Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

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

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.

The one real argument put by Ministers to support the restriction of identification to photo ID was that it is the most secure form of ID. However, we never got an explanation of how it was decided that, in the necessary balancing of the two, security trumped accessibility to the point that only the most secure forms of ID were permissible, despite the lack of evidence of fraud, as we have heard. In reaching that position, it was not clear why the Government rejected what we might call the “Pickles principle”—that perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution. Amendment 8 and some of the other amendments offer such a practical solution, but the Government’s response hitherto has been disappointing.

Ministers have also frequently cited the finding of the Electoral Commission tracker that 66% of the public say that the requirement to show identification at polling stations would increase their confidence in security. But I note that the word “photo” is never mentioned, so I can only assume that the question did not specify photo ID. Also, we do not know how members of the public would weigh up that balance between security and accessibility. It would appear from the latest election tracker—a point made by the noble Lord—that a much larger majority, eight in 10, are confident that elections are well run, and that nearly nine in 10 think that voting at polling stations is safe. But there is a real danger, as has been said, that perceptions will be tainted by the Government’s narrative of voting fraud, which risks reducing trust in the system, as has been pointed out by a number of bodies. According to the Electoral Reform Society, recent US studies have found that talking up voter fraud reduces confidence in electoral integrity and has indeed corroded trust in the system.

As I made clear in Committee, I am particularly concerned about the impact on people in poverty or on a low income, who are not necessarily caught in the Government’s focus on groups with protected characteristics. Of course, I am concerned about them too; I particularly noted the position of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities in Committee. The Government have chosen not to enact the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act, which might have encouraged them to focus on people in poverty. As it is, the more I have read, the more convinced I am that they have in effect been ignored in consultations with stakeholders and in the pilots.

According to 2019 data from the British Election Study, provided to me by the Library, there was a clear income gradient in turnout in the 2019 election, with half—or slightly more than half—of those in households with an income of £15,599 or less not having voted. If the JRF is correct that, as it stands, Clause 1 and Schedule 1 risk disenfranchising as many as 1.7 million low-income members of the electorate, these worrying figures can only get worse.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, promised that she would get me

“a list of the consultees that we worked with because that is important.”

This was in response to my questions as to

“what engagement there has been with organisations speaking on behalf of people in poverty, or in which people in poverty are themselves involved, so that they can bring the expertise born of experience to these policy discussions”.—[Official Report, 17/3/22; cols. 562, 567.]

I repeated the question when we returned to the issue on day three of Committee, but there was still no sign of that list. Instead, in his letter to Peers, the Minister assured us that there has been a comprehensive programme of engagement with civil society organisations, with a heavy emphasis once again on those with protected characteristics. However, once again, the implication of the letter is that the impact of poverty has been ignored, and that there has been no engagement with organisations working with people in poverty or with those who can bring the expertise of experience of poverty to bear on the matter. Yet, their perspectives could be particularly valuable when considering appropriate voter ID and the process of applying for a voter card. I ask yet again whether there has been such consultation and, if not, will the Government now prioritise it?

As it happens, I was at an event this morning organised by Poverty2Solutions, an award-winning coalition of grassroots organisations led by people with direct experience of poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage and supported by the JRF. The key message was the need to put lived experience at the heart of policy-making, complementing other forms of expertise. I asked whether Poverty2Solutions would be willing to engage with the Government on the development of voter ID policy, and the response was an enthusiastic yes. The door is open.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support—I could say all the amendments in this group, but that is slightly inconsistent. There is absolutely no evidence at all to support the need for any voter ID in British elections in person, as highlighted by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government’s plans are unnecessary, discriminatory, expensive and a regressive step.

There is also no public support for these changes at all. The latest edition of the Electoral Commission’s public opinion tracker, which measures public views on the electoral process, showed that 90% of voters say that voting at a polling station is safe from fraud and abuse. That is an exceptionally high percentage in any poll. Overall, public confidence in elections is apparently at its highest level since data collection began.

We know that the idea of voter ID arose from the allegations of election fraud in Tower Hamlets. However, as noble Lords know, the Tower Hamlets allegations had nothing to do with personation at polling stations. It is interesting that the judge in the Tower Hamlets case told the Bill Committee:

“Personation at polling stations is very rare indeed.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 15/9/21; col. 15.]


This is basically the view of most noble Lords in this House.

The voter ID system will cost an estimated £120 million over three years—there are various estimates, but that is the median. I must say that I find it quite shocking that any Government would spend that sort of money on a completely unnecessary reform when there is so much need which is unmet all over the country—it is really upsetting. I like the Liberty analogy on the voter ID issue: a householder who has not had a problem with burglary for years and yet decides to spend a fortune on a new lock. In similar ways, his house was perfectly safe and so is our electoral system at polling stations. However, I would not say the same necessarily of postal votes.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 30. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government’s opposition to the right to work was based less on the pull factor argument than on the impact on the integrity of the labour market. That is just as well. As the noble Baroness said, we have yet to see convincing evidence of the pull factor any better than the selective and somewhat misleading quote from a study that the Minister offered in Committee. She mentioned an impact assessment on that, which I believe is yet to materialise. When can we expect it?

