the signal that not allowing it sends out is that this Government do not value race equality, or equality for disabled people and other protected groups.

On the issue of good relations, it has been repeatedly pointed out in briefings that since its inception the commission has not always functioned properly. There were problems and nobody can duck that, but it has made huge strides in the last few years. The organisation has reformed and slimmed down a lot, and in its work has been far more strategic and effective than in some other reviews that have been carried out. It is important to note that promoting good relations between members of different groups has allowed the commission to work in relation not just to race, but with groups such as Gypsies and Travellers who, sadly, do not have the protection that other groups have. It has been able to look at interfaith relations and hate crimes, as mentioned; causes of violence against women; intergenerational issues; and highly stigmatised groups, such as people with mental health problems or HIV/AIDS. These are serious issues that need to be tackled. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is best placed to understand interracial and inter-religious tensions and advise on the best way that they can be addressed. In proposing the removal of these clauses the Government are doing more damage than they realise.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, I rise to support what the noble Baroness has just said. One of the first things that I did when I joined the House of Lords was to speak in favour of admittedly a similar aspiration provision, but in my view appropriately. It might have been on an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in legislation in 2000. The concept eventually found its way into the 2006 Act.

When Parliament agreed this provision it was on the basis of discussion with a wide range of organisations. It was widely welcomed. Why? We do not have a fair and unprejudiced society. It may be that everyone in this room is fair-minded, but fairness and good relations between groups do not exist when, for example, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people are harassed about where they can live. The noble Baroness mentioned that young people now describe themselves as Muslim in larger numbers. Gypsy and Traveller children dare not describe themselves as Gypsies and Travellers, because of the things that have happened to them.

We have a society in which children with disabilities are bullied in school. Members of minority groups that make up our society are denied jobs because of stereotyped expectations. Old people are despised and neglected. The ordinary self-respect that people need, particularly children, is undermined. This is at the expense of social cohesion and an ordinarily decent society. I support this group. I think that it is necessary to give the EHRC a proper strategic approach to help bring about a fair society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, have put my name to this amendment to move towards greater direct parliamentary accountability for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, this could be advantageous as a tidying-up exercise. It needs to be done. Given all the criticisms that the commission has faced from individuals and others, some of which have been about its accountability to Parliament, I am slightly disappointed that the Government, in drafting these various changes, did not take the opportunity to look at making the commission better able to fulfil its mandate as Britain’s equality regulator and national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said.

Unfortunately, the commission has come under sustained attack. Some of that has been quite intense and some of it has been justifiable, but a lot of it has been rooted in the past and has not recognised the work that the commission has done, how much progress has been made and how much the commission has moved on from those early years when the three organisations came together.

In terms of greater accountability, I think that what is proposed would be desirable. It would ensure greater transparency and openness. It would assist the commission in its statutory responsibility to assess how the Government comply with their domestic and international equality and human rights obligations. Parliamentary accountability would provide the commission with more independence from the Government in order to fulfil this role rather more impartially. At the moment, we do not have the best of both worlds. The commission is partly accountable to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and it is partly accountable to the Minister through the Government Equalities Office. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, that relationship has not always been positive; it cannot be deemed to have been a successful relationship.

There has been turbulence as a result of reorganisation. With each reshuffle—every couple of years, it seems—the equalities unit and, by virtue of that, the commission have been shunted about. I think that it is on its fourth or fifth government department. As was said, it was initially under the Department of Trade and Industry, then the Department for Communities and Local Government and then the Department for Work and Pensions; then it was standalone and now it is with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That does not provide the organisation with the stability and continuity that are needed. These constant changes have in some respects been detrimental to the commission’s work and some of the blame for that has to lie at the door of the last Government, as has been acknowledged.

