Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise with the leave of the House and at the request of my noble friend Lord Marks to oppose the Question that Clause 49 stand part and speak to the stand part notices for Clauses 50, 51 and 52.

Clause 49 would disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act in respect of any decision made under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. That chapter of the 1997 Act sets out a range of provisions concerning life sentences and sentences of detention during His Majesty’s pleasure, including minimum-term review for under-18s. For life prisoners, the provisions concern release on licence, termination of licences for public protection, recall for breach of licence conditions, the duration of licences, release at the direction of the Parole Board and removal of life prisoners from the United Kingdom.

The chapter is specifically extended by this Bill, in particular by Clause 41, to provide, in respect of public protection decisions, those considerations that the decision-maker is to be bound to take into account relating to such things as the risk of reoffending and the risk of breach of licence conditions. The clause includes, ominously, the provision under Clause 41(9):

“This section does not limit the matters which the decision-maker must or may take into account when making a public protection decision”.


Clause 44 provides for the Secretary of State to have the power to direct the referral of a prisoner’s case to a court—currently the High Court or the Upper Tribunal —as discussed on 26 February. Clause 48 makes further provision about the termination of the licences for life prisoners for public protection. For all these provisions, Clause 49 would disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Section 3 lies at the heart of the human rights protection afforded by the Human Rights Act. It governs the interpretation of legislation by courts and also, importantly, by public authorities, and so effectively by all relevant public decision-makers. It provides:

“So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.


Section 3 gives legislative teeth to the convention, requiring legislation to be compatible where possible. Clause 49 would disapply that crucial protection in relation to this chapter of the 1997 Act and any subordinate legislation made under it.

The Explanatory Notes, in paragraph 353, claim that this disapplication

“will apply the section as it is intended to be applied, and not use section 3 to alter the interpretation”.

In other words, the clause is intended to operate in a way that enables convention rights to be ignored or overridden; otherwise there would be no point in the disapplication. This represents a real and important threat to human rights and should be removed from the Bill.

Clause 50 would operate in exactly the same way in respect of the provisions of Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to the licences, release, supervision and recall of fixed-term prisoners. These provisions are to be amended by Clauses 42, 45 and 47 of the Bill. At present, this chapter of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is subject to the protection of the interpretive requirement of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. Clause 50 would remove that provision, and not just in relation to the new provisions in the chapter introduced in this Bill. As with the 1997 Act dealt with in Clause 49, it would remove it in respect of the whole chapter of the 2003 Act dealing with fixed-term prisoners.

Similarly, Clause 51 would disapply Section 3 in respect of the amended Section 128 of the LASPO Act. This amends the power to change the release test for release on licence in cases involving public protection.

Clause 52 deals with a similar issue. It is not approaching the interpretation of legislation in the light of the convention, but the different question of whether a person’s convention rights have been breached in connection with a prisoner release decision under the two chapters I have previously mentioned in the 1997 and 2003 Acts.

Paragraph 354 of the Explanatory Notes sets out how to govern any challenge on human rights challenge under the convention to a prisoner release decision. Where Clause 52 is offensive is in subsection (3), which requires:

“The court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from persons who have committed offences in respect of which custodial sentences have been imposed”.


That provision would apply regardless of the length of the custodial sentence imposed, regardless of what harm was being risked to the public and regardless of the injustice to the offender or the offender’s circumstances or the risk to the offender’s health, family or prospects of rehabilitation. What is the “greatest possible weight”? That, effectively, means exclusive weight—the only factor the judge is to consider.

When the Explanatory Notes say:

“Requiring the courts to give the greatest possible weight to this factor reinforces the precautionary approach and means that public protection will be given appropriate consideration in any balancing exercise”,


they are disingenuous. The provision does not call for a balancing exercise. It requires courts not to consider questions of balance or appropriate considerations, but instead to prefer one factor over all others. That is pernicious and ought to go. Judges are perfectly capable of performing balancing exercises. They can and do give appropriate weight to public protection when they do so. They should not have their judicial function curtailed in this way. The clause should go.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, here we go again. First, they came for the asylum seekers and then for the prisoners. Which unpopular and demonised group—to quote my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—will be next to be deprived of some of the rights contained in the Human Rights Act?

As some of us have been arguing during the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, to deprive marginalised groups of their human rights in this way undermines the principle of universality at the heart of human rights. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, quoted back at us that it is

“a fundamental tenet of modern human rights that they are universal and indivisible”.—[Official Report, 14/2/24; col. 342.]

