Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it is unusual to have more support from the Government Benches than from any other Benches—and very strong support it has been.

The two interventions really put their finger on how the poor Minister—I am afraid he is making a face—did not address the fact that this is a unique case, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, if their grandparents had not been forcibly evicted and kept in exile, these people would probably still be living on the Chagos Islands and be entitled to British citizenship. It is citizenship that they want. Certainly, the Chagossians who have been in touch with me are desperate to be seen as citizens; they do not want to come through some intricate way of dealing with the Immigration Rules—that is not what they are seeking.

I am sorry that the Minister has not addressed the key issues here. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, described successive Governments as demonstrating “disgraceful behaviour”. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, we all, in terms of our political parties—not the Green Party, but all the others—have responsibility here. This is our opportunity to put this injustice right. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has said that he would take it back. It may well be that if he takes it back—

[Noble Lords]

No!

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly take up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He said—I may be slightly misquoting him—that we should allow professional social workers to take proper decisions. But is it not telling that, as we heard, only one in 10 social workers in a survey supports the Government’s proposals, and more than two-thirds of them believe that letting local authorities exempt themselves from children’s social care legislation will lead to more children being placed at risk?

The other point made by the noble Lord was that Parliament will be at the heart of the process, but that will only be in so far as we are allowed to debate the regulations. We all know that we have no power when it comes to regulations, and that if we try to use what powers we have we get lambasted for overstepping them. It is not fair to say that Parliament will be at the heart of this process, whereas it would be if there were proper, primary legislation.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I listened to this debate in Grand Committee in considerable detail and I certainly have a vested interest in securing our social work and the Children’s Act statutory provisions. I think that the provision made in the Bill is misunderstood in some quarters. As I listened to the debate today and on the last occasion, I formed a view that some of those contributing may not have fully understood the purpose of this provision. It is not about allowing local authorities to innovate at their whim; what it does is to ask local authorities that if they have an innovation that they think will improve the lot of children, and they find that that innovation is inhibited or prohibited by some statutory regulation or provision, they should be able to ask the Secretary of State to use the powers—which are strictly limited by the amendments that have been put in—to authorise that amendment for a limited time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, quoted what my noble friend the Minister said in Grand Committee about there being no limit to this. Of course, it depends what you are looking for. There is a terrific limit to it but it has to be for the benefit of the children. It is not limited in the sense that it may be about a statute or a statutory regulation, or indeed some form of guidance issued by the department, but it is very limited by the necessity to demonstrate that you want to improve. The noble Lord, Lord Low, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, asked what prevents innovation as it is. There is nothing to prevent innovation except that some innovations which you may want to make run counter to a statute or statutory provision. If you are faced with that, you cannot make that innovation unless there is some way of dealing with the statutory prohibition. That is what the Bill intends to do. Having listened to the debate in the summer, I suggested to the Bill team that there might be a slightly better way of framing this to make it a little plainer that that is exactly what it does, but that has not happened—as yet, anyway.

Much of the difficulty for social workers is that there are sometimes a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations over what this is about. It is not about destroying the system. I would certainly not support it for a minute if it was. It is to improve the way that the system works and, where you find something in it that constrains you not to do it in the best possible way, you would have a way of dealing with that.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of what my noble friend Lady Armstrong said—but perhaps with some qualification. The parents that we are talking about are not necessarily dysfunctional, but sometimes they are struggling with enormous material problems of poverty, housing and homelessness. It is easy sometimes for words to be misinterpreted, but I hope we can remember, in all that we are talking about, that sometimes we are talking about the families in this country that have the greatest struggles with poverty. The stress of getting by can sometimes be just too much, and that is why their children are taken away from them.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, with regard to “have regard to”, there is no question that “have regard to” involves a responsibility to have regard to, and that it is not right to say that you can have an obligation to have regard to and ignore the thing altogether. On the other hand, if you have regard to, you are not bound to consider that as absolutely binding because there may be other circumstances that go in a different direction.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out that in the Children Act “have regard to” comes in one place but does not come in a different place. I am strongly of the view that in this particular case it is the latter aspect that should rule. In other words, it should not say “have regard to” in the first clause here; it should be a case of, “These are the things you have to do”, as in Section 17 of the Children Act, which lays down a general duty to do these things. I also agree with the view that one has to be careful not to make it overcomplicated, otherwise those who are trying to operate it will find it difficult to operate. We are duty bound to make it as simple as possible—and as effective as possible.

One thing about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that I find difficult is the taking out of the local authority’s responsibility. I entirely agree about spreading responsibility to others, but I think that the local authority has a very particular responsibility. It is the local authority that takes children into care when it comes to that situation, and therefore it should be left with a general duty to do the things that are the corporate parenting principles—clear, effective and unqualified.

With regard to the other organisations—the noble Baroness’s amendment demonstrates how many there are, and there are one or two options to add a few more—I do not think that the situation is as precise and workable as the one for corporate parenting. I would very much like to see corporate parenting standing on its own as a general duty, clear and effective.

The idea that the local authority has to keep in touch with the natural parents is very important. It is true to say—although I hope this is improving—that there was a situation in which the local authorities were often ready to hand children back from care to a parent, with disastrous results. I am convinced that this jurisdiction and responsibility of local authorities is extremely difficult to exercise with complete success every time. There is no doubt that it is a very difficult jurisdiction. I was certainly conscious of that in 1988 and 1989, when we were putting the responsibility on local authorities in a way that was more definite than before. Some noble Lords will remember that there was a possibility of making children wards of court. In effect, that has been almost completely taken away by the duty on the local authority. Setting out the principles on which a local authority has to operate is extremely useful.

Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

That is the arrangement that was proposed in the Tax Credits Act, which was passed by the Labour Government in 2002. It was thought to be the right way to do this particular thing, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have followed that. It is not a necessary consequence that the Commons or the Government should use a different procedure in order to secure the financial privilege of the House of Commons. The procedure was laid down in the Tax Credits Act, which is the main statute on this matter. For the Government to do anything other than use that course would be offensive to the way in which the system was set up.

The Leader of the House mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s attitude to considering more detailed material when it becomes available. That is a considerable consolation to me in light of what the right reverend Prelate said. I believe the right reverend Prelate’s approach to be the safest way to secure what a number of your Lordships have asked for.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have several points to make about the substance of these regulations. First, this represents a lamentable example of non-evidence-based policy-making, the victims of which are going to suffer greatly. Secondly, the arguments used to justify the policy—by reference to other policy changes and to how people could or even should work harder—betray a lack of understanding of policy and of people’s lives.

In its letter to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Social Security Advisory Committee criticised the “scant” evidence to support the policy changes. It thus encouraged the Government to make available to Parliament,

“more detailed information that clearly explains the changes and potential impacts to ensure that they can be subject to effective scrutiny”.

With due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, SSAC clearly believed it possible to provide such information. Its advice was ignored, leading the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to observe that the explanatory memorandum laid in September “contained minimal information”.

Getting an impact assessment out of the Government has been like pulling teeth. That which finally emerged is a travesty; much of it simply reiterates repetitively the rationale behind the policy. It certainly does not provide the information about potential impacts that SSAC sought. There is no information on the impact on different groups affected, including the self-employed, who, as we have heard, cannot benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. The information about the impact on protected groups is simply laughable. When I asked in a Written Question,

“how many people in receipt of Carer’s Allowance are also in receipt of Working Tax Credit”,

and are therefore vulnerable, I was told that the information,

“could only be provided at disproportionate cost”.

I know that Carers UK is very worried about the likely impact on all carers receiving working tax credit.

In the letter accompanying the impact assessment the Chancellor excused the delay on the grounds that the Government do not usually publish an IA for statutory instruments of this kind. I found this statement very revealing. It suggests that the Government made no attempt to assess the impact for themselves before going ahead with such significant cuts and that they see an IA simply as a tick-box exercise to pacify pesky parliamentary committees. Surely, given the Prime Minister’s pledge at his party conference of an “all-out assault on poverty”, the Government would want to know the impact on poverty. But no: it was left to the Resolution Foundation to point out that it could mean an additional 200,000 children falling into poverty next year, rising to 600,000 by 2020 when other summer Budget measures have taken effect.

Surely a Government who have promised to apply the family test to every measure would want to know the impact on low-income families—a point made by Heidi Allen MP in her passionate maiden speech demolishing her own Government’s policy. Surely a Government who go on constantly about making work pay would want to know the impact on low-paid workers. But we had to look to the IFS for that. In effect, the Government appear to be contracting out to the voluntary sector genuine assessment of impact. Of course, that is assessment after, rather than as part of, the policy-making process. That is one reason why it is so important that your Lordships’ House asks the Government to think again in the light of the evidence that has emerged of the damaging impact that the cuts will have.

I am grateful to all organisations that have exposed how the overall policy package that the Government constantly cite does not amount to an adequate defence of the policy, particularly in the case of lone parents, who will be disproportionately affected, according to Gingerbread. A key reason why the overall policy package does not provide adequate protection is that with the exception of childcare, which applies to only a very limited age range, the other policies—the increase in the minimum wage, welcome as it is, and in personal tax allowances, which is less welcome because it is wasteful and poorly targeted—cannot take account of the presence of children, a point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis. All the talk about tax credits subsidising low pay ignores the fact that child tax credits were introduced primarily as a child poverty measure. Wages cannot take account of the presence of children. That was one reason why family allowances were originally introduced and why an increase in child benefit, which also helps families below the tax threshold and is currently frozen, would provide more effective mitigation than further increases in tax allowances.

Finally, according to the Health Secretary, the cuts are intended to send a “very important cultural signal” about hard work. Leaving aside his denigrating suggestion that receipt of tax credits is somehow incompatible with “independence, self-respect and dignity”, he does not appear to understand that reducing the income threshold and the universal credit work allowances while increasing the taper rate penalises what he calls “hard work”. Likewise, the Work and Pensions Secretary suggested that the problem can be solved if those hardest hit are encouraged to work a few extra hours. Even if extra hours were feasible and available, the gain from doing so will be reduced by the very changes that they are supposed to mitigate. As the Children’s Society points out, every extra £1 in wages will provide a net income increase of only 3p for those also in receipt of housing benefit and only 20p for those not. What about those with family responsibilities, particularly lone parents and carers, for whom working extra hours could impact negatively on their and their families’ lives?

It is our job to scrutinise legislation. This legislation does not stand up to scrutiny. The policy-making process from which it has emerged does not stand up to scrutiny. It is not noble Lords, or Government Ministers, who will bear the cost of this. It will be people like the low-paid worker who emailed me to say that he was very scared about how he will manage next year. Hundreds of thousands of children will be pushed into poverty. We have a duty to defend them, our fellow citizens.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I have a question about the e-mail from the Charity Commission, which I have here. My reading of it is that the question about resource implications is a subsidiary argument, and that the key argument is:

“We do not believe that, in the best interests of public trust and confidence in charities, an exemption for charities is the most appropriate method for the regulation of charities during an election period”.

Surely that is the argument that the Charity Commission is putting forward against this amendment. The question about resources is just supporting that.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The reason that that is a difficulty is because it cannot be relied upon to enforce the law. There is no question of trust in charities being damaged by propaganda and that kind of thing. If it were shown that charities were not obeying charitable law, that would damage trust and confidence. If the commission does not have enough resources to pursue that properly—as paragraph 4, I think, says—that is a problem. I can see that if that is justified, it is a problem, but it is a very serious problem if organisations set up to ensure that the law is observed in a particular area say that they do not have sufficient resources to do it properly.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I have happily added my name to this amendment because I think it is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has moved it so ably that I wish to make only one point.

The Minister constantly evokes responsibility on the part of claimants and, similarly, everything that is written about the Bill emphasises the responsibility of claimants. The amendment would help to ensure that officials exercise their powers in a responsible manner. There needs to be a quality in the contract between claimants and officials. I am not suggesting that officials should be fined or receive a civil penalty if they get it wrong. However, the amendment would help to ensure that officials consider the impact on living standards and the knock-on effects of likely debt and exercise their power as responsibly as possible.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, there is, in my view, a principled reason for having something of this kind. However, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has necessarily got it right and obviously he wishes to discuss the detail with the Minister and his officials. For instance, I wonder whether the amendment would have caught the two examples that he gave. Subsection (1)(f) states that the Secretary of State shall consider,

“evidence of the impact that a sanction or penalty may have on the ability of the claimant to fulfil obligations to third parties including those relating to the fulfilment of benefit entitlement conditions”.

We are saying that before imposing a sanction you should ascertain whether the obligations to third parties,

“including those relating to the fulfilment of benefit entitlement conditions”,

prevented the attendance or whatever it was that is being sanctioned. It is not the sanction that does it; it is the fact that the sanction should not be imposed because of the obligations the claimant already had.