There have also been problems with the sponsoring department. The commission has never had, certainly in the three years when I served there—others may bear me out on this—the independence to act as other non-departmental public bodies have been able to. For example, permanent senior appointments have always been at the behest of Ministers giving the go-ahead. I found myself in the situation when, after the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers criticised how much was being spent on consultants for temporary positions, we advertised at great expense for a permanent chief executive. That was then stopped because, for whatever reason, it was not deemed to be the right time. That meant that there was another delay. The acting chief executive continued and it was a couple of years before we had a permanent chief executive in place. The same has happened with other senior appointments when the commission was not given permission by the Government Equalities Office, through the Minister, to appoint a permanent director for various positions. It was quite unfairly pilloried in the media for wasting public money when it did not have the independence to make such appointments. If we are going to have an organisation which we want to be independent and robust, it has to have freedom in that regard.

In order to retain the commission’s “A” status as a UN accredited national human rights institution, it needs to be assured and shored up. On occasion, there have been letters threatening to remove the “A” status of the commission purely because of activities from government departments that have been outside its control. It is time to allow the commission to have the consistency, the stability and the independence that it needs but also to be robustly accountable to Parliament. Models for other regulators and national human rights institutions have already been mentioned. There are others, including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and the Electoral Commission, which we could look at and which work perfectly well.

Accountability to government would allow the commission to work across government bodies. That has been a problem, particularly when the commission has wanted to look at issues which do not come under the remit of the sponsoring committee or department. There have been problems about working cross-department as well. This proposal would give it the freedom to do that and would satisfy the Cabinet Office test for independence and accountability against which all public bodies are reviewed every three years. It would also allow the commission to formalise relationships and fulfil its mandate as a regulator, which it has not been able to do. I strongly recommend that the Government look at this and I will be very interested in what the Minister says in reply as to whether the Government will look positively at this.

I know that in previous discussions—I am grateful that the Minister has made herself available for discussions and briefings—the Government have not felt that this is an issue and that it should not be touched. It is interesting that for other things legislation is needed, whereas, so far, something that would make this organisation far more accountable is not deemed to be needed, although I am hoping to hear a more positive reaction today. The appointment of the chief executive and of commissioners would be subject to parliamentary ratification. For those who have followed some of these things in the media recently, the last tranche of appointments of commissioners has not been exactly exemplary and probably would not have been tolerated at other organisations.

In terms of the commission being directly responsible, it could respond directly to parliamentary questions rather than the Government responding on the commission’s behalf, which is the problem at the moment. The commission’s budget also could be set by Parliament, rather than the arcane situation that exists. I seem to remember that as late as the end of February/the beginning of March of this year, the commission still did not know its budget for the coming financial year, which would be unheard of at any other organisation. I strongly endorse this amendment and believe that it could strengthen the independent requirement in Schedule 42 to the Equality Act 2006.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to the object of the amendment. I just want to supplement that great summary of the history given by the noble Lord, Lord Low, by adding one or two aspects.

When the previous Government introduced the 2006 Act, I was was pressing for something on exactly these lines and I was concerned about the Paris principles. Thanks to the creativity of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in particular, we were able to write into that Act some guarantees of the independence of the commission which are still there and I am delighted to see will remain. We removed all the bossy, ministerial interference provisions that were originally in the 2006 Act and that would have given powers to Ministers to intervene all over the place in the commission’s work. All those were wisely removed by the previous Government. We then introduced an express provision stating that Ministers were not allowed unnecessarily to interfere with the commission—that is still in the 2006 Act. We also introduced an obligation on the Minister to make sure that enough funds were available to ensure that the commission could carry out its work effectively in accordance with its statutory duties. We also introduced a merit requirement for appointments. All those are still there.

One of the great problems, however—it has been referred to by my noble friend just now—is that the commission when it was set up became the orphan of Whitehall; that is, no major government department was willing to take responsibility for or ownership of it to give it the backing that it really needed. I can say as someone who was the unpaid independent adviser to the previous Government’s Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, that I was unsuccessful in persuading the previous Government that the Ministry of Justice should take charge of this area, because, frankly, the civil servants at the time did not want to know. And so, a strange floating kidney was set up instead. It was not a proper department and it did not have any of the power and influence of a major government department. That led to all kinds of managerial and other failings from the beginning through lack of proper back-up within the Administration. This was not just the fault of Ministers; it was more a fault of senior civil servants, including a Permanent Secretary whom I went to, who said that they would rather not want to know, thank you very much, because it was too difficult or too hot a potato.