He then went on to try to justify the very opposite.

In answer to some general Oral Questions on our human rights legislation in June, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice emphasised the Government’s commitment to

“a human rights framework that … works for the British people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/23; col. 145.]

He later talked about our legislation delivering on the interests of the British people. Leaving aside whether universal human rights can be confined to the British people, it raises the question of whether prisoners no longer count as British people.

As it is, some of the briefings we have received, including from the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust, make the point that in the words of the latter,

“it is precisely in custodial institutions like prison … that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state”.

The NAYJ, a member organisation which campaigns for the rights of and justice for children in trouble with the law, is particularly anxious about the implications for children in prison. The Law Society, the EHRC and the then chair of the JCHR have all expressed their deep concern about the diminution of human rights protection represented by these clauses. The EHRC, in particular, warns that there may be an impact on the UK’s international legal obligations.

The Constitution Committee sets out the government justification for these clauses in the human rights memorandum on the Bill, but invites us to seek further explanation from the Government as to what effect they intend to achieve with the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. According to the memorandum, the intention is to ensure that the HRA does not get in the way of the policy intentions of the release regime. In other words, it seems to be saying that human rights should not trump government policy. No evidence is provided to justify the need for this diminution of human rights, and of course the clauses were not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

In his response to the Second Reading debate, the Minister seemed to say that all the organisations expressing concern are making a mountain out of a molehill because Section 3 of the HRA is “a procedural provision only”. He argued that it gives the courts an

“unusual power to reinterpret what Parliament has said in a manner that may not have been and probably was not Parliament’s original intention so as to render a particular provision compatible with the convention”.—[Official Report, 23/12/23; col. 2135.]

This, he suggested, was a “neutral” description of the function of Section 3.

I am grateful to Amnesty for its help in making sense of what the Minister said, although it would be the first to emphasise that its analysis is in line with that of the independent Human Rights Act review, established by the Government. It questioned whether this was a “neutral” interpretation of the role of Section 3. The reference to reinterpreting legislation seemed to suggest that there is one legitimate act of interpretation, which is then challenged by a second questionable one under Section 3. But this interpretation is itself highly questionable. I am advised that Parliament intended for Section 3 to be used in the way that it is. There is no reason to think that Section 3 interpretations lead to interpretations that are “probably not” in line with Parliament’s original intention, as confirmed by the Human Rights Act review, even if that was not the view of one member of the commission cited by the Minister.

More practically, and I think for the first time in this context, the Minister suggested that it has been a difficult section to apply, with the case law having “gone all over the place” and the introduction of uncertainty where the Government want certainty. I am advised that while this may have been true of when Section 3 was first brought into force—although “all over the place” is a misleading description—that period has long passed and the legal issues around it have not substantively changed for the past decade or so. As the Minister acknowledged, it has “settled down more recently”. So having been in effect for 20 years, it is not at all clear why its continued function would create the kind of complexity and uncertainty the Minister fears.

If the Minister cannot come up with a more convincing case for the disapplication of Section 3 from a group of citizens for whom the protection of the Human Rights Act is especially important, given their relationship to the state, I certainly think that these clauses should not stand part of the Bill. I have yet to hear any argument that justifies this further breach of the principle of the universality of human rights.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wanted to make a couple of brief points in support of Amendments 20 and 21. In Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, quoted at length the Lord Chancellor’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to justify breaching the universality of human rights. Clearly, the Lord Chancellor did not convince the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its majority report concluded that the provision

“threatens the fundamental principle that human rights are universal and should be protected for everyone”.

I still do not understand, given the concerns expressed by the JCHR, as well as the EHRC, the Law Society and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, why this Government continue to try to argue that disapplication does not affect the principle of universality, which the noble and learned Lord waxed lyrical about in his speech.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord promised to write to me in response to my concerns about the implications for the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement—following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ request for a full explanation before Report as to why the Government consider Clause 3 to be consistent with these agreements. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter but, to echo what the noble Lord, Lord German, said earlier, I gently point out that it was sent at 3.24 pm this afternoon, after Report began. That really is not good practice, and it does not meet the JCHR’s request that a full explanation should be published before Report. It seems that the actual full publication will not be until some time on Wednesday, when we will be finishing Report.

