Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on the great deal that has been achieved. I have memories of the heavy support for Saga initiatives and so on, which clearly have been very well handled subsequently.

I have a specific question about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I happen to have been seeing the commission about another matter today, and as a result have received some comments about the articles that we are discussing. My general question, and I will back this up in a minute with a specific one, is whether the Government have had more recent detailed discussions with the EHRC and made certain that it is satisfied. I am thinking particularly about Article 4, “Exceptions for concessionary services”. The commission says:

“In its 2011 consultation response, the Commission noted that the exception for general beneficial concessions was limited by a test of reasonableness. The exception also contained a requirement that the concession (or more favourable term) did not have the effect of preventing persons of other age groups from requiring the services. However, in the version of the Order currently before Parliament”,

apparently,

“both these limitations have been removed”.

The commission, having analysed Article 4, advises that,

“as currently drafted, the exception may fail to meet the policy intention of the exception, as stated by the Government Equalities Office in its 2011 consultation paper: ‘The exception will not, however, allow concession to be a deterrent to people who do not qualify for them or unreasonably to inhibit access to the service concerned by those outside the target age group’”.

The commission says that:

“There is a risk that, as currently drafted, the exception could be used to create artificial pricing structures designed to exclude older (or younger) people from access to particular services”.

A number of examples are given, including a fashion retailer which wishes to maintain a younger customer profile. It inflates its prices for clothing while offering a 50% discount for the under-30s, thereby allowing them still to pay reasonable prices.

As regards my main point, have the Government had discussions? Is the Commission reasonably satisfied, from its independent perspective of not being part of a government department—its independence is crucial to the way in which it operates—with what the Government are doing? Have the Government at least explained why they are doing things in a specific way? Has the Commission accepted that as the Government’s right?

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

First, I declare an interest as a commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I also wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Verma for very comprehensively setting out the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012. She took us all the way through the order. I welcome the order and, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the Commission has also welcomed it.

Noble Lords might recall one of the key recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s very successful inquiry into older people and human rights in home care, which quite recently received widespread publicity. In that work, there was a specific call for the ban to commence as soon as possible in order to tackle the problem of ageist attitudes and unjustifiable age-based discrimination in this sector, some of which we know has been endemic and harrowing.

I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I recognise that the legislation should allow for some types of age differentiation to remain lawful. However, as has been explained in response to some of the consultations last year, we have concerns about some of the exceptions—for example, Article 3 and the financial services. Obviously, we all have concerns about the financial services. That exception could be seen to have been cast rather widely in that it refers to the whole sector as well as covering all transactions and interactions between customers and service providers.

As drafted, the exception would make it difficult or impossible to challenge some types of age discriminatory treatment. I understand that these things happen; for example, a bank may decline someone over the age of 75 applying for a credit card or making another type of application. Given this exemption, presumably a bank still would be able to do that. How would such a 75 year-old have recourse to that treatment? Could that be redressed under this provision?

Another example might be that of an insurance company making a decision about someone at the other end of the age spectrum, someone aged under 25. When insuring young people for driving a car, we know that many insurance companies tend—I will not use the word discriminate—to make it more difficult or charge higher prices for those under the age of 25. What safeguards may be in place to address these points?

I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about information to ensure that service providers, employers and the general public are made well aware of these new provisions, as well as of their rights under the new Act.