That is part of the background. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has indicated, the Joint Committee on Human Rights on which I serve has several times advocated that there be proper parliamentary accountability, not only because of the Paris principles but because it is healthy in a parliamentary democracy with a body of this kind for there to be a proper relationship.

One thing to have changed since we on the JCHR made those reports is the appointment of the new chair, whom I am delighted to see in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. Her appointment was made only after the Joint Committee on Human Rights interviewed her and came to the conclusion that she would be admirably well qualified for the post. Another change is that the Joint Committee will now have the main responsibility for the work of the commission; it will not be split, I think, with the House of Commons committee. We are a Joint Committee of both Houses comprising six Peers and six MPs; we cannot be controlled by Government because one of us is a Cross-Bencher—we are the only parliamentary committee of which that is true—and we are not tribal or party-political in the way in which we conduct ourselves. We have real expertise going back for more than a decade.

--- Later in debate ---

One question is whether that could be done without the need for some legislative requirement, but simply by a protocol being developed by agreement between the Joint Committee and the Government that the Joint Committee will effectively do that which was done in relation to the new chair of the commission. Similarly, there is no reason why the Joint Committee on Human Rights cannot have responsibility for many of the things to which my noble friend referred in her speech in support of the amendment. Where I do not agree with her is on the idea that any parliamentary committee should be setting the budget and be involved in what might be called micro-managerial decisions on how the commission should spend money. It is still correct in a parliamentary democracy that public expenditure has to be approved by a responsible Minister and accounting officer responsible to Parliament for ensuring stewardship.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

I want to come back on one point, if I may. In 2003 the Joint Human Rights Committee had three reports, and one of the clauses said that,

“as a guarantee of independence … Parliament should be directly involved in setting the budget of the commission”.

Can the noble Lord clarify that he said he could not see the point in that? He seems to be contradicting what the report said.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I was talking about an idea that I thought was being suggested—not that there be some kind of consultation but that Parliament itself, or a parliamentary committee, should agree and set the budget, rather than that being done by the Treasury and the responsible government department. Of course, it is possible to have consultation by a parliamentary committee on the size of a budget and how it is to be spent, but under our system of parliamentary government, it seems to me that the ultimate responsibility for deciding on the budget and ensuring proper accountability is through the accounting officer—normally a Permanent Secretary in charge of the department, who is then accountable to Her Majesty’s Treasury and to Parliament. We tried all of that when we looked at the Judicial Appointments Commission; we tried to ring-fence the budget of the Judicial Appointments Commission and of the judiciary as a whole, but failed to do so for similar reasons.

I am sympathetic to the idea of parliamentary involvement and accountability. All that I am suggesting is that the way forward is to encourage the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if it is willing to do so, with the consent of the Government, if they are willing to do so, to develop new protocols that will allow this kind of accountability to occur. I am sympathetic with the object, but I do not think that the amendment is the best way forward. Similarly with regard to annual reports, there is no reason why there should not be a report that is then scrutinised and discussed with the commission by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It seems to me to be better to have an existing piece of expert machinery than to create a new Joint Committee of both Houses without purpose.

I say all this with no authority; I do not speak for the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It has not considered that; nor do I have any idea of whether the Government is be sympathetic. I am a member of the committee suggesting that as one way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I think that it is true to say that there have been unintended consequences in the way that equality impact assessments have been applied in some instances. The views just expressed by my noble friend are widely shared in some quarters. However, I associate myself with this amendment in an effort to reform what we understand by equality impact assessments and to bring to them a sense of balance. I also want to highlight their importance and not lose sight of why we had to have them in the first instance.

