Elections Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

So there it is. Mr Raab can choose, with all his bluster about terrorists, rapists and paedophiles, to inflict a Victorian-type civic death on an offender the moment the prison doors clang shut. It is done under the Forfeiture Act 1870 of 150 years ago. It is a relic of Locke’s heavily criticised 1689 theory of the social contract. What does that achieve in the 21st century? In Europe, it aligns us with Russia and Belarus, not the overwhelming majority of European countries that now permit prisoners to exercise their right to vote. Today, this modest amendment will return the franchise to those sentenced to one year’s imprisonment or less. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have added my name and which has been so well introduced by the noble Lord. The House of Commons Library briefing note on prisoners’ votes details the sorry tale, as has the noble Lord, of how the issue has been kicked into the long grass without a satisfactory resolution, following the ECHR ruling that an indiscriminate ban on all serving prisoners contravened the European Convention on Human Rights and subsequent calls from the Council of Europe. The result has been, in the words of one expert commentator, “minimalist compliance”. When it comes to prisoners’ votes, it is a question of “out of sight, out of mind”, just as prisoners themselves are.

The recent prisons White Paper included, in a section on the purposes of prisons, the need to

“promote rehabilitation and reform to reduce reoffending.”

It would be facile to suggest that, of itself, giving short-term prisoners the vote would lead to rehabilitation. But to withhold the right to vote from them, together with some of the things said by Ministers when it was a live issue—the noble Lord quoted David Cameron on the subject, in particular—indicates a punitive rather than a rehabilitative view of the role of prisons. On Thursday, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti argued powerfully for the right to vote as a fundamental civil and political right. It is a basic right of citizenship. To withhold this right from short-term prisoners is in effect to say that they are not citizens. As the noble Lord said, it has been described as a state of civic death, one which affects black and minority ethnic groups disproportionately, according to the Prison Reform Trust.

Of course, as Governments of all hues like to emphasise, citizenship is about responsibilities as well as rights. My noble friend described it as an “ethical duty”. What better way to instil a sense of civic responsibility in prisoners than to encourage them to see themselves as fellow citizens with a stake in the country and the right and responsibility to express their views through the vote. As Conservative MP Peter Bottomley once argued,

“Ex-offenders and ex-prisoners should be active, responsible citizens. Voting in prison can be a useful first step to engaging in society.”


The Electoral Commission has in the past considered the practicalities involved and concluded that they are perfectly feasible. As has been said, the UK is one of only a handful of European countries which automatically disenfranchises sentenced prisoners. All the amendment would do is extend the vote to those sentenced to 12 months or less, which is a very modest step, but one it is high time we took. It may not be popular, but few people will have heard the case for it, given that most politicians have been so against it. In the name of citizenship and fundamental rights, it is time that a Government had the courage to take this modest step.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is again my great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and agree with everything she has said. I offer Green Party support for Amendment 139. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in introducing the amendment, this is a long-term situation where the UK has not complied with its human rights obligations. This is an occasion where I am not going to hold this Government solely responsible; the Labour Government had five years to remedy the situation and the coalition Government had five years to fix it, yet here we still are.

The Green Party policy, as is the case in many things, would go rather further than the amendment. Our policy is that all prisoners should have the right to vote except where the sentencing judge, taking into account the nature of the offence, decides to make the loss of the vote explicitly part of the penalty. The obvious cases where that might happen would be in a case of electoral fraud, for example, or perhaps where an oligarch who has used some of their ill-gotten gains to attempt to buy a political party or a certain political outcome.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the question is what prisons are for when it comes to more standard types of offences. Are we cutting people off from society, further reinforcing social exclusion and distancing them from the norms and values that we are hoping they will absorb before they go out into society? After all, nearly everyone who is in prison will eventually go out into society. Are we actively trying to rehabilitate people and equip them for a life outside prison?

Voting is a fundamental part of our society. The blanket denial that says that once you are in jail you cannot vote is a way of saying, “We’re not going to do anything to improve the world that helped to put you into this place”. We know the situation of so many people in prison and the huge disadvantage and inequality that is a background to people who are there. So the amendment does not go far enough but it is an important first step.

Elections Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Has the noble Lord finished? I am sure my noble friend will deal with his query, which has been dealt with thoroughly already. The Labour Party is a voluntary organisation which you can choose to be in or not, and if you choose to, you abide by the rules thereof—rules that are democratically determined within the party itself. It is totally different, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, from a clear right to vote, which should apply to everyone, irrespective of the degree to which they wish to become involved in daily politics, which is of course a matter of choice.

I wanted to speak now because I did not quite understand what it was that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, did not understand about my previous intervention on this subject. I shall not discuss any individual details, because we have sundry debates on those coming up. The silence of the Government Front Bench on two or three issues in the whole of this discussion seems to have permeated the Back Benches as well. One of the crucial questions for me is whether the Tory party, which is investing an awful lot of time and effort in the Bill—and money; £180 million at least and rising—is doing so on the basis that somehow, we should be disturbed by the result of the last general election, which, I sadly remind everyone, it won with an 80-seat majority.

The Government are saying—by their actions, if not by their words—that the election is a bit dubious, a bit dodgy. Every contribution from that side is more or less implying just that. If it is not dodgy at a global level—the 80-seat majority—it must surely be dodgy in respect of a number of individual constituencies. So, I would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who is an expert on these things, which of the 650 constituencies he thinks should probably be declared invalid on the basis of serious doubts and misgivings about the authenticity of the voters in those constituencies?

Having fought numerous elections and, on one occasion, having won by 360-odd votes in an electorate of 90,000, I can only say to the noble Lord and to all those who say that people do not accept our election results because the system is first past the post, that no one in the ballots in individual constituencies argues for a moment with the idea that the person who was first past the post was the winner and should be declared the winner, even if it was by a short head. But the point I am making now is that no one contested that result. My opponent, to his credit, although he called for a couple of recounts, did not doubt the validity of the result any more than I did when, prior to that, I lost by rather more, it must be said—by 1,500. Likewise, I did not contest the result.

I really do want to know the answer to this, because we are in a very odd situation. You would think we would be on different sides of the argument. You would expect the Opposition to be saying that they were really worried about the last election result and that it looked very dodgy that the Tories got an 80-seat majority, with the Government saying that it was the finest election they have ever been privileged to take part in. But in this Alice in Wonderland world, it is the Government who are raising serious questions about the validity of the election result. So, I repeat that point, which is hanging in the air, and if the Minister would share with the House his deep anxieties about the last general election, I would like to hear them.

