Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a focused amendment concerning disabled people who are in the support group for the purposes of the employment and support allowance. Noble Lords will recall that in the main phase of ESA an individual will receive a personal allowance and an additional support component. Those are currently £71 and £34.05 respectively. They will increase to £71.70 and £34.80 under the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2013. This is an increase of 1% for the personal allowance but a CPI increase of 2.2% for the additional component. We will have the opportunity to debate the regulations shortly, although, of course, they cannot be amended. Under income-related ESA, other premiums may be applicable, such as the enhanced disability, severe disability and carer’s premiums. Of course, the final amount of any payment depends also on the income, if any, of the claimant.
So far as the Bill is concerned, for those in the support group, the support component and the premiums are outwith the maximum 1% cap, and we support this. However, that is not the case for the personal allowances for a single lone parent and couple, and it is this injustice that we are seeking to rectify. In doing so, we are placing reliance on the commitment made by the Secretary of State for the DWP. On 8 January 2013, he said:
“I stand by what we said originally, and I say it again: in this Bill we have protected people on disability living allowance, as well as people in the support group on ESA”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/13; col. 194.]
That is not the case. Noble Lords will recall that those in the support group are those with the greatest challenges who are deemed neither fit for work nor work-related activity. They are not generally in a position to improve their financial background by way of accessing the labour market and I believe it is generally accepted that they experience higher living costs. The amendment would not represent a hugely expensive change to the Bill, but this is fundamentally about an issue of fairness and insisting that Ministers carry out their promises.
Amendment 3 stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I will perhaps offer our view on that amendment when I reply on my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I have added my name, but I rise principally to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name alone and provides that the 1% uprating should not apply to benefits paid to claimants in the work-related activity group.
The amendment is essential if the Government are to fulfil their pledge to protect disabled people from the 1% uprating cap. Only disabled people are in the work-related activity group. The assessment process ensures that non-disabled people do not qualify. A recent DWP study tracking those receiving ESA over 18 months revealed that three-quarters of recipients were undergoing regular treatment for a health condition, including a stay in hospital for some. ESA for those in the work-related activity group is paid in two parts—the main component, which is equivalent to jobseeker’s allowance and worth about two-thirds of the total benefit, and the work-related activity group component, which is worth the other third. Many disabled people are being placed in the work-related activity group. Capping increases in their benefit at 1% will mean that households receiving ESA in the work-related activity group will be £87.65 a year worse off. The Government’s proposals to exempt from the 1% cap the support group component for those placed in the support group mean that less than a third of ESA payments for less than half of disabled people receiving ESA will be protected. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would achieve, but it would address the shortfall only for the quarter of a million disabled people in the support group.
The most recent DWP figures show that there are 360,000 disabled people in the work-related activity group who also need protection. This amendment would achieve that. One third of disabled people in the UK were found to be living in poverty before the global economic crisis. Disabled people routinely experience higher living costs associated with their disability on things such as equipment, personal assistants and special diets. Disabled people experience the same increases in general living costs as everyone else: food inflation is running at 4.5% and travel inflation at 7%. Unfortunately, disabled people were not able to catch up financially during better economic times. We should not allow them to slip further behind as a result of this Bill; rather, we should ensure that the Government’s objective of protecting disabled people is fully delivered.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I added my name, and Amendment 3, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Low. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, consistently argued during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill that there were two fundamental principles to the Government’s welfare reform provisions. One was to make sure that people in work had an incentive to remain in work and that those out of work had an incentive to move into work. The second principle was that the money available, however much there was available, should be focused as far as possible on those in greatest need. Throughout the debates on the previous Bill, I found myself very much in agreement with those two principles. It seemed to me that if money is short, at least one should abide by those two principles. That seemed very reasonable.
I find myself therefore confused that in this Bill those two principles appear to be breached. It does not seem that you are focusing on those in greatest need if there is an impact that reduces in real terms the living standards of people who are severely disabled. You are certainly not increasing the incentive to work if you reduce the benefit of people who have not a chance in hell of returning to work. We know that a lot of people who in any normal view of things would not really be able to work have been put into benefit categories such as jobseeker’s allowance, where they are expected to work, although they would regard this as being beyond their wildest dreams, much as they might like to. That is not the point that I wanted to make; I simply want to ask the Minister how she squares the provisions of this Bill with the principles so eloquently and consistently laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Freud.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, it feels presumptuous to rise after a powerful speech such as that, but I shall try to do my best.
