Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Pitkeathley and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received no request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

On Thursday, on an earlier group of amendments, I thought that the Minister was correcting my quotation from the Constitution Committee. In fact, he rightly questioned my assertion that it had endorsed, rather than simply noted, suggestions from others as to how to ensure that the Boundary Commissions were independent. He was right; I was wrong. I think that is 1-0 to the Minister.

However, on this amendment, the Minister is on shakier ground, but I shall to try to avoid making what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, called a “holier-than-thou” speech, especially as I want first to turn to something more serious that the noble Lord said, when he claimed:

“Trying to link this matter to the issue of saving the union is very shoddy politics”.—[Official Report, 10/9/20; col. GC 320.]


I shall not try to pretend that I understand Scotland, but just at the moment in Wales, when the Government seem intent on weakening the devolution settlement via the internal market Bill and when again and again UK Ministers ignore the Welsh Government—indeed, even sharing the internal market Bill with Welsh Ministers two hours after it had been shared with the press—the noble Lord might note that a seismic reduction in Welsh voices in Westminster fuels separatist emotions and the feeling that Wales is a mere afterthought to this Government. I was particularly struck that the Government’s statement on the internal market Bill quoted the Scottish Secretary of State, a Scottish businessman and the Scottish Retail Consortium, with no equivalent endorsement from anyone in Wales, not even the Welsh Secretary.

I am not speaking for Scotland, but I hope that the Government do not think that chopping Welsh input into Parliament has no wider implications. As was said in an earlier debate, the Americans recognised early on that size alone did not matter, with each state being accorded proper recognition in the Senate. The UK Government should give serious thought to binding in each of the four nations if they really want to retain the United Kingdom. This does not go to the heart of these amendments, but it is a response to what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. Incidentally, he apologises because he has just left to chair his own Select Committee, but he has been with us thus far.

Charitable and Voluntary Sector

Debate between Baroness Pitkeathley and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a wonderful—indeed, heartfelt—debate with two major themes: first, the vital role of charities during this global crisis, which could see 1.6 billion people lose their jobs worldwide; and, secondly, that more government support is needed to provide the sector with the resilience it needs to protect the lives of others, both now and in the future. If charities founder, it is the beneficiaries who suffer.

It was Warren Buffett, I believe, who said:

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”


Indeed. Covid-19 has exposed how very vulnerable many here and across the world are, but in fact many of the needs described today existed before the virus. Perhaps society’s recognition of them has only really happened as the tide has gone out, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Astor, suggested. Those running charities knew, but at the exact time when the demands on those charities have mushroomed, their resources have been seriously compromised. Of course, the price to be paid if charities are unable to respond will be felt by exactly those groups described today: victims of domestic abuse, the homeless, vulnerable children, hospices, advice services and small arts groups—we have heard about all of them—as well as the international ones, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Liddle.

It is not just beneficiaries who depend on charities; so too do the Government. They depend on them to provide a wide range of services from which the state, over decades, has withdrawn as the supplier. The Government therefore have a duty to step in now to ensure the continuity of these essential bodies, and that means funding.

As we have heard, charities are experiencing acute loss of income, including from voluntary fundraising, such as by my colleague Dan Stevens and his ex-soldier brother Gary, who were due to cycle 88 miles along the Normandy coast on the D-day anniversary to raise money for Combat Stress. Such fundraising is vital for awareness-raising, as well as for the hard cash.

As we have heard, equally dire is the loss of retail income, such as for the British Heart Foundation’s fundraising. The BHF probably cannot access the retail, hospitality and leisure grant, as state aid rules currently cap the amount at €800,000, which would cover only 30 of its 750 shops. Can the Minister explore whether this should not count as state aid, so that charity retailers can claim their full allowances?

Looking across the whole sector, the loss is some £4 billion, against which the Government have allocated only £750 million. Furthermore, that is for additional services needed for Covid-19. It does not begin to address the other continuing issues, particularly the ongoing costs, such as leases, rents, insurance, payroll and DBS checks, which all charities have to carry out, as well as the increased costs of existing work—for example, PPE and IT—which cannot now be met due to loss of income. Indeed, Age UK has warned of closures as charities stand on the brink, while disability charities similarly face enormous battles to meet increased needs. The MS Society sees a 30% drop in income as fundraising events are cancelled, leading it to fear that its ability to continue to support sufferers and fund research hangs in the balance.

Furthermore, as we have heard, some specific areas are not covered, such as medical research. The Brain Tumour Charity, for example, has seen a 70% loss of income, and Diabetes UK and Cancer Research UK have been similarly affected. However, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, research charities are unable to access the government scheme because they do not provide front-line services. Therefore can the Minister undertake to work with the Association of Medical Research Charities so that, with a future pandemic, illness or needs charities do not pay the penalty of today’s crisis?