Of course, there has been change. The Prime Minister mentioned that these assessments would be done away with, and there has been discussion of changing the terminology used from “equality impact assessments” to “analysis of the effects”. We need to be clear about how terminology is used in decision-making. We should focus less on the production of a document and more on impact. That needs to be clarified. More clarification is needed on intentions because it seems that government policy is veering towards getting rid of these assessments. Are we to understand that there is no longer a wish to know in advance about the impact of policies on different groups of people? If so, that needs to be said clearly.

There are concerns that too much time is taken in conducting spurious or inaccurate equality analyses, and perhaps many people conducting analyses have not always understood them. Proposed new subsection (6A)(e) refers to,

“training staff in connection with the duties imposed by this section”.

There seems to be a bit of a gap between what is expected and what should be produced at the end of the process—what we are looking for as an end result. How can we be sure that government policies do not have the effect of treating some groups of people less favourably than others if there is no evidence of consideration of the likely impact on these different groups?

A recent review of government policy suggested that there was little evidence that the impact on people had been considered when plans and proposals had been circulated. Surely we do not wish to see a return to the situation that prevailed between the late 1970s and the 1990s, when the duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act was applied only to local government and not to other public services such as the police. It is important to recall for the record that it was not until the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence that the public sector equality duty was extended to all public authorities and private organisations contracted to deliver services. Asserting that equality is being considered is not the same as providing evidence. The way the evidence is produced may be contentious. I have no problem with it being more streamlined and sensible.

My final comment is to highlight something positive that took place in the past two years. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, using its unique powers under Section 11, conducted an impact assessment on Her Majesty’s Treasury, among other government departments, to assess the extent to which the Treasury had met its legal obligations to consider the impact of the 2010 spending review decisions on protected groups. This was a really positive piece of work and I commend it the Committee—it is on the website and your Lordships can read it in the report. The work was embraced by the Government and government departments that have not done this before. It was a first instance; it had not happened under the previous Government and was the first report on this scale. It gave a set of recommendations for how to target spending to ensure more effective use of public money and greater fairness across government overall. It was a very significant work, so we have some good practice on how it can happen. I urge that we look at ways of reforming but retaining this very important legislation.

Violence Against Women

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for securing this important debate. I, too, woke up this morning to the horrifying headline news of the 14 year-old Afghan child who was beheaded by members of her family because her father had refused a marriage proposal for her. As we debate how we have a responsibility to lend our weight to end violence against women around the world, this terrible tragedy comes as a stark reminder of the urgency of this issue.

Michelle Bachelet, director of UN Women, in her message for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, called for bold action and decisive leadership to galvanise efforts to end the pandemic of violence against women and girls. Today, we know that 125 countries have laws that penalise domestic violence, which is a huge step forward from a decade ago, but that is not enough as 603 million women live in countries where domestic violence is still not a crime. Recently, a high-profile, educated woman from the Indian subcontinent told me of an incident where a senior official casually in conversation talked of how when he beat his wife, she knew what she had done wrong. This is by no means an unusual attitude and is not necessarily confined to poorer communities. I experienced threats of violence myself some years ago, when I set up the first project and centre to support Turkish and Kurdish women who experienced violence in the UK, from the very men who perpetrated that violence against women and their family behind closed doors, or who, often in the name of their so-called honour, which, as we all know, is dishonour, tried to control women by using violent methods.

Having laws in place is not enough. We need those laws to be properly implemented. We know that legislatures and enforcement authorities are usually dominated by men who often do not see this issue as a priority. We must do better to protect women and prevent this pervasive human rights violation. Governments and leaders must lead by example. Many Governments, such as the Afghan authorities, make promises, but it is time for Governments to translate international promises into concrete action. We need an increased number of women in politics, law enforcement and peacekeeping forces as well as economic opportunities for women. We also need educational campaigns, both here in the UK and elsewhere, that teach human rights and advocate mutual respect that will inspire young people so that the next generation can show leadership on ending violence against women.

Here in the UK, we are still working hard to eliminate and educate people in our society to change behaviour and attitudes, but according to the NSPCC sadly one in three teenage girls experience sexual violence from their boyfriends. We need to look at how women are being portrayed in some sections of the media, particularly in online sites.