Police: Racism

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, for emphasising the importance with which we see the role of leadership within the police force in dealing with these matters and getting the culture right. I hope that will continue. As regards his second point about Winsor, I agree with him on that and we will pursue it. However, I believe that a degree more consultation is needed, and we will certainly do that in due course.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, is not the failure to deal with incidents of racism, particularly in the Metropolitan Police, a stain on our tolerant civilised society? Is it not further in stark contrast to the case of Liam Stacey, the student who was jailed for 56 days for posting offensive comments on Twitter after the collapse of the footballer Fabrice Muamba? What urgent action is being taken to restore trust between the police and the communities, and to stamp out the evil scourge of racism that still exists in certain sections of the force?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend that there is a failure on this occasion. What has happened is that the police themselves have recognised that there is a problem. It was the police officers themselves who raised these allegations and are dealing with them. That is the encouraging sign, indicating that there is not the institutional racism that has been alleged existed in the Met in the past. I am very grateful therefore that that is happening and that those matters are being dealt with.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right. That is why the Home Office has ring-fenced £28 million—so that we have those specialist services in place and so that those victims are able to access as much support as we can possibly give them, not just in terms of health and social services but being able to provide accommodation and all the other things that they require if they want to move from the communities that are imposing FGM on them.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, did my noble friend see the excellent report on “Newsnight” last night on this barbaric practice in Egypt? I was shocked to learn that 90 per cent of women, both Christian and Muslim, are subjected to this awful custom. Is she aware whether the schools in this country are playing their role? Some groups who campaign on the ground and work with young women and their families tell me that the Department for Education says that it does not collate any information that would help in this matter and that it is not really a problem, but schools know when girls are taken out of the country to have this procedure performed.

[Baroness Verma]

I did not watch the programme last night because I was here, sitting in the Chamber.

Police: Custody

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, one has to accept that the figures are not exactly proportionate; neither are the figures cited by the noble Lord. They are not proportionate to the population as a whole. Similarly, they would not be proportionate by age profile, gender or any other measure. Having said that, we are very keen that the criminal justice system should be neutral in these matters as far as possible, and I hope that it is. However, there is scope for others to undertake more in-depth analysis of why that should be. I cannot comment on the figures that the noble Lord has given me but, as I said, arrests are broadly, although not quite, proportionate. They are disproportionate in many other ways, depending on how one looks at them.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, at last week’s excellent Scarman lecture, the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted that there are more than 400 more young black British men in prison than at the Russell group universities. Does the Minister share my concern that, with the vast majority of young black people unemployed, this is an indictment of years of failure to tackle poor education, employment and opportunities for young black men in our society? What action is being taken to address this?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept my noble friend’s point and share her concerns on these matters. On policing, for which the Home Office is responsible, we are committed to delivering a police service that promotes equality, does not discriminate against anyone because of their race and is effective in rooting out and tackling racism. Where there are disproportionate numbers in one group as opposed to another, that invites further research. That is something we should do. However, at this stage I would not want to comment on why there are, as my noble friend puts it, more black people in prison than there are at the Russell group universities.

Violence Against Women

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Grand Committee

Asked By

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote and support the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, designated by the United Nations General Assembly for 25 November each year.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, the United Nations General Assembly designated 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and invited Governments, international organisations and NGOs to organise activities designed to raise public awareness of the problem on that day. Women activists have marked 25 November as a day against violence since 1981. The date came from the brutal assassination in 1960 of the three Mirabal sisters, who were political activists in the Dominican Republic.

Violence against women has been described as perhaps the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe. Governments have obligations to prevent violence against women under international and national human rights and equalities laws. Under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the United Kingdom has obligations to prevent violence against women before it happens.

The UK Government's commitment to tackling violence against women is clear. Our success in tackling this will be a test of this Government's ability to build a fairer society. There is clearly much more to do to ensure that women and girls are not held back. We should strive to be ambitious in our aims and to meet a shared commitment to ending violence. Violence against women and girls in the UK is still, sadly, widespread and has serious social, health, emotional and financial consequences. It is more prevalent among women in England than stroke, diabetes and heart disease. Attitudes that justify and excuse abuse are, sadly, still deeply entrenched.

Gender equality cannot be achieved while violence continues. In modern-day Britain, two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Sexual harassment in schools, communities and workplaces is still routine, and 60,000 women are raped every year. Trafficking and sexual exploitation affect thousands of women in the United Kingdom, and an estimated 6,500 girls in this country are still at risk of female genital mutilation each year. This is a scandal, and we simply cannot go on like this.