I am not convinced that the answers to my questions would satisfy the JCHR, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Consortium of Northern Ireland. I am also not clear why the letter was not copied to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, given that she originally challenged the Minister on this point at Second Reading. I am not going to pursue the matter here, except to point out that I do not think we yet have a satisfactory explanation of the interactions with and the implications for these agreements.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name and also link that with Amendments 20 and 18. If Amendment 20 had had any space, I would have signed it as well, because it makes the same case. I will address Amendment 17 later and look forward very much to seeing how the Government deal with it in their response.

At the moment I will just repeat the universality issue of human rights—they are for all. I read once again the response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, about legitimacy and I am sure we will hear it again today. But the underpinning of the Human Rights Act is that the protections should not be disapplied just to some people. Human rights are for all; if they become qualified, they are no longer human rights but only rights for some people. This violates the principle of the universality of human rights, which is why this amendment is in place.

It does not matter that this is directed at illegal migrants: once the Government do this for one group, they will choose—or could choose—to use it for other groups such as protesters.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this amendment. I should say that this is not a bid to join the Bishops’ Benches and I thank the most reverend Primate for introducing it. I want to make just three points.

The first has been implicit in quite a lot of what has been said by the most reverend Primate and by other noble Lords on the previous amendment. It is that, if we are to have a global, collaborative strategy, it has to be from a different mindset from the one that underpins the Bill, because that mindset would prevent such a global strategy. We have to stop acting as if we are somehow uniquely burdened by this global refugee crisis. The figures have been given showing how other countries are pulling their weight much more than we are. Countries with far fewer resources than we have are doing so, yet with the Bill we act as if somehow the poor UK is under siege from this global crisis. To think globally means thinking differently, and we have to think and act with compassion. Compassion has certainly been lacking in this Bill and in the approach being taken.

My second point, which links with this, is that we have to start using a different language. The point has been made a number of times during our debates: people are not illegal and journeys are not illegal, but they are being turned illegal when they arrive here. Please let us not talk about “illegal routes” or “illegal migrants”. They are coming by irregular routes but they are not illegal. This goes right back to the beginning, when we talked about the language that is often used by some politicians and by the media: the language of invasion, cannibalisation and so forth.

It reminds me that I spoke in an even later debate—I think it was at about 2 am—on Albania. I met a group of young Albanians and have just discovered the notes I made from that meeting. I could not find them anywhere, and now I have. They talked about how disturbing they found the way that they were talked about in the media. In one newspaper—I leave the Committee to guess which—they were called “vermin”. I wrote down what they said: they felt violated, unsafe, scared, despised and unwanted. It is dreadful that young people feel that because of the way that we talk about them, so we have to change our language when we talk about the future migration strategy. The research of HOPE not hate suggests that every time politicians or the media talk negatively, it leads to a spike in far-right activity against migrants. Again, that is no basis for building a strategy.

Thirdly and perhaps more positively—this goes back to something that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said earlier—if we are going to develop a strategy, and I hope that we will, we will have to involve refugees themselves in its development. We need the expertise of their experience of what it is like to flee countries and start a new life elsewhere. We have to base our strategy on that understanding, and it involves what the right reverend Prelate referred to earlier as “co-production”. It is not good enough for politicians to sit in their offices and come up with a strategy, then talk to politicians in another country and say, “Right, here’s our strategy”. We need to work from the very start with those people who are experiencing this. That is simply all I want to say.

I wish we could have had this debate at a better time. I am very sorry I was not able to be part of the debate that the most reverend Primate instigated in December, but I have read it and know that there were some inspiring speeches and lots of ideas that could go into the strategy. As I said in my earlier intervention, this is not requiring the Government to do X, Y and Z so that the next Government have to do X, Y and Z; it is simply saying that there has to be a strategic framework, and then Governments work within that. It does not matter what the complexion of the Government is. I certainly hope that my party in government would want to develop a strategic approach towards refugees and, as I say, one that works with refugees in building that.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to follow the words we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my erstwhile colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. There are just a few things I want to add to what I said on the previous amendment. I think that, as a principle—the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, espoused just now—we need to look beyond ourselves. It is only by looking beyond ourselves that we will find a sustainable and effective solution for the problems we have in front of us.

I was thinking about the models for the sort of process that the most reverend Primate is suggesting. One is the Global Campaign for Education. It is known for its Let me Learn campaign, and it works across the globe to bring together people. I have been in meetings in this House with children from around the globe, from the poorest countries to the richest, using modern technology. The Global Campaign for Education basically wants to ensure that every child in this world has the right and the privilege to be educated by being sent to school. That level of collaboration brings together the United Nations, the rich countries and the donor countries, who then meet the poorer countries—there is a whole structure that sits around it. Unless we start thinking about this as being outward looking, and unless we look beyond ourselves, we are never going to find a sustainable solution.

