Public Bodies (Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board) Order 2013

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 12th and 15th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 15 October last year under the powers of the Public Bodies Act 2011. It provides for the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

The board provides independent advice to the Secretary of State on matters relating to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. It cannot provide advice unless specifically asked to do so and cannot be asked to provide advice on issues other than those relating to DLA or AA. It is not a representative body for disabled people and plays no role in the decision-making process for benefits.

The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Regulations 1991 specified that the board’s function was,

“to give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters as he may refer to them for consideration”.

The Secretary of State usually commissioned work on medical matters relating to specific conditions or illnesses. For example, the board undertook a study of cases where the highest rates of benefit had been awarded under special provisions for people who were terminally ill and not expected to live beyond six months, yet a number of such awards had been in payment for more than seven years. The board was supportive of the fact that special rules exist and should continue to exist but nevertheless it recommended that such cases should be reviewed after three years.

Clearly, the board provided some excellent advice in its time. However, the defined scope and membership of the board means that there is a limit to the type of advice it can provide. In fact, the last time the board was commissioned to do any work was in 2008, two years before the end of the previous Government. Since coming into government, we have found that using time-limited, tailored advisory groups and targeted professional advice—as we did with the Harrington reviews of the work capability assessment—is better than the prescriptive approach of a standing board.

We have used this more dynamic approach in relation to the design and development of the personal independence payment, involving experts and consulting disabled people and their organisations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commended the department for its extensive consultation on PIP, including our work with voluntary organisations that represent the interests of disabled people. I will return to this in a moment.

In its 15th Report of Session 2012-13, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made a number of points that need to be answered in this debate, particularly on the tests laid down in the Public Bodies Act. I will address the points in turn. The report is clear that it expects me to use this forum to answer some of the points. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if it takes me a little while to go through them systematically.

I will start with our decision not to consult on the proposal to close the board. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee accepted the department’s explanation of why there was no legal obligation for us to consult but it did not consider this to be in keeping with the spirit of the consultation requirements. I should restate that the board was not outward facing and did not have free rein to examine the policy, operation or administration of DLA, being able to respond only to concerns expressed by the Secretary of State. In our view, to offer a consultation to groups with no ability to influence the work of the board would not be in the spirit of meaningful consultation.

Moreover, disability organisations have shown little interest in the board over the years. Back in 2007 when it was reviewed as part of the normal process of reviewing non-departmental public bodies, more than 100 organisations of and for disabled people were contacted, but only 11 responded. Out of those, three reported that they could not spare the time to comment and the remainder had little to say about the functions of the board.

During the design of the personal independence payment, which as noble Lords know will replace disability living allowance, we undertook three consultation exercises. I acknowledge absolutely that no specific questions were asked about the board during those consultations, but the respondents had the opportunity to raise anything they wanted to about the reform of DLA. We received more than 5,500 responses, and again not one of them mentioned the board. We also discussed the board in both Houses during the passage of the Public Bodies Act, and the department has not received any correspondence or parliamentary Questions on the subject. There have been several meetings between disability organisations and Ministers and officials, and again the future of the board has never been an issue.

Perhaps I may turn to the issue of efficiency and effectiveness, which is another one of the tests under the Public Bodies Act. The department has an existing medical policy team covering a wide range of policy areas who can provide medical opinion or who can commission work by others, if needed. This is a more flexible resource than that provided by a standing board. The team also produces guidance for operational staff, advice on operational issues and audits the quality of outsourced medical advice. It is our view that short-life working groups can be set up quickly when work is needed, which is more efficient and effective than retaining a standing collection of eminent people whose expertise is not necessarily being put to good use consistently. For instance, during the development of PIP, we set up a group to help develop the assessment criteria. The group encompassed a wide range of expertise across health, social care and disability, including from occupational therapy, social work and a representative from Disability Rights UK. Very importantly, we also sought the views of user-led organisations and disabled people themselves through our implementation stakeholder forum. This group involves more than 60 user-led, grass-roots and national organisations working with us to get the design and delivery arrangements right.

Legislatively maintaining the status quo for the board places a burden on the department because the regulations require that the membership contains specifically qualified personnel. Therefore, if a member leaves the board either by choice or because their tenure has ended, the department is required to recruit even though there may be no actual work to do. The recruitment process is expensive, resource intensive and, in my view, verges on being disrespectful to those people who apply for the post. We consider that using time-limited groups is more effective than maintaining a standing body. We continue to use the expertise of other disability groups, and our recently launched Disability Action Alliance has convened a wide range of disabled people and their organisations who will work alongside the department to deliver results in a less prescriptive manner.

I shall move on now to the test of economy. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee acknowledges, it is cheaper to run one NDPB rather than two, while Equality 2025 is a body representing disabled people that helps the Government to understand their needs and wishes. It has been in existence since 2006 and there have been no additional costs to that body since the DLA board has not been used. In addition, I can assure noble Lords that the medical policy team has absorbed some of the work previously undertaken by the board at no extra cost. Commissioning independent advice on an ad hoc basis is more economical than commissioning it from board members because they were paid fees for attending meetings and for contributing to reports, whereas the individuals and organisations who advised the department on the development of the PIP assessment did not receive a fee.

The Department of Work and Pensions considers that the use of time-limited groups will increase accountability. The scrutiny committee is of the opinion that accountability remains the same, as the Minister will commission time-limited groups, much in the same way as the board could meet only at the Minister’s direct request; it disagrees with our view that accountability will be enhanced. However, the board’s composition was laid down in statute. It is required to have members with professional knowledge or experience of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, nursing people with disabilities and medical practice, as well as six or more members who are themselves disabled and at least one carer. Now we can target individuals with the specialist knowledge that we require. For instance, if the department wants up-to-date information on people with mental health conditions, it can specifically target mental health professionals who may be better placed to provide that advice.

In addition, the board could report only to Ministers and only at their request. Time-limited groups have the flexibility to engage with and report to a range of parties. For example, in his independent reviews of the work capability assessment, Professor Harrington took evidence from hundreds of organisations and individuals and ultimately presented his report to Parliament.

On safeguards, I do not consider that the abolition of the board will remove any necessary protection or prevent any person continuing to exercise any right of freedom. I say that because, as I have already mentioned, there is a range of ways in which Ministers receive and seek advice, and consult. There have been scores of stakeholders meetings with Ministers and officials. These will clearly continue.

This is a good and sensible reform, formally closing a body which, although of considerable help to the department in its time, has not been asked to give any advice since 2008. Before I close, I pay tribute and offer sincere thanks on behalf of all current Ministers at DWP to the current chair, Anne Speight, her predecessors and all members who have served on the DLA board over the years.

I hope that I have been able to give the Committee the information necessary to demonstrate that, in abolishing the DLA advisory board, we are in no way diminishing the way in which we will consult properly with experts and ensure that all ranges of advice are taken properly into account. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to this order which, as has been described, abolishes the DLA advisory board. I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to those who have served on the board over the years and all the work that they have done. We acknowledge the extensive consultation that has taken place on the creation of PIP. The extent to which it was always spot on is something we will have the chance to discuss when we discuss the regulations quite shortly. However, we acknowledge that that has been an extensive process.

We have of course debated the proposition of the board being abolished when we considered it during the passage of the Public Bodies Act. Since then, we have had time to reflect on those discussions and the Minister will be aware of the debate at the other end, particularly the strong points made by my right honourable friend Anne McGuire, former Minister for the disabled.

Paragraph 4.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the board satisfied the three tests of performing a technical function whose activities require political impartiality and needing to act independently to establish facts. Can the Minister say a little more about the assessment that was undertaken to make the judgment that the DWP is better suited to the in-house team of medical advisers? Can we have an update on the size of that in-house team and the range of skills which it encompasses? Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Note refers to “a larger resource”, but how does the range of skills match that which is available to the board? The Minister ranged over the skills that the board has. Paragraph 4.4, on the constitution of the board, sets out the range of skills which the board should have. It should include people from the fields of,

“physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, nursing disabled persons, medical practice, and at least one member with experience of caring for a disabled person”.

--- Later in debate ---

It is a pity that the Government did not consult more fully. I hope that they have learnt a lesson from this. The processes under the Public Bodies Act were predicated on there being a robust consultation process. In our view, the Government have failed to provide that on this occasion.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I will start by responding to the question the noble Lord asked about why the DLA advisory board could not become what is commonly described as a “task and finish group”. The noble Lord may not have noticed, but I resisted using that phrase in my opening speech because until I had my briefing for this debate I had never come across it—so I asked the officials to remove it. I will answer some of the noble Lord’s other specific questions in a moment.

It is possible that the DLA advisory board could become a task and finish group, but it is set up in statutory terms, which specifically lay out what it exists to do and how it can operate. Instead, we are introducing a regime that is much more flexible and allows us, quite rightly, to draw on the expertise that we need for our work, but to do so in a way that we believe will work better. Indeed, there were current members of the DLA advisory board on a group that was put together to advise us on something recently. It is not that we do not want that expertise; we want to be able to use it in a way that is much more flexible and responsive to immediate needs.

The noble Lord asked what assessment we had made of the PIP assessment development group and the in-house medical policy team, and how they compared with the DLA advisory board in terms of resources and expertise. The department’s medical policy team consists of six officials, all of whom are qualified doctors. The medical policy team has taken on some of the work previously done by the advisory board—for example, producing guidance on medical conditions.

Where the department requires advice from a wider range of professionals, this can be commissioned, as was the case for the development of the PIP assessment. Some of the DLA advisory board members were in that group, as I have said. The group includes people from Equality 2025: Liz Sayce of what was originally Radar and is now part of Disability Rights UK; Professor Tom Sensky, a psychiatrist; Itai Chikomo, a community psychiatric nurse; and Hugh Constant, a social worker—so a whole range of different areas of expertise is covered.

The noble Lord asked who will now advise on attendance allowance and how that would be dealt with. I can confirm that the medical policy advisers in the department are responsible for that and that they will use what he has calls “task and finish” and I call “time-limited” groups, where that specific expertise is needed.

I covered the more general point about consultation in quite some detail in my opening remarks and acknowledge the criticism in the scrutiny committee’s report. However, as I said previously, the board did not attract much comment on how it was operating when we gave that opportunity to a large number of groups. Most importantly, it was not a question of not consulting disability groups because we did not want to hear what they have to say but that the board exists for a specific function, as I have already described, and it would seem almost insulting to consult disability groups about a board over which they have no influence in terms of how it did its work. There was no intention to prevent consultation because we did not want to hear what people wanted to say. We felt that the way in which we were carrying out our general process of consulting on the policies that we were developing was very extensive and that people had the opportunity to influence the design and development of those policies. I take on board the point that he made but would only say again that this is a board that had not met since 2008—so had not met under the last two years of the previous Government, not just during this Government. I am convinced that, in its place, we are putting arrangements which will ensure that we have the right expertise and advice coming to us as we develop policy and that we are consulting widely as we roll out that policy and taking on board the responses and the feedback that we receive.

Motion agreed.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Amendments 55AD to 55BB not moved.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, before I move that the House be resumed, perhaps I may give some guidance to those involved in the next debate. Two noble Lords have scratched from the speakers list so we will go from the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, straight to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. With the reduction in the number of speakers, it is my pleasure to offer a little extra time for noble Lords to speak. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend the Minister, who will continue to have 10 minutes and 12 minutes respectively, all other speeches are now limited to four minutes. I shall be handing over shortly to my noble friend Lord Attlee and I know that he will assist the House by making sure that all noble Lords stick to four minutes. I beg to move that the House do now resume and, in doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.37 pm.

House resumed.