Small charities, often community based, are also feeling the hit, with the small charities scheme managed via the National Lottery Community Fund criticised for being slow and ponderous. Importantly, local charities that get the 80% rate relief are therefore not eligible for the £10,000 small business grants. Could the Minister undertake to see whether that could be changed? We know that the Government are trying to help, and I hope that they will look at the experience in Wales, outlined by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, where the Government are working across the piece with charities to help them survive this crisis.

When the tide next goes out, we do not want to see that our wonderful, unique network of brilliant charities —which engage the volunteering and philanthropy of our citizens—are no longer there when the needs continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in opening. It is therefore essential that work now starts on a recovery and rebuilding phase, where voluntary organisations will still be needed to play a major role, as there will be continuing demands on their services even as people emerge from the lockdown. We must ensure their resilience now so that they are there when society—and government—needs their strength, continuity and experience. That means infrastructure bodies able to speak for the whole sector being created where they are currently missing, to co-ordinate and help to establish local networks.

Major funding challenges confronting this sector will remain, and it will require financial support from the state. Government must acknowledge the value of the sector and help to build new capacity, with a long-term underpinning of security so that it can emerge as a sector with a renewed and strengthened voice of advocacy and service for its beneficiaries.

Today we pay tribute to charities, their funders, their volunteers and their staff, for how they have risen to the unprecedented challenge posed by Covid-19. But our appreciation and thanks are worthless if we as a society do not provide the financial support to ensure their own resilience and long-term future. We will need the third sector in the future. How we react now—how the Government act—will determine whether we can again see its strength should the tide once more go out.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Is she with us?

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Pitkeathley and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Lea as well as my own. It essentially restates the current legal position, as it is well established in charity law that campaigning and political activity can be legitimate, indeed valuable, for charities, provided that they are undertaken to achieve their charitable aims.

The Charity Commission’s guidelines on campaigning and political activities, known to us in the field as CC9—technically called “speaking out”—recognise that there may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support the charity’s purposes. Indeed, charities have used the opportunity of elections to promote their charitable objectives for more than 100 years to raise concerns and gain attention for their charitable aims. It is clear that, although a charity cannot exist for political purposes, it can campaign for a change in the law or a change in policy, or on decisions where such a change would assist the charity’s objectives. Charities can also campaign to ensure that existing laws are observed.

However, following the transparency of lobbying Act—I am delighted to see here the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, whom we would say was the guilty party on that Act—we know that there is a very difficult interplay between charity law and electoral law, particularly over non-party campaigning rules. There is insufficient clarity now on whether and when awareness-raising on policy and legitimate non-partisan campaigning by charities would be regulated by the Electoral Commission, even where activities were not intended to have any electoral effect.

The NCVO is therefore concerned that charities could be deterred from engaging in public policy and speaking out on behalf of beneficiaries during election periods. With local, European, devolved and general elections, we seem almost always to be in an election period.

The NCVO wants charities to have maximum clarity as to what comes within the scope of the non-party campaigning rules, so that legitimate campaigning is not inhibited. We share that aim. The problem is that the recent Act broadened the definition of what counted as political expression while reducing the threshold at which organisations caught by the new definition had to register with the Electoral Commission. They thus have to comply with more red tape than most businesses seem to have to do in a year.

Indeed, the Act represents a radical change to the regulatory environment for charities, and it has constrained, if only by a chill factor, charities’ legitimate activities. When the then Bill was in the House, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, feared that it would,

“put Westminster further into a bubble”,—[Official Report, 22/10/13; col. 923.]

by cutting out a much-needed source of intelligence to SW1. We think that this has happened.

More than that, the Act increases the imbalance between the controls on commercial lobbying and similar activities by charities on behalf of those with the least access to decision-makers. Not only can well-heeled drinks or defence companies have free rein to lobby, to campaign and to further their interests, so can groups, such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which has a clear campaigning rule. However, because they are not charities, they face no regulatory or transparency rules.

We wholly concur that a charity’s sole purpose should not be to campaign, must never be party political, nor involved in the electoral process, and that they should campaign only to achieve their charitable aims. The charities believe that they have been unfairly treated by the new Act and are genuinely bemused by such treatment, given that every political party, including that of the Minister, purports to support the work of charities. Indeed, many parliamentarians from across the political spectrum are actively involved in at least one charity.