I would also like to hear from the Minister precisely what the Government’s estimate is of the effect on voter participation of the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill, which introduce a substantial new requirement for people to exercise their right to vote. This is the biggest change in the electoral requirements in my lifetime. I suppose the voting age has changed and there have been other changes of that sort, but this is a substantial one that says to electors that what they have done in the past is not good enough and there are too many risks associated with it, so they must jump over these additional hurdles.

Our contention—I say ours, but I think it is a pretty broad contention—is that the one thing you can be sure of is that introducing a brand-new requirement such as this will have a completely neutral effect on election turnout, which, I remind the House, has been going down rather badly, certainly since I first started fighting elections. I looked up the figures for a few—1970 was the first one I fought. In February 1974, the turnout was 79% and for the last five or six elections, it has been down in the 60s. That is bad news for anyone who cares about democracy. I was proud of the fact that we used to beat lots of other countries substantially on turnout at major elections. That is no longer the case. It is not credible to say that this big change in voting requirements for voters will have no impact whatsoever on turnout. I will give the Minister three options: is he saying it will have no impact whatsoever; that it risks reducing turnout; or that it is going to increase turnout? That would be an interesting intellectual case to develop.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My noble friend might be interested to know that at the end of the last day in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, pointed out that no analysis of turnout has been done. Indeed, the noble Baroness the Minister said:

“I can confirm that we have not done that impact analysis. The important impact will be after.”—[Official Report, 17/3/22; col. 568.]


So I am afraid my noble friend will not get an answer to his question, because they have not done the research.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of these clauses not standing part of the Bill. I do so primarily for the reasons we debated on Thursday, and I will not go over all those again in terms of the differential impact on marginalised groups. In particular, I spoke about people in poverty, and about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is not about those groups not understanding paperwork and so forth. As my noble friend said, there are all sorts of reasons why marginalised groups may find it harder to vote. If the noble Baroness reads that debate she will see that the very work that goes into getting by in poverty can itself act as a barrier to sorting out alternative ID cards.

We have talked a lot about trust. One of the Government’s arguments—it has been put today—is that the measure is essential to increase trust in the electoral system. However, the Electoral Commission public opinion tracker found that when asked what would increase voter satisfaction, twice as many people replied proportional representation—which we shall discuss on Wednesday—as said increased security against fraud. Worse—here I do agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—there is a real danger that the Government themselves are eroding trust by suggesting that fraud is a problem that could be addressed by these provisions. The more it is said that there is a problem of fraud, the more the general electorate are likely to think that there is a problem of fraud. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warns that this could damage trust between the individual and the state. It was also pretty scathing about the quality of the evidence put forward to justify the move, saying that it was “simply not good enough”.

Various concerns have been raised about the evidence provided by the pilots that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, talked about—such as, in particular, that none was carried out in a large urban metropolis, and that we know nothing about the people who were turned away because they lacked the requisite identification and did not return. Nobody bothered to find out what happened to them.

As we heard on Thursday—there has been mention of this today too—one line of defence is that voter ID is used in most EU countries. When it was pointed out that some form of general ID is mandatory in most of those countries, the Minister said that this was neither here nor there. Actually, it is very much here and there. Whatever people think about it, if they have to carry ID around with them anyway, there is no great difficulty in taking it to the polling station. If people are not carrying it around with them anyway, that is a lot more difficult.

Both the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised questions about the Government’s claim that the measures are proportionate—a test they need to meet to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. On the one hand, as we have heard, there is very little evidence of fraud—even allowing for the fact that it is difficult to produce such evidence. On the other hand, there is pretty overwhelming evidence that the measures are likely to have a disproportionate impact on marginalised voters and potential voters. But of course we do not know—because, as I have said, the Government have not done the research. Far from being essential to the protection of our democracy, as the Minister in the Commons claimed, these provisions are a threat to inclusive democracy and citizenship.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I agree with everything she said.

I offer Green support for Clause 1 not standing part. We would have attached a signature to the opposition to the clause had there been space. I am well aware that we have already had a very long debate, so I will make three key points that have not quite been made elsewhere, and echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in introducing the group, on the power of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, last week. Anyone who wants to see it will find it on my Twitter account, handily captioned and shared. I urge people to share it because it deserves a wide audience.

The first of my three points builds on the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who suggested that people were saying there might be a sinister plot with the Republicans. There does not have to be a sinister plot for people to copy what they see happen in other parts of the world. Indeed, the inspiration for voter ID, which I believe is voter suppression, comes from the other side of the pond. I quote the American Civil Liberties Union, because if that is where the inspiration comes from it is instructive to see the context:

“Voting should be as easy and accessible as possible … But … more than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states … The result is a severely compromised democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of the people. Our democracy works best when all eligible voters can participate and have their voices heard.”


That is a message from America, but it is one we should also listen to here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

Well, my Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in what has been quite a lengthy debate—but why not? It is an important issue.

I will try to answer the various points which have been made. The proposition in Clause 1, which is before us, is part of a whole series of measures which this Government are putting in the Bill to strengthen the security and integrity of elections. These include matters we are coming on to in relation to postal votes, the handling of postal votes and so on. There is a consistent overall desire in the Government to ensure that votes are cast, and cast with integrity. I submit to the Committee that there is no distinction—no “one or the other”—between wanting more people to vote and trying to secure the integrity of the vote. This is a false antithesis that has run through the debate. All of us should want to do both things: to ensure that all votes are honest and honestly handled, and that as many people vote as possible. We are able to do both; it is not one or the other.

Last week, on the first technical amendment in what was a lengthy series of amendments relating to voter identification, we had a wide-ranging clause stand part-style debate on many aspects of Clause 1, and on the assessments done on costs for voter identification and its potential impacts. I acknowledge that, as has happened again today, the Benches opposite have made it abundantly clear that they do not support this policy—or Clause 1 or Schedule 1 of the Bill. The Government disagree. In our submission, this policy is necessary and proportionate. It also implements the Government’s manifesto commitment to voter identification to protect the security and integrity of our ballot, so that our elections will remain secure well into the future.