Unemployment: Young People

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Chadlington for securing this debate. I feel as strongly about youth unemployment as everyone else who has spoken today. First, I associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, about presentation and the importance of communication. Like the noble Lord, I believe it is essential that people get it right because there is only one chance to make a first impression.

I also very much share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the importance of vocational education and of people having a clear route to success via that road if an academic route is not right for them. It may interest noble Lords to know that I was a teenager in the early 1980s and did not go to university. I do not remember anybody encouraging me to go but that may have been because I desperately wanted to go to work. I was very fortunate to have two wonderful parents, who said to me that getting a job, being dedicated to it and doing it to the best of my ability would be a route to success. I will leave others to judge whether I have achieved success so far but I very much understand how important it is for those who do not naturally want to follow an academic route to have other clear options available to them.

Youth unemployment is still too high in this country, as my noble friend Lord Chadlington made clear. However, the levels of worklessness among some young people cannot simply be put down to the present state of the economy. The problem we face, as noble Lords have indicated in their comments today, is much more entrenched than that. For the past decade and longer, too many of our young people have been trapped on the margins, some of them growing up without positive role models or in families where no one has ever held a job, failed by underperforming schools or dropping out of education without any qualifications, and ending up in the jobcentre at 18, unready for the world of work.

Even before the recession, youth unemployment had started to rise. In 2001, just over half a million young people were unemployed. By 2007, that number had already increased to just over 700,000. As all noble Lords agree, we cannot afford to neglect the next generation. Whether it be keeping them in school or vocational training, or helping them into work, this Government are committed to supporting young people, ensuring that they realise their potential.

Even in these tough economic times, we have seen that it is possible to make some progress. Youth unemployment is down by 72,000 in this quarter alone. If you take out those in full-time education, that fall is even greater—down 90,000 to 626,000, the lowest figure since the beginning of 2009. However, we are not complacent, and I am not here to talk down the situation. There are promising signs that the steps we are taking to tackle youth unemployment are having an effect but, clearly, we need to do more.

I will come to online issues in a moment but will first say something about investment and how we have radically changed the way we are approaching the issue of youth unemployment in this coalition Government. Through the £1 billion Youth Contract, this Government have brought together previously piecemeal provision and underpinned it by greater funding, scope and ambition. With the DWP, the DfE and BIS working together, the contract offers intensive employment support for young people, targeted at addressing the particular barriers they face.

We know that a lack of experience often proves a problem, so we are creating an extra 250,000 work experience places over the next three years. Of 65,000 young people who have started work experience already, nearly half are off benefits 21 weeks later. We know that for businesses, employing a young person comes with both a cost and a risk attached, which is why we are offering 20,000 new apprenticeship grants and 160,000 wage incentives to encourage employers to take on young people. By easing the costs, it becomes more straightforward to give young people a chance. However, we are also emphasising the potential benefits to employers, which is incredibly important—a point made most forcefully by my noble friend Lord Chadlington. As he said, young people are what is known now as “digitally native” and can offer skills that are valuable to businesses, certainly to small and medium-sized businesses that might not naturally have those skills already available to them in their existing workforce.

In the DWP, alongside these valuable interventions, we are harnessing online tools and channels ensuring that our employment services reflect how claimants—and young people in particular—choose to interact. I have given a range of examples but the most recent and significant is the Universal Jobmatch; an online service which has transformed the way people look for and find work. It is simpler and quicker for jobseekers to use, with alerts when new jobs are posted. It provides a free service for employers, and the service also benefits Jobcentre Plus advisers by modernising how they review claimants’ work search activity.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, we must recognise that not all people have access to the internet, and that not everybody has the skills to be able to use these kinds of services. I would say to the noble Lord that even the most basic jobs these days do require some form of digital skill, even if it is just data-entry in a warehouse. We must recognise that if someone is not able to use some of our online services to find jobs, it is our responsibility to make sure that they are trained so that they can use those services, because they will need those skills once they arrive at work. I was interested to hear that the initiative that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said that he launched when he first entered the House of the Lords was his e-learning foundation and the provision of devices. I wish him continued success with that.

I turn now to what we are doing for those still in school and the points made by my noble friend Lord Chadlington about online communication to promote opportunities—all of which I agree with. I believe that the bottom-up approach and co-ordinating our effort are not mutually exclusive—neither is his point about tone. We need to do all these things, as well as learn from what works in the private sector and be open to new initiatives that we do not run ourselves.

One national service that is available is the National Careers Service, which was launched in April last year. It supports young people in making training and career choices. I note what my noble friend said about some of the services available, but I am sure that a service that is less than a year old is seeking to improve what it offers continually, learning from the experiences of those who use it.

UCAS is independent of government and provides an online application service for those wanting to pursue further and higher education. Picking up one of the points that my noble friend made about ensuring that there is co-ordination of services, it is worth reminding ourselves that one of the advantages of the digital and online world is that users like to be able to access data and adapt it—to use it in ways that best suit their needs. That lends itself to—and points towards—not necessarily having a single shop that is nationwide and available, but making something accessible so that people can adapt it.

The Government have recently made data available that compares university courses—this is on a website that we run called Unistats—but we are also making that data widely available. The consumer service Which? has taken advantage of this and has already adapted that material into its website, which is available to those who want to be able to see and compare directly how different courses might provide the kind of training and education that they want.

The National Apprenticeship Service provides information on a nationwide basis, but we know that there is more we can do to promote the schemes available. We think that the idea set out by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his article in the Financial Times earlier this week—that UCAS should become an integrated higher education and apprenticeships service—is a great one. We have noticed that UCAS is enthusiastic about this as well and David Willetts is already pursuing this.

All these national services are tweeting and using social media to communicate what they are doing. I myself have retweeted things in the past to promote what they are doing. But we must be careful that we do not try to control too much from the centre. As with the great initiative that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, referred to, TheJobCrowd, if something is working and people are using it, far be it from us to seek to control it.

As my noble friend said, plotr.co.uk is a new website arising from a partnership of businesses in response to the Prime Minister’s direct challenge to find new ways to inspire young people to broaden their horizons. That is something that we want to see continue. However, as and when new local schemes, such as the Jobs Network, which my noble friend mentioned, get off the ground and achieve results, we want to hear about them so that we can promote them to other schools for heads to consider. Earlier I talked about today’s debate to my honourable friend Matthew Hancock, the Minister for Skills, who works out of both BIS and the Department for Education. He asked me to inform my noble friend that he would welcome learning more about the Jobs Network.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed to the risk to young offenders of long-term unemployment. It is worth pointing out that when young offenders are released they are referred directly to the Work Programme at the start of their claim. This provides intensive support and providers are incentivised to support this group as being in need of particular support. Perhaps the noble Lord is aware that there was a debate earlier this week specifically about support and training for young offenders. If he has not had an opportunity to read that debate in Hansard, he might be interested in the response that my noble friend Lord Ahmad gave to that debate.

In conclusion, we cannot underestimate the challenge of youth unemployment, especially in an uncertain economy, nor the damage we would do if we did not support our young people to be ambitious for success. By providing more training, work experience and opportunities for young people via the online channels that they use readily and often, we are giving individuals a chance to prove themselves and to secure a better future, which everyone here today wants to achieve. From a personal point of view, we must ensure that we do not define success too narrowly. For me, success is doing what you do as best as you can, and I want all young people to be able to experience that.

House adjourned at 5.18 pm.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others who have put their names to this clause stand part debate today. It gives me an opportunity to make clear that Clause 57 does not diminish people’s right to equal treatment, or their access to justice, when they believe that they have encountered discrimination. The aim of this clause is to achieve these outcomes in a more straightforward and cost-effective way.

Clause 57 removes the specific but arbitrary “three strikes” test for employer liability. I should like to reassure the Committee that it does not remove protection for employees who have been harassed by third parties at work. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me a specific question about whether the repeal is consistent with the equal treatment directive. I can confirm that it is.

The ruling of the court in the case of Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 2007 stated that,

“there is nothing explicit, or even arguably implicit”,

in the European equal treatment amendment directive,

“requiring a Member State to impose vicarious liability on an employer, or indeed liability for negligent failure to take steps”.

However, under the Equality Act 2010, employers are vicariously liable for the harassment of one employee by another. We maintain that the general harassment provisions in the Act can provide protection for an employee who has been harassed by any other third party. If the harassment causes the employee alarm or distress, a claim may be possible under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Where it is such that the employee feels there is no alternative to leaving the job, a claim for constructive dismissal can be brought. All this protection will remain, and that is why the third-party harassment provisions in Section 40(2) to (4) of the Equality Act are not needed.

Indeed, introduction of the “three strikes” test was itself unnecessary because a change in the legal definition of harassment in 2008, following a judicial review, allowed a wider range of claims. The then Government added the “three strikes” test to the harassment provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 specifically to address a set of facts referred to in the judgment. In our view this introduced an additional legal test that is both arbitrary and unnecessary.

The new definition of harassment following the change in the law in 2008 referred to unwanted conduct “related to” the sex of a person. That was instead of “on the grounds of”. This specific change extended the scope of protection against harassment to apply to wider circumstances than before, including potentially by a third party. This formulation now exists in the Equality Act 2010 and therefore applies to all the relevant protected characteristics, not just to sex.

The “three strikes” test was introduced to cover only the situation where, knowing that an employee is being repeatedly harassed at work, the employer does not take any reasonable steps to prevent that employee being harassed again. However, the extremely limited scope of these provisions is widely misunderstood and some businesses have also told us that they find it impossible to comply with the provisions in practice, no matter how they try. Most businesses recognise that they must not let their employees be harassed or ill treated by other employees or by third parties. Where this is not the case, the other legal protections that I have set out will continue to exist. However, they see the unique “three strikes” test as onerous, arbitrary and unfair. It expressly makes the employer liable for a specific number of actions—three—by a third party. In most cases the employer will have no control over the nature or number of events or the third parties concerned. The uncertainty over what exactly is required in order to avoid being caught out by the “three strikes” test makes it difficult for employers who want to comply and at the same time will not deter employers who may be less concerned about their obligations to their staff.

[Baroness Thornton]

I am wondering where the evidence for this is. I really need to know where this evidence is because certainly, as far as we can tell from the impact assessment and the evidence that I recalled in my speech, this did not seem to be the case. Perhaps the noble Baroness can write to me and list the cases to which she has referred because I certainly have not been able to find them.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point in some of the cases that I shall come to is that people have been able to bring cases of third-party harassment without using the clauses to which we are referring. The response to the consultation by members of the industry has been clear that this part of the legislation is confusing and is very difficult for them to comply with. However, I will of course follow up in writing and provide further information to the noble Baroness.

As long as this test remains, employers can face claims from their employees of liability for third-party harassment on the basis of an arbitrary number of events, but taking no account of context. This approach cannot be right. Influencing employers’ behaviour is neither the primary role nor the intention of most provisions in discrimination law, and this is certainly not the reason why the Section 40 third-party harassment provisions exist. This confusing legislation is not the most effective way of achieving cultural change. Nor does it appear to have had any significant legal effect. As far as we can determine, only one case brought under these provisions has actually been heard by a tribunal in the four years since they were first introduced. The other examples of cases successfully alleging third-party harassment of which we are aware were brought before the “three strikes” test was introduced. That is the point that I made before; it is clear that it is possible for people to bring forward claims of third-party harassment because they have done so, even before this change in legislation was introduced. We believe that a better way to encourage employers to protect their employees from harassment at work, which as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said is an important matter, is through education and good practice guidance.