The NCVO reports that confusion over the law is now widespread, leading to charities unduly self-censoring. For example, the charitable arms of two well-respected churches, which both provide an extensive network of social care and have advocated for policy change for over 150 years on behalf of the people they support, have come to different conclusions about what advocacy they can now undertake, how they do it and how to account for it. They are confused about what counts as controlled expenditure and are fearful that the new legislation means that almost anything that a charity or coalition does to advocate policies in the year before an election might be judged to impact on the success or failure of a particular party or candidate.

Indeed, trustees of some charities appear so scared of infringing the rules, as well as being bemused by the difficulties of calculating staff costs, particularly geographically, that they have stopped the charity from campaigning. Others have reached a different conclusion and have decided to risk running outspoken campaigns on the grounds that, as they make the same points to whoever is in government, they are not seeking to influence any one party.

What is most worrying for democracy is those other charities which feel that they cannot risk advocating on behalf of their charitable aims or their charitable beneficiaries. It is surely wrong and, due to the uncertainties created by the lobbying Act, some charities believe that they cannot speak up on behalf of their users or campaign to achieve their charitable objectives. Decision-makers lose that input and the voiceless lose their advocates, and this is in a democracy like ours, which is such a strong and vibrant civil society.

The intention of the amendment is clear; that is, to give confidence to trustees that the existing legal position remains untouched by the lobbying Act. They can undertake campaigning or political activity in furtherance of their charitable purposes. They can campaign to build support for, or oppose, a change in the law, the policy or the decisions of central government, local authorities or other public bodies. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and speak as the former chief executive of Carers UK, a very successful campaigning organisation, which, arguably, could be credited with making caring and carers, once an entirely private matter, the public issue that we all recognise today. I submit that that came about almost entirely through the campaigning of the carers’ organisations. I very much agree with my noble friend that there is now confusion, since the lobbying Act, about what is legitimate and what is not so far as charities are concerned at election periods.

At present, we do not have the maximum clarity which my noble friend has called for. I draw the attention of your Lordships to the lack of profile which charities had in the recent general election. In the past, it was commonplace for charities or groups of charities to hold hustings at which all parties could set out their wares. We heard very little of that in the last general election.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that he supports the rights of charities to campaign for policy changes which will benefit their client group. Of course, that could be called political—changing policy is political—but it is very much small-“p” politics, not party politics, and charities are very much aware of that.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Pitkeathley and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests as a trustee of a number of quite small charities. In moving Amendment 2, I shall speak also to Amendment 7, both in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson and myself. As with the next group, these amendments are to improve the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, particularly in regard to sexual abuse.

Amendment 2 concerns the power for the Charity Commission to check on disclosure and barring service checks undertaken by charities. It follows concerns raised by Mandate Now, a pressure group supported by the Survivors Trust, which lobbies for mandatory reporting of abuse, and is led by adults who experienced child abuse in establishments that were also charities. Mandate Now told us of a charity providing education; in its inspection report, there were references to failure to return—that is, notifications—but the staff concerned went on to abuse elsewhere. They also told us about a charity providing education where the press reported that the head in that case had phoned a receiving establishment to warn it of an abuser who was applying to work there. However, no formal notifications were found that might have ensured the known abuser would not offend elsewhere, and—this is the important thing—the trustees do not appear to have challenged the head.

In 2010, an inspection report on another educational establishment registered with the Charity Commission said that there was no,

“established policy for reporting directly to ... the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals … The advisability of making such referrals is now clearly understood even when there may not be a strict legal obligation to do so”.

Our concern is that it is advisable only—there is no compulsion. In the case that I have just mentioned, neither the management nor trustees made any referral to what is now the DBS, which meant that it did not lead to any action. No action was taken about those trustees for not making those reports.

I think we can all agree that notification should not be an optional extra. More than that, the Charity Commission should be able to check that the system is working as intended. Relying on trustees always to do the DBS checks obviously does not always work.

Another example occurred in an educational establishment which happened to be run by a religious order, where the head ignored the enhanced check, which showed a history of child abuse offences for the new chair. It appears to be rather discretionary as to whether trustees act on information provided by the DBS, when there are no independent checks by a third party that the correct procedure is happening. Amendment 2 gives a power—not a duty—to the Charity Commission to undertake such checks.

Amendment 7 covers perhaps the most glaring anomaly in the current law, which is that someone who has got into debt and is subject to an individual voluntary arrangement, or a person with financial misdemeanours behind them, is automatically excluded from being a trustee, but people on the sexual offenders register, who have surely done far worse than run up their credit card debt, can happily serve as a trustee. To date, the Government have said that when something comes to light, or in areas covered by the DBS, such people should be identified. That is not good enough. We do not want to wait until something has happened, or until other trustees get suspicious and then have to act, possibly against someone with whom they have been working closely on the trust. Nor is it sufficient to deal only with charities which obviously are in contact with children, and thus covered by DBS. There may be other examples, such as a church hall that gets used by guides, or for children’s parties. That would not have been covered.