In showing leadership and using our influence to progress this work internationally, will the Minister consider whether the UK will lend its support to the recommendations that Oxfam, among others, has put forward on human rights featuring prominently in UK diplomacy at international and country level with specific attention to gender-based violence, including sexual violence, and also on championing a place at the table for women in peace negotiations, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1325, to help to ensure that gender-based violence is recognised as part of any peace process and that women’s rights are sustained over the long term?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, the 57th session of the Commission on the Status of Women will be held next March and will be on this theme. It is important that the UK Government show leadership at this event and support the call from UN Women and its expert group for the development of an international implementation plan to end violence against women. Will the Minister say whether this will be the case?

Crime: Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that 10% of boys think it is okay to slap their girlfriends and that one in three teenage girls have experienced violence from their boyfriends? Does she not agree that more needs to be done to educate young men and boys in schools? The police should have a role in trying to ensure that crimes against girls in the form I have just described are reported by schools and there should be proper programmes whereby boys learn about respectful relationships with girls.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I certainly agree with my noble friend that victims of violence extend to young girls in relationships, and that boys need to be educated. In fact, I will next week answer a Question about what is being done to help men who are inclined to this dreadful behaviour. It is worth making the point that one of the changes that this Government have made is to extend the definition of domestic violence to include violence against girls who are 16 and 17, and that is a welcome measure.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for the intervention, but because of the grouping I had thought that this was like a Second Reading and I am trying to address the issue of housing—the subject of the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that the grouping is unfortunate.

The point that I am trying to get to is: it will not be possible to change the welfare system without upsetting some group or other in our community. I therefore believe that if we put the amendment in the Bill, the Minister and the Government, including their successors, will be hidebound by it. However, the Minister has also heard the widespread view in the House that we are confronted with an area of concern, particularly when children are likely to be moved from their homes, lose their schools and all that goes with that. Secondary legislation is the right place in which to put this issue but, if we believe we can go through a process of changing the welfare system and not affect a particular group in the community, we are misleading it as well as ourselves.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I also came to the Chamber intending not to speak but to listen carefully to the arguments. I feel moved to speak because of my personal experience as a local councillor in inner city areas such as Islington and Hackney, where homelessness and poverty have gone hand in hand and where over several decades we have seen the decline of affordable housing that ordinary families can rent. The two previous Governments have to take responsibility for not building enough affordable housing. That is the fact of the matter and the elephant in the room that is not being addressed.

It therefore pains me when I hear people around this Chamber, whom I respect, saying, for example, that families are moving to upmarket areas such as Hampstead in order to live in a better area. I have never seen evidence of that. When families through no fault of their own lose their home, which might be because it has been repossessed or they have been unable to keep up with the mortgage payments, they naturally present themselves to the local authority. The local authority has to take a view in making an assessment of such families and, if the family is not dysfunctional enough, if the children or either parent do not have enough of a disability or they do not have enough points—because it is all done on a points system—there is not much that the local authority can do. Very often, those families or individuals are directed to the private sector. Local homelessness departments will usually give them a list of estate agents where they can go to find somewhere. Often, families who have lost their homes will end up in the private sector. The private sector has filled the gap, certainly where I come from in Islington, between the unaffordable private homes and social housing. It has taken up the slack there. Of course, prices have shot up because of demand. That is not the fault of people who have become unintentionally homeless.

I hear my noble friend saying that 76 per cent of the public support a cap. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree that there should be some form of cap and that it should not be an open-ended provision. It is the implementation, how this will work, that is worrying many of us here. We should not force out families from areas such as mine. People often think that Islington is a very rich area full of wealthy people, which it is, but it has the third-highest level of child poverty. We have the extremes: very rich people and very poor people. The very rich live in the houses that have become increasingly unaffordable for most people, and the rest live in social housing, apart from some in the middle who live in private accommodation. I want to live in a mixed community. I do not want to live in a Paris-style ghetto. I do not want ghettos such as in Paris, where the poorer families have been forced into the doughnut outside the city. We should support mixed communities. We want our children to have a healthy outlook and mix with people from all different backgrounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but I think that she is trespassing again on a Second Reading speech, and I invite her to bring her comments to a conclusion.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