I turn to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who referred to the case of Blake and how protection for employees such as those in that case would be protected. Depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it should be possible for a claim for third-party harassment to be brought under the general harassment provisions under Sections 26 and 40(1) of the Equality Act. Nothing in the Blake case would exclude it from that statement. Noble Lords will bear in mind that this is the only case known to have been decided by a tribunal during the lifetime of the “three strikes” third-party harassment provisions.

I commend Clause 57 to the Committee, but I will follow up on the points that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for her reply, but the Committee needs more evidence than she has been able to produce. She started by saying that this provision does not diminish people’s rights to equal treatment. Some of the experts, particularly those in the trade unions and the lawyers that I have quoted, believe that that is certainly not the case and that it does reduce people’s equal treatment. This piece of law has been in place for only two years. Does the Minister accept that, as Thompsons have said, its existence has prevented tribunal cases? That is rather an important matter.

I am not surprised by the answer that I received from the Minister, but it is not satisfactory, both in terms of equal treatment and because she has not made the case for this provision to be in the Bill or for Section 40 to be deleted from the Equality Act on the Government’s own terms of business effectiveness, enterprise or the Red Tape Challenge. The Minister has not refuted the facts that I gave about there being no majority in favour of getting rid of this provision; she managed to quote one case which, she said, caused confusion. So the Government have not made their case. Then you have to wonder why this is in the Bill, which leads only to the supposition that it is for reasons not to do with equality but more to do with politics—a sort of trawl to see what they can put in the Bill. That is very sad. On that basis, I shall not press my question but we will return to the matter later in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, I hope that this is not too light a note, but this is an apology that I owe to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, of some 40 years standing. I remember that she wrote to me making a complaint about the Caledonian girls. I do not know whether noble Lords are old enough to remember that there were pretty dolly girls in the advertisements. The noble Baroness will remember that she found them offensive. I found myself on “Any Questions” when the whole matter erupted again and I said that I rather liked to see these nice brisk young girls. “Who wants to be served by old bags?” I said, only to receive at least 20 letters from members of the public saying, “You’re on the radio. How do we know that you’re not an old bag yourself?”. At this point I apologise.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not know how to follow that.

I join other noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a speedy recovery, although I know that had he been here he would not have been speaking in support of the Government today. I know that he would have brought his own great expertise to these discussions and I am sure that he will return to us very soon and we will have the benefit of his expertise. Certainly, he was kind enough to give me some of his time over the past few weeks to discuss this matter in great detail and I am very much aware of his position on this and the history of his involvement over a long period.

Clause 58 does not diminish people’s right to equal treatment or their access to justice where they believe they have encountered discrimination. Let me be clear: repeal of the obtaining information procedure will not reduce an individual’s right to pursue a discrimination case or the remedies available to those who are successful. Our intention is to simplify the whole pre-claim process so that all parties achieve the right outcome in the most straightforward and cost-effective way. I will discuss in more detail what we propose as an alternative before I sit down.

I will not rehearse the whole process involved in obtaining information except to make the point that Section 138 provides that Ministers must prescribe forms to be used for the procedure in secondary legislation. Business and the Government now believe that, over time, enshrining this process in legislation has led to it being out of date, burdensome and to some extent one-sided.

Let me be clear from the outset that not one single employer or business organisation told us that they saw value in the questionnaires. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others requested information to that end. I will happily ensure that that is provided after today’s debate. As noble Lords have said, this process has been in anti-discrimination legislation for nearly 40 years. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that while I know that some of her remarks were about more recent legislation, this practice of obtaining information is now very much something that has been with us and has been tried for a very long time, but I would add that the process of obtaining information is only in anti-discrimination legislation; it is not replicated in other areas of employment law.

During the past 40 years, much has changed. The procedure was initially created to help to level the playing field between individuals and employers or service providers through a simple question and answer process to help to establish basic facts to determine whether discrimination had occurred. This was necessary in 1975. At that time, no one had brought a sex discrimination claim or knew whether it would be possible to do so successfully without any assistance. However, in recent years, 10,000 to 20,000 have been accepted by tribunals every year.

In 1975, when the legislation was being debated in Parliament, the Government included the obtaining information procedure, because they did not wish to make changes to the arrangements governing the burden of proof. As was said then, the procedure was,

“likely to tilt the balance somewhat the other way”.

The Government continued that they were,

“enabling the woman complainant … to … write a letter or to use a prescribed form”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/1975; col. 1603.]

Since then the legislation on the burden of proof has changed to make it explicit that the complainant has to put forward only facts from which discrimination could be deduced, and it is for a respondent to prove that their actions were not, in fact, discriminatory. From the point of view of a respondent, it therefore seems that both aspects of the law are now, in their minds, stacked against them. Employers believe that over time the process has become heavily legalised and is frequently misused as a means of gathering detailed information, whether it is relevant or not. Such information is frequently sought in cases where the individual has already taken the decision to take their case to a tribunal and is simply forcing as much pre-claim disclosure as possible.

[Baroness Thornton]

Can I query what the noble Baroness has just said about getting information prior to a claim? Is that not a good thing? Does it not mean that the process will be sped up and settled, and possibly not even go to a tribunal if there is more information available? I am not sure why there is a problem and why the noble Baroness seems to think that this process is being misused. It collects lots of information. Is that not the whole point?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Obviously I was not being clear. The point that I was trying to make is that, while the purpose of the legislation is to help people to obtain information so that they can decide if they have a case, it is apparent that some individuals have already decided that they are going to take their case forward and are using this process for gathering information in a pre-claim disclosure arrangement.

[Baroness Thornton]

I am sorry to pursue this point. How many cases like these are there? The noble Baroness may not be able to tell me now but I would like to know from where the evidence for this has come. How many were there as a proportion of the consultation process?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will endeavour to provide further information in that area and follow up in writing to the noble Baroness.

Noble Lords have argued against Clause 58 from the perspective of claimants, so may I put forward the arguments from the perspective of employers and the business community, which it is important for us to take account of? Collating this information can be onerous for employers, particularly where 20, 40 or even 100 additional questions are asked. They can often see that the information requested has little or no merit to a claim. However, they feel bound by the legislation and by the legal advice, which they feel is necessary to engage with and respond to, and within the statutory time frame. These exact concerns the then Opposition raised during the 1975 debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill, where it was said:

“There is no limitation on what can be asked. There is no screening process”.

If the respondent,

“decides that it is unsafe not to answer them, his answers to those questions may be admitted as evidence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/1975; col. 1602.]

Now, as then, the problem is not just simplifying the questionnaire form, which is simple and straightforward; the problem is ensuring that the questionnaire does not get used as the starting point for rafts of detailed and leading questions. Clearly we cannot and do not want to restrict the dialogue between parties where they are trying to explore and perhaps resolve their differences. That is why we are proposing a different approach altogether, based on conciliation and guidance, which I shall come on to.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred in the context of the questionnaire form to some 2009 research and said that employers had responded to it by saying that the questionnaire was straightforward. The GEO research in 2009 concerned only the layout of the questionnaire and not the whole process of dealing with the completed set of questionnaires from a claimant. Often the extra material is the problem.

Those arguing in favour of retaining these provisions—obviously they are speaking today—claim that they are often helpful in weeding out potential claims that are unmeritorious, or those based on mistake or misunderstanding. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, was very specific on that point. She asked whether there were any statistics available to show how many cases this process had avoided coming to court. I do not have any statistics available, but I know that we have not received any from the Tribunals Service. I am not clear about whether we have asked for them, but it has not been able to provide them, or perhaps it just has not put any forward. If it is the latter, then obviously I shall follow that up. However, not a single response that we have received from our consultation, from an individual business or representative body, endorses the view put forward by the noble Baroness and others.

[Baroness Whitaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I am grateful for her answer about the statistics, as far as it goes. As regards what the employer stands to gain from retaining the questionnaire, which was the case that I was also trying to argue, would she comment on the British Chambers of Commerce survey which showed that none of the businesses questioned raised concerns about the questionnaire procedure? In the Government’s survey of 2009, when I think they examined 811 businesses, was it not the case that only one organisation said that the questionnaire had been a time-consuming exercise? Could she comment on that?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

If the noble Baroness is referring to 2009, I think I have already answered that point by explaining that that was about the layout of the questionnaire and not the whole process of dealing with a full set of questions from a claimant. However, I am clear that the response to our consultation from the business community was clear. As I said at the beginning, I am very happy to follow up, in writing to the Committee, with further information to support that point. I should add that in some cases the cost to business, including legal advice, often runs to several hundreds of pounds and that is before any costs associated with defending the case at a tribunal.

Having said that, I turn to what is a more constructive alternative way forward. We are agreed that there is value in the aim of encouraging a pre-claim dialogue and exchange of information. There is merit in establishing the facts of a potential discrimination case, and this is certainly what our proposed early conciliation of certain employment claims is intended to achieve. Noble Lords who followed this Bill in debates on earlier clauses will be familiar with the sort of changes that we are proposing. I think those clauses have attracted considerable support.

People thinking of bringing proceedings could still seek information from an employer or service provider about an alleged breach of the Equality Act 2010, either verbally or in writing. As I read that out, I should make it clear that that can be done orally or in writing because I am not aware of anyone writing without using words. That point was stressed by several of those responding to the consultation. This is in a climate where, compared to 40 years ago, businesses are on the whole far more transparent about the information they disclose. I am speaking generally but I think organisations understand the importance of transparency in the way they operate, and that attaches to their reputation. Employers or businesses who refuse to respond to reasonable requests for information will continue to run the risk of this being taken into account by a court or tribunal when deciding whether a basic case of discrimination has been made out. They will be more conscious of that risk than in the past for the reasons that I have just given.

Even if the parties do not in the end agree to conciliation taking place, a conversation with ACAS will give them a better understanding of the issue and of the tribunal process. The Government Equalities Office is in discussion with ACAS with a view to producing approved guidance which would help set out for employers and potential claimants in discrimination cases—

[Baroness Thornton]

For my own clarification, because I have not heard this process described in quite this way, am I right in understanding that if somebody wants information because they think they have been discriminated against by either their employer or a service provider, they have to go to ACAS first? Is that right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

They do not have to go to ACAS first but in the conversations that the Government are having with ACAS about this process, ACAS is suggesting that it would be preferable for somebody who is considering making a claim to go to it first as it would much rather have that initial conversation without the burden of a lot of information so that the parties do not get bogged down in the detail of, “He says, she says” at that stage of the process.

[Baroness Thornton]

Does the Minister not think it likely that ACAS will fill in a form?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness may be more familiar with the processes followed by ACAS than I am. I cannot speak for ACAS and I do not know what it would undertake to do. I am just reporting to the Committee what ACAS advises is the best way forward in this context.

If I may conclude the point that I was making, ACAS seeks to produce approved guidance which would help set out for employers and potential claimants in discrimination cases both the scope and requirement for disclosure of pre-claim information. This will be an ACAS-led approach, with the TUC and equality stakeholders as well as employers invited to participate in ensuring that the guidance is right.

I have indicated that I will follow up in writing to some of the points that have been made, but I hope that I have provided the Committee with sufficient assurances to make clear that the repeal of Section 138 of the Equality Act 2010 will not affect any individual rights under law, will command business confidence and will be followed up by a lighter-touch process in consultation with key parties, which will deliver, as I said at the start, the outcome that everybody has a right to expect if they feel that they are in any way at risk of discrimination.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that useful and helpful explanation. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Ouseley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Howe, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is not in her place, for their interventions, which I look forward to reading in Hansard so that I can fully understand the insult that was meted out to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

My noble friend Lady Whitaker rightly said that we probably have not done justice to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would have said. I say to the Minister that this is the beginning of this process rather than the end. We will need to have further discussions on this issue, for which she always makes herself available. I think that the Minister made the false assumption that we were talking only about employees. In fact, I referred in all my remarks to employees and employers because we think that this form is useful to everybody concerned. The Government’s proposal to abolish it fails on almost every ground, including that of cost. Further, I do not think that their proposal will be any more efficient. The noble Baroness described what she thinks people will do in going to ACAS. However, it seems to me that that makes the process more complex. That does not feel like a light touch process to me. I am happy to have a discussion about that but it feels like a more complex process.