An alcohol misuse charity could decide to run a special programme for the children of problem drinkers or, similarly, a cancer group could offer support to the children of cancer patients. They would not be covered by the current safeguarding regime. Who would think to check on the background of someone, particularly if they were offering to be the treasurer of such a charity? It is a thankless task, as I know. Trustees are all too willing to sign up a suitably qualified person without a thought for their wider background. Indeed, I have had dealings with an accountant who, unbeknown to the trustees using him, admittedly as an adviser rather than a trustee, had been convicted, although not imprisoned because he was having a kidney transplant, as he had been found with more than 1,000 images and videos of child sex abuse on his computer. None of the trustees knew about it.

I know that many trustees are very sympathetic to our proposal to add sexual offences to the criteria that trigger automatic disqualification from being a trustee. Of course we would want a waiver for charities working with ex-offenders which need that input to help them in their work. Those charities would know of the record and there would be no secret.

We also know that many smaller charities, particularly parish charities, depend on hard-pressed volunteers and already find the expanding vigour of the Charity Commission guidelines and reporting somewhat burdensome. Expecting those trustees to think and risk-assess before they approach a new trustee is quite a burden to put on them. Surely the onus should be on the person on the sex offenders register to know they should not, without a waiver, be a trustee. We should not to leave it to chance that someone else would spot it and consider whether it makes them a risk.

This is an opportune moment to add being on the sex offenders register as a category for automatic exclusion, subject to waiver, as this Bill adds terrorism, money-laundering and bribery to such automatic exclusions. I assume that the Government are as concerned about safeguarding children, women and other vulnerable people as they are about debtors and money-laundering. I am therefore very hopeful that this amendment can be accepted. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about concentrating the mind of trustees. The main attribute of my noble friend’s amendment is to work further on that concentration of the mind. Contrary to the assumptions often made that charities regulated by the Charity Commission are the large household names which have skilled, informed trustees who are offered training and induction, most charities are not like that. They are small, with governance that can be a bit hit and miss for some of the reasons we have heard: the difficulty of getting volunteers and so on. I venture to suggest that the majority have no idea about the Charity Commission and its powers and have a very hazy concept of collective responsibility, which we will discuss in the next group of amendments. History shows us that we cannot take the protection of children too seriously. We must also be aware of the serial, repetitive nature of some sexual offences and of the great skill in deception that sexual offenders often have. I therefore very much support these amendments. However, I am wary of the need for balance, which the Minister reminded us about, so I am very pleased that the amendment acknowledges that some charities need positively to seek trustees with experience of, even convictions for, these offences so that they can be helped in their work of rehabilitating offenders.

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

Debate between Baroness Pitkeathley and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I declare my interest as patron of several charities, but particularly as vice-president of Carers UK, a campaigning charity.

I have always had a lot of bafflement about the Bill. I am baffled as to why it was introduced in the first place by a Government who have always set such store by the big society, who have repeatedly assured charities of the vital place that they occupy in public service provision and, moreover, who have set such store by putting the consumer voice at the heart of policy-making.

I am baffled, too, by how the Government have spent the pause period. It was intended to enable them to listen and think again as the result of the extraordinarily negative reaction to the Bill, especially Part 2. Clearly, the Government have neither listened nor thought again. I remind them of what consultation means: it means not only listening, but acting as a result of what you have heard. It is clear from what others have said that we still have not had enough reaction from the Government. We now hear that the Government’s reaction and the actions that they propose will not be given in time for this Committee stage and perhaps not until very near Report. The provisions of the Bill, I am afraid, remain excessively broad in scope. There is too much discretion for the Electoral Commission and far too much uncertainty remains. That, as we have heard from other noble Lords, will trip up charities and stifle their voices. Why the rush for this Bill? It is clearly not yet fit for purpose.

The commission on the other hand—I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his commission—has used the pause very effectively indeed. The result of its work is before your Lordships in the form of the excellent report and package of proposals that have been put together, which we shall debate not only in this section but elsewhere in the Bill.

So far as controlled expenditure is concerned, I will only say that it is vital that there is clarity—indeed, not just clarity but certainty—about whether and when which activities will count towards controlled expenditure. The group of amendments, particularly those of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his colleagues, will go some way to addressing that issue, and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I also join in wishing the absent noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a speedy return—not that we do not feel safe in the hands of this noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, but it would be nice to see them both running around again. I also declare my interest as a patron of the Blenheim Trust and trustee of the Webb Memorial Trust.