This miserable little Bill is not only mean-spirited and out of touch; it, or rather the spin surrounding it, is misleading, not to say dishonest. Moreover, the whole enterprise is misconceived. It is out of touch in the way it perpetuates the relentless attack on welfare, which is depicted as an aberration in social policy, to put it no higher, that needs to be reversed instead of as a mark of a civilised society acknowledging its obligation with increasing prosperity to look after its less fortunate members. Recipients of welfare are demonised as battening on society, and crude cutting is mystified in the rhetoric of helping people off benefits and into work.
The Bill’s justifications are misleading in their use, not to say their creation, of five myths. First is the myth that there is a radical separation between those on welfare and those in work, but many of the benefits that will be pegged by this Bill go equally to those on welfare and those in work: tax credits, for example. The second is that benefits have risen twice as fast as pay. They may have if you pick your dates correctly, but everyone knows that historically wages have risen considerably faster than benefits, which are pegged to the rate of inflation.
The third myth is that percentage, as opposed to cash, increases are a fair reflection of these things. I think that a caller to “Any Answers?” on the radio got this right when he pointed out that a 1% increase on the national average wage of £500 a week amounts to £5: a worthwhile sum. However, 1% on jobseeker’s allowance of £71 amounts to only 71p. That is as much of an insult as Gordon Brown’s 75p increase in the old age pension.
Fourthly, there is the myth that any shortfall in benefits is made up for by the increase in personal tax allowance. This applies only to those in work, of course. Anyway, as Citizens Advice has shown, capping the uprating of benefits will swamp any gain from the increase in the personal tax allowance, certainly for low-income households.
The fifth myth is that the most vulnerable are protected, but you do not protect the poor by cutting welfare since it is the poor who rely on welfare. You only have to look at the treatment of disabled people, whom the Government maintain they are protecting under the Bill, to see the essential dishonesty of the Government’s propaganda. Here, I declare my interest as having a connection with a number of disabled people’s organisations, which are mentioned in the register.
Disabled people are certainly vulnerable. They have experienced a drop in income of £500 million since the emergency Budget of 2010. The Government have already reduced the measure by which benefits are uprated from the higher RPI to the lower consumer prices index. Some benefits for disabled people and carers, such as disability living allowance, the support group component of employment and support allowance and disability-related tax credits are exempted from the reduced uprating. This acknowledgment that disabled people need additional protection is welcome. However, notwithstanding the Government’s claims, the Bill will still mean a real-terms cut in vital support for many disabled people. DLA will continue to rise by inflation, but this is not the case with employment and support allowance.
Following a work capability assessment, people who are unable to work can be placed in either the support group or the work-related activity group. Many disabled people are being placed in the work-related activity group. For them, the Bill will cap the uprating of this benefit to 1%. This will mean in effect that households in the work-related activity group receiving ESA will be £87.65 a year worse off. Furthermore, disabled people who are placed in the support group, meaning that their impairment or condition is such that they are not expected to look for work, have been given only limited protection from the reduced rate of uprating. The ESA that disabled people in the support group receive is made up of a core payment with an additional support group component. Only this additional component will continue to rise by inflation, with the core element rising by only 1%. This means that, overall, disabled people in the support group will see their ESA payments rise by just 1.4% rather than inflation. This will mean that a disabled person in the support group of ESA will be £62.76 a year worse off.
The real-terms loss of financial support that disabled people receiving ESA will face compounds a situation where disabled people are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people. The problems of living on a low income are then compounded by the extra disability-related costs. When these are included in the measurement of poverty, the proportion of households with a disabled member living in poverty doubles to almost 50%. The Government’s impact assessment recognises that the Bill will impact on disabled people. It states that households where someone describes themselves as disabled are more likely to be affected than those where no person describes themselves as disabled—34% of households as against 27%.
For disabled people who also rely on other benefits, such as housing benefit, the reduced rate of increase will impact on the financial support they need to live. Despite assurances that disability benefits will be protected and continue to increase by inflation, disabled people claiming ESA, housing benefit or any other benefit not specifically for disabled people will see a real-terms cut to the amount of financial support that they receive.
The Bill will also reduce the rate at which the lower tier of the disabled child addition of universal credit increases. Disabled children in the UK are already disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Approximately 40% of all disabled children—about 320,000—live in poverty, compared with a poverty rate of 30% across all children. Nearly one-third live in severe poverty, where a family’s income is less than 40% of the national average. Under universal credit, which will begin to come into effect later this year, parents of disabled children can receive a benefit called the disabled child addition. This will replace the current disabled child tax credit.