The noble Baroness is deceiving herself if she thinks that ACAS will not go into drafting guidance and forms, and do many things based on what already exists. This fails in terms of efficiency, it does not add anything to the aims of enterprise in this Bill, and it certainly fails in terms of the test of fairness and access to justice. I am afraid the Government have not made the evidence available to the Committee today to convince us that this is a necessary clause. On that basis, I will not proceed with my question. Even if I do not return to this, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, can probably be trusted to do so.

Clause 58 agreed.

Clause 59 : Primary Authorities

Amendment 28ZDA

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I will take very little time because I am sure that noble Lords will want to get on with the very important business of today. As noble Lords are already aware, today’s debate is not time-limited. However, as those who are listed on the speakers list will already have been informed by the Whips’ Office, noble Lords, with the exception of the movers and those making the winding speeches, might find it helpful if we offered some guidance.

As the Companion sets out, the expectation of this House is that those participating in a debate are here for both the opening and closing speeches. If we were to aim to rise today at around 5 pm, we have estimated that Back-Bench speeches of around seven minutes would get us to that rising time. I and my Whip colleagues will assist the House in arriving at that estimated time, but we will look for your Lordships’ co-operation in achieving that time as well.

Leveson Inquiry

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Donoughue]

My Lords, this is clearly an important and so far fascinating debate. There are many fine speakers to come, and I shall try not to delay noble Lords too long.

First, I should declare some ancient interests. Long ago, I worked as a journalist for four newspapers, including one owned by Rupert Murdoch. I was sacked by him, an experience of which I am unequivocally proud. I was also sacked by Robert Maxwell, but I shall not go into that here.

The Leveson report, which we are here to debate, is immensely impressive. I basically support its approach, especially on the need for a fine, delicate layer of statutory underpinning. I support all that was said by my noble friend Lady Jones and by the right reverend Prelate about the value of the local press, the remaining, though fast disappearing, jewel in our media.

The report, of course, has deficiencies and omissions, which is inevitable with such a vast subject to cover in such a little time. It has been and will be comprehensively covered today, so I shall try not to repeat much of what has been said—and I am sure will be said—on the body of the report.

I wish to make just two points. The first, which has been stressed to me by old journalist friends, is that the fact that present proprietors, editors and journalists sadly include some thugs, bullies and, in the case of the Murdoch gang, some alleged—I stress alleged—criminals, does not in itself justify eliminating the basic freedom of the press. I agree with that. However, I do not believe that the Leveson report, if read carefully and fairly, does anything like that. It is careful and subtle in deliberately setting out not to do so. Only the recent ridiculous campaign by some parts of the press to denigrate Leveson by proposing that its aim is for the Government to control what journalists do and do not say suggests that it might do so. The Prime Minister, who is perhaps historically too close to the Murdoch camp—he and his party are not alone in that—is wrong in apparently believing that that is the danger in Leveson, and in seeking to appease the press rather than its victims. I trust that the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will demonstrate that that is not so by accepting the need for some statutory underpinning. However, I confess that I am not too optimistic about that. He should acknowledge that on many previous occasions when the press has been under the scrutiny of previous commissions of inquiry into newspaper behaviour—I think that there have been six in my lifetime—it has always promised to perform more responsibly in order, of course, to avoid closer regulation, but has always broken its word. In recent times it has behaved worse than ever, as the evidence to Leveson and recent actions by the police have proved. It does have form, my Lords. The fact is that it cannot be trusted to operate complete self-regulation.

My second and main point concerns one of the crucial factors which is understandably given little analysis in this hasty report: that is, the excessive concentration of ownership power in the media, which has shaped the culture of the media, to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rightly referred, in particular the concentration of power in Murdoch’s media empire which stems from the 1981 decision to allow him to take over the Sunday Times and the Times. That concentration led to his newspapers having the power to intimidate politicians as well as ordinary members of the public and, over time, led to some—I stress “some”—of his newspapers and journalists feeling that they were above the law and unaccountable. Indeed, it apparently led some of them to feel that they were above all normal standards of moral behaviour, thus leading to the appalling episodes of behaviour which Leveson exposed.

The events of 1981—the takeovers by Murdoch of the Times and the Sunday Times—were central to this process of decline and corruption. The politicians, led by Prime Minister Thatcher, for whom I have great admiration in other fields, behaved outrageously in conniving with Murdoch for him to acquire this excessive power: a bigger concentration of newspaper ownership and power than was ever held by notorious newspaper barons such as Northcliffe and Beaverbrook in the United Kingdom and Hearst in America. Murdoch’s acquisitions were characterised by deceit, misrepresentation of facts to Parliament and the public and contempt for company law—all to avoid reference of these takeovers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and to allow Murdoch to avoid the official guidelines of a 30% maximum share of newspaper ownership. These events were all set out in meticulous detail by Sir Harold Evans in his inside story, Good Times, Bad Times, which I recommend noble Lords to read, and have never been challenged or disputed. They show how the Prime Minister had a secret meeting in No. 10 to plan these developments. The Prime Minister and Murdoch both later denied that meeting to Parliament and it was never reported to Cabinet although it was minuted by her press secretary. No other competing bidder was given that privileged access. When the deal was done, Parliament was reassured by Murdoch giving five statutory undertakings, backed by criminal sanctions, which mainly referred to guarantees of editorial independence. All these guarantees were subsequently breached without action being taken against Murdoch.

In seeking to avoid a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the device was used of claiming that the Sunday Times, which in the past and in the future is one of the most profitable British newspapers in history, was “not a going concern” and therefore needed Murdoch’s immediate financial rescue. In fact, the financial statistics on the performance and prospects of the Sunday Times were distorted and misrepresented to Parliament. The paper’s finance director, who knew the true figures, was not called to brief the Department of Trade, whose Secretary of State was handling the issue on behalf of the Prime Minister. It was later reported to me by an official from the No. 10 private office, who I knew, that Mrs Thatcher was heard to say, “Rupert supported me in the election, and I must support him now”. That is an understandable political reaction.

That excessive concentration of power given to Murdoch by dubious methods was, and still is, inimical to the workings of a healthy democracy. It is indicative of the bad effects of such a concentration of media power that the later alleged criminal activities of journalists were concentrated in, though not exclusive to, Murdoch’s empire. When the alleged criminalities were first exposed in the brave Guardian newspaper, that paper was exposed to derision in the mass media, much of it owned by Murdoch. The same patterns of behaviour began to be observed as Murdoch moved towards increasing ownership and power in television through seeking control of BSkyB. If that proceeds, he will probably offer guarantees, but we should remember that he once said the guarantees he gave over the Times were “not worth the paper they were written on”. He has the virtue of honesty.

Concentration of media power enables a proprietor to intimidate or reward politicians, as Murdoch rewarded Mrs Thatcher with future electoral support in his papers, although, of course, that was his natural inclination anyway. Politicians naturally need media support, hence they are tempted to return favours to supporting media. As we know, the police—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Is the noble Lord concluding?

[Lord Donoughue]

I am concluding. It is a potentially corrupting game. All power corrupts and excessive media power corrupts excessively. The Leveson inquiry was an impressive enterprise but it will fail if it does not ensure that such a concentration of media power, and the corruption which follows it, never happens again.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, missed my remarks at the beginning of today’s debate, but it might be helpful for me from time to time to give noble Lords a sense of how we are doing as regards time. I remind everybody that we have suggested—this is just guidance—that speeches should last for around seven minutes if we are to rise at around five o’clock this afternoon. We are starting to run a little behind schedule.

Gender Balance among Non-Executive Directors (EUC Report)

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as this is a debate on a Motion from a Committee of this House, my contribution is purely to set out the Government’s position, not to respond to the debate; I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. As other noble Lords have described what the Commission is proposing and explained eloquently the general principles of subsidiarity, I will not take any time on that but get straight to the matter, which is the Government’s position on the directive.

We set that out in the Explanatory Memorandum, which was sent to the European Scrutiny Committee by my honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer Affairs, Women and Equalities. We gave the Government’s assessment of whether the Commission’s proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity. Since submitting that memorandum, the Government have had an opportunity to further analyse the directive from the Commission and we have concluded that its proposals do not meet the test of subsidiarity. We believe that there is no reason why member states cannot achieve these objectives acting alone, and there is no evidence of any value added by the involvement of the EU in the way put forward in that directive.

However, the Government are committed to increasing the number of women on boards; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords have said, it is very important that we, as a Government, make it absolutely clear that the fact that we do not believe that the Commission’s proposals meet the test of subsidiarity in no way dilutes that commitment. We believe that increasing the number of women on boards is the right thing to do because it is the right thing for women, for business and for our country’s wider economic success.

We pledged to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies in the coalition agreement. An independent review in 2011, led by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, identified the barriers preventing women from reaching senior roles in business and recommended to the Government a business-led strategy to bring about the necessary change. We have been working with business to implement this strategy and we believe that the results already demonstrate that national-level solutions are working.

The Government believe that this voluntary business-led approach is right for the UK. We need to see a real culture change taking place at the heart of business if progress is going to be sustainable and long-term. Companies need to understand and believe that diverse boards are better boards. We want a business environment where women can and do take their seats at the boardroom table on merit and without the spectre of tokenism. I have always believed that, to attract not just more women but the best women with a wide range of experience, businesses need to show that they want them to join the team for what they bring, not because of who they are, and certainly not just because they have been told they have to.

The Government believe that member states must retain the flexibility to respond to their own individual circumstances. Likewise, businesses need to be able to respond to the varying needs of the sector, size and type of business. None the less, the Government agree that the EU has an important role to play in improving the representation of women on boards, which is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain and others. We share the Commission’s view that in the member states and throughout Europe, fair chances and opportunities for women in executive posts should and must be promoted. The EU has done a good job of highlighting the issue and raising member states’ awareness of its importance. As a result, many countries are developing their own individual programmes of initiatives. The Government agree that the EU should continue to show leadership on this issue, shining a light on and disseminating good practice across member states.

However, in line with the subsidiarity principle, it is first and foremost up to member states to find their own national approach to achieving this goal. Many member states are considering, or have implemented, various differing national measures on a voluntary basis to facilitate raising the proportion of women in boardrooms. Some have decided that domestic legal action is appropriate for their own circumstances. It is our view that these efforts must be granted more time in order to establish whether they can achieve fair female participation in economic decision-making on Europe’s company boards.

In the case of the UK, the Commission has projected that only 17% of UK listed companies would have at least 40% women directors by 2020. The Commission’s analysis is based on extrapolating the increase in the number of women on boards between 2003 and 2011 forward to 2020 using a linear progression. Of course, 2011 is when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, published his report on increasing the number of women in British boardrooms. Since his work started, we have seen nearly a 50% increase in the number of female non-executives in the FTSE 350. While we have therefore not forecast the number of individual companies that might have 40% female directors by 2020, we would expect it to be significantly in excess of the 17% projected by the Commission. Indeed, research by the Cranfield School of Management shows that should the current pace of change be maintained, we are on a trajectory to achieve 27% on FTSE 100 boards by 2015 and 37% by 2020.