We support this amendment, as it is seeking to recognise that our UK response to refugees has to be considered by how it interconnects with the global community. We cannot pretend that we can pull up the drawbridge and be isolated from the global issues around us. What we do impacts on other countries.

There are some countries which would follow the lead that the UK takes, but that is a race to the bottom. If we seek to discharge responsibilities for refugees to other countries, there is every chance that other countries will follow the UK’s lead. As countries do this, refugees will be pushed back to the border countries and further to the regions from which they fled. A smaller number of countries will end up shouldering the world’s refugee resources, which will be stretched, and regions will be destabilised. That is a real possibility around the globe.

The UK will be impacted in one way or another, and we cannot separate ourselves from this. The whole global refugee protection system would be at risk of collapse. Forced displacement is a global issue which requires a global response. We need to work towards these ends as described in this amendment, and we need to be seen as a country which is able to take a lead.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 58. I am sorry that I could not be at the Grand Committee debate on the regulations because of another commitment. Given the representations that have been made by a range of an organisations, I felt it was important to say a few words.

All people should have access to secure, safe and decent accommodation, no matter what status they hold. While it is right that we should not have people housed in hotels for longer than necessary, the removal of so-called red tape, which potentially includes shortcuts around safety standards, as we have heard, seems exceedingly risky. Once again, we have been asked to put our trust in the Home Office and its subcontractors instead of properly resourcing local authorities to provide adequate housing. This is not the way to address the backlog or accommodation shortages. The speed of procurement should not come at the possible cost of life.

Earlier this month, while the Levelling-Up Secretary was unveiling new laws protecting renters’ rights, his colleagues were debating the Government’s intention to scrap HMO licensing for asylum seekers’ accommodation. That seems somewhat perverse. The Government state in their Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations that part of the rationale for the change was that subcontractors

“raised concerns that … regulation is posing a barrier to acquiring … properties”.

But the suspicion is that subcontractors’ concerns are motivated more by profits than by the need to reduce backlogs and move people into accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked during the Grand Committee debate, what evidence is there—again there is this question of evidence; it seems that with every amendment we are asking for evidence—to suggest that this change in regulations will speed up procurement of accommodation? The potential to undermine safety and standards seems very risky if there is not clear evidence to suggest that it will achieve the Home Office’s intended outcomes. Local authorities are concerned that any further erosion of enforcement powers will lead to a decrease in accommodation standards, where the reverse is needed.

The excellent briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Crisis, JCWI and others argued:

“The assertion from the Government that HMO licence levels of protection will be maintained in these properties, but overseen by the Home Office rather than the local authority, is deeply suspect. People are already losing their lives in asylum accommodation managed by private subcontractors on behalf of the Home Office”.


Echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it was alarming to read at the weekend that asylum seekers were left on the streets in Westminster for two nights running because of accommodation problems and that the Immigration Minister had led moves to require groups of up to four adult males to share single rooms in so-called Operation Maximise. Richard Drax, a Conservative MP, has equated this to putting them in prison. As the leader of Westminster Council commented, to ask people who are

“likely to have been through significant and traumatic events … to share an inappropriately sized room”—

we are talking about a single room here, not some palatial five-star room—

“with multiple strangers defies common sense and basic decency”.

Basic decency, as well as safety, is what is at stake with these regulations.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that Operation Maximise will be abandoned at once in the interest of basic decency? With regard to these regulations, can he reassure us that the Home Office or its contractors have the skills to make a proper assessment of the risks around fire safety that an experienced and qualified local authority environmental health officer would have?

In the recent debate in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked the Minister to confirm that the same conditions that apply to an HMO licence will be replicated in the contract with the provider of accommodation for those seeking asylum. I do not think that the noble Lord has asked this again tonight, but I hope he will forgive me if he has. As the DLUHC Minister was unable to answer the question because it related to Home Office responsibilities, perhaps the Minister could provide an answer now.

In conclusion, this amendment should have never been needed but, unless we get serious assurances around living and safety standards, I can only question how the Government have decided that creating unsafe homes and putting asylum seekers in them is a decent strategy. As the Chartered Institute of Housing has said, HMOs will undoubtedly prove cheaper, but at what cost?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment, at its heart, is about the Government’s proposal to exempt housing for asylum seekers from licensing conditions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined the two principal areas of concern, which have been the thread throughout this short debate. One is the conditions of the accommodation and the second is the impact on the rented housing sector in its entirety. I would add that the limited number of properties that are available in the private rented sector is in danger of impacting seriously on the number of houses for people who are looking for that accommodation but are not asylum seekers.