If we consider the numbers involved, it is difficult to see how labour market integrity will be compromised. Indeed, the combination of the effects of the Bill and the welcome promised speeding up of applications, to which Amendment 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker should add some teeth, should reduce the numbers affected significantly. I imagine that the Migration Advisory Committee will have considered the integrity of the labour market before recommending the right to work after six months and in any occupation. Yet the Minister did not even mention the MAC report raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee.

Neither did she mention the MAC’s argument, and one central to the case I made, concerning the impact of the ban on working on integration, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which supposedly remains a government goal. Nor did she acknowledge the statement I read out from MIN Voices, made up of asylum seekers, who said that not being able to work made them feel less than human and corroded their self-respect and dignity—again, echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said. As the chair of Surrey Heath Conservatives pointed out on ConservativeHome —my new favourite reading—this very much chimes with Conservative values, so that in his view the ban is “fundamentally un-Conservative”.

I conclude by repeating the plea of MIN Voices’ plea to

“see us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills”.

I should also mention the article by Sarah O’Connor of the Financial Times, who ended her recent analysis of the labour market implications of the ban by saying that

“if people want to work, we should let them”.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name.

In Committee, the Minister referred to the integrity of the labour market as a route being one reason to reject this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, dealt with that very well, so I will not repeat her comments. The only other real argument against reducing the UK’s exceptional period before asylum seekers can apply for permission to work was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, the so-called pull factor encouraging asylum seekers to come to this country. I want to say a bit more about that because it really is very difficult to take seriously under the circumstances. When Germany allows asylum seekers to work after three months, Italy after two months, Portugal after just one week, can our Government really justify the current one-year ban and argue that if we changed it, there would be this serious pull factor problem?

If the Minister accepts this amendment, we will have the same employment restriction as France, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece, and we would remain more restrictive than all other western European countries. Ireland was the only other western European outlier until it recently reduced its nine months restriction down to six months in 2021. This amendment would do no more than Ireland did to bring it into line with the list of countries I have already referred to.

The fact is, the UK has a longer employment restriction for asylum seekers than any other comparable country. I just feel ashamed of us, to be honest—I think it is disgraceful. Moreover, it seems the Government have no grounds to argue that enabling asylum seekers to work will, in fact, act as a pull factor. A recent review of 29 academic papers on this subject found that there was no correlation between the right to work and where people seeking asylum chose to seek protection; the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, explained that perfectly clearly so, again, I do not need to repeat her words.

The other very important reform in this amendment is to end the iniquitous limitation on asylum seekers, even after the 12-month ban, to jobs on an extremely limited shortage occupation list—I seem to remember one of them was a ballerina or something. How many asylum seekers can really take up ballet? This renders employment impossible for the vast majority of asylum seekers until their application is finally approved.

The assumption behind this amendment is that asylum seekers would, after six months, become automatically eligible for a work permit, enabling them to become self-employed or to take up any job, to pay taxes and national insurance, and so on. It will be very difficult to justify not accepting this amendment.

In summary, I do not accept the arguments put by the Minister in Committee. I just hope that she and her colleagues have reconsidered their position. On 8 December 2021, I understand that the Home Office said in a Written Statement that it had concluded its review of the current policy. This is surely a perfect moment to introduce reform.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 23, to which I have added my name, and the others in the group. Since Committee, the Public Accounts Committee’s report has come out —we have heard about it—and it was highly critical of the lack of evidence informing immigration enforcement policy. That has to raise a big question mark over the Minister’s claim, in her letter to Peers, that:

“Detention plays a key role in maintaining effective immigration controls and securing the UK’s borders”.


We have to ask: what is the evidence supporting that claim?

PAC also expressed disappointment that the Home Office is still not sufficiently curious about the impact of its actions, and that little evidence exists that the department actively seeks to identify or evaluate that impact. This is highly pertinent to the impact of segregation and the indefinite detention of detainees, while not knowing how long that detention will last. We have already heard about the lack of hope that means. In both cases, as I documented in Committee and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has done tonight, the impact on mental health is a particular concern. This lack of curiosity around impact might account for the parallel universe that I identified in Committee, in which the Minister’s picture of detention and its effects is light years away from that documented by organisations on the ground.

Another example is the Minister’s claim in Committee —to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has already referred—that

“Removal from association is only ever used as a last resort when other options have been tried … but failed, and only as an effective response to the safety and security risk presented by an individual in detention”.—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1020.]


However, as Medical Justice—which I thank for its support—points out, over 900 incidents of segregation in 2019 alone does not seem indicative of a “last resort”. Medical Justice maintains that it is simply not true that segregation is used only in response to security and safety risks. It has experience of it being used as punishment or to manage detainees with mental health problems, of whom far too many are still being detained. In doing so, segregation is aggravating these mental health problems, which could also have been aggravated by the lack of a time limit, and it is diverting attention and energy from addressing underlying systemic problems that contribute to the behaviour that prompts segregation.