As I have said, we believe that we need to see a real culture change taking place at the heart of business if progress is to be sustainable and long term. Companies need to understand and believe that diverse boards are better boards. Voluntary measures that businesses can truly buy into, such as the business-led approach that the UK is taking, can help to bring about this change in a way that blunt legal measures never can. We believe that prescriptive measures such as quotas or binding targets run the very real risk of undermining women and their contribution at the most senior levels in our economy. They will more than likely be counterproductive to our overall aim of seeing more women reach the boardroom. We do not want to see the spectre of tokenism.

We agree with the Committee that all parties need to work together to achieve gender-balanced boards via measures that focus on bringing about real, lasting change for the benefit of women, business and the economy in a way that is sustainable and achievable. The negotiations in Brussels on the Commission’s proposals have not yet started but we are already discussing them with a number of stakeholders. Clearly, today it is a matter for the House to decide whether to send a reasoned opinion to the Commission but the Government welcome this debate and the support expressed for our approach to addressing the very important matter of women’s reputation on corporate boards. This is clearly something on which we will continue to focus and seek to make good and strong progress.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate and for the general message of support for this reasoned opinion. I am also grateful to the Minister for reiterating the Government’s support. The support has not of course been unqualified and it is right that the reasoned opinion be questioned but, if nothing else, it at least provides a mechanism for sending a message to the Commission to reconsider where it is and to look at the difficulties within its own proposals.

Perhaps I may take two points of substance from the report and the debate. One, which is in the substantive report prepared by Sub-Committee B, is on how there can be a distinction between executive and non-executive directors. There is none in English law, as I understand it. To meet the obligations being suggested by the Commission, it would be necessary to introduce one. The other, which I think did not get considered by the committee—although I am prepared to stand corrected on that—would be on the relations between subsidiary companies and the main company. The proposals from the Commission bear on the main quoted company, so one could have a situation where it was entirely compliant but where every single subsidiary had a ridiculously skewed structure without apparently breaching the proposed obligations. I mention those only as points of example on the substance of the matter.

Given that there has been strong support on what might be termed the constitutional or procedural issue about the reasoned opinion, I think I can turn my remarks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. His views on the European Union are perhaps well known to the House; he is, shall we say, not too keen on it. By extension he may therefore be, and is reasonably entitled to be, sceptical as to the use of a reasoned opinion procedure. He asked me first a specific question, which I will do my best to answer, on the progress of this proposal. As I understand it, as of yesterday the score among national Parliaments was 7:7. If we were to accept this Motion, those wishing a reasoned opinion would take a short-head lead on the matter. Whether the magic number of 14 would be reached in time to trigger the formal yellow card is of course still open to speculation and by no means certain.

I should perhaps explain to the House for completeness that it is complicated by the fact that roughly half the Chambers or the Parliaments of the member states are unicameral and the other half are bicameral. In fact, one requires to produce a third of 14 votes, one of which will come from the other place and one of which will come from our House, whichever way we choose to cast our decision or to abstain from doing so, which amounts to not playing a reasoned opinion. That is the state of play on this particular matter.

There is one case so far in what is still a relatively untried procedure—and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred to this—in relation to the Monti issue and the right to strike, which has resulted in the Commission withdrawing its proposal on the presentation of a reasoned opinion. I just say to the House and to the noble Lord by way of advice that, whatever view he may take on the merits of this procedure, it is the best weapon we have. To borrow a motto from another context, we should either use it or lose it. I think it is right that where the circumstances so well set out in the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, demonstrate the argument, we should say so. It is our constitutional duty to say so; that is what tonight’s debate is about.

As far as I am concerned, I am relaxed and very much support the committee’s approach for the issuing of reasoned opinions as and where they are appropriate. If passed tonight by the House, this would be the fifth reasoned opinion which this House has issued. I claim no credit for the fact that two of those would have been in the past three weeks. Equally, I do not wish to speculate that we are likely to produce a strike rate of anything like that amount. It very much depends on what comes forward from the Commission, but it is important.

I also point out to the noble Lord that when he suggests that the Commission might, in some cynical way, retire from this and come back with the same thing in a different form, in my view the formulation of policy within Europe is not a binary exercise—is neither one thing nor another. It is very much a matter of influencing opinion. The fact that, if this Motion is carried tonight, eight Parliaments within the European Union have said, “Hang on a minute—we are not happy about this”, is a very important political factor in the circumstances.

Finally, from the meetings I have had with colleagues in other countries, I think that there is a growing interest and appetite among national Parliaments to rebalance the policy debate, both within the remit of the Lisbon treaty and anyway because of the size of the European Union and the complexity of the issues it deals with. Picking up the points that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made, we need to look very seriously at irredentism by the centre. We need to make sure that things that do not have to be decided by the centre—even if they are desirable as objectives—can be dealt with by the member states and by a process of dialogue and iteration rather than by the imposition of a centralised solution. It is on that—the constitutional issue, rather than the merits of women on boards or greater diversity generally, where I think there is a unanimous view across the House—that we should concentrate tonight.

Disability Services

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and the opportunity that he has provided for us to discuss the important issue of how to ensure that all members of society, from all backgrounds, are able to access the services and support that they need.

I am grateful, too, to Scope and the Equalities National Council for the central report that we are debating today. It brings to the issue a great deal of detail and much needed information about the black and minority ethnic communities in particular, and the difficulties that they face in receiving the support that they require.

A wide range of topics has been raised in today’s debate, but what underpins much of what noble Lords have said is that we must provide policies and services developed and delivered based on the individual.

In responding to the debate, I shall provide some context and talk first about the Government’s equality strategy. As a country, we have come a very long way over the past 50 years, but too many people’s life chances still depend on who they are or where they come from. Our equality strategy set out our vision for a strong, modern, fair Britain built on two key principles: equal treatment and equal opportunity for all. We are moving away from the identity politics and categorisation of the past and instead focusing on equal opportunity for everyone—most importantly, recognising individual needs.

I believe that this approach is very much in line with the recommendations in the report that we have been debating today that services delivered locally should follow person-centred principles, delivered in ways that take into account the needs of individuals, utilise community resources and are responsive to the local community.

I shall focus on the disabled strategy. Part of our commitment to removing barriers is about enabling disabled people to fulfil their individual potential and, by right, play a full role in society. As a country, we have a strong record of provision for disabled people. Here I am talking not just about this Government but about this country in the past. We are a world leader for both disability rights and independent living. The recent OECD statistics have shown that UK spending on disability as a proportion of GDP is nearly twice the OECD average—more than the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Japan. This Government are proud of that and will ensure that the money that we dedicate to disabled services supports those in the greatest need, as well as in ways that are important to all disabled people: providing them their right to live independently, and to have greater opportunities to work. On that point in particular, in the spending review we have protected the annual budget of £320 million for specialist disability employment programmes. These programmes focus on removing barriers to work and supporting those with extra needs to work. In saying that, I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Browning about the challenge that this presents for some people.

Our aim is to open up more opportunities for all disabled people, and although government should provide the strategic leadership needed to achieve this aim, we cannot do it alone. In answer to a point made most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but also by many other noble Lords, we are working across government and with disability organisations to develop plans for action and mechanisms for monitoring progress which we will publish in the spring. As part of that, we are working and consulting with the widest range of disability groups, such as Include Me Too, the Afiya Trust and the Equalities National Council. We are making sure that the voices of BME disabled people are heard and have input to our disability strategy and, importantly, to the action plan that will flow from it. As part of this, we are setting up a new partnership—a disability action alliance— to bring disabled people and their organisations together with public, private and voluntary and community organisations to help shape and deliver what disabled people want.

I have already referred to the Equalities National Council, as have other noble Lords, and it is the joint authors of the report that we are discussing today. It and others are working with us to establish the alliance and have already identified some potential actions for us to take forward. These include, for example, building on the work they are doing to mentor BME prisoners with mental health conditions. If I may, I shall use the particular point about mental health conditions because I think that it helps illustrate our approach to quite a wide range of different areas. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I am not able to respond on those areas in great detail.

The ENC is working with the Office for Disability Issues on the Disabled People’s User-Led Organisations programme and has been awarded £25,000 to create an ambassador programme. As part of that programme it will raise the profile of good mental health experiences and positive outcomes and help reduce the stigma attached to mental health conditions. The plan is also to give disabled people the confidence to approach mental health services earlier and be treated by GPs and community health teams before they reach crisis point, where interventions are more traumatic and punitive.

The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, spoke at some length about the issue of mental health and BME people. He raised a number of issues, but on his specific point about excessive detention of BME people under Section 136, we are developing a programme of work with the police to improve the experience of people who are removed from a public place to a place of safety by police using Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. We will make sure that this takes account of BME people and that the solutions suggested are evaluated for any differential impact on BME groups. From the briefing that I have had in preparation for today’s debate, I am aware that there is quite a lot going on in this area. So, if I may, I will send the noble Lord a follow-up, because I think that I can provide him with some more information which I hope will serve to address some of his concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and indeed many other noble Lords, raised the point about language barriers in a wide range of contexts. We recognise that English language skills are fundamental to people’s ability to participate in our society, to break down barriers and to do the everyday things that we all take for granted—and just basically to get on. It is important that we are clear about the distinction drawn between the automatic translation of public authority documents and the training that is available and the services that might be provided to people with specific translation needs. People refer to comments by my right honourable Friend Eric Pickles, but he was talking about automatic translation of public authority documents and the fact that they can be expensive and entrench segregation. That is separate from the specific issue of translation and cases in which someone has an individual need.

The Government have provided more than £8 million to 35 English for speakers of other languages providers, mainly in FE colleges in areas of England where there is the highest demand. The Government fully fund this provision for those on jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance in the work-related activity group. Under this general heading of translation, my noble friend Lady Berridge raised the issue of language barriers in the provision of PIP—the replacement for DLA—and what guidance was being given to the service providers. As she was kind enough to give me advice warning of that, I am able to respond to her in a bit more detail. I hope that my answer to her question will help give an indication of our approach to other noble Lords who raised the same point but in a different context.

We have committed to making the assessment process as accessible as possible to those with communication barriers. We have built this into our contractual arrangements with both assessment providers. They will make letters and other materials available in other languages on request, and will meet any reasonable request to accommodate claimants with additional requirements, such as provision of interpreters. If an additional requirement is identified on the day of the consultation then the provider will rearrange the appointment.

My noble friend also asked whether residential care homes will adapt to reflect the ageing demographic of BME disabled people and of those who cannot speak English or who have English as a second language. I will write to her specifically on that point. However, it is worth emphasising—and again, I hope that this point will give noble Lords wider comfort—that through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, for the first time ever, there are specific legal duties on NHS commissioners and on the Secretary of State for Health concerning health inequalities. That is something that exists now that did not exist before.

Many noble Lords raised a point which is in the Scope report regarding whether the Government should develop a race equality strategy. We know that particular issues can be exacerbated by race and noble Lords have pointed to some of them, including educational attainment, unemployment and ageing, as we have just been discussing. We do not think that dealing with these problems is easy, but we believe that the best way to make progress is to tackle the root cause and not the symptoms. That requires a new approach and a single equality strategy—one that is based on underlying principles and that moves away from treating people as groups or “equality strands” and instead recognises that we are a nation of 62 million individuals. In saying that I am reinforcing what I said at the beginning and what underpins most of what has been said today—that what we are looking for in our approach to all these issues is individual attention and being able to treat people in that way.