Just last summer, Jane Clough, a 26 year-old nurse working in Blackpool Victoria Hospital was brutally murdered by her ex-partner, the father of her baby, as she arrived to begin her night shift. Her murderer, Jonathan Vass, had appeared in court the previous December charged with three counts of rape. He had been further charged with six counts of rape and three assaults. Despite strong objections by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, he was released on bail by Judge Simon Newell, who had been told that he posed a real threat to the victim as a witness. Just recently, I watched a TV documentary about this awful case, which was so harrowing. For weeks, Jane Clough lived in fear. She kept a diary of how she feared for her life. Despite this fear, Jane did all the right things. She reported the rape and the violence, but her rapist was bailed, and he went on to kill her. This young woman was badly let down by the judicial system, resulting in her brutal death, leaving a small baby. When will victims receive more protection, and when will lessons be learnt? How can victims have confidence in the system when we still have incidents like this which, unfortunately, are still commonplace?

I declare an interest as a commissioner in the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As part of the commission's role as the national human rights institution and in line with our international reporting responsibilities, we at the commission have supported the drafting of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. This convention sets out legally binding standards for all forms of violence against women, bridging some of the existing gaps in human rights protection. However, the United Kingdom has yet to become a signatory of the convention.

In April 2011, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a new convention on preventing and combating violence against women. It has not, as I mentioned, been signed by the UK Government. Since the convention opened for signature in June, 17 countries have ratified, including Austria, France, Germany, Iceland, Macedonia, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine. The commission, and many of us, would be expected to encourage the United Kingdom Government to adopt international human rights standards. Can I ask the Minister whether the United Kingdom Government have reached a decision on becoming a signatory? In a recent response to a similar question, the Equalities Minister stated that the Government would consider the equality implications when making a decision on that signature.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

I speak as a member of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have some experience of these situations there and I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Baroness said about the need to combat violence of all kinds against women.

Would it not be fair—I am perhaps setting this up for the Minister also to comment—to say that in the United Kingdom we tend to take a very rigorous view of our ability to have the legislation and the other administrative arrangements in place before we sign up to conventions and that there will always be, as indeed there was in relation to the convention on the trafficking of women, where a number of us pressed very hard for a British signature, a certain reticence before we sign up? It is not a lack of commitment—or at least I hope it is not—but rather a determination to get our ducks in a row before we commit ourselves. Some of the other member states may take a slightly lighter view of their responsibilities, although they should, of course, take them equally seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

I thank my noble friend for that helpful intervention and for bringing his experience to bear on what I have to say. I hope that the Minister, when she comes to respond, will also ratify some of the problems in committing to a signature.

We all know that internationally—and this is an international day, after all—there is still so much to do. I have raised the plight of Afghan women in your Lordships’ House before, and I would like to turn briefly to a terrible incident that happened just last Thursday, which I was struck by. It was reported very widely in the news. A group of armed men stoned and shot dead a woman and her daughter in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province. Officials blamed the Taliban, who they said had accused the women of moral deviation and adultery. The police said that two men had been arrested in connection with the murder. The attack happened only 300 metres from the governor’s office in Ghazni city, which is on the list of places to be transferred to Afghan security control, and close to the police chief’s office and a Western-backed provincial reconstruction team. I find it quite extraordinary that no one called for help in this terrible incident. Security officials said armed men entered the house where the young widow lived with her daughter and took them out to the yard where they were initially stoned and then shot dead. Officials said a number of religious leaders in the city had been issuing fatwas asking people to report any one who was involved in adultery.

We are 10 years on in this country’s involvement with Afghanistan, and I think most of us will remember —I certainly remember very clearly—that one of the reasons given for that involvement was to make things better for women in Afghanistan. Despite all these promises, the plight of women in Afghanistan seems to be, and the evidence shows this, worse than ever. Can the Minister say what representations and influence Britain has in bringing the plight of women to the top of the political agenda in terms of our relationship and our activities in Afghanistan? What activities are being developed, or are planned, to highlight what is happening there, and what can be brought to bear to change things?