The idea floated by some, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that this was not a manifesto commitment because the word “photo” was not in the manifesto, is wide of the mark. As I said in our last session, the Government clearly declared their policy in the Queen’s Speech in October 2019, set out in detail in the briefing what that would mean, and referenced that in the manifesto. Manifestos briefly often reference established policy. Indeed, there was much debate at the time about the proposition that the Government had put on the table, including the photographic aspect.

I must tell the House that the Government regard this proposal as fully covered by the conventions of your Lordships’ House on manifesto commitments—as they would apply under the Government of any party. The process for voting in polling stations—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry, but can the Minister clarify why the Government chose not to put the word “photo” into the manifesto? No one is disputing that there was a manifesto commitment; what we are disputing is whether that commitment was for photo ID.

[Lord True (Con)]

The Government had an established and declared policy on voter identification which was referenced in the manifesto. Not every aspect of every policy goes into a manifesto. We do not normally put 177 pages—or whatever it was that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned—into a manifesto. However, the specific details—not only the photo identification, but also the fact that we would offer, as part of this, a free card to anyone who is not covered by any of the aspects of the policy—were declared public policy. That, too, remains the Government’s policy.

My noble friend Lady Noakes said that the process for voting in polling stations in Great Britain has seen no significant changes in its security since the Ballot Act 1872. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned another Gladstonian reform. None the less, the system used in the Victorian era, in a confined franchise in smaller communities, is in our submission simply not fit for the 21st century. There are undeniable vulnerabilities in our system—covered not only in this Clause 1 measure but in others as we track through the Bill—which let people down because they can lead, and have led, to votes being stolen by unscrupulous individuals. The introduction of photographic voter identification as a solution to such vulnerabilities is supported by the independent Electoral Commission. As we have heard, it is also backed—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I take that point; this is not the perfect list. Indeed, there is a rather different agenda behind it. I shared at Second Reading my concern about lower rates of participation in voting and the difficulty of voter registration, especially for younger voters. It is odd that a Government driving forward a digital reform agenda in so many other areas are not doing so in this one. I believe in modernisation; I think digitisation is coming. It is very odd that we are not taking the Bill as an opportunity to introduce it in the electoral register. I also do not believe in lots of red tape and disproportionate burdens from it. By adding to the list, I am trying to reduce the amount of red tape as a barrier to people legitimately voting in elections.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendments to which I added my name: Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—he made a very strong case for the amendment, possibly modified to take account of what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said—and Amendment 78 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. Again, my motivation in supporting these amendments stems mainly from my concern that the photo ID requirements will disproportionately exclude marginalised groups, including people in poverty and members of the GRT communities, who are also less likely to apply for a voter ID card, to some extent for the same reasons they do not have photo ID in the first place. The additions suggested by the noble Lord are much more likely to be held by these groups. For me, that is the key test: are these forms of identification that members of marginalised groups are more likely to have?

The noble Lord quoted the Pickles report. I will repeat the quote, because he rather rushed over it and it is worth emphasising:

“perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution.”

My fear is that perfection is getting in the way of not just a practical solution but, as I have said, inclusive democracy and citizenship. I am yet to hear a convincing justification for why this should be accepted as a proportionate response to the supposed problem of personation. Again, the noble Lord spoke eloquently about that.

I am also unclear why the Government are so opposed to a vouching system, as proposed in Amendment 78—they made it very clear in the Commons that they are opposed to it—not least given the fact, as my noble friend Lord Collins pointed out, that the Electoral Commission has supported the idea. Once again, it smacks of a worrying lack of trust in the electorate.

Finally, once again, I welcome the commitment to continued consultation with civil society groups to maximise accessibility for those most likely to need to apply for a voter card and/or who will find it most difficult to apply. Once again, will that include groups working with people in poverty and GRT communities? Will it include those who bring the expertise of experience to the table? That expertise will be of particular value in this context: who will know better what will work, or not, about applying for a voter card than the people who will make those applications? I am grateful to the Minister for promising last week to send me a list of those being consulted, but I would welcome an answer to this specific question about whose expertise will be taken into account in rolling out these provisions, because it is quite important.

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, I offer your Lordships an apology for not being able to contribute to Committee for all sorts of reasons, but I said at Second Reading that I would support amendments that introduced mitigating factors to reduce the risk of unintended exclusion, particularly for that group of people the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to: those on lower incomes. There is real risk that that could happen through this immediate introduction of photo ID.

That is why I was very glad to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which, as he said, seeks to widen the forms of photo ID available and extend the list to include other forms of ID that do not include photographic ID. I was going to make similar points to say that the amendment is consistent with the approach taken in the local council pilot scheme in 2018-19. As has been said, it is entirely consistent with the earlier report from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and the gradualist introduction, if I may put it that way, of photo ID in Northern Ireland.

It seems that the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the risk of people living on lower incomes—a significant proportion of whom we know do not possess the acceptable photo ID—being disfranchised, which is my particular concern. That would simply be a form of non-recognition, which would be a moral injury to them and an injustice that would damage the UK’s traditions of democratic participation. The amendment seems to follow the logic of the inclusion of 60+ Oyster cards and blue badges, allowing for greater accessibility to particular groups of the electorate by making provision for those on lower income and other potentially marginalised groups to retain the highest chance of inclusion in the democratic process.

Elections Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know about mandatory ID cards. All I know is that they have to use voter identification when they vote and that is the important issue—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but surely the important thing is that if they already have to have an ID card, it is very different from having to get a special ID card to vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not agree with that. I do not think that is necessary. It is in the government manifesto and electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. I know the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was very clear that there had been only one case of fraud but the impact of electoral fraud on voters can be very significant. It takes away their right to vote as they want to—whether through intimidation, bribery, impersonating somebody or casting their vote for them—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think that is a different discussion.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

This might be helpful, because we were wondering what was in the manifesto. In fact, the Joint Committee on Human Rights quotes from it:

“We will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.”