This approach not only requires but forces joined-up work across government and requires us to focus on the problems that an individual is facing. Perhaps I can give noble Lords just one example under the heading of employment. We have done a lot in south London where our Jobcentre Plus provision is working with a group in Brixton to support work experience candidates. In Birmingham, where more than 83% of the population is from a minority ethnic community, Jobcentre Plus and the city council have formed a co-designed project with a range of BME community groups to support local people.

It is worth me putting on record that the number of ethnic minority people in employment is more than 3 million for the first time ever, which is 380,000 higher than the figure in spring 2010. Claims for JSA have fallen faster among young black men than for any other ethnic group over the past year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece all referred to equality impact assessments. Let me be absolutely clear on this. The Equality Act was designed to ensure that the needs of people are taken into account when we change or develop and implement a new policy or service. Impact assessments cannot and must not be a tick-box exercise. Completing these forms has never been a legal requirement. Having due regard to equality when forming policy and services is the legal responsibility on all public bodies; and that is not changing. Neither is the requirement to be able to demonstrate that it has happened.

What we are reviewing, because I believe that we owe it to everyone to keep strengthening our approach in this area, is how the public sector duty operates. We want to ensure that it is delivering, as effectively as it can, what all of us believe in and want: equality, fairness and the elimination of discrimination as policy is made and services designed.

Several points were raised by noble Lords which I will do my best to get through quickly now, although I know that I will have to follow up several of them in writing. If I fail to address them now, I will of course ensure that I follow them up afterwards.

I start by referring to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, about a meeting between Ministers, the EMC and Scope. To be honest, I am somewhat confused here, because I have been advised that the Minister for Disabled People met both organisations last autumn. I will find out what has happened there and, obviously, follow up in writing on that point.

My noble friend Lady Browning talked about local commissioning and suggested that I provide some explanation about what is happening in that area for the benefit of all noble Lords. That I will do. In doing that, I hope that I can address the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about dystonia.

My noble friend Lady Benjamin referred to sickle cell. Again, I will certainly look into that after the debate and follow that up in writing to her. My noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in particular, among other noble Lords, talked about disabled children and the impact on those from the BME community. They referred to the Children and Families Bill. As that comes from the Department of Education, which is not a department that I work with, let me look at what is expected in that area and I will of course follow up.

I draw to a close. Another point made in the course of today’s debate was about role models and how we inspire people. Reference was made to young people. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others referred to the Paralympics and the whole atmosphere and culture created out of that fantastic event back in September. I remember clearly, just as we led into the Paralympics, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, saying that she was concerned that because there would be fantastically successful, brilliant and able Paralympians who would win medals, we should not give the impression that all disabled people could do so. For me, what was so important was that the Paralympians were role models not only to disabled people and people who have a great interest in sport; they were fantastic role models to all of us. We, the able-bodied, those of us who do not face barriers that other people face, should reflect on what we could achieve if we approached life in the way that many of them do.

We are working as a united Government to break down barriers of disability, race, religion, gender, age and social background. We are taking a personalised approach to enable people to reach their potential, rather than assuming that one size fits all. We believe that that mechanism best responds to individual needs, local circumstances and, in our view, is what works best to achieve the equal society that we are all striving for.

We have had a good day. I have listened and learnt a lot. I am grateful for this opportunity to share some information about what the Government are doing. I look forward to your Lordships holding me and my colleagues in government to account for delivering on that vision regularly over the rest of the Parliament.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornton]

The noble Lord makes an absolutely perfect point; I wish I had made it myself. I have two final points on the amendments that the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. One is on the provision of conciliation duties and the repeal of Section 3. Under the Equality Act 2006, the EHRC provides conciliation services and the Government propose to repeal that provision. One particular issue really concerns me, which is that of transferring the complaints service for disabled travellers to the Civil Aviation Authority. I have to say that this astonished me. Apart from concerns arising on the ability of the CAA, which has close ties to the aviation industry, one has to ask: will it act independently and impartially? It seems a remarkable thing to be doing.

Moreover, through forcing private and public sector organisations down the more costly compliance route, rather than that of conciliation, and driving the commission towards a court-led approach as opposed to pre-court conciliation, the repeal of Section 3 directly contradicts the overarching aim of the Bill. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain to the Committee how this can be justified.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, this has been an important and impassioned debate. I must say that, from the conversations I have had with many of the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, that was what I expected it to be. I say from the start how grateful I am to so many of your Lordships for giving up their time to talk to me. I would also like to place on record from the start my recognition and thanks for what so many noble Lords who are here today have achieved on equalities over not just years but decades. I recognise that. Indeed, I know that I am a newcomer to this issue. As a fairly recent member of the Government, I tend to hear myself saying that I am a newcomer to whatever debate I happen to be responding to. In this area, I genuinely think that the fact that I come to this without any of my own baggage is helpful. I have been very open-minded in my approach, apart from my firm belief in the importance of equality and having an equal society, which I know I share with everybody in this Room.

The debate is helpful because it allows us to talk about this important issue. We will agree on several things and, from the comments made by most noble Lords today, one is that the commission has to date not lived up to expectations. Its initial problems had many causes, including government failings. That said, things have improved, certainly in the past couple of years, as evidenced by its unqualified accounts. Although things have improved, we are not there yet. We can all agree that we want a strong and effective equality body and an A-rated national human rights institution. More than anything else, what we all want, and what the debate is all about, is an equal society free from discrimination. Today is not about the past; it is an opportunity to focus on the future. I noted carefully what many noble Lords said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that the job of achieving an equal society is not a job that is done yet. I recognise that and share his view.

I also understand from the comments made and the strong and powerful speeches today that noble Lords want me to be clear about what the Government expect of a strong and effective equality and human rights body. They will want me to spell out what success looks like, which is certainly what I will try to do. As for looking to the future, it is important that the commission has the right relationship with government. Some noble Lords have talked about accountability but we can come on to that in the debates that will follow on later amendments.

For an organisation to be successful, it needs to be clear on its purpose. At its most simple, the purpose of the organisation of the commission is to promote and protect equality and human rights. That is reflected in what I regard as the commission’s core duties at Sections 8 and 9 of the Equality Act 2006. There is nothing passive about these duties. They require the commission to be an agent of change, to promote understanding, encourage good practice and promote awareness. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, raised a concern about whether the commission would still be an agent for promoting change in the future. The answer is absolutely yes. While the Government consulted on amending the equality duties in Section 8 of the Act to clearly define the commission’s role as an equality regulator, we listened to the feedback and decided against those changes. We agreed that it was neither realistic nor desirable to expect the commission to regulate every part of society. The commission has quite enough on its plate as an agent of change. We want the commission to monitor our progress in reducing persistent inequalities, conduct inquiries into their root causes, establish the evidence about what works, and make and publicise its recommendations for action. I take this opportunity to point out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has just done, that some very important work has been carried out by the commission during the past years. I pay tribute in particular to the disability harassment inquiry and the home care inquiry.

To have impact, the commission must gain the respect of all as our national expert on equality and human rights issues—a body to which everyone can turn and have confidence in, even if its final conclusions will not be supported by all. I heard very clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, said. I say to him that, when I talk about final conclusions not being supported by all, I mean that a salutary and sharp nudge in the ribs of the Government is sometimes what we would expect this commission to do.

That is not least because rights are competing. The importance of the commission lies in its ability to advise on how we get the balance right; for example, between the rights of the offender and the rights of the general population to be protected; and between the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to be protected from discrimination and the rights of religious people to act in accordance with their faith.

The commission cannot be, or be seen to be, the voice of any one group. It has to be guided by the evidence—that is what I think we are all looking to it for. It should not be possible to presume the EHRC’s position on any issue, because its position should be evidence-led. It should not be not an impassioned lobbyist leading emotive campaigns; its role is to be an expert witness, and to make recommendations on the basis of the facts.

As the guardian of our legal rights, it is also the commission’s role to raise awareness of people’s rights under equality and human rights law and to ensure that the law is working as Parliament intended. Where there is a lack of clarity, it should use its enforcement powers where they will have most impact, in a strategic way, to clarify the position; for example, where there appears to be a contradiction between domestic and EU legislation.

Noble Lords are right: the repeal of the general duty will neither stop nor impair the commission’s ability to fulfil its important equality and human rights functions. Nor does it provide a clear statement of purpose. Section 3 is a political statement with no clear legal effect. In many respects, no one can disagree with it. Who does not want to live in a society in which people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination? The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, quoted my noble friend Lord Boswell, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece quoted my honourable friend Eleanor Laing as stating their support for the intention behind the general duty during the passage of the 2006 Act—and that is right; it is something with which we agree. But the problem with Section 3 is that it implies that the commission, uniquely, is responsible for encouraging and supporting the development of such a society. This is patently wrong and arguably insults the efforts that we all make in support of these goals, whether through the work of Parliament, government, the wider public sector, business or the community. We are collectively responsible. We might need the commission’s help, but it cannot achieve an equal society on its own.

We are seeking to repeal the general duty on the commission because it creates unrealistic expectations, positive and negative, about what it on its own can achieve. However, as several noble Lords have said during this debate and as I have already indicated, the statement in that general duty is important and removing it from the legislation does not mean that it cannot be replicated in the commission’s own strategic plan or in the way it wants to set out its own mission. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who referred to it as a mission statement. I agree. I think that that is where it is best used and will have most effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

Will the Minister provide the Committee with a financial breakdown of exactly how the cuts to the commission’s budget have been disbursed?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think that it would be easier for me to provide that in a follow-up letter subsequent to today’s debate.

[Baroness Thornton]

Yes, of course.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I add that I hope that very soon—indeed, imminently—we will publish the budget that the Government have agreed with the commission. It is important for me to make the point that the setting of the budget is informed by the commission’s core function, its responsibilities and what it is required to do. We are confident from the conversations and discussions that we have had with the commission that the budget that we have agreed with it will properly allow it to fulfil its responsibilities.

During this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords raised the issue of the public sector equality duty. We will come to later amendments where I expect the debate to focus very much around that issue. However, the public sector equality duty review is just that—a review of the public sector equality duty. When noble Lords refer to the general duty in the public sector equality duty, I think that it is worth my responding that that is very different from the general duty that we have discussed today. The two things are very different. Our proposal to repeal Section 3 is not related to the public sector equality duty.

Bearing in mind that there are other amendments where we will be able to continue the debate about accountability and, as I said at the start, the commission’s relationship with government and Parliament, I would conclude at this point and say to all noble Lords who have spoken today—not just those who have put their names to the amendments—with the exception of my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to whom I am grateful for their support, that I hope that I have given some assurance which goes some way to giving the Committee the clarity that it is seeking from me as far as what the Government intend in their proposals in this Bill.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Since the Minister has been kind enough to refer to me, perhaps I may say to her that I hope it is absolutely clear that my position in supporting the removal of the general duty under Section 3 of the 2006 Act is predicated on there being no regression whatever in weakening the legal powers and functions of the commission. She has already stated that in an Answer to a Written Question from me, which is the basis on which I can support the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hoped that I had said that in my remarks concluding that the public sector equality duty review is just that. What we are proposing is very much contained in Section 3 and does not relate to what we are reviewing in the public sector equality duty. The decision to remove Section 3 is a decision that we have reached. Now, we are reviewing the public sector equality duty and that is not related to this decision.