I apologise. Although we have heard the assurances that there will be transitional arrangements, I have not yet heard what those protections will be for the families who will be most affected.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I start by making it clear that the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches are not around there being a cap. It is essential that there should be a cap; people find it manifestly unfair that claimants can receive in benefits more than the average working family gets in wages. The concerns expressed within the amendment are about two crucial issues: homelessness and housing; and the vulnerability of children. We are looking for discussion and reassurances from my noble friend the Minister on the issues raised by the cap. Our concern is about how those policies will be ameliorated—how to find a cap that fits.

I remind my noble friend the Minister that in Committee he said:

“The Government are looking at ways of easing the transition for families and providing assistance in hard cases. We recognise that there are households for which it would be inappropriate to restrict the amount of benefit that they can receive”.—[Official Report, 21/11/11; col. GC 346.]

The Government have already announced in another place and here that transition arrangements are to be made. This is the opportunity for my noble friend to express the Government’s views on those two crucial issues contained in the amendment. These details should emerge at this stage because it is appropriate that people know the Government’s direction of travel. It is not simply a question of us accepting that you need flexibility for the future. I understand that the Government’s regulations will follow from these debates, that there will be affirmative resolutions and that the House will have the opportunity to hear and vote on the detail. We need reassurances now in the broadest terms about the issues raised in the amendment.

I appreciate that by DWP standards—the noble Lord, Lord Fowler has said this already—the numbers captured by this policy are small. However, they are small only in respect of the DWP’s overall workload, not in terms of the 67,000 families or the 220,000 children who will be affected. We cannot put aside the fact that there is personal impact.

First, I turn to the issue of homelessness. I understand—we heard it this morning in a broadcast by the Secretary of State, and it has also been referred to in this debate—that the numbers of potential reported homeless households is based not on rooflessness but on the structure of how this is measured by the Department for Communities and Local Government. I wonder what reassurance my noble friend can give that we will not find families out on the street, that we will find homes for people and that they will be accommodated. If the numbers who are classed as homeless are those who are sharing rooms, which I heard from the Secretary of State, what methodologies and transition arrangements are being put in place? After all, if people are entitled to be classed as homeless by virtue of that definition, and are sharing a room, what is to prevent them presenting themselves to a local authority as homeless, thereby generating further cost to the public purse and creating no savings whatever? What transition arrangements will be put in place to ensure—what this House is asking for—that no one should be made roofless as a result of this policy. Any savings if they were to come by having to throw the balance to another department might be illusory. I am seeking reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. We want to hear the outline of the arrangements to be put in place to ensure that we do not sustain expenditure by simply passing costs from one department to another.

We are told that the department now has extensive information on the households that will be affected by the cap. I seek reassurance that there will always be a property available—not necessarily close to the same street in which the people have lived—for the people who will be displaced and that they will always have somewhere to live. Crucially, what help will be provided in the transitional period between now and April 2013 and perhaps, beyond, given the Minister’s comments in Committee. I also ask him to outline the processes to be put in place during this transition period and to provide the reassurances needed to demonstrate that rooflessness and overcrowding are not options that the Government are considering.

A second issue, which we will come back to in another debate, is that of children. This issue is mentioned in this amendment and has been raised before. It is indeed a powerful statement that children are not responsible for the decisions of their parents, but in workless households the worst disincentive is not to aspire to work. Those of us with experience representing the poorest areas—in my case, the poorest area—within our country know that it is a dreadful stigma which we place upon our young people. I wonder whether the Minister can provide some reassurance and tell us what arrangements he is making. What support will be given to the longer term aspirations towards work for our younger people? Alongside this is the impact of a parent becoming unemployed without suitable transition arrangements.

Perhaps all these issues need to be outlined in principle now, so that my noble friends on these Benches and noble colleagues around this Chamber can decide whether the Government are keen to ensure that the impacts are going to be ameliorated by this cap.