There is nothing about photo ID.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can we now move on, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

In the Queen’s Speech in October 2019, the Government announced that they would introduce legislation on voter identification. It was very clearly set out in the guidance and briefing that was given around the Queen’s Speech that that would specifically include photo identification and the free identity cards for local authorities. It was an announced and established policy of voter identification, and the manifesto referred to this.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The Queen’s Speech and the manifesto are different things, and the manifesto did not say “photo identification”.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is correct. I appreciate what the Minister said about the Queen’s Speech, but, again, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Members of the Government keep telling us that this was a manifesto commitment, but it is important to clarify the distinction between a manifesto commitment and what the Government decided to go forward with in the Queen’s Speech. We can debate that, I am sure—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I thank noble Lords who have been supportive: the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. In the previous debate, where we strayed into other areas, we heard a lot of concern about voter turnout. My amendments in this group aim to draw attention to the potential impact on voter turnout in all the different areas where concerns have been raised.

I will just run through them. We are looking at age brackets. We have heard concerns that younger people could be badly impacted by this. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, raised huge concerns about the impact on older people.

I also have an amendment about the impact on voter turnout of different disabilities. Our last day in Committee started with a debate on what could happen to blind or partially sighted people if the proposals were brought in without addressing the concerns of the RNIB and other people who have sight problems. Other disabilities have also been looked at; access, for example. There is also an amendment on the impact on voter turnout among different ethnicities. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who is no longer in her place, talked about this and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, has done tremendous work looking at this area.

There is an amendment on nations and regions. One of the concerns is the differentials that will come with England and the devolved areas, and how this will be managed regionally. We know from different kinds of evidence that certain regions are more likely to struggle with voter turnout than others. Also, there is the issue of voter turnout in different income brackets. At Second Reading, noble Lords referred to the important research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which was carried out because the Government had not looked at this. They had looked at other areas but not at income level. If any noble Lord has not read the report, it is very important in getting an understanding.

I draw attention to one or two things the foundation said. It said that low-income potential voters are much more likely not to have photo ID—1% compared with 6%. It talked about how this could mean 1 million low-income voters in Great Britain not having possession of approved photo ID. On top of that, 700,000 low-income adults who would have photo ID felt that they were not actually recognisable and were concerned that their ID would not be accepted. We will have another debate at some point about people being turned away.

I do not want to take up too much time, as we are supposed to finish at 7 pm, but to cover a lot of those different areas, I want to look at the London Voices project. It carried out a survey that asked organisations to describe the impact that they thought photo voter ID would have. The key concerns expressed were that the requirement for photo voter ID

“would reduce democratic participation thus widening the democratic deficit, and impose unfair barriers on already marginalised communities, such as disabled Londoners and Black, Asian and ethnic minority Londoners.”

The report quoted some people in their own words. We have talked an awful lot in this House, but we need to listen to what people on the street say when they are asked about this.

The first one that I want to read out is from Southwark Travellers’ Action Group, which supports Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Londoners. We have not heard enough in their voice. They are very marginalised and we do not take enough account of the difficulties that they often have in civic life. The group said:

“‘The women who we work with, not all of them, but some of them don’t have either passports or driving licences. So that would be an extra barrier for them. Also just the expense of getting those things … Sometimes we have people who want to get a new passport but can’t afford it at the moment, so that’s a real problem.”


Haringey Welcome, which supports migrant and refugee Londoners, said:

“Loads of people don’t have a passport, have never travelled outside of the country… it’s clearly the poor and the disadvantaged, who are least likely to be able to prove their identity”.


Central YMCA looks after young Londoners and points out:

“We do have an informal economy in London. Anybody who doesn’t want to accept that is just not facing reality. So, the people in that economy will be very reluctant. And quite a lot of people in that economy tend to be from BAME communities, or from poorer communities. And therefore, you’re actually saying to quite a large part of the demographic that they are going to be excluded from the democratic process.”


Jacky Peacock, from Advice for Renters—aimed at private renters—says:

“Fewer people will vote—some won’t have photo ID, some (particularly refugees) have lived in authoritarian countries and are fearful while for others it’s just one more small deterrent”.


Voice4Change England looks after black Londoners, and says:

“In vibrant civil society, it is incumbent on the government to endeavour to increase political participation by expanding voters’ rights. The US case rightly highlights that the introduction of voter ID legislation reduced voter participation, and it is suggested that this was disproportionately high among racial and ethnic minority groups … The government should … address the fact that millions of people are left off the electoral register, to review anachronistic campaign laws”.


Finally, Rachel Coates speaks for Advocacy for All, which represents disabled Londoners:

“I think less people with disabilities will vote as this makes it more complicated”.


I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this group, and I will speak specifically to Amendments 58 and 59, to which I have added my name. But first I will make some points about the group in general. In the Commons the Minister said:

“The Government are committed to increasing participation in our democracy and to empowering all those eligible to vote to do so in a secure, efficient and effective way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 83.]


Yet a wide range of civil society groups, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee have all voiced concerns about how the voter ID requirements will have the opposite effect for marginalised groups. We heard powerfully from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, about that earlier.

When these concerns were raised in the Commons Committee, the Minister tried to turn the tables with the extraordinary response that to suggest that those groups more likely not to hold the requisite photo ID would not be able to access photo cards

“is to unfairly diminish the agency”,

and

“assuming from the get-go that people are disadvantaged on the basis of their background is stigmatising and denies them their agency”.—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 22/9/21; col. 127.]

As the author of a book on poverty, one of the central themes of which is the importance of recognising the agency of those living in poverty, I would point out that agency has to be understood in the context of the myriad structural constraints and barriers they face. The same applies to all the marginalised groups that concern us here. The Bill will increase those barriers further.

I now turn to the impact of Clause 1 on people in poverty, which I am pleased to say has already been touched on by my noble friend. As she said, the official evidence made available and statements made do not address this directly at all, as income status is not one of the parameters researched, even though the indicators of the likely adverse impact on the unemployed and on people in social housing should have set a red light flashing, prompting further research into those on low incomes. That it did not do so speaks volumes. Instead, as my noble friend also said, we are indebted to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for carrying out the research. I will not repeat the details that my noble friend mentioned, but of the total of all those on low incomes who did not have photo ID, thought that what they had was unrecognisable, or were not sure, only about half said that they would be likely to apply for a voter card, and two-fifths said they were unlikely to, or were unsure whether they would.

That is not to deny the agency of this group, but it might reflect a reluctance to engage with the state in this way, because of a lack of trust, as a number of commentators have observed. Or it may be a function of the sheer hard work involved in getting by in poverty. Getting by in poverty is itself an example of time-consuming agency, the more time-consuming when also juggling multiple jobs, long hours and/or insecure work.