[Baroness Thornton]

If I were the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I might be slightly worried about this. Perhaps the Minister would be wise to take up my proposal to withdraw this. Let us see what the review holds and where we are after the public sector equality duty review. My reading of what the Minister has just said—she has repeated it twice—is that these two things are completely separate.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

They are separate because the public sector equality duty review, which we will debate when we come to the noble Baroness’s amendment about the equality impact assessment, is about whether the public sector duty is operating in the way in which it was designed. Is it achieving its purpose and its aims? We are reviewing how that operates. We are saying that the core function of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is very much rooted in its responsibilities for equality and human rights. The removal of Section 3 does not weaken its ability to do what it exists to do. Its removal is because we believe that it is a statement which should not sit on its own as a responsibility for the commission but as a responsibility for a wider set of public bodies, including Parliament.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her genuine attempt to understand and respond to all our arguments against removal of the general duty. I mean that; we have spent time together discussing this in detail. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment and I hope that they will forgive me if I do not respond to them by name. I am sure that they would want me to save my breath for my response.

I wish that I felt more assured—I really do. For myself and dozens of other people and organisations around the country, the significance of the general duty is quite apparent. I still struggle to understand how the repeal of Section 3 will assist the commission’s future. I do not feel that we have had tangible evidence or examples of what it does now that it would do better if the duty were removed.

We have talked a lot today about perception and mission statements. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was not with us when I made my contribution. He asked someone to explain to him what is added by Section 3. Perhaps the noble Lord does not believe that the power of perception is as strong as the hand of the law. I say to all noble Lords that in my experience perception, not the law, has been the main liberator and discriminator all my life. I am positive that I am not alone in this.

The Minister also tells us that it is wrong for a statutory body to campaign for law or policy reform and that it should focus on promoting the enforcement of laws agreed by Parliament. I agree but—there is a but—there is so much more to a viable equality and human rights commission that would not, if it lost the general duty, have a mandate sufficient to comply either with the Paris principles regarding the status of national human rights institutions or with EU law regarding the mandate of national equality bodies. The Government need to think about this very carefully. Their view of us is really important in this area. I feel that we need more compelling examples of what will be improved by repealing Section 3 as I have heard none so far.

Although I will withdraw the amendment, I fear that if we do not have anything more convincing we will be back at Report, probably saying the very same powerful things we said today. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, rightly said, that this is not just about lawyers and the law; it is about people. It is wrong to say that Section 3 is a political statement. It does not imply to me or others that this is a unique role for the commission. I dare say that all the voluntary organisations in this country would be very hurt by that statement because they take Section 3, the guidance and the authority of the commission and run with it. If it is gone, we will be back to fragmentation. As I said, we are all in this together. Without it I will not feel that I am together with anyone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, as somebody who is also very sympathetic to the purpose of the amendments, I follow my noble friend’s thoughts. I declare an interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee. We have a very independent situation—more independent than any of those mentioned earlier by my noble friend. The whole question of budgeting is very delicate and difficult.

If you insist that the budget should be discussed in detail in a nitty-gritty way, it makes it almost impossible to be independent, because independence is about how you use the resources that you have. It is bad enough being at the behest of Government as to how much money you may have—there are always arguments about that. You say, “If I am going to do this job, I need this amount”, and the Government will always want you to do it for less. Those arguments go on, inevitably, because the paymaster is always, in the end, the public purse. I think that my noble friend Lord Lester is right to say that the amendment would add to that yet another inappropriate level. However high-minded a committee may be, it is difficult to understand the balances that have to be made. It is like any business, it is difficult.

I hope that the Government will take on board the concerns which the amendments evince. I hope that they will understand that the proposals added by my noble friend Lord Lester: not only that the role of the Joint Committee will be seen by the Government as useful but that the Joint Committee will turn out to have the same view of its purpose. That seems a sensible way forward. I hope that the amendments, which are a good probing way into the issues, will not be pressed. I have to say how hard it is to be independent and run the system in the best way in the public good and still have to answer to five different sets of people who feel that they have, at least, advice to give. I hope that we will not go too far down this route.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate about the accountability of the commission. Picking up on what my noble friend Lord Deben said, there is real value in Committee in having probing amendments that allow issues to be discussed and explored. That is the whole point of this stage of scrutiny of legislation. I welcome that and will, with officials, carefully reflect on our debates on all the amendments today.

Going back to the original question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the “A” status of the commission, I know that she asked me this question in the previous debate and she may well have repeated it in her speech on this debate. I can say categorically that it is important for the commission to retain that status. I recognise that accountability is important to the perception of the independence of the commission, which is important to the status conferred on the commission by the ICC, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the commission has a status under the present arrangements.

All that being said, I think that it is possible to strengthen the accountability of the commission to Parliament. In the Government’s opinion, the solution to strengthening accountability does not lie in shifting roles, it is about responsibilities. It is about being clear and transparent about who is responsible for what and by when, and to invite closer scrutiny of the effectiveness of those arrangements. To say it another way, we want to make it clear who is responsible for what, so that people can see as clearly as possible how we are carrying out our different roles and functions. That is why officials in the Government Equalities Office and the commission spent more than six months agreeing the framework document, which is publicly available on both their websites.

I know that there have been some teething issues in the implementation of the framework document which officials in both organisations are reviewing at the moment, but there is no dispute on the principles that the commission must be free to exercise its functions free from ministerial interference or undue influence and that the commission must comply with the same expenditure rules as every other public body. There is no doubt that progress has been made, as I mentioned in the last debate. Indeed, the commission has laid its first two clean sets of accounts before Parliament; there has been a 75% reduction in the commission’s reliance on expensive interim staff, a point to which my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece referred; and the commission’s strategic plan was published promptly last April.

As I say, we are working to increase the transparency of the Government’s decisions on the commission to Parliament. For example, the appointment of the new chair—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill—to the commission was for the first time subject to pre-appointment scrutiny, and we have committed to send the report of the comprehensive budget review to Parliament, setting out the evidence base for the Government’s funding decisions—and by that I mean the funding decisions for the commission, which includes the funding for the GEO.

We are working with the commission to increase the transparency of its work to Parliament. The commission’s strategic plan, annual reports and accounts and progress reports are already laid before Parliament, and, indeed, Parliament has shown interest in its work, with the chair and the chief executive having been called to give evidence before a number of our committees.

As noble Lords speaking today have acknowledged, the commission reports to Parliament through the Minister for Women and Equalities. Although we support the commission having a closer working relationship with Parliament, we do not think that this requires a wholesale change in the reporting arrangements, which are in line with standard UK practice for non-departmental public bodies. I can refer to some examples where that is the case, including ACAS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece referred to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. I think it is true that that organisation is strengthening its accountability to Parliament. However, I think I am also right in saying that it remains, none the less, an organisation sponsored by the Home Office. The arrangement by which it is accountable to Parliament through the relevant Minister therefore exists there too.

As for how Parliament might strengthen its relationship with the commission, clearly it is for Parliament to decide how much interest it wishes to take in the commission’s work and indeed in the GEO’s sponsorship of the commission. However, we have made it clear that we would support the Joint Committee on Human Rights taking on a greater scrutiny role, for example in examining the commission’s business plan, which was indeed suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in her pre-appointment hearing.

It is also worth noting the points that my noble friend Lord Lester made. I know that he caveated his remarks by saying that he does not speak for the committee in this context today. However, we certainly support the willingness on both sides for there to be a stronger relationship. We support that in principle and it is something that we would only encourage.

On the specific issue of the commission’s independence, it is worth saying that this is ensured by the Equality Act 2006, which provided that there is transparency around the commission’s role, relationship and responsibilities to government, which my noble friend Lord Lester has referred to. It is because it is enshrined in law that I believe we can be confident that the commission’s independence is properly protected. As I said, we support the strengthening of accountability to Parliament. We have already seen some improvement with the appointment of the chairman and we would certainly support an active dialogue between the chairman of the commission and the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

Before the Minister sits down, would she reply to the point made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the standard model for non-departmental public body accountability is not a sufficiently outward and visible guarantee of independence from the Government to be appropriate to a national human rights commission and, indeed, the points raised by the chair of the UN commission about the need to strengthen the commission’s accountability by making it more accountable to Parliament?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The simplest response that I can offer the noble Lord, Lord Low, is that we are in active dialogue with the ICC. My right honourable friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, Maria Miller, has exchanged correspondence with the ICC, as I know has the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. This dialogue has been very productive. As I said at the beginning, the commission has a status under its existing arrangements. Its reporting to Parliament has not been questioned when it was given its status. We are retaining its reporting to Parliament via the Minister but we are seeking to strengthen the transparency of its roles and to ensure greater scrutiny of its work, if that is something that the Joint Committee on Human Rights would like to carry out. I think that the combination of both those things will safeguard its status. I am not aware, from the correspondence with the ICC, that that is in doubt.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I was the one who above all raised the issue of the Paris principles in relation to the setting up of the commission in the 2006 Act and beyond. I have sat on the JCHR ever since. I have no doubt that it is not the function of the UN Paris principles procedure to prescribe precisely to each member state the nature of each relationship in order to satisfy the requirements of the principles. I suggest that the commission would not be treated in the same way as other public authorities, because it would have a continuous role through its chair and, if necessary, otherwise with a standing committee of both Houses that was expert in human rights and had an oversight function, in addition to its relationship with Whitehall. I would be amazed—although I will ask; we will see whether I am right or wrong—if the JCHR, having considered this, came back and said that it thought that that relationship was inadequate to satisfy the Paris principles. I would say that this is premature at the moment, but perhaps the right thing to do is to put it on the agenda of the Joint Committee on Human Rights next week.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister and my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Deben. I think that we have made some progress with this discussion, which is what we intended to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, gave us a very useful description of the practicalities and symptoms of the dysfunctionality in the relationship between the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC, and of the way in which it has impacted on the commission’s work and on its ability to do its job properly. It seems likely that the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC share the same budget source. That would be quite wrong, because they are probably fighting for the same resources. I ask that as a question that does not need to be answered now but which is pertinent.

It possibly answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which I completely accept: that the reason that there were serious management problems was because the two organisations share the same budget line. Despite the assurances put into the 2006 legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was quite right about them—the relationship simply has not worked in some respects. That has been very important and a source of genuine regret. The discussion is about how we make these things work better and how we make sure that accountability works better.

I hope that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will have this discussion before the next stage of the Bill, because that will help us. If we need to discuss this at the next stage of the Bill, I hope that the discussion will be about what will happen in future and that we will get the discussion on the record.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to come back to her in writing on the question of budgets. There was one point on which I was not as clear as I ought to have been. I was reminded of something that my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said. I said repeatedly that the commission had “A” status under the current arrangements. As has been made evident in the debate, clearly there were problems in the past in the way in which the commission related to the Government Equalities Office. The relationship did not work as well as it needed to. However, what I sought to say on behalf of the Government was that the relationship had improved and continues to improve. We are in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. We have “A” status under the current arrangements. We are improving what is wrong. We will continue to improve and put things right, so let us not put ourselves in a situation where we improve everything and then the ICC turns around and says, “We will remove your ‘A’ status because you keep telling us that the arrangements do not work”, when we have been able to show that recently they have started to improve and that we know how to improve them further—which is what we will do.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Perhaps I may add that the independence requirements that we wrote in were used by some at staff level on the commission to justify not being properly financially accountable. I was blamed by officials for having introduced the independence requirements on the ground that there was not proper accountability. Therefore, those at the UN who are considering the Paris principles will also consider that independence does not mean a lack of proper accountability. I make that point because that is something for which we all wish—I refer to financial accountability for the way that money is spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this amendment. It might be worth saying for the record, and for the purposes of clarity, that the amendment that we are debating now is to Section 149 of the Equality Act and that the Bill in front of us does not propose to amend that bit of the Act. This is of course different from the general duty for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which this Bill will amend. I say that because, as I said in an earlier debate today, it is important to keep reminding ourselves that the two are different things.