I will ask a couple of data-related questions. I thank the Minister for the management information she gave me on the use of association between January and March 2020. However, I also asked why the Home Office does not routinely publish these data once they can be treated as official. I would be grateful if she could look into this, perhaps, in the interests of transparency. I also thank her for the information on female detainees in her letter to Peers, but those data go up to only 30 June—they are the latest published quarterly statistics—which is three months ago. Is management information available on the current situation; namely, on how many women are currently detained in Dungavel House, Colnbrook, IRCs or prison?

In conclusion, I will argue that nothing in the Minister’s response in Committee or her subsequent letter makes me rethink my support for the amendment, and I hope that others will join me in voting for it in the name of fairness, humanity and the compassion that is supposed to be the future hallmark of Home Office culture.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I add my strong support to this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, argued cogently—as she always does—in support of these changes to the Bill.

In her helpful letter, the Minister suggests that

“Detention is used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary.”


Detention Action tells a very different story. One of the most important elements of these amendments is that they would end indefinite detention. As someone who worked in mental health services for many years, I am acutely conscious of the appalling consequences of detaining people without any indication of the length of time involved. Many detained indefinitely and for long periods—and, indeed, re-detained—have already suffered severe mental health problems due to their appalling experiences. Even with professional treatment, these problems may take many years to resolve. In my view, it is unforgivable for us, as a nation, to disregard this suffering.

As Detention Action has told us, in a recent case, the High Court found three separate periods of unlawful detention in respect of a vulnerable autistic person, in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. This is a shocking example of what can happen under the current law. The importance of these amendments is that they would prevent that from happening in the future.

I want to put on record that our Minister was wrongly briefed when she suggested that detention of more than 28 days was limited to those who have committed serious offences. In reality, people with no offending history are regularly detained for periods exceeding 28 days—and even re-detained. These amendments would put an end to these unacceptable practices. The right to apply for bail is no solution for these vulnerable people; they do not all have access to professional legal representation, and many do not speak English. Of course, the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems—are the least able to advocate for themselves.

Another crucial element of the amendments is the commitment to ensuring that re-detention cannot happen unless there is a material change in the detained person’s circumstances. The case of Oliver—quoted in Committee —underlines the cruelty of re-detention. Oliver, as noble Lords will remember, suffered with PTSD, having been imprisoned and tortured in his home country and trafficked twice, yet he was re-detained a year after his release from initial detention. How can we do this to such a vulnerable person?

Of course, not all immigrants have a history as bad as Oliver’s but many detainees have experience of torture or ill treatment and have significant and chronic health problems. Noble Lords know that attempted suicides are commonplace in detention centres and actual suicides have been on the increase in recent years. Some 68% of detained immigrants are not removed from the UK. Surely their detention has been pointless and therefore unjustified. As Detention Action argues, the current system is ineffective, inefficient, harmful and costly. We spend £100 million a year on detention. As we emerge from Covid we can ill afford to be throwing money away. This amendment is a gift to the Chancellor. I was pleased to read that the Home Office is considering alternatives to detention. If the Government also want to avoid detention except when it is absolutely necessary, I hope that the Minister will be able to table amendments at Third Reading to achieve the objectives that I believe we all want to achieve.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. I shall speak for no more than a minute, or possibly a minute and a quarter, in view of the time. While the UK has been a significant advocate for children’s rights globally, our domestic legislative environment refers only scantily to the rights of children. The Minister must be aware that there are no legal financial sanctions in this country for non-compliance with some of the principles and provisions of the UNCRC. Ministers claim that, because we have ratified the UNCRC, we do not need the protections afforded through our EU membership—but there is no point in children having rights on paper if there is no way to enforce them.

The Minister will be aware of the case of Hughes Cousins-Chang, in which the High Court relied not only on the UNCRC but on EU laws, directives and guidance to challenge the Government when that person’s rights were inadequately protected domestically. What legal and financial sanctions and safeguards does the Minister have in mind for children in our future world? Will the Minister please respond to this point?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I simply want briefly to challenge the central plank of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in Committee that the Government remain fully committed to children’s rights in the UNCRC. He said:

“The rights and best interests of children are already, and will remain, protected in England”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 932.]


That is strongly contested by the children’s sector, which argues that that protection is piecemeal, inadequate and inferior to that in Scotland and Wales because there is no UK-wide underpinning constitutional commitment to children’s rights such as exists at EU level. In contrast to the rosy picture that the Minister painted, in its latest observations on the UK the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,

“regrets that the rights of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration is still not reflected in all legislative and policy matters”.

It calls on the Government to,

“ensure that this right is appropriately integrated and … applied in all legislative, administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions as well as in all policies, programmes and projects that are relevant to and have an impact on children”.

Whereas the Minister claimed that incorporation of the convention is unnecessary because the UK “already meets its commitments” under it through legislation and policy, the UN committee recommended that the Government,

“expedite bringing our domestic legislation … in line with the Convention to ensure that”,

its,

“principles and provisions … are directly applicable and justiciable under domestic law”.