Elections Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I will speak to Amendments 119 and 120 in particular, but I must first apologise for not having contributed at Second Reading because of a pre-existing engagement.

I am at a genuine loss as to why the Government appear to have dug their heels in against an amendment along the lines of Amendments 119 and 120, with such an amendment being rejected in the Commons. They claim to have been listening to civil society when developing the Bill’s provisions, yet it is clear that civil society organisations of and for disabled people, while welcoming the new broader provision in the Bill, are very concerned about the dropping of the specific provision for the effective voting rights of blind and visually impaired people. Examples include the oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee given by the head of policy at Disability Rights UK, evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and a series of briefings from the RNIB.

No one is disputing the value of having a broader protection to cover disabled people more generally, but why does it have to be either/or rather than both/and—that is, both the more general protection and the specific protection that it has long been recognised blind and visually impaired voters need, albeit updated to be more effective than the existing provision that, as we have already heard, leaves all too many blind and visually impaired voters humiliated when they try to vote independently?

The only argument the Government seem to have is that the kind of specific provision that would be provided in these amendments is, in the words of the Commons Minister in the Public Bill Committee, “needlessly prescriptive” and an “unnecessary obstacle to inclusion”. But the RNIB is clear that this is not so. Amendments 119 and 120 both refer to equipment without specifying what that equipment should be. How is that prescriptive? Can the Minister please explain? Prescription is left to secondary legislation, which can easily be amended.

I understand that the RNIB has been working with the Cabinet Office on how to improve voting accessibility and that officials have met with it to discuss concerns about the Bill. The Minister in the Commons confirmed that they had seen the evidence presented by the RNIB but said:

“We do not expect the outcomes that the RNIB has outlined to necessarily be the case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 235.]


Why do the Government believe they know better than those with day-to-day experience of the issues involved? That is not a rhetorical question; I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister. If they do not believe the predicted negative outcomes to “necessarily be the case”, the implication is that they accept they might be the case. Surely on the precautionary principle used to justify the introduction of voting identification—which will create its own problems for disabled people, as I am sure we will discuss on Thursday—the Government should listen to the warnings of the RNIB and other disability groups.

In the interests of inclusive citizenship, I hope very much that the Government will think again, accept the spirit of these amendments and bring forward their own amendment on Report.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to lend my support for the amendments in this group. Interestingly, the Bill says that its purpose is

“to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process”

but not its inclusivity. That is a gap that pervades the whole Bill, and we will return to it in subsequent debates.

In this specific instance, there is a significant gap indeed—you have only to read the RNIB briefing to see the extent of it. It identifies the scale of the challenge, with 250 people starting to lose their sight every day, and its serious concerns that the Elections Bill weakens protections for blind and partially sighted voters at polling stations. It seems to me surprising, if not unconscionable, that we will be approving legislation that the RNIB believes weakens protections.

It is doubly concerning given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, there are plenty of opportunities to improve access through technology. There are pilots that have proven to be successful.

I find it difficult to understand why the Government would resist these amendments, which seek to keep the innovation within the system but maintain the protections. That ought, after all, to be what we seek to do here. If the outcome of this legislation is that those who are blind or partially sighted feel that their opportunities to vote independently and in secret are diminished, and that their protections are diminished, something has gone very badly wrong in our consideration of legislation.

Elections Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Whichever route the Government prefer, in my view, there is an unanswerable argument for a change to the regulated period, and the need for change has been made more important as a result of the ending of fixed-term Parliaments. I make no comment on the desirability or otherwise of fixed-term Parliaments, but the by-product of having them was to give third-party campaigners increased visibility of the likelihood of a general election coming along. Now, for better or worse, that forward visibility has disappeared. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in his amendments. I am acting as a kind of understudy for my noble friend Lord Blunkett, but I cannot say that what I shall say would be his lines, but in his absence, at least there is a Labour Back-Bencher speaking in favour of the amendments.

I should perhaps first declare my interest as vice-chair of Compass, which is a left-of-centre campaigning organisation that has been promoting a progressive alliance for some years, and as honorary president of the Child Poverty Action Group. I worked for CPAG for many years and, during that time, worked on trying to get child poverty raised as an issue in many general elections.

The question of the 365-day limit was raised in the Public Bill Committee: why is it so long? I think the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made a strong case for it being too long. When questioned, the Minister in the Commons had three arguments. The first was that we all have a fairly good idea of when an election will be. Do we? There is already speculation that there could be an election next year. Indeed, those who have been lobbying about the Bill, sometimes groups in combination, could find that they are in the regulated period already. We simply do not know, now that we are outside fixed-term Parliaments. A prudent organisation would need to start taking steps very soon not to get caught out.

Secondly, the Minister argued that, in effect, we are all in it together: we all have the same amount of information, so it does not matter. I will not be affected by this legislation, but the kind of organisation that I am associated with could well be.

Thirdly, and most worryingly, the Minister said:

“People will need to take that into account when they are campaigning politically.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 314.]


Well, exactly. That is the problem: what is often called the chilling effect will take effect. If organisations involved in campaigning take account politically, that could stop them campaigning for large periods of the electoral cycle. That cannot be right. The noble Lord made helpful distinctions. Looking back, when I was at CPAG, there would have been big periods when we could not try to make child poverty an issue because we would have been caught by this legislation.

Perhaps the Minister will have stronger arguments for why 365 days is appropriate, but certainly the arguments put in the Commons were either weak or worrying. I am not clear why we need any retrospective regulated period. Why can it not just start when the election is called? However, in the spirit of compromise, I am happy to support one or other of these amendments and am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the scars are still on my back from having taken the transparency of lobbying Bill, now an Act, through this House. I remind the Minister that we paused it when we ran into waves of criticism from all sides and arguments that we had not entirely got our own arguments in line. It was not quite as messy as this Bill, but we did at least manage to sort out something which did not displease everyone too much.