I will conclude with an appropriate and wise comment from Mary Wollstonecraft, the 18th century writer and activist, who is regarded as the mother of British feminism. She will have her image beamed onto the Houses of Parliament tomorrow between 4.10 pm and 6.10 pm. The campaign to celebrate her life is being organised by the charity Newington Green Action Group. It hopes to place her statue in London’s Newington Green, in Islington, in the ward I represented as a councillor, very near to where I grew up, where Wollstonecraft lived and set up a girls’ school in the 1700s. She simply wrote of women:

“I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves”.

She lived between 1759 and 1797, and it struck me that 250 years later we are still debating this very basic principle of allowing women to have control and power over their own lives. I hope that one day there will be no need for further debates such as this.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There were other noble Lords who indicated that they would have liked to have taken part, but there is a lot of business going on, and a clash in your Lordships’ House.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Motion, which,

“regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have not made sufficient information available to judge whether the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 908) is likely to achieve its policy objectives”.

In speaking to this general debate on the two Motions, I say first that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raises some very important points about the effect of the changes on survivors of domestic violence and the negative impact on the Government’s commitment to end violence against women and girls. In particular, there is an inconsistency, as he pointed out, between the Home Secretary’s statement on domestic violence and the consequences of this statement of changes. Even if the number of cases is likely to be small, there is clearly a matter of principle to be discussed here.

My own Motion arises from concerns that a statement of changes has been laid without an impact assessment. As a result of this lack of information, the Merits Committee has drawn the statement of changes,

“to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House and may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives”.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already referred to this point and I want to emphasise the points that he made.

Clearly, there are several important questions that remain to be answered, and the Merits Committee has identified eight or nine of them. I will not read through its list of questions—I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is well able to answer them—but there are two or three that I would highlight. First, will the changes contribute to reducing abuse of the student immigration system? Secondly, what will be the costs and benefits of the changes for the education sector? We have debated at Oral Questions and on Statements on several occasions over the past few months the impact that this is likely to have on the education sector. The noble Baroness will be aware that the Opposition’s concerns have very much focused on the unintended consequences for several of our educational institutions. I should be glad of some further information about this.

A third specific question for the noble Baroness is what impact the changes will have on the UK economy. When these proposals were first set out by the Government some months ago, we understood that several countries were gleeful at the thought that students who would have come to the UK would now go to those other countries. We are in a competitive situation. We are talking about the kind of students that we need to attract to our country.

The noble Baroness will probably be aware that I have a background in the health service. There is clear evidence that overseas students who come to our medical schools and go back to their own countries continue to maintain important links with the UK, which has had real benefits for the stimulation and sharing of medical knowledge, and the ability of British companies to sell their goods to other medical systems. I am very concerned that these changes could impact on the ability of our country to do business with other countries, and about the more general economic impact that that will have.

We then come to the core of the concern. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“A draft Impact Assessment of the changes to Tier 4 has been prepared, however it is awaiting final clearance by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The Impact Assessment will be published in due course, once it has been finalised”.

We now know from a further report by the Merits Committee that,

“The UK Border Agency … has now confirmed that they do not intend to publish the IA until June”.

The statement of changes came into effect on 21 April. We were given it without the impact assessment, which we are now not to have until June. The Merits Committee considers this approach “highly regrettable”. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that it is quite unacceptable. I agree. I am sure the Regulatory Policy Committee is a very august body, to which I defer and pay due acknowledgement. However, it takes the biscuit that this committee has to deliberate for months before Parliament is allowed to see the initial work on the impact assessment. This is unacceptable.

I say to the noble Baroness, whom we are all delighted to see in her place, that the Home Office has previous form in this area. Indeed, on 3 May we debated the statement of changes in Immigration Rules HC 863. The Government were rightly criticised for not publishing a comprehensive explanation of the findings of the consultation on that statement. These debates are valuable. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to provide some assurance that the points are taken to heart by her department, and that when there are future statements rather more information will be given.