Far from meeting our commitments under the convention, refusal to accept this amendment would fly in the face of the letter and spirit of the UN committee’s recommendations and would be seen as a betrayal of children’s best interests by the children’s sector.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 66 requires information outlining details of health charges for health services applicable to the individual to be given at the point of an application for immigration permission or upon request. One of the biggest worries about the health service clauses in Part 3 is that they could create confusion and wrongly discourage some migrants from accessing free healthcare to which they are entitled. According to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, for whose briefing I am most grateful, there is already a notable lack of understanding about how the charges for health services will work among both individuals and healthcare professionals. Even more worrying, there has also been inconsistency in how charges are implemented.

Most welcome is the exemption from charging for the treatment of diseases which present a public health risk. However, public confusion could result in delays in people presenting themselves and therefore in diagnosis. Already in 2012, 47% of adults newly diagnosed with HIV were diagnosed late. I am not sure what percentage of those late diagnoses would be attributable in any way to confusion. Overall, 81% of AIDS-related deaths in England and Wales in 2012 were attributable to late diagnosis. There is an issue about timing.

Equally, unless people are made aware of their entitlement to health treatment right at the start of their application for immigration permission or when they request it, they are likely never to sort this out or to become clear about the services to which they are entitled. From the taxpayers’ point of view, it is crucial that those entitled to free GP consultations are aware of it. The risk is that fear of being charged for a visit to the GP may result in people not doing that and later needing an A&E appointment. The cost differential between these two options is £90 per patient and could over time add up to quite a bit for the taxpayer, quite apart from the detriment to the patient.

Does the Minister agree that readily available information accompanying any changes to the healthcare charging system or to the collection of charges—I understand that is going to be much tougher in future—is essential to prevent public health risks and unnecessary costs to the Exchequer? I hope the Minister will inform the House what assessment the Government have made about the current level of public understanding about healthcare charges and exemptions for specific groups and what steps they have taken or will be taking to improve awareness among healthcare professionals and members of the public.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about the importance of the evidence base, I take us back to our debate on Monday. In that debate, a number of noble Lords questioned the evidence base for the claim that there is a problem of so-called health tourism in this country. They asked the Minister what the evidence base was for that claim and questioned the Department of Health’s report on it. The Minister had an awful lot of points to make in his summing up speech and, after about 30 minutes, he quite understandably thought that he had had enough and probably everyone else had, too. Although he has already helpfully circulated a letter following our first day, I could not see anything in it that responded to the concerns raised on all sides of the House. I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to respond on that this evening.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and with regard to clause stand part. I made clear my opposition to this part of the Bill at Second Reading on the grounds of its impact both on migrants and on black and minority ethnic citizens. I raised the concerns in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we returned to the issue in our second legislative scrutiny report in which we welcomed,

“the Government’s indication that the Secretary of State, when exercising her residual discretion to grant permission to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement, will take into account the best interests of any child involved, in accordance with the duty in s. 55”.

By acknowledging the relevance of Section 55 in this context, this goes beyond the general indication already given by the Government, welcomed in our first report, that,

“nothing in the Bill is intended to change or derogate in any way from the children duty in s. 55”.

The committee said:

“However, we remain concerned about whether it will be sufficiently clear to front-line decision-makers that the s. 55 duty applies to significant functions such as the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant permission to occupy residential premises. Under s. 55(3) of the 2009 Act, a person exercising any of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to immigration, nationality and asylum must, in exercising the function, have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. We recommend that the Secretary of State issue new guidance specifically on the s. 55 duty, explaining clearly to front-line decision-makers exactly how that statutory duty applies in relation to functions conferred by or by virtue of this Bill”.

I invite the Minister to give that assurance.

With regard to piloting, the subject of Amendments 50 and 51, at Second Reading I asked what steps would be taken to monitor the impact from the equalities and human rights perspective. The Minister kindly referred to this question in his written response on Second Reading issues, so I eagerly looked for an answer first in the commentary and then in the factsheet to which we were referred for answers, but answer came there none. Therefore, I would be grateful for an answer this evening on the record.

I welcome the fact that the draft code of practice was published with the factsheet, but given the 36 pages of the code of practice plus 16 pages of the anti-discrimination code, I could not help but wonder how many landlords are going to read, learn and inwardly digest all the contents of those codes? I fear that, even without any discriminatory intention, landlords—this point has already been made by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Best—will simply avoid letting to anyone who looks or sounds like a foreigner. This is in the context of a housing market where we know that, particularly in London, landlords are getting increasingly selective about whom they will rent to. For example, housing benefit claimants are finding it increasingly difficult to get private lettings. As has already been said, the danger is that people are then pushed into having to rent from rogue landlords. The Migrants’ Rights Network raises particular concerns about women who may have insecure immigration status and how this provision could make them very vulnerable to physical or sexual exploitation.