I have read the very useful report by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which I compliment him on. It does its best to strike the balance between a number of very difficult and different priorities. All of us who have been involved in politics know that there are many civil society organisations. Some are easily politically neutral—as the Church is, most of the time—while others are inherently a bit on the right. Those of us who are old enough to have fought campaigns that the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children was active in will remember how vigorous, to say the least, it could be in its campaigns and how biased it was. Development NGOs and poverty NGOs, being in favour of greater public sector spending and greater equality, tend naturally to be more on the left. The balance between advocacy and electoral campaigning, as the noble Lord has said, is a difficult one, which we must all strike. In debating this issue with some of the organisations concerned, there were those who felt that they were entitled to campaign entirely as they liked because they were morally right and therefore should not in any sense be controlled in an election campaign.

I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that 120 days is much better than 365 days. We no longer know when the election will be. It is one of the many bits of incoherence of this Government that putting through the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill has not sorted out entirely the knock-on effects of that for this Bill. If I recall correctly, in his report, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that looking back on how various NGOs and civil society groups have spent on their advocacy and campaigning, the spending does come very much in the last few weeks and months before the election, rather than being spread evenly over the previous year.

Therefore, I strongly support Amendment 39 and hope that the Minister will accept that this is a reasonable adjustment in the Bill which the Government could accept, and which makes life simpler for those civil society groups which we all want to see engaging in campaigns and public debate. This tidying up would be a help to all concerned.

Budget Statement

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor claimed to be providing security and to be getting levelling up done. But levelling up should not just be about the physical infrastructure of new roads, railways, broadband and homes, as he described it, welcome though all but the first are; it is also about the social infrastructure of public services, such as social care and childcare. These are of great importance to local communities and people’s lives, as is currently being brought home to us. Levelling up should be about people as well as places, wherever they live. The Budget fails to get levelling up done on either count, or to deliver genuine economic security to those whose economic circumstances are most insecure.

Like a barium meal, the current crisis is illuminating painfully the inadequacies of our care services and social security system, depleted of resource after a decade of austerity. The Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member, argues that the social infrastructure is every bit as important as the physical, and of particular importance to women, who rely more on public caring services. What has happened to the plan we were promised on social care? It is like “Waiting for Godot”. Moreover, the group calculates that investment in care services would create more jobs than the equivalent level of investment in construction. The group calls on the Chancellor to include the social infrastructure in his welcome review of the fiscal framework. Will the Minister confirm that, in this review, investment will be understood to include investment in the nation’s social and human capital, as well as its physical capital?

As I said, levelling up has to be about not just places but the individuals who live in those places and elsewhere. The two are intertwined, as the Resolution Foundation underlined:

“differences in family finances … drive up regional living standards inequalities, and these should form a substantial part of the levelling up agenda in future.”

It points out that this is particularly true of social security cuts, to which what it calls “blue wall seats” gained from Labour were most exposed. It says that the Budget does virtually nothing to offset the cuts imposed in 2015. The households in the second net income decile, for example, will eventually be £2,900 a year worse off on average due to benefit and tax changes since 2015, with £900 of that yet to come from the social security policies still being rolled out, notably the two-child limit. One consequence is

“a risk that child poverty will reach record highs by the time of the 2024 election.”

A key driver has been the four-year freeze, which has cut the value of working-age and children’s benefits by around 6%. Overall, they are now worth about 9% less than if CPI indexation had applied since 2010.

It is all very well that the Budget report cited the end of the benefits freeze under the rubric of supporting the most vulnerable, but it was due to end anyway. What is missing is any commitment to making good the money lost, as called for by the Work and Pensions Committee in the previous Parliament, and by others—not even that which was due to higher than anticipated inflation, so that it is estimated that the Treasury saved roughly an additional £1.2 billion. This is money owed to the most vulnerable, and the Government should acknowledge the debt.

Policy in Practice concludes that the Government have missed an opportunity to show support to households in poverty and halt the reputational damage of universal credit. Noticeable by omission was any provision to alleviate the impact of measures introduced as part of austerity. For these households, austerity is far from over. Unless the value of their benefits is restored, it will be baked into inadequate social security benefit levels in perpetuity.

Inadequate benefit levels are also one reason that the social security system is not now providing the security that its name promises. Other problems caused by a number of aspects of the design of universal credit, in particular the five-week wait, have already been mentioned. While the tweaking of the rules governing the repayment of advance payments is very welcome, I fear it will be now used to resist the growing calls for more fundamental reform of the five-week wait. As Policy in Practice argues, this meant that the Chancellor missed an excellent opportunity to set out an alternative strategy to support households through the five-week wait.

That strategy, recommended in various forms, including by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is to provide what Nicholas Timmins of the Institute for Government calls a

“non-repayable … ‘welcome grant’ for … new claims for UC and to those transferring … from tax credits”

who will not be covered by the run-on of existing benefits. This has particular implications for those hit by Covid-19 who do not qualify for statutory sick pay. Policy in Practice, Citizens Advice and others argue that much more must be done to ensure that everyone can afford to self-isolate and is not discouraged from doing so by the UC rules.

Nor must they be discouraged by the sheer inadequacy of available benefit levels or support with rents. Will the Government heed CPAG’s call for an emergency increase in children’s benefits, especially as free school meals are suspended when schools close? Can the Minister give—or seek on our behalf from DWP—an assurance that all work sanctions and job search requirements will be suspended? Discretion is not good enough to ensure protection. More radically, petitions are circulating, both nationally and internationally, calling for an emergency universal income scheme, as mentioned, to help get us through the crisis. Ireland is showing the way on a temporary basis.

I welcome the fact that the Chancellor is promising a further package of measures. These must be sufficient to meet his promise to every British citizen that this Government will give you the tools you need to get through this. Without financial security, it will be that much harder to get through. This is a public health—as well as an income security—issue.

Two weeks ago, during the debate on the Child Benefit Up-rating Order, the Minister declared:

“I am proud to represent a Government who are focusing attention on those at the very bottom end of income.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 571.]


Two days later, the Office for National Statistics published a bulletin showing that there had been a 7% fall in the real income of the poorest fifth of people, largely due to the benefits freeze. The Budget does nothing to rectify this. It neither offers genuine security to those with the least security nor levels up the living standards of those at the bottom. In the face of growing poverty and hardship, the Government’s priority should be a source not of pride but of shame. Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I hope that the Government will now prove me wrong, and prove that they are genuinely a one-nation Government.

Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2020

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

The regulations make important changes. The Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2020 ensure that these benefits keep their value in relation to prices. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to say a few words about child benefit. I will not repeat the general arguments about the four-year benefit freeze that I made in Grand Committee but simply want to underline the implications of that freeze for child benefit, particularly because the freeze about to end must be seen in the context of the treatment of child benefit since 2010.

Child benefit had already been frozen between 2010-11 and 2013-14 and was then increased by only 1% for two years before being subjected to the freeze in working-age benefits. This means that, with the exception of two years when inflation was really low, its value has been reduced every year since 2010. The result is that not only has its real value been reduced by around 6% because of the four-year freeze but, according to the House of Commons Library briefing, it is now worth 17% less for the first child and 16.5% less for subsequent children than it would have been had it been uprated in line with the CPI since 2010. That means a loss of nearly £370 this year for a two-child family.

The Resolution Foundation calculates that for second and subsequent children the benefit is now worth less than when it was fully introduced in 1979, is less than half as generous as it used to be compared to average earnings and, shockingly, is less generous than the post-war family allowance. For first children, it is close to an historic low. The Resolution Foundation concludes that

“it is fair to say that child benefit is at its stingiest in forty years.”

Thus, while we are of course all pleased that the freeze has come to an end, as required by law, simply uprating benefits in line with inflation is not good enough. The Minister said that an extra £800 million was going to be spent on this and tax credits. Is that £800 million simply due to inflation-proofing? If so, it is not extra at all but simply keeping things as they are. If austerity is genuinely coming to an end, the Government should make good at least some of the loss that child benefit has suffered during the past decade, as it is unfair that families with children should bear the brunt of austerity. Raising child benefit by more than inflation would be much more effective in helping low-income working families than a further rise in personal tax allowances.

It is not just the benefit that has been frozen but the thresholds for the high-income charge introduced in 2013, which are still frozen. I will spare noble Lords the principled and practical arguments against the introduction of the charge, but, having introduced it, is there not a responsibility on the Government to ensure that the thresholds keep pace with median earnings? Both the Resolution Foundation and the IFS have analysed the effects. According to the IFS, in the last financial year around 270,000 more families lost some or all of their child benefit than would have been the case had the threshold been price-indexed. The difference would be bigger still had it been earnings-indexed, which is arguably what it should be unless the Government want to hit families lower down the income distribution than originally intended.

Unless there is a change of policy, the IFS warns that by 2022 as many as a fifth of families will be affected. Moreover, if the higher-rate tax threshold continues to be indexed in line with inflation while the child benefit threshold remains frozen, it points out that

“for the first time significant numbers of families without a higher-rate taxpayer will lose some Child Benefit”,

possibly as many as 120,000 by 2022-23. Is this really what the Government want? Extrapolating further into the future, the Resolution Foundation points out that, because the income charge is applied to an individual’s income and universal credit is based on family income, there could come a point when some people are simultaneously receiving universal credit and being subjected to the high-income child benefit charge. As it observes:

“This would be somewhat absurd, as well as creating marginal tax rates of near 100 per cent.”


As the IFS points out, cutting benefits “by stealth” in this way

“can do nothing for trust in government.”

Can the Minister explain the justification for freezing the thresholds? As a matter of urgency, could he take a message back to the Treasury asking the Chancellor to stop the rot in the next Budget and increase the thresholds, preferably in line with earnings but at the very least in line with prices, and restore them to their position when introduced?

There was a time when the Conservative Party strongly supported child benefit, which of course replaced child tax allowances as well as family allowances. It acknowledged the important role it plays in recognising that children reduce taxable capacity at every income level, in strengthening work incentives, in providing families, particularly mothers, with a degree of financial security and in supporting the next generation regardless of the family they are born into. It hailed it as “simple and well understood”, although it is rather less simple now because of the high-income charge.

Some 75 years ago, during the final stage of the then Family Allowances Bill, Eleanor Rathbone told MPs:

“In early days I used to describe meetings of employers and employed, landowners and rentiers sitting round a table competing for their share in the national income with a woman coming from behind and holding out her hand, saying, ‘I am the mother, the future citizens and workers depend on me; where is my share?’ This Bill gives the mother through her children her share, although it is only a very little share so far.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/1945; cols. 1419-20.]


Can the Minister assure us that the Government are committed to ensuring that children now receive their fair share through the child benefit scheme that replaced family allowances, or are we witnessing the gradual destruction of Eleanor Rathbone’s dream?

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for illuminating the underlying policy issues that underpin these statutory instruments. There is a real fear in my party—and I know in hers—that the changes that are taking place today embed, in effect, austerity for those on benefits and those on the lowest incomes. However, because we are looking at statutory instruments, I am going to make my comments extremely narrow. I recognise that for the annual rerating of NIC contributions and various other benefits, we are simply implementing a mechanism that has been through a normal parliamentary process. Frequently, this has been part of a Budget; it would certainly have been debated in both Houses, and MPs would have had an opportunity to express an opinion in the Commons if they wished to make changes. However, I am somewhat at a loss—and perhaps the Minister will help me—as to how any of that applies to the changes in PT and LPL.

It is not that I have a particular objection to the changes, but it appears that their basis lies in the Conservative manifesto, not in actions taken in the other place either in the form of a Budget—because the Budget is not due for another week—or in a finance Bill, which is where I would expect fundamental changes such as this, which affect most working people, to be embedded. It is hard to accept that changes are being made to national insurance contributions, which have a major impact on the Budget, but not within the context of the Budget. I am rather concerned that the Government might be returning to a pattern that we have seen in the past, when major policy change was introduced by statutory instrument rather than through primary legislation or being put into the Budget framework, where full debate and challenge could take place. It happened with universal credit, as I think everybody who is present in the House today will remember, and I am now concerned to see this appearing here within two of these statutory instruments. So that is where I would like the Minister to focus: to explain why a change which, as far as I can see, perfectly belongs to next week’s Budget and a finance Bill, is appearing in a statutory instrument, where, by definition, the debate is extremely limited and challenge is, frankly, near impossible.