Under universal credit, the support available for disabled children who do not receive the high rate of the DLA care component will be cut by one-half, from around £57 a week under the disabled child tax credit to £28.52. Furthermore, the Bill will mean that the value of this benefit will increase at a significantly slower rate—by just 1%—as opposed to in line with the consumer prices index, which is currently 2.7%. As a result of the Bill, parents of disabled children receiving the lower disabled child addition of the universal credit will lose £25.21 a year or £75.63 over the next three years.
Finally, the Bill is misconceived because, with the economy flatlining, it does not make sense to take purchasing power out of the hands of a section of the population that is most likely to spend what it has. The fiscal squeeze is set to tighten in 2013-14 compared with 2012-13, and the IMF is warning that planned cuts may need to be scaled back if growth does not build momentum by early 2013. Talk of growth, such as we heard in this House a fortnight ago, is largely beside the point while the level of demand in the economy is still so low. In these circumstances, the last thing we need is a further reduction in the level of demand. It even undermines the automatic stabilisers.
If the Government are to be as good as their word on the protection of disabled people, at a minimum the whole amount of ESA needs to be uprated in line with inflation for those in the work-related activity group, as well as the support group, and not just the additional support group component. Disabled people should be exempt from the reduced uprating of other benefits, such as housing benefit. I invite the Minister to respond positively to this proposal in the winding-up speech, before I start drafting amendments for Committee.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ouseley
My Lords, I support the question and seek to clarify the context in which I offer support. It is one in which we have seen light-touch regulation being promoted by the previous Government and by this Government to get us to a point where, as has already been stated, we want employers to be in a position to hire and fire as they wish. That in itself will add greater discrimination for those who are likely to be discriminated against, on no reasonable basis.
The context is also one in which we see increasing tribunal fees being imposed along with the cutting of legal aid and funding for advice agencies to help individuals, who are relatively powerless in seeking to get redress if they feel that they have been discriminated against in employment. The situation with discrimination is that the employer always has the whip hand and the employee has very little knowledge, other than a feeling of being treated unfairly. Sometimes it is with evidence but they are unable to have information which places them in a position where they can argue and justify their claim for compensation.
The discrimination often occurs, in my view, for three main reasons. First, employers are lazy and it is a very quick fix to get rid of someone. Secondly, it is incompetence or, thirdly, it is just straightforward prejudice and bias. Those are the three main areas that appertain to discriminatory claims. The victim can move forward only with evidence and the respondent would like to be in a position of not having to disclose any information.
Usually, in my experience, most employers—particularly small employers—have no policies or procedures. Of those who have, the moment that you go back to them to try to explain that they may have breached anti-discrimination legislation and to ask them whether they have complied with their procedures, if they have any, they usually find very quickly that they want to come to an arrangement to conciliate or settle with a claimant. That is because they recognise that they are being challenged on a basis which has justification and that they have clearly failed to follow their own procedures, where they exist. In the case of very small employers, hiring and firing takes place very informally. There is usually a lot of nepotism, with family and friends being involved in the employment within small firms.
That said, it is quite important that we recognise that, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned about context, this repeal has come forward based on inaccurate and misleading information. There is no evidence of the burdens that have been created for employers. The original purposes of the questionnaires, from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976, have been fulfilled because they enabled assessments to be made on the basis of facts and information provided. That enables that assessment to determine the strength or weakness of a case and may seek to persuade a complainant to withdraw because their case is so weak, or at least to put pressure on an employer to demonstrate that they are in an unsustainable position of seeking to defend the indefensible.
Evidence has shown throughout the years that the use of the questionnaires has helped us to reduce the costs and the burdens on both employers and employment tribunals. Without a questionnaire, a claimant could bring proceedings themselves and apply for disclosure or further information and such an order, when made, will bring considerably greater burdens on an employer. That is something that we should consider as a counterbalance to getting rid of the questionnaire—the real burdens that would be placed on employers if that process was pursued.