At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked about a possible exemption for small landlords. The written response given afterwards was that the Government did not consider this to be appropriate. I realised only the other day that lodgers are included in this provision. This will mean that people subjected to the bedroom tax who are taking in lodgers because they want to stay in their home and they cannot afford to pay their rent because their benefit is being cut will be treated as landlords. These people never wanted to be landlords; they have been pushed into it. The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about amateurs. These really are amateurs. Are we really saying that someone who has been subjected to the bedroom tax could be fined up to £3,000 if they get this wrong? It is appalling. I hope that at the very least the Government will think again about lodgers. Like my noble friend, I would prefer it if we could remove this nasty clause from the Bill altogether but, if not, at the very least we need firm assurances that there will be a genuine pilot from which lessons will be learnt and which will monitor the equalities and human rights impact.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, wish to put on record my concerns about the proposed use of landlords as unpaid immigration officials. My preferred option, too, would be for the Government to drop Clause 15 altogether, although I do not expect the Minister to be thrilled at that idea. Therefore, as a second option, I would very much support a single pilot, which is evaluated and has an evaluation report put before Parliament before—this is very important—any attempt is made to roll out these provisions beyond that single pilot. That is, as others have said, totally different from what the Government are currently proposing.

I, too, do not believe that the system will work and it is therefore better to find that out before it happens all over the country. As other noble Lords have said, landlords will find ways to avoid entering into a tenancy agreement with anyone who may not have a legitimate right to remain and anyone who may bring into the household others who may not have a right to remain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, this could involve a considerable number of people.

Landlords do not keep a close eye on who is staying in each of their properties from week to week and month to month. The tenant may indeed have a visa, a job and all the necessary papers in order to remain in Britain, but if he brings over relatives to live with him, it must be for the immigration authorities to ensure that those relatives return home or obtain the right to remain. It cannot be right that the landlord can be penalised to the tune of initially £1,000, and then £3,000, for not being aware of this. Is he supposed to undertake an inspection of each of his properties each week or month? What kind of police state are this Government thinking of introducing?

An additional concern is that landlords are generally very anxious to remain on good terms with their tenants, and for good reasons. If tenants are threatened with a report from the Home Office or the results of such a report, they could well leave the property trashed, at considerable cost to the landlord and considerable inconvenience.

The Minister’s briefing says that if a tenant has no documents then they must, in order to rent a property, produce a police letter confirming that this has been reported. Does the Minister believe that this is realistic? What will be the cost to a landlord of undertaking or paying an agent to undertake the necessary checks, getting all these documents and police papers? I should be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The Minister’s briefing dismisses the exemption of students from the landlord provisions on the grounds that it would be complicated for landlords to keep records on only some of their tenants. I do not know. In my experience, most students live together in student accommodation of one sort or another, such as a student house. I hope the Minister will reconsider that point.

Then there is the experience of the former Minister Mark Harper, which has been referred to. The implications of landlords’ fears of inadvertently falling foul of the law and being penalised for an understandable error are considerable and will have huge implications for many communities. As Liberty argues:

“The net impact of the policy may well be to push those with irregular status further under the radar, increasing vulnerability and exploitation by creating another black market in private rented property”.

As the Home Affairs Committee put it, these new housing measures must not drive,

“more people into the twilight world of beds-in-sheds and overcrowded houses in multiple occupation”.

Does the Minister agree with those concerns—and if not, why not?

If the Government insist upon going ahead with these provisions, does the Minister accept that the requirements of the landlord must be minimal and very straightforward. The Minister’s briefing note says:

“Where a variety of documents are presented as evidence, it will be good practice to check that the names, photographs and dates of birth are consistent throughout”.

In fact, the wording behind that paragraph makes it clear not that that would be a good idea but that the landlord must do so. Can the Minister confirm that the landlord should not be penalised if his agent simply confirms that records have checked and are there, but that subsequently inconsistencies are found? Surely the landlord cannot be found responsible. If landlords are penalised for this sort of thing, landlords simply will not let a property to anyone whose documents are not or might not be straightforward. Landlords simply do not want to become immigration officers. Why should they? They have not gone into that profession in the first place.

Also, do the Government have any evidence at all that these measures would work? Finally, what will be the effect on ethnic minorities in general living in this country? Does the Minister have any concerns about the wider societal implications of these provisions?

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee I spoke in support of Amendment 2. I quoted the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in its legislative scrutiny report. This led to some debate about the implications of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for this clause.

I want to read from the letter that the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Minister following our debate in Committee. He expresses disappointment at the Government’s refusal to accept the amendment. He writes: “In your response”—to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—

“you said that ‘the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not require children to be placed with someone who shares exactly the same ethnicity but someone who respects it.’ That is correct, but what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does expressly require, in Article 20(3), is that ‘when considering solutions, due regard shall be paid … to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background’. Removing the statutory provision which gives effect to that obligation, without retaining those considerations in the welfare checklist, is incompatible with that provision of the Convention.

Unless the Government accepts the amendment when it is brought back at Report stage, it seems to us to be inevitable that this aspect of the Bill will be the subject of criticism by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Government is currently finalising its Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, for submission in January 2014. My Committee will ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the Committee when it examines the UK’s Report”.