I will ask the Minister as well about the devolved responsibilities in this area, because the private rented sector in Wales is quite differently managed under Welsh Parliament legislation. I would like to understand whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations to find out how they propose to deal with this matter. In the case of Wales, all private rented sector accommodation is required to be licensed, not just HMOs. There is a strict regime and landlords pay for that licence. Clearly, that has had some impact on raising standards. That is an important issue, and if it is going to be reduced further, the Government need to explain why.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that there is a better way forward, and mentioned the need for a more collaborative, non-regulatory approach. My noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out that licensing provides protections, and I think we all understand that. He illustrated it by talking about smoke and CO₂ alarms. The reduction in standards is implicit in the proposals that are contained in the statutory instrument. It seems to me that we need to have a proper inspection regime, as stated by my noble friend Lord Scriven. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of the safety of people being at risk. That is at the heart of all this. Are we going to put the safety of this vulnerable group of people at risk by returning to the original situation before the HMO legislation came into place? Are we going to manage the contractors properly and correctly? Clearly, the process of creating unsafe homes is not in anybody’s interest in this country at all, and neither is placing people within them.

Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Monday 21st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, there are many issues raised by the claims and payments regulations, but I plan to focus on the two that I raised in our debates on the Bill itself: monthly payments and payment into single accounts. These are lumped together in the guidance on personal budgeting support in a way that is not very helpful, because there are different issues at stake—a point to which I will return. Nevertheless, some questions relate to both matters: most fundamentally on both, the Government have rejected the arguments made by many noble Lords for choice about payment arrangements in favour of a convoluted system of personal budgeting support, which I suspect is going to be pretty difficult and staff-intensive to administer.

The clear injunction in the guidance that alternative payment arrangements are not available through choice would appear to contradict the earlier claim in the guidance that they would be claimant-centric—that is, done with, rather than to, the claimant. While I am pleased that the policy is no longer couched in the language of exceptions and vulnerability, designed to make a claimant feel different, this still appears to be the underlying philosophy.

This is also revealed in the argument that alternative payment arrangements should be temporary, to avoid labelling claimants as financially incapable. However, it is the Government who are in effect labelling them as such, by requiring claimants, who may be managing as well as can be expected, to adapt to payment systems that might simply be inappropriate for their circumstances. This determination to change claimants’ behaviour smacks of the kind of social engineering that sits uneasily with both traditional Conservative and liberal philosophy.

In our previous debate on regulations, the Minister said that he would be able to provide more information about the department’s working assumptions on the number and proportion of claimants likely to be deemed to require personal budgeting support,

“as we work our way through”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 755.]

As that was eight months ago, is the Minister now in a position to provide more information, as requested by my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton in his excellent and passionate opening speech? In particular, will he provide the information regarding those requiring monthly or split payments? Does he accept SSAC’s warning that the range of claimants who require these facilities may be greater than anticipated?

Will the Minister also explain how personal budgeting support will work with couples? In the case of joint claimants, will just one or both need to demonstrate the facts as listed in the annexe to the guidance? Will the decision about whether it is needed be based on a joint interview? Will money advice be offered to both members of a couple and will the Minister also advise us about the progress made with financial products such as jam jar accounts, which he earlier presented as a solution to just about all payment problems?

In July, the Minister was still able to tell the Work and Pensions Select Committee only that he hoped to be,

“coming up with something in the not-too-distant future”.

That is not very encouraging. Has he also taken on board the Social Market Foundation’s warning that jam jar accounts, while potentially beneficial,

“have only partial applicability across the claimant population”,

because of strong resistance from a significant number? Part, though not all, this resistance was because of the likely cost to the claimant. As the Communities and Local Government Select Committee observed:

“More information is needed … on how these accounts would work and who would pay for them”.

The Social Market Foundation cites evidence from the financial inclusion taskforce of the lack of appetite for financial products among about half of the unbanked. Those without a bank or Post Office account will be able to use the Simple Payment service to receive their benefit. As the Minister confirmed in a Written Answer, the problem with this is that it requires claimants to withdraw the whole amount, and not part, of each benefit payment at the same time, up to a limit of £600. This is potentially a lot of cash to withdraw in one go and leaves the claimant vulnerable to both robbery and temptation. Although it is estimated that only about 60,000 working-age claimants will be paid in this way, it is a cause for concern. Why is it not possible to draw part of the payment, as this would surely often be the responsible thing to do?