It cannot be overstated how crucial statutory questionnaires are to enable people to prove genuine discrimination claims. They offer a structured, time-bound way for a potential claimant to find out the employer’s or service provider’s reasons for taking certain action, and to gather evidence that the claimant cannot access in any other way. Without this kind of information, which individuals can obtain only through written questionnaires, in many cases it will be almost impossible to prove discrimination or a breach of an equality clause. The many individuals who have approached me about cases of alleged discrimination are at their wits’ end and give up in frustration. This will put us back many years, to the situation that preceded the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.
Questionnaires are not a problem for employers who have nothing to hide. They are alerted at the earliest stage to the strengths and weaknesses of a possible discrimination or equal pay claim and generally take action swiftly to settle the case if need be. Conversely, repeal of the questionnaire procedure will mainly serve the interests of employers or service providers who do not wish to expose their potentially discriminatory policies and practices or cover up the misdemeanours of individuals in their employment. That is why it is important that we consider again whether this repeal has any justification and whether there is no better way in which to enable us, if necessary, to modify the questionnaire where it may be seen to be excessive and reduce it in a way that employers may see it as less burdensome, if that is the case, as a way of retaining it. In that way, we can ensure that we maintain the basis of helping to determine which cases have no basis to go forward to an employment tribunal, and persuading those complainants to withdraw, and seeking to impose the maximum pressure on those employers to settle with those complainants.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I came along this afternoon to support the opposition to Clauses 57 and 58 on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I hung back in relation to Clause 57 because I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to intervene, as I knew that he had views on these matters—so I missed my turn. However, now that I know that the noble Lord is not here this afternoon, I shall say just a few words very briefly on Clause 58, although I fear that I shall not be able to speak with the same unrivalled knowledge and expertise on the subject as the noble Lord would have brought to the matter. But perhaps we will be able to hear from him in a later point in the debates on this Bill.
I was fourth on the list of those who put their names to this question, so I shall speak very briefly, but there are a couple of points that I would like to make. The Government have argued that the questionnaire procedure imposes considerable costs on business of nearly £1.5 million a year, with questionnaires becoming overlong and technical. However, research carried out by the Government Equalities Office has found that only 2% of private sector employers have had to complete a questionnaire in the past three years and most of those who did so agreed that responding to it had been straightforward. That does not sound like a great burden on business to me.
There is a great deal of concern out there in the legal profession about the prospect of the questionnaire procedure being done away with because, as others have indicated, it has been a very valuable part of the procedure in discrimination cases in enabling those cases to be dealt with more smoothly and expeditiously. As an example of this concern, the president of the Employment Tribunals Service, in responding to the Government’s consultation, went so far as to say:
“We further consider that the questionnaire procedure is very much in line with the pre claim resolution processes that are currently a consideration in primary legislation before Parliament. To remove this assistance to such a facility seems to the Employment Tribunal judiciary to be contrary to the overall policy of early resolution of claims or claims not proceeding where there is little merit. The proposed amendments to the Equality Act are considered by the Employment Tribunal judiciary to be retrograde steps in the administration of discrimination claims”.
That is a very strong statement coming from a very senior judicial official. The Government would be extremely unwise not to take very seriously advice coming from that quarter. Bearing in mind that kind of advice and the evidence to which I referred, which suggests that it is not nearly so much of a burden on business as the Government make out, I very much hope that the Government will think again and not proceed with Clause 58.
Leveson Inquiry
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, with whom I have a commonality of view on so many subjects. It is necessary to approach the question of press freedom from the standpoint of an analytical sceptic—a sceptic because claims to press freedom so often proceed from self-interest, and analytical because they are so often based purely on assertion. The freedom of the press is a shibboleth, an article of faith before which we are expected to make ritual obeisance. Moreover, it is something that is usually presented as unitary and indivisible, whereas any serious reflection shows it to be a highly complex concept, comprising diverse so-called rights, between which important distinctions need to be made that properly lead to differences in treatment.
In a few minutes it is not possible to do more than sketch the contours of the sort of discussion that needs to be had. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has shown the way by undertaking a lot of the analytical spadework. I will mention just four of the interests that need to be distinguished: individual freedom of speech; the right to privacy, which may vary from one individual to another; the power of media moguls and press barons; and the interest of the press in freedom from political interference. This is perhaps what people most often mean by press freedom.
My orientation to these interests and the rights that are said to go with them differs quite sharply from one to another. I surprised myself by how much more passionate I felt about the threat to freedom of speech constituted by the fatwa against Salman Rushdie than I did about the threat to people’s livelihoods constituted by the economic policies being pursued in the 1980s—and that is saying something, because I felt pretty passionate about those as well. We need stronger protection of the right to privacy. Perhaps for that reason among others, I care much less about the right of newspapers and journalists to print whatever they like.