--- Later in debate ---

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, we will write to the noble Lord with the detailed calculation of this impact. However, personally, I am proud to be part of a Government one of whose first acts since we were returned to office is to deal with the most vulnerable people in our society. To conclude—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I asked some specific questions, which I do not believe the noble Lord has answered. I will not get into a long debate about sustainability and so forth, although I addressed that in Grand Committee—there is no evidence at all that it was unsustainable. First, I asked about the extra £800 million to which the noble Lord referred. What is that? Is it simply raising in line with inflation? If so, that is not new money. I asked him what the justification was for continuing to freeze the high-income charge threshold, and whether the Government were still committed to child benefit.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

The answer to the first part of the noble Baroness’s question is that this is what it will cost; the figure I mentioned earlier in my comments, which I think was £800 million, is the cost. The second question was: what about the people at the top end? Again, I am proud to represent a Government who are focusing our attention on those at the very bottom end of income, so this is where we are at the moment. I cannot speak for the Budget—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I was dealing with questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister; if I understand correctly, she was concerned—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I point out that if the Government were really concerned about those at the bottom end, they would put more money into child benefit rather than personal tax allowances. Personal tax allowances are no good at all to families at the bottom end, whereas child benefit is extremely helpful to them. If they were really concerned about people at the bottom end, as I argued in Grand Committee, they would be raising basic benefits by more than inflation this year to start making up for the freeze, which was much bigger than expected because inflation was higher than anticipated. I therefore ask the Minister not to say that the Government care most about people at the bottom end.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the policy of our Government, progressively over the past 10 years, has been to get people into work. We are now seeing some of the highest levels of employment since the war, and in the last year we saw earnings start to outstrip inflation. That has taken a long time, but that is what we have done. We strongly believe that, if we are to help the most vulnerable people in society, the best way is through the dignity of employment and earnings, which is why we have focused on that area.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the primary threshold and lower profits limits. Again, this comes back to what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which is that, yes, this is a manifesto promise. We said on page 15, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, that we were going to do this; this is what this statutory instrument achieves today; it will be a tax cut for around 31 million people; and it is £104 a year, which, for people at the bottom end, is a meaningful improvement in their lives.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I respectfully repeat what I said to the noble Baroness: we are trying to focus support at the bottom end of the income scale. To deal with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, since 2010 we have seen over 700,000 fewer children living in workless households and over 1 million fewer workless households overall. We believe that that is how you deal with poverty and improve dignity.

The NIC regulations set the rates, limits and thresholds for the 2020-21 tax year. They allow for the collection of £120 billion of NICs to fund the state pension and contribute to NHS funding, and deliver on the Government’s promise to deliver a tax cut for 31 million working people. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I have another question. I asked specifically: are the Government still committed to child benefit? The Conservative Party used to be committed to it; are the Government still committed to it? The Minister gave me no answer, which implies that he is not.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I have absolutely no indication that we are not committed to child benefit.

Brexit: Other Policy Areas

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the Government do not have what they call the “bandwidth” to deal with social care alongside Brexit. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has described social care in England as adrift on a “sea of inertia”. Is it not time that the Government did something to put an end to this inertia? I am afraid that the Minister’s response on social care was a bit dismissive in this context.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I genuinely regret it if I sounded dismissive. I have sat through many exchanges on social care and the undertakings given to produce it by a given date. I understand the disappointment of noble Lords that that date has not been arrived at. There was an exchange with my noble friend relatively recently. I understand the urgency. We will produce the social care Green Paper as soon as we possibly can.

Social Housing

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow and welcome my noble friend, whose inspiring maiden speech, rooted in her lived experience, showed how much she will bring to our deliberations.

I strongly support this Motion, in particular with regard to homelessness. The National Audit Office drew attention to the,

“unquantified cost of homelessness to wider public services”,

including health. Unquantifiable is the cost to the physical and mental health of homeless people themselves, and to their lives, with ONS statistics showing a 24% increase in the number of deaths of homeless people over five years. For the growing number of female rough sleepers, some of whom have fled domestic violence, these health problems are often aggravated by sexual harassment.

The other week, the Nottingham Post headlined the health costs of homelessness in the city. It quoted Suzey Joseph, an outreach nurse employed by Framework, a local homelessness charity, who said:

“They get infections, organ failure and get sicker and sicker until they die on the streets”.


I met Suzey recently and was impressed by how she is helping homeless people to get the healthcare they need. Will the Minister undertake to look at this initiative as a possible model to promote through the Government’s rough sleeping strategy?

The causes of homelessness are of course multiple, and it has suited Ministers to hide behind the mantra of complexity when challenged on the role played by their own policies. But complexity does not absolve them of responsibility. Like my noble friend Lady Warwick, I am particularly concerned about the impact of social security cuts and restrictions, including the cap, the two-child limit, the housing and other benefits freeze, punitive sanctions, universal credit and devolution to local authorities of responsibility for emergency assistance—at least 28 have abolished their schemes and almost all the rest have cut back drastically.

The evidence from organisations on the ground, research and the NAO all points to,

“the impact of welfare reform on homelessness”,

to quote the Public Accounts Committee. The PAC thus recommended that DWP write to it,

“to set out what work it has undertaken to identify any elements of welfare reform that are having an impact on homelessness and what steps it has taken to mitigate them”.

The report back—a full half page—is totally unilluminating and says nothing about mitigation.

In December, the Secretary of State for HCLG denied that the rise in rough sleeping is a political failure linked to government policies but, a week later, he acknowledged that there may be a link to social security cuts and that we,

“need to ask ourselves some very hard questions”,

as to why there are so many more people on the streets.

What progress have Ministers made in coming up with answers, over a year since the PAC asked them to investigate the link between homelessness and so-called welfare reform? As social security cuts push more and more people further and further below the poverty line, they are undermining the Government’s own rough sleeping strategy and thereby contributing to the rising death toll on our streets.

Legislation: Gendered Pronouns

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

So far as drafting legislation is concerned, I hope I can assure noble Lords that parliamentary draftsmen will use the correct grammar whenever it is possible. The main purpose of drafting legislation is that it should be clear, but I agree that, wherever practicable, we should also use conventional language as long as we do not upset people’s sensitivities.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my former students would tell you that I care greatly about grammar, but will the Minister explain why using “they” would be a step too far?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The suggestion from my noble friend was that it should be used in all cases. I have conceded that we should use it in some cases, and I cited an example from the Terrorism Act, where we do indeed use the word they in the singular:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action”.


But to insist that it should be used in every case would be to deprive parliamentary draftsmen—parliamentary drafters—of the flexibility they need.