This brings me to the question of monthly payments, because if it were a more frequent payment, this would not be such an issue. Since noble Lords from across the House first raised concerns about monthly payments, evidence has been mounting to demonstrate just how un-claimant-centric this policy is. It is clear, from both government and independent research, that a significant number of claimants—particularly those out of work—see this as posing a real risk to their financial security. They fear it will upset their budgeting strategies and leave them running out of money.

In a DWP press release about early findings from the direct payment demonstration projects, the Minister acknowledged that the findings,

“show that most people on low incomes manage their money well.”

As SSAC has noted, one of the key lessons was that:

“Budgeting support needs to recognise that people on low incomes often budget on a fortnightly or weekly basis.”

Has it not occurred to the noble Lord that there is a connection here? As the demonstration projects show, many people on low incomes use fortnightly or weekly budgeting strategies as a means of managing their money well. Research shows that mothers, in particular, often take great pride in doing so. By forcing them to change their budgeting strategies, the Government could be setting them up to fail, a message that comes across clearly from the SMF study cited by my noble friend.

That is likely to have an adverse impact on morale, as well as living standards and, in doing so, could undermine the very objective of making claimants more work-ready. Where a more frequent payment is agreed, it will be paid in arrears, in addition to the new seven-day waiting period for some claimants. As the Women’s Budget Group has pointed out, this means that,

“claimants would be paid only half what they are owed for the month seven days after the end of that month and will then wait another half month for the remaining half. This would seem to contradict the Government’s wish to help those who find monthly payment most difficult and can result in hardship cases and requests for advance payments.”

Women’s Aid, to which I am grateful for its briefing, warns that most survivors fleeing domestic violence will have no alternative to claiming a budgeting advance. I appreciate why the Government are not keen to make a half payment in advance, but does the Minister accept that it would create fewer problems than paying in arrears?

As I said earlier, the question of payment into a single account versus a split payment raises rather different issues to that of monthly payment, even if both are likely to have adverse gendered impact. It is about access to, and control over, money rather than about managing it. The erroneous treatment of split payments as a management issue is illustrated by the guidance on when to review alternative payments. It says that the adviser,

“will decide that the claimant is now capable of managing the standard monthly payment.”

Where a split payment has been granted because of domestic violence, as opposed to a partner’s financial mismanagement, such advice is surely irrelevant. On what basis will a decision whether to continue a split payment be made? Does the Minister accept that there may be some situations where it cannot be treated as a temporary measure?

At present, the guidance seems to suggest that split payments will be an option only in cases of financial abuse or domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that they will not necessarily be restricted to such cases? With whom will an adviser discuss this question and, even more importantly, the initial decision to make a split payment? Will it be both partners, and if so, will it be discussed separately or together, or will it be just the partner in need of diversion? If the latter, what will the other partner be told about the interview? How will advisers negotiate with gendered power relations which are likely to be at work between the partners to ensure that they have a true picture of the situation?

The department’s study of the implementation of JSA DB easement revealed a reluctance to disclose domestic violence to advisers, a concern that was raised by SSAC. This is likely to be the case here too. How will advisers detect domestic abuse, particularly when it is not manifested physically? Where a male partner uses the threat of abuse of various kinds to control a female partner, it could well be kept hidden. What steps can be taken to ensure that a split payment, which reduces the money paid to the perpetrator, does not provoke further domestic violence? Will the Minister indicate what training in financial abuse and domestic violence is proposed for universal credit advisers? More generally, what is the department’s response to SSAC’s recommendation for an effective training programme designed to ensure that advisers have a sufficient understanding and capability to manage the complex and dynamic nature of risk and vulnerability within universal credit?

It is important that the evaluation does not conflate the effects of wrapping up a number of benefits in one payment with payment into a single account under the rubric of a single payment, as did earlier departmental research.

At present, the guidance seems to suggest that split payments will be an option only in cases of financial abuse or domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that they will not necessarily be restricted to such cases? It is not always possible to foresee situations in which they might be appropriate, and it would therefore be wrong to rule out other scenarios in advance. Indeed, Fran Bennett, to whom I am grateful for her briefing, suggested adding the scenario where a lone parent with children from a previous relationship takes an unemployed new partner into her rented accommodation. It may not be conducive to the success of a new relationship if one partner has control of all their joint universal credit.