Would it not make sense to listen to experts such as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the NSPCC? It has said that the amendment would,

“ensure that reference to ethnicity in the Adoption and Children Act is better balanced rather than it being given prominence in its current standalone form, and that it is appropriately recognised given its significance. We welcome the updating of statutory guidance … and are keen to work with DfE to input into this. However, while the detail of the guidance is certainly important it will only go so far in ensuring this is appropriately taken into account and could send a contradictory message as to its importance having removed this from primary legislation”.

That is one of the concerns—that having expressly taken this out of the legislation, and if nothing is put back, it will send out a message that whatever the statutory guidance says, this is not important. But it is important, and I really hope the Minister will think again. I know that his reading of the UN convention is different, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights is expressly given the duty to advise Parliament on the human rights implications of legislation. I hope the Minister will take seriously this rather strong advice given by the Joint Committee.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I was not planning to speak in this debate at all but I feel strongly that we need to support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. I want to mention only one case—that of a really superb set of parents who adopted two children across the racial barrier; that is, two African children. You could not find better parents. They were both involved in the mental health services and were devoted to these two girls. It seemed that the thing was perfect. But both those girls committed suicide in their late teens. If we are to neglect the advice of the UN convention, we need to beware. It is no accident that these issues are emphasised so clearly, and no accident that our extremely experienced noble and learned friend, Lady Butler-Sloss, has tabled this amendment. We should support it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 19. I have particular concerns. I fully endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that when people lose their job it is unacceptable for them immediately to face not only the shock of being unemployed and the dramatic fall in their incomes but the prospect of having to move their home. Psychologists always say that it is important to avoid changing more than one of our three mainstays of security in any one year: employment, our main relationship and our home. The risks of mental health problems rise significantly if we do so, as the noble Baroness illustrated very well.

There is therefore a strong case for allowing newly unemployed people time to adjust before they have to think of moving home. Of course the hope would be that they would find work within that year and never have to move at all. I want to raise again a particular problem that to some degree would be assisted by the amendment. I raised this issue in my most helpful meeting with the Minister but have reason to believe that his assurances would not work as he thinks they would. The issue is that of people with severe mental health problems who may be absolutely unable to move into shared accommodation, either because they themselves could not handle having someone else around or because the situation would be untenable if not downright dangerous for anyone else trying to live with them. The Minister assured me that discretionary housing payments should deal with this problem. Perhaps in theory this might be the case, but apparently in practice it does not in fact work. Does the Minister regard it as right for sick people to be penalised when for therapeutic reasons they cannot move into a living space with someone else?

I have a couple of examples to illustrate the point. A woman in her early 30s, living alone in private rented accommodation, receives ESA because of her mental health condition. She already has rent arrears as her housing benefit does not cover her rent. She applied for a discretionary housing payment but this has been refused. She has now been told that her housing benefit will be cut further, of course, in January 2012, when she is only entitled to the shared accommodation rate. She finds it difficult to cope with other people, and could not cope with a shared flat, even if she could find one. The adviser who is dealing with her fears that she could become homeless.

The other example is of a woman in her early thirties with HIV and related health difficulties, including depression. She is regarded as being unlikely to receive a discretionary housing payment until she is 35. I do not know why, but that is what I am told. She comes from a traumatic background, needs regular access to her many medications, and to the bathroom. She is not regarded as someone who could cope with shared accommodation: again, a likely homeless person.

If these claimants finish up on the streets, they will no doubt end up on one of our hospital wards at a cost of £261 per day, £95,000 per year to the taxpayer. I realise that this is a cost to the Department of Health, and not to the DWP, but I know the Minister is broad-minded on such matters and will not want to cause a massive increase in Department of Health costs. I am serious about it. There might be a saving to the DWP, but a much bigger cost in the Department of Health. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not accept at all that there would even be a cost saving in the DWP. There would therefore be a double whammy. We already see people moving automatically from benefits, to losing benefits, then on to the streets, and then into hospital. That is the way the system works, and this measure will simply make matters worse.

Apart from the inappropriateness of shared accommodation for some, though not at all every mentally ill person, there is also the practicality of finding such accommodation for this particular group. Someone with a mental health problem is going to be the last person many people want to share with. We know that the stigma involved is considerable. People are frightened, and they assume that people are dangerous when in fact they are not at all. But also, in reality, some people have difficult personal assumptions which would make them quite difficult to live with.

The result is that these people will not find shared accommodation readily, even if they could cope with it, and many absolutely could not. I know many people on our wards whom we could not discharge into shared accommodation. They would simply sit around on the wards, and it would be a problem.

I have focused on a particular claimant group, but an important one, in view of the numbers of these people. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment, for all the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, but also because it would ameliorate the problem of this particular group of people with mental health problems who, with any luck, might over a year settle down rather further and then might be able to be accommodated within the system.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. She has painted a vivid and powerful picture of what this means for the people affected. I have sat through and participated in a couple of debates already about this, partly on the regulations, in Grand Committee. The more I have listened and read the evidence, the more uncomfortable I feel about us allowing this measure to go ahead.

