Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kerslake

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I too very much support and welcome these amendments. I am very pleased that there have been discussions which have led to an agreement. However, I have been approached by the RNIB, which welcomes the amendments but has some concerns. I want to raise a couple of them now.

One concern was partially addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, when he talked about the postcode lottery. He argued that there is a minimum standard contained in the amendments, but the RNIB’s view is that there still is not a minimum standard of provision specified in the Bill. It would like to see that being more explicit. I would be grateful if, when responding, the Minister could explain how he sees the question of a minimum standard and whether the Government might be minded to tighten it up a bit.

One of the other points the RNIB makes—we discussed this in Committee—is that it is very keen that trials of potential accessible voting solutions continue. Therefore, I would be very grateful if the Minister could commit to driving innovation through government-run trials in the future.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make three brief points. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on his valiant efforts to move this forward in a constructive way. This has been exemplary, in my view. Secondly, I wholeheartedly support his amendments, which I think will move this on. In Committee, I was seriously concerned about what was being proposed by the Government; according to the RNIB, we had moved things backwards from where we are at the moment and that was a serious concern. I am sure there is further work to do, but nevertheless this set of amendments will move things forward, and that is greatly to the noble Lord’s credit. Thirdly, I entreat the Minister to give his support to what I think has been a really excellent piece of work.

Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kerslake

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.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kerslake

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 70, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to give my noble friend a bit of a rest. The amendment would exempt a number of particularly at-risk groups from pay to stay, but I will speak solely in relation to disabled people and carers for whom there is a particularly strong case for exemption. My noble friend will address the other groups included in the amendment later.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister, Marcus Jones, assured MPs that,

“exemptions can be made and we will consider carers carefully. We recognise that, in certain circumstances, exemptions may well be needed, and we are thinking through that process carefully”.—[Official Report, Commons, Housing and Planning Bill Committee, 3/12/15; col. 482.]

That is welcome. I particularly welcome the fact that the Government are considering exempting carers, not least because the means test, as I said earlier, will take no account of the cost of caring or disability. Carers UK has summarised what these costs are, based on the findings of its Caring & Family Finances Inquiry. They include higher utility bills, not just in winter when there is more prolonged and intensive use of energy, but when the weather is warmer. Many disabled and older people are unable to regulate their body temperature. The use of specialist equipment, such as electric wheelchairs and hoists, as well as greater use of appliances, such as washing machines, takes its toll in energy bills. Other costs include higher transport costs and higher than average expenditure on food and cleaning products, with some having to pay for incontinence pads. Carers UK points out that because such costs can take up a high proportion of income, even if the household’s taxable income is above the threshold, their disposable income could be well below it. Increased housing costs could well push them into debt. In such a situation, even a few additional pounds under a taper could prove the straw that breaks the proverbial carer’s back.

A related issue is that of disabled people themselves—notably disabled people in adapted homes. In its response to the consultation, Habinteg, a housing association with long-standing experience of providing homes for both disabled and non-disabled tenants, echoed the point about additional costs associated with disability, and pointed out that these are not necessarily covered by disability benefits. They are even less likely to be covered by disability benefits, given what we have heard in the media over the last day or so about further savage cuts to personal independence payments. Habinteg suggests that the result could be discriminatory, and I here note my thanks to Jenny Morris for drawing my attention to Habinteg’s response. Once again, an equalities impact assessment would have been helpful. I appreciate that it is going on the website as we speak and that I will receive a personal copy, but it suggests that the likely impact on disabled people, carers and other protected groups has not been taken into account in the drawing up of the policy.

Aspire, an organisation supporting people with spinal cord injuries, sent me recently published research undertaken by researchers at Loughborough University—I declare an interest as an emeritus professor there—that studied people with spinal cord injuries living in adapted and non-adapted accommodation. The report cites the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, which emphasises the vital role that suitable housing plays for disabled people, as does the Government’s Office for Disability Issues. To summarise the findings:

“Living in an adapted house had a positive impact on the health and wellbeing”,

of people with spinal cord injuries and the family. The report continues:

“It created the conditions and an environment for people to have a good quality life, to manage their physical health well, to be happy, and to sustain meaningful relationships. In contrast, for those who lived in an unadapted house, health and wellbeing was negatively impacted on and, over time, deteriorated substantially”.

It damaged physical and psychological health, with potentially very damaging consequences.

Last November, Stacie Lewis, a mother of a severely disabled daughter who has cancer herself, wrote a piece for the Guardian website. After years of struggle the family had recently moved into an accessible, new-build house, which will, nevertheless, require extensive adaptations. Her husband’s income is above the threshold and she is now understandably worried about what this might mean for them. She pointed out how little suitable housing there is available for disabled people and that they therefore rely heavily on social housing. Her family waited three years for that home. She asked,

“what kind of economic sense does it make for the government to spend thousands to adapt our home and then throw that investment away by forcing us out?”.

Let us hope that it does not come to that, but it is a highly pertinent question.

I cannot believe that the Government would want this policy to lead to some disabled people having to give up their adapted home because they can no longer afford to live there. A similar point on high-value sales was raised by my noble friend Lord Beecham on Thursday. I suspect we are talking about a relatively small group, but the impact on the well-being of disabled people and their families could be huge. It would make no sense, from the point of view of housing stock, not to exempt those in adapted accommodation.

Following a similar logic, will the Government undertake to consider exempting victims of domestic violence whose homes have been adapted under the sanctuary scheme? Although they are not covered by the amendment, I am sure that my noble friend would be happy to include this group. Again, probably very few of them would be affected, but if that is the case, what is to be lost by exempting them?

Given that Mr Jones’s statement about considering exemptions was made on 3 December, is the Minister in the position, three months on, to tell us what the outcome of that “careful thinking” has been? If she is not minded to accept these exemptions, will she undertake to consult disability and carers’ organisations, such as Carers UK, as requested by, for example, Habinteg in its response to the consultation, preferably before Report? I beg to move.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendments 70B and 75B, and in support of the other amendments in the group. I apologise for not being able to be here for the debate on the first group, due to other long-standing personal commitments. I also declare my interest as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association.

The amendments before us seek to address the issues of feasibility and deliverability, and propose phasing in the changes over time, starting from April 2017. They also suggest that we have a pilot scheme before we move to full operation of the policy. Of all the parts of the Bill—there are some very contested parts of it—this is without doubt the part on which I have had most correspondence. It comes not just from organisations, but from a greater number of individual tenants. These tenants are people who have typically worked hard and got on in their life, and now are genuinely worried about their future security. This part of the Bill introduces in the name of fairness a proposition that is, in many ways, deeply unfair, bureaucratic and centralist in its nature. It departs very substantially from the original intent of the policy, developed during the coalition, which was to tackle those on very high incomes of more than £60,000, developed in response to one person: the trade union leader Bob Crow. The proposition that went in then was flexible and voluntary, and local authorities got to keep the proceeds.