Let me say first that I understand the concerns raised in this debate but that I would put myself absolutely shoulder to shoulder with my noble friend Lord Deben in what he says. Like him, I absolutely support equality but I do not support bureaucracy, particularly because I do not want processes to undermine our ability to extend the support for equality beyond those of us who feel passionately about it. It cannot just be the same people who believe in equality; if we are to improve equality in our society, we have to get everybody on board. We need to be mindful of that in how we design our approach to achieving that end. We all want the same thing: the better consideration of equality issues by public bodies when they are designing services and policies. Where I think we differ, and this is obviously what we are debating, is the method for achieving it. I will explain why I believe this Government’s approach is the right one.

The implementation of the public sector equality duty in 2011 marked a significant change in approach compared to previous equality duties. We wanted to move away from the bureaucratic box-ticking and form-filling to make sure we make real progress on equality. I understand that we in the Government have to deliver on that outcome; that is what we will be judged on. We believe that this amendment would be a regression to the previous practice of too much process and bureaucracy, with not enough focus on real equality outcomes.

Because it has been referred to, let me refer directly to the speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the CBI about equality impact assessments. This is really a point in response to my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece, but what the Prime Minister was saying that day was that EIAs are not and never have been a legal requirement to ensure what we are committed to achieving, which is public services that do not marginalise or discriminate but which ensure that people are treated equally. They are an intensive resource that can take key staff away from planning and delivering better public services.

If that is not bad enough, worse, they are often produced after key decisions are taken, so they can be a sort of reverse-engineering exercise: a decision has been made and the decision-makers then go back and look at the equality impact assessment form, rather than thinking about the effect of their policy on equalities at the time of their forming it. For that reason, departments were asked to call a halt to the production of equality impact assessments. It was not of course to stop in any way their absolute requirement to have due regard to the public sector equality duty.

Public bodies should consider the potential equality impacts of their policies throughout their design and delivery. Records of this can be used as evidence of due regard to the relevant equality aim and there is no need to create additional unnecessary paperwork. The public sector equality review is taking place at this time but it is important to stress, going back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Deben, that we want to make sure that it delivers the outcome that we all seek to achieve. We feel strongly about it and we are absolutely committed to the need for the public sector to deliver policies and services that ensure an outcome in support of everyone. We want to ensure that it delivers that aim.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked in a previous debate whether we would be taking evidence. We plan to hold a series of round tables that will allow us to gather evidence from the VCS, legal advisers to public bodies, equality and diversity practitioners, trade unions, inspectorates and the private sector. We are also developing a questionnaire to enable public service professionals to provide their personal experience of working with the duty. The involvement of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the review is critical and, for this reason, the commission is represented on the independent steering group that oversees the review. We are also working closely with the commission as we develop the evidence-gathering for it. The noble Baroness referred to the Schneider Ross research. In evidence-gathering to date, so far we have focused on analysing existing research and case law, but we will look closely at that research as part of this. I realise that we are keen to make progress, so I hope that in this short debate I have given the noble Baroness enough reassurance for her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for her remarks and, indeed, I am also mindful of wanting to make progress. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for their remarks.

Experience tells us—this is partly based on the very wise remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben—that while public bodies and people know that they must have financial probity and regard to the truth, they do not always know that they have to understand the impact of their decisions on different groups. We have mountains of experience telling us that people simply do not think about the impact of the decisions that they take on disabled people or other groups. That is why we have this legislation and why it is so important. I will read the comments made by the noble Baroness, and we will then decide what we want to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

This is not a repeat of the same cast on this subject—I did not mean that and I beg noble Lords’ pardon. I say to the Government that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, was too kind about the previous Government spending time thinking about whether there was enough trouble here to necessitate legislation. I find it utterly impossible to explain to somebody how it is that in this country we do not apply an absolutely clear rule that people are not discriminated against because of what they are—from people who are homosexual at one end to people who are of a particular colour at the other, or people who happen to have particular views. All of them become vulnerable unless we hold to that view, because we are all a bit odd in one way or another. We expect to be treated perfectly properly whatever our position, background, colour, sexual orientation or anything else.

It is impossible—this is a very difficult thing for a politician to say—to build a case for suggesting that caste is different from any of these other things. Having been a Minister for longer than most, I am always suspicious of Ministers who write letters in which certain sentences are almost incomprehensible. It means that they do not want to write the sentence that they ought to write because they suspect that if it is comprehensible people might think that it is not adequate. I make no such claim in these circumstances. However, those of us who listened to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, read out a sentence, had some difficulty in understanding what it meant—whether or not we believed that it might mean something with which we might agree.

All that I say to Ministers is that there are no formulations. Whatever may have been written down, there are no formulations which can get out of the simple statement that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their caste. I want to say something even tougher. The standards of our nation are not up for grabs. If people want to live in this country according to any system they have to accept the fundamental standards that we have. If you really want to cause difficulties, you do so by saying that “this is a very old view of theirs”, and they have it and it may be pretty nasty: I am afraid that that is not on. In this country we treat everybody equally and properly. That is the basis of our democracy. We cannot accept anything less than that. I do not care what organisation thinks differently.

You could go even further with this argument. You could argue that the positions of all sorts of totalitarian regimes are acceptable, because you can still find some people who support them. But you cannot possibly argue that, and we should not. I hope that the least that the Minister will be able to say is that although this may not be precisely what she wants, she will go away to make sure. I think that there is an overwhelming majority in this House and in the other House who say that caste cannot be treated in any way that is different from race or sexual orientation.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, we have had another powerful debate and the speeches have clearly been impassioned and important. As this issue is so important, the Government have given careful consideration to whether the power in the Equality Act 2010 that would make caste an aspect of race should be exercised.

Let me be clear. We do not think that anyone should suffer prejudice or discrimination, whether because of caste or of any personal characteristic. Such behaviour is wrong. It should not be condoned, whether or not it is prohibited by legislation. However, before bringing in legislation, a responsible Government will ensure that that is the most appropriate way of tackling a specific problem; that the solution does not go substantially wider than the problem that it is meant to address; and that it does not create needless red tape, additional and unnecessary cost burdens for business. That is the essence of what this Bill is about.

Turning to the NIESR research, I am aware that it suggests that some caste discrimination and harassment may exist in areas covered by discrimination legislation. The report also states that it is impossible categorically to determine whether caste discrimination within the meaning of the act has occurred:

“Proof either way was impossible, particularly because evidence was gathered from a single person only”.

That is not saying the same as that there is now a compelling case to legislate. Using the letter of my noble friend Lord McNally, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made her point about whether NIESR had shown that discrimination had occurred. We do not believe that the debate turns on whether there is any discrimination on caste grounds. The debate is about whether legislation is a proportionate response, given the range and nature of the problem.

In response to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, we are not resisting legislation in deference to high-caste views. We are wary of adopting a legislative approach, because we are concerned that that would not be a proportionate solution. The noble and right reverend Lord’s analogy, relating as it did to race, is not therefore appropriate. That said, we must consider whether legislation is necessary. There are examples in the NIESR report of incidents, such as vandalising property or threatening behaviour, that may constitute criminal activity and so would already be captured by domestic law.

Your Lordships should—and, I am sure, do—bear in mind that once legislation was enacted, ensuring the prevention of caste discrimination would become the legal responsibility not just of every public authority but of every private employer, service provider and school throughout England, Scotland and Wales, irrespective of their size or location and of whether they had ever encountered caste or even knew what it was. While I understand the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Deben—

[Baroness Thornton]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will finish the point that I was about to make. It is not that the legislation would catch all of those public bodies; it is that the process of ensuring that they are properly familiarised to comply with the law could, in our view, be disproportionate to dealing with the discrimination that we are discussing.

[Baroness Thornton]

My point relates to “disproportionate”. We have legislated in our discrimination law about Travellers. There are actually not very many Travellers in this country but they suffer terrible discrimination. There are thousands of Dalits living in the UK who potentially can be discriminated against, so I am not sure what the proportion is that the noble Baroness is referring to.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness makes a helpful point in drawing a comparison with Gypsies and Travellers. It is domestic case law, not specific legislation, that has determined what we are discussing for Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers and Scottish Gypsy Travellers. They are distinct racial groups who are covered by our equality legislation. It is case law that has done that, rather than legislation.

[Lord Deben]

As the Minister referred specifically to me, I will say that I have great difficulty with “proportionality” here because it seems to me that if one person is discriminated against, I have a duty to protect them. I do not understand proportionality in these terms. If the law does not reach a position in which someone is found to be discriminated against in the serious ways we are talking about, we had better put it like that. To say that it is disproportionate is like saying—let me be very blunt—that if not many people are murdered, we do not actually need to have a law on murder. I am sorry, we do; it is not acceptable. It is the one area where disproportion is not credible. This is what really worries me about this argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I understand the point that my noble friend makes, but it takes us back to the point about evidence. I refer again to the NIESR research, which suggests that some caste discrimination and harassment may exist but also says that,

“it is impossible to categorically determine whether caste discrimination and harassment within the meaning of the Act has occurred”.

[Lord Avebury]

I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again; I know that she has been very patient. However, if the argument is that you do not deal with this problem because very small numbers of people are discriminated against on the grounds of caste, what does she have to say about gender reassignment, which is one of the protected characteristics? Should we have avoided placing gender reassignment on the list of protected characteristics because not many people are affected by it?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

In simple terms, the protected characteristics are characteristics that we all share; we all have a sex, a race and an age. I think the point in dispute was debated on previous legislation.

I will conclude by saying that we have thought long and hard about this legislative power and about why making this change in a Bill designed to encourage enterprise and streamline regulation would be inappropriate. However, I am very happy to accept the noble Baroness’s proposal of a meeting. We also acknowledge that uncertainty as to what is to happen on the issue of caste discrimination in Great Britain helps no one.

My noble friend made reference to the letter that he received from my right honourable friend Maria Miller and her reference to the fact that we expect to be able to make a fuller announcement on the Government’s intentions on this matter shortly. I certainly will do all in my power to ensure that, as far as is possible, we do so before we get to the next stage of this Bill.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The Minister has quoted a couple of times from the report to the effect that it was not clear that this particular form of harassment was carried out on grounds of caste. If she looks at the report, I think she will see that that refers to something quite specific and in no way undermines the overall conclusion that there is clear evidence of discrimination on the grounds of caste. I think she will find that that uncertainty about caste refers to a particular kind of harassment. It does not undermine the main findings. In the light of her reply, I wish to go back to the evidence that I gave just now about my personal interview with someone who clearly had been discriminated against on grounds of caste. When they went to their union adviser, while they were very sympathetic, the union adviser said that a case could not be taken on the grounds of caste because it was not in the law. Will the Minister suggest on what grounds that person should therefore go to law if there is no law at the moment which applies to a person’s being discriminated against?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Without the full facts of the case, I am afraid that it is not possible for me to respond to an individual case in that way. The best I can do is, as I have indicated, to say that I am very happy to have a meeting to discuss matters further outside the Committee. However, I know that it is important that we now draw the debate today to a close.

[Baroness Thornton]

I say a big thank you to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because I am honoured to be fighting alongside them again—the old team is back. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, enormously for his comments. I remember some issues from when I was a Minister—I think “contaminated blood” was the one that haunted me. The Government just got it wrong: we got it wrong all the way through. This Government came and dealt with it in the way in which my Government should have done. This is one of those issues. The Government are getting this wrong and they need to remedy it. I have enormous respect for the Minister and I am very grateful that she has agreed to have those meetings. I am hopeful that when we have those meetings we will make some progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Personal Independence Payment

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Order. This is a Statement, not a debate.