The previous time we debated this, I am afraid I went down the cul-de-sac of discussing statutory instruments and House of Lords reform. I certainly do not expect the noble Baroness to respond to me if I go down that route again. I do not intend to push this to the vote and I doubt the noble Lord does either. However, it will be a pity if tomorrow, in the Statement, the draft Bill and the White Paper, very little is said about the powers of a reformed second Chamber. One of the reasons why I am a little doubtful as to whether the Government’s House of Lords reform proposals will make considerable progress is the failure to tackle the issue of powers. I have no doubt that, were this House to be 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected, the noble Lord and I would not hesitate to put this to the vote tonight. We would certainly feel that we had the legitimacy to do so. I do not expect the noble Baroness to join me in that debate. However, the day before we get the Statement, it is irresistible. I am glad to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Avebury in his comprehensive introduction to our reasons for raising this matter tonight—the problems that we envisage in the changes and their impact, particularly on women who may suffer through domestic violence. I shall confine my remarks to that and I will not keep the House too long.

I welcome the Government’s announcement that, from 1 April next year, women on spouse visas who experience domestic violence will be able to access mainstream welfare benefits for a short time while their application for indefinite leave to remain is decided by the UK Border Agency. This is extremely positive. It is in line with the Call to End Violence against Women and Girls action plan launched by the right honourable Home Secretary a few months ago. It included a commitment to finding long-term solutions to support those who have had no recourse to public funds. As we have heard, last week she restated her commitment that domestic violence must be taken seriously. However, my big concern about the statement of changes is, as set out by noble friend Lord Avebury, about the impact and, indeed, the unintended consequences of these changes as they apply to women in abusive relationships. We fear that those women may not come forward as a result of these changes. We know that women in abusive relationships are vulnerable—that is a given—and often do not come forward for a considerable length of time. Those women already live here and are British, but imagine women in these circumstances for whom their immigration status is an additional factor. They are even more vulnerable and subject to abuse.

We know that half the women in UK prisons say that they have suffered domestic violence. We also know that perpetrators of domestic violence often make false allegations about the victims of abuse to the police, which can result in criminal proceedings and possibly a conviction. The convictions cited could be for minor offences. I will give an example. As I mentioned in the debate we had some time ago on International Women’s Day, I set up the first domestic violence project for women with a Turkish and Kurdish background in Hackney and Islington nearly 20 years ago. I saw the full range of abuse suffered by the women whom we helped, in all its horrors. Many of these women were often too scared to come forward and get help because of threats from other family members and for fear of being ostracised by their immediate community if they reported their abusive partner to the police. For example, a woman may be trapped at home looking after her children and be totally reliant financially on her partner. He could refuse to give her money to buy food. I know that such cases have happened. I have dealt with a similar case where, in these terrible circumstances, a woman who took food from a shop—she stole food to feed herself and her children in a quite desperate situation—went on to receive a conviction for shoplifting. These already vulnerable women would be further disadvantaged if a minor caution or conviction, such as the failure to have a valid TV licence, became a deterrent to seeking help. I have dealt with a lot of these heart-rending cases. One involved a woman who finally found the courage to report her violent partner to the police only to be murdered on the streets of Hackney after he had been let out on bail the next day, without her being informed.

The UK Border Agency has said that it will continue to provide leave when needed to help protect women and girls. However, there remain huge concerns that this is insufficient, and that the rules will deter women from coming forward. We have already heard about the quality of some of the decisions taken by the UK Border Agency, and this is another big factor. In light of this, the wider context and the evidence that we are hearing and know about on the ground, I would ask my noble friend the Minister to reconsider this issue and to take it back. It does, and will, affect a relatively small number of women who are victims of domestic violence, but surely protecting all women must be our paramount concern.