I remember AH Halsey once beginning a radio talk by saying that he did not read the papers very much because they were full of nothing but trivia, inaccuracy and lies. I have a friend who has spent a lot of time in Russia in the past 20 years, telling the Russians about British institutions. She says that the press there is actually much freer than we are customarily given to understand. By contrast, the Russians look rather askance at the kind of press that we have here, where people assume a licence to indulge in character assassination of political leaders and anyone who enjoys a prominent place in society, often on quite spurious grounds in pursuit of a partisan agenda, and present the issues of the day in a manner that renders rational debate well nigh impossible.
All this is perhaps rather abstract, but it should ensure that we take claims of press freedom with a healthy dose of salt. If these considerations were not enough, the abuses of which we are all aware and which Lord Justice Leveson has catalogued in detail put the matter beyond doubt. Then there is the arrogance and lack of contrition on a scale matched only by the bankers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others have referred. Finally, the pre-emptive campaign to undermine Leveson and the bogus and absurdly inflated prophecies of doom were a system of regulation to be introduced mean that the press has little respect left.
At this point, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, not only for the impressive speech that he has made today, which underlined the points I have just been making with far greater power and authority than I could muster, but for the campaign that he has waged on these issues with great independence of mind.
For us to have press freedom, it needs to be recognised that it is a qualified freedom. Given the way that freedom has been serially abused, I would add that it should be a regulated freedom. It is sometimes said that regulation is not necessary and that the abuses complained of normally involve breaches of the law for which legal remedies are available. All that is necessary is for people to enforce the law—for the law, as we know, is as open to all as the Ritz Hotel.
So what is concretely to be done? Let us be clear what Leveson does not recommend. First, he does not recommend a compulsory system of regulation; he recommends a voluntary system of independent regulation. Secondly, he does not recommend a system of statutory regulation sitting behind or underneath a system of independent regulation; instead, he recommends a process by which an independent regulatory system devised and set up by the publishers themselves can be verified by a recognition body to provide confidence that it is working. Thirdly, he does not recommend that Ofcom has to be the independent verifier; he favours Ofcom but it could equally be what he calls a recognition commission or commissioner. In addition to his system of verified independence, Leveson proposes that the press should have guarantees in law from government interference and special costs protection in the courts as an incentive to participate in the system of self-regulation. Self-evidently, legislation will be necessary to deliver those things, but that is not statutory regulation and the press should welcome them. It does not get more light-touch than Leveson. The victims certainly wanted more. The royal charter is a busted flush.
The Prime Minister showed leadership in setting up the Leveson inquiry. If we are not to be back here in 10 or 15 years’ time, he should show the same qualities in accepting its key recommendations. After listening to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, if I was a betting man I am not sure how much money I would put on not being back here again anyway—but Leveson is our best hope. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for whom I have great respect, worried that Leveson will take us to the top of a slippery slope. I say to him that Leveson is our last hope of avoiding that slippery slope.
Disability Services
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the RNIB, and I hold a number of other roles in the disability sector that are declared in the register. I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution in the gap, because the Minister will recall that only yesterday, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, we debated the Government’s efforts to strip measures and resources that support the equality agenda out of the Equality Act and the EHRC. I cast doubt on the Government’s commitment to the equality agenda. I therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, particularly warmly on securing this debate today, for nothing could demonstrate more cogently that I was on the right track than this excellent report.
It is worrying that the Government seek to review the use of both the public sector equality duty and equality impact assessments, potentially undermining the framework for making progress in addressing the needs of black and minority ethnic disabled people. It is of great concern that the review has been announced as an outcome of the Government’s exercise to cut red tape.
In response to a letter from Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister stress the need to make the promotion of race equality central to the way that public authorities work. The public sector equalities duty should be seen as a powerful tool for achieving this. The review should happen, as originally planned, in 2015, when there will be sufficient evidence of whether the duty is working as intended. The Prime Minister’s recent statement that it was time to call time on the equality impact assessments reinforces my concern that equalities issues are slipping down the Government’s agenda.
Given the evident need to give more priority to the needs of black and minority ethnic disabled people, it is worrying that the Government are looking to reduce the ability to determine the impact of public policy on protected groups. Although the Prime Minister may consider them bureaucratic nonsense, equality impact assessments are in