I apologise for asking so many questions, but I cannot find the answers in the public advice and guidance. Reading that guidance, I am not convinced that the department fully appreciates how delicate and difficult an issue this is in any couple where there are difficulties of any kind with regard to control over money. Indeed, only last week, in discussing other regulations, the Minister drew attention to the extent of domestic abuse. If the fears of organisations such as Women’s Aid are realised, I suspect that the Government will have to revisit the policy and rethink the default position to ensure that both members of a couple have direct access to their share of universal credit, if they want it.

The Government’s refusal to listen to reason on these key payment issues could derail the successful implementation of universal credit, which is already looking somewhat shaky, to put it kindly. During the passage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said,

“if this is the nail in the shoe that gets the whole thing discredited because it does not work or gives rise to disturbing social consequences, we will have lost the great prize of universal credit that many of us want”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. GC 434.]

We should remember the lessons from the child support legislation, when widespread consensus about key principles meant that insufficient scrutiny of the practical details led to one of the worst examples of social policy-making in recent history. I hope that even at this late stage, the Minister will take heed and remove the payments nail from the universal credit shoe.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with some of the sentiments that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and with some of those that we heard in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. It seems that there are questions which need to be asked and questions which are still outstanding. However, perhaps some of the clues to the answers that we need to those questions can be found within the noble Lord’s opening speech. He said that we do not yet have the evidence from the rollout of universal credit to give us the learning pattern that we need to establish the route forward for some of the detailed questions which lie before us. They are real issues.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support Motion A1 as the best outcome we could possibly hope for in the current circumstances. However, I would like to suggest another area that the review should look at in terms of a foreseeable consequence, which is the impact of this measure on social support networks. I was an adviser to a Joseph Rowntree Foundation-funded project carried out by some of the people involved in the review instigated as a result of the noble Lord’s earlier intervention: namely, Sheffield Hallam University, which has been looking at the relationship between poverty and place over a three-year period. It produced a report last year which considered these research findings and set them against various explicit and implicit assumptions in government policy. One of the points made in the report was that if forthcoming social housing and housing benefit reforms obliged low-income households to relocate, this might most affect those with the strongest connection to their existing neighbourhood. Surely this goes against so much of government policy. These reforms will make it harder for people to find work because social networks are very important in helping low-income people find work. They will make it harder for those with children to enter or sustain work because social networks are so important in terms of help with childcare. The reforms will undermine the big society. Social networks are the capillaries of the big society. The report suggests that the reforms will reduce people’s feelings of security, safety and sense of belonging. I am sure that this is not what we want. I do not know whether the Minister will respond positively to my suggestion. However, if he does respond positively, as he did with regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, for a review, I hope that he will take on board the impact of this change on social support networks.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I commend the thrust of this amendment. However, as has been demonstrated, the way in which it is drafted may mean that it does not include everything that we would wish it to include. I would expect the Minister to comment about the way in which a review should be conducted. I do not wish to sound like a well-worn record but I have a long-standing view about the way in which major shifts and changes should be reviewed. It is absolutely essential that any part of the Bill which has profound implications for change should be reviewed in a proper manner. I wish to use two analogies—a route map and a set of milestones. We use a route map to get a sense of direction, find out where we can turn off a route and make diversions, whereas a milestone signifies the distance that we have travelled. Reviews which rely solely on milestones do not necessarily fulfil the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred: namely, to make changes on route. That is one of the key issues for any form of review of major change.

The Government’s principal success in this field was their appointment of Professor Harrington to undertake a series of milestone reports. One of his reports was colloquially referred to as his report number one and a half. He continually places on record what he sees as being the changes which are necessary. He has followed different routes and different avenues in looking at the whole issue of the WCA and the way in which it is adopted. That has enabled the Government to make changes as they are going along. I commend the suggestion to the Government that they should think carefully about appointing independent people to conduct a continuous evaluation so that we not only have the milestones when formal reports have to be submitted but changes can be made as the need for them arises. Such a process gives flexibility to the people who are conducting the evaluation to address problems as they emerge.