When I was younger, I flat-shared. I answered the ads in Time Out, and it is a very different thing. I am sure that many noble Lords may have been in that position, and think there is nothing wrong in sharing accommodation. But doing it from choice is very different from being pushed into it. As my noble friend has spelt out, we are talking about less salubrious accommodation.

I am concerned about various groups who are particularly vulnerable here, as we have already heard. When the Social Security Advisory Committee considered this, it talked in particular about the way women will be affected. Women are not disproportionately affected as a group, but those who will be affected could be particularly adversely so.

There are two groups in particular. Pregnant single women, the advisory committee said, will be restricted to the shared accommodation rate until they give birth. They face one of three undesirable situations. They can move home twice, at a time when they may be financially, emotionally and physically ill-equipped to do so, into shared accommodation, and then back to self-contained accommodation when the baby is born; they can decide to move into shared accommodation and remain there after the birth of their child; or they can try to make up the shortfall in their rent.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I was just quoting from a letter I received from a 50 year-old woman with complex mental health problems. She wrote that,

“my life revolves around trying to be as well as possible. I cannot stress enough how frightening it is to feel that you are not able to work, will not be put into the support group”,

she fears,

“and will be left to use up everything you have until eligible for means-tested benefits … My medicine prescription has been increased 4-fold and been supplemented with extra medication since the time limit was announced”.

As someone who has campaigned and argued for a more inclusive social security system for 40 years, I feel that I have to use the luxury of being a Back-Bencher to oppose this clause on principle. My noble friends on the Front Bench know and understand my position. However, if time-limiting goes ahead, it must be done on the fairest possible basis. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the proposed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which would aim to achieve that in three main ways.

First, I hope that action will be taken so as not to penalise people with fluctuating conditions who go on to the support group after the contributory ESA has expired. I know that that is a particular concern of Macmillan Cancer Support. Secondly, I could not believe at first that the rule would be applied retrospectively. The case against that has been made extremely eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. As a result of this, the letter has gone out to existing recipients. According to one who wrote to me, far from providing the reassurance mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks at Second Reading, that will, she warns, “strike fear” into the hearts of those affected. Could the Minister state whether there is a precedent for such a letter to go out before Parliament has agreed such a controversial change?

Thirdly, I was also dismayed when I realised that the 13-week assessment phase is included in the one-year time limit, which in effect means that full contributory ESA will last for a year minus 13 weeks. In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State agreed to look again at this issue in response to concerns expressed by a Liberal Democrat MP. What was the outcome of this further look? According to a Written Answer that I received, if the assessment phase were excluded it would reduce the savings by £100 million in 2012-13, rising to £120 million by 2014-15, but falling to only £40 million by 2016-17. Here is the nub: this clause is not about making social security fairer; it is about saving money, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie has already stated.

I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is extolling the virtues of universal credit at every opportunity, yet universal credit is in danger of being contaminated by sharing a Bill with unfair, cost-cutting measures such as this one. I hope, therefore, at the very least, that the Minister will think very hard about how to mitigate this unfairness through the kind of amendments before us.

[Baroness Meacher]

I rise to speak to Amendments 71M, 71N, 71P, 72A and 73. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for kindly allowing me to speak a little earlier than I had planned because I have to leave the Committee briefly at 5 pm. I apologise to the Minister and the Bill team that I have not been able to attend the briefing sessions. They are a wonderful idea and I had hoped and assumed that I would attend every one, but life has not been quite like that.

I also apologise for not having had quite the time I would have wished to prepare for this debate. Having said that, I have major concerns about the plan to limit entitlement to contributory ESA to one year. I understand from the CAB service that the DWP has estimated that, of those on contributory ESA and in the work-related activity group, 94 per cent will remain on the benefit from more than a year, so it is estimated that by 2015-16 700,000 people will be affected by limiting contributory ESA. Some will lose their entire benefit payment, currently worth £94.25 a week. I know that the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. It sounds astonishing. The rationale for this change is, I suppose, twofold. First, it is to give maximum incentive to people to return to work and, secondly, it is to save taxpayers’ money. I will refer to those two points briefly.

It is particularly difficult to support the employment incentive argument at present, when even able-bodied people and remarkably highly skilled people are finding it very difficult to find work. As we said, we think that about 94 per cent of those with disabilities will remain on this benefit beyond their contributory entitlement. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the fairness of this provision in relation to an individual with—obviously in terms of my own concerns—ongoing and fluctuating symptoms. He is very keen to work and does not need any incentive, but no doubt he will be given lots of incentives through the mechanics of the work-related activity group. But the fact is that he cannot persuade an employer to take him on. I know that the Minister is aware that there are very large numbers of people on ESA who want to work and cannot persuade an employer to take them. In other words, these people are very much the deserving unemployed. They used to be called the deserving poor. I happen to know hundreds of people personally who fall into that category. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on that.