I echo the concerns expressed by a number of noble Lords about the Bill and support the thrust of their amendments, which aim to make this bad Bill a little less bad. I also want to argue that Clause 26 should not stand part of the Bill. As has been said, the Government paused, but not for long enough and, more seriously, they then did nothing. There was no consultation—which as we have just heard is about more than just listening—because whatever they heard they made no changes. Even today, after all that, we have only the promise of a review about whether the Bill is fit for purpose after we have had an election with it, and the promise of a revision of the thresholds, but without the all-important figures before us. The Government’s inaction is in stark contrast to the NCVO and the Harries commission, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley just said.

The NCVO heard from 140 of its members and engaged with MPs, civil society and lawyers, and, as we have heard, took evidence. It talked, it thought, it listened and responded. The Government, by contrast, refused a proper committee to take evidence but then failed to use the time to produce their own amendments. They have failed to ask for written evidence and they have failed to produce a report of what they heard.

They have still failed to believe the warnings of chill, uncertainty and criminal sanctions—warnings and concerns that the Women’s Institute, Crisis and Sense About Science have repeated just this morning despite, or perhaps because of, the meetings that they have had with Ministers. The Government have failed to listen to the Royal College of Nursing, which says that the Bill will restrict the activities of organisations that seek legitimately to influence public policy in the run-up to an election. Indeed, the nurses say that if they are curtailed from raising concerns, this may pose a risk to standards of care in the NHS. Not only did the Government not heed these warnings, they have sought to dismiss them by asking others, not themselves, to change their view of the Bill. It is really no good the Minister today, or indeed Mr Brake, telling these groups that they need not worry if their own lawyers and the Electoral Commission tell them that they may well be in scope.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pitkeathley and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I, too, speak in support of these amendments. We are talking about essential rights for carers. When carers give up work in order to care, it is crucial that they are able to access financial support, which provides them with an independent income. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for a brief trip down memory lane about an independent income for carers. In the 1960s, an independent income for carers was at the very heart of what started the carers’ movement. That independent income was achieved in the 1970s and went on to be extended in the 1980s. I should like to acknowledge the very active part that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who is not in his place, played in extending those rights under—perhaps I may remind your Lordships—a Conservative Government.

Given the importance of carers, which has been acknowledged time and again, it is disappointing that the Government have not brought forward an amendment to place these rights in the Bill. If the gateway for PIP payments is left to regulations, different groups of carers will have their rights to carer’s allowance set out in different ways. Those caring for disabled children will continue to receive DLA and will not be moved on to PIP, and carers looking after an older person in receipt of attendance allowance, which is also unaffected by these reforms, will continue to have their right to carer’s allowance clearly set out under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. Yet those who are caring for disabled people of working age who are being moved on to PIP would have their rights set out only in secondary legislation, which would make for a confused picture.

I know that Carers UK, other Peers in your Lordships’ House and the Disability Benefits Consortium very much welcomed the Minister’s decision to bring forward their decision about both levels of PIP in December. But to give carers full confidence in their rights and clarity in the legislation, it is crucial for the decision to be written in the Bill.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment and it is clear that we support it. The amendments are, I hope, welcomed by the Minister as an opportunity to firm up what, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has said, he said before Christmas: that carers of claimants of both rates of the daily living component will retain eligibility for the carer’s allowance, and to make that undertaking concrete by placing it in primary legislation.

The Minister and the House know well that the changes to disability benefits are causing considerable concern to disabled people and to their carers. This amendment is about providing some clarity. It cannot provide full reassurance because carers do not yet know how they will be affected by the 20 per cent proposed cuts or the exact way that the new thresholds will work. We know that half a million people will lose benefit, but we do not know how many of that half a million qualify for carer’s allowance at present. I am afraid we must assume that there will be a large number of current recipients who will no longer qualify for support.

There has not yet been any impact assessment—it is not simply that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, cannot find it. We hope—indeed, we expect—that there will be as part of the response to the consultation announced yesterday. However, for today, we would simply ask the noble Lord to solidify his commitment to those who qualify under the new assessment process that their carers will be able to receive carer’s allowance. At the moment, the Bill does not repeat what is there for DLA. It does not even appear to do it in regulations.

A move from warm words to an undertaking in the Bill to maintain the status of carers’ rights would be very welcome. It would be a sign that the Minister is listening to disabled people and understands their need for clarity. In Committee the Minister spoke very warmly of our 6 million carers. Along with those warm words, can we have something in legislation?