I make no apologies for returning to the issue of foster carers. I raised it in Committee, on Report and I raise it again today. As we have just heard, the sum of £30 million is intended to support 40,000 households which contain disabled people or foster carers. What analysis has been done of the adequacy of that sum or of whether 40,000 households is the correct figure to cover people who fall into both those categories? I refer specifically to foster carers. We have a distinct shortage of foster carers in our country. Only 65 per cent of children in care are in foster care, which means that many thousands of children who could benefit from this provision if appropriate foster homes could be found for them are missing out. However, it is natural and reasonable that social services departments and fostering services place increasing emphasis on the importance of finding a good match vis-à-vis a child and a foster carer. That has inevitably led to a longer time span in appointing foster carers. Did the Government take that extended time span and the increased demand for foster carers into account when calculating the support that they would make available to the groups I have mentioned? We do not know how many of the 40,000 households include disabled people and how many include foster carers. I should be grateful to my noble friend if he could respond to those points.

In conclusion, I commend to the Minister the review process proposed in the amendment. As has already been pointed out, some noble Lords may think that the amendment should include other matters. Its proposed new subsection (3B)(g) would allow other matters to be taken into account. One might want to refer to the problems caused by disrupted education. I believe that noble Lords have referred to that in previous debates on the Bill. It seems to me that the amendment may not have the right wording but its sense of direction is very appropriate. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accommodate its main thrust.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord German

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord German]

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord’s questions with a number of other issues that relate to these regulations. The first concerns the title. I am always in favour of government being connected across the piece. The regulations refer to page 11 of the handbook for health professionals. On page 10 there is a straightforward definition of domestic abuse that was provided by the Home Office and adopted across government. I will read the subsequent paragraph because it refers to something that is in the title of these regulations and to a change that it is seeking. Perhaps the Minister will consider it.

The handbook states:

“The term ‘domestic violence’ obviously covers a wide range of abuse—physical and otherwise. It also covers issues that mainly concern women from minority ethnic backgrounds, such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called ‘honour violence’. Throughout this handbook, we use the term ‘domestic abuse’ instead of ‘domestic violence’ wherever possible, because we are concerned that the latter might be interpreted as physical abuse only. We have, however, made use of information and statistics on ‘domestic violence’ and so have kept to that terminology in those instances”—

of straightforward domestic violence. Over the page are the definitions, which the regulations refer to. They are really a set of examples—physical, sexual, psychological, financial and emotional. If there is a cross-governmental approach to this, why do the regulations not use the term “domestic abuse” instead of “domestic violence”? It is a wider definition. The examples on page 11, which the regulations refer to, are not examples of domestic violence but of domestic abuse—the term used on the previous page. Perhaps my noble friend will consider whether the title of the regulations is wholly appropriate.

My second question concerns the evidence that should be provided. A broad range of people—Members of the House of Lords are not mentioned—can produce evidence on behalf of a claimant. The group includes the police. I presume that this is because when someone has resorted to making a complaint to the police, the police will be required to provide that evidence. Perhaps my noble friend will explain what evidence the police will be expected to provide in order to justify the continuation of a claim before them for discretionary easement.

My third question concerns discretion levels. There is a clear process that moves from four weeks to a total of 11, with individual weeks being added up as necessary rather than being taken en bloc, and with nine of the 13 weeks being taken in blocks as necessary. However, sometimes in the first four weeks that people have to provide the evidence, it may not be possible to provide that evidence if they require a public body such as the police to provide a letter or a pro forma to be completed, because sometimes the public bodies are not quite as quick as you might wish them to be. Is there any discretion for the Jobcentre Plus adviser to ease that four-week period and make it a little longer, if evidence is on its way from a public body that might exceed the four-week exemption period, and extend it to a further nine weeks?

I welcome the order before us. It seems a very sensible and very helpful move, and I commend the Minister for bringing it forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I particularly welcome the very broad consultation that appears to have taken place, and the fact that—for once—there have been changes as a result of that consultation, which is very good to see.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that concerns were raised about some of the detail. In particular, it discusses:

“imposing time limits on the time a claimant can have to obtain evidence, and about having a maximum allowable deferral period”.

Were any other concerns raised that are not discussed in the Explanatory Memorandum? If so, perhaps the Minister could relay them.

The main issue I want to raise is in support of what my noble friend Lord McKenzie said about this being confined to victims of domestic violence or abuse where the perpetrator is living at a different address. Research in the United States shows that it is not unusual for a man who is abusing his partner to use violence to prevent her seeking paid work—for the obvious reason that he wants that woman under his control and if she gets paid work she can be independent of him economically. We know that economic dependence is linked to psychological dependence and makes women much more vulnerable to abuse. I am not aware of similar research having been done in this country but it seems quite plausible, now that partners are subjected to conditionality rules, that there will be situations in which someone may be prevented from seeking work by the violence or abuse of someone they are living with—and this will not allow for that. I would welcome the Minister’s response on that.