If we consider for a moment the need to protect taxpayers’ money, I happen to believe that taxpayers would recognise that this group—people who are disabled and sick on benefits—should be entitled to their benefit, having contributed, many of them, for decades. Politically, I do not believe that this is something that one can possibly justify. It is very hard to argue that savings to taxpayers’ money should be made with this particular group—sick and disabled people—rather than at the expense of other groups in society with much broader shoulders. There are all sorts of cuts that a Government could make that would seem much fairer than this one.

Amendment 71M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would at least be a great deal fairer. In a sense you could say that it is all rather arbitrary— 365 days or some other number of days. Really, it is just not justified to cut contributory benefit at any stage for many of these people, but I suppose that that would be better than the alternative.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 71JA. These amendments have been tabled with the assistance of Gingerbread. The aim is to protect the opportunity for responsible carers to access further education and training up to and including level 3 when their children start school without facing the risk of sanctions. This means that responsible carers would be deemed to be fulfilling work search and availability requirements while studying until their youngest child reached the age of seven or the course ended. These amendments strike me as eminently reasonable, and indeed should be seen as totally consistent with the Government’s own anti-child poverty and social mobility strategy which emphasises the importance of education and training and the contribution they can make to ensuring that paid work represents a genuine path out of poverty.

The level to which a person is educated has a significant influence on how much they can earn and their ability to move up the earnings ladder. As Gingerbread points out, it is well established that holding a level 3 qualification can provide substantial economic value, particularly in relation to marginal wage returns. For example, only 25 per cent of people aged 25 to 29 holding a level 3 qualification are earning less than £7 per hour compared with 55 per cent of those with a level 1 qualification, and 37 per cent of those at level 2. Level 3 qualifications include access courses to HE as well as vocational courses. It makes long-term sense to enable lone parents in particular to improve their educational qualifications so as to maximise their labour market opportunities.

Until recently, lone parents on income support could complete a full-time further education course up to and including level 3 in preparation for entering the labour market or higher education. This meant that lone parents on income support had a two-year window of opportunity to access training with a fee remission when their children started school and before moving on to jobseeker’s allowance when their youngest child turned seven. As of September 2011, lone parents claiming income support are no longer eligible for fee remissions when accessing further education. Lone parents on income support will now have to self-fund as well as pay for any necessary childcare if they want to improve their chances of employment by undertaking training. Instead, fee remissions are available for individuals in receipt of JSA, but claimants will be required to continue actively seeking work while training, and if offered a job, be prepared to drop out of a training course or face a payment sanction. JSA work search and work availability requirements severely limit lone parents’ ability to train and gain skills that could help them find higher paid employment that is sustainable, and to make the most of opportunities to progress once working.

This modest amendment raises larger questions about some inconsistencies in government policy. On the one hand, as I have said, education and training are key elements in their child poverty and social mobility strategies. On the other hand, they are pursuing what in the jargon is called a “work first” rather than a “human capital development” approach to moving people from benefits into paid work. One of the risks of such an approach, identified by, for example, Dr Sharon Wright of the University of Stirling in a recent article, is that it can mean that large numbers of benefit recipients end up cycling or churning between unemployment and temporary low-paid jobs without advancement. Without the opportunity to train, lone parents face just such a future of low paid, insecure employment, cycling between in-work poverty and out-of-work benefits with little prospect of their financial or social circumstances improving. In our last session, we heard how they might then face in-work conditionality if they do not manage to improve their position to get themselves above the threshold which applies to them.

This amendment would go a small way to addressing the issue by ensuring that responsible parents, in particular lone parents, are better placed to advance in the jobs market and thereby lift themselves and their families out of poverty. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 51EA moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was impressed when the Minister mentioned in an earlier debate that providers of support to claimants will be rewarded financially if their clients find a job and remain in it for two years. That claimants should achieve long-term employment is clearly the objective of the Minister and the Government. I have no doubt that it is a fine objective. Certainly it is supported by me and, I am sure, by other noble Lords around the table. However, this clause seems to run absolutely in the opposite direction. It encourages claimants with young children to rush into a low-paid and probably insecure job rather than taking the opportunity to train and prepare themselves for long-term work.

Will the Minister explain the rationale behind the lack of protection for carers responsible for very young children aged five or six while they complete a training course up to level 3? Does he see the apparent inconsistency between the aim of placing people in long-term employment, which we all support, and incentivising them to take low-paid work rather than educate and train themselves in order to better their future? I will be interested to hear what he says about that.

My second point is about the unreliability as an employee of a primary carer of children who are in the first two years of school. Having had four children, I have strong recollections of the childhood illnesses they pick up in the early years: for example, a cold, an infection or German measles. If you have four children, it is not one lot of German measles but four, one after the other. Employment? Forget it. This is a serious point. The strain of working when your young children are starting school and picking up all those bugs has to be experienced to be fully understood. In education and training, one can catch up when life settles down and the kids go back to school. I know because I did it. I did an economics degree when I had three children under seven.

We know that the Minister is under enormous pressure to deliver cuts through Parliament, but perhaps this issue is worth fighting for in terms of the Government's own admirable priorities of encouraging claimants to undertake training in order to improve their long-term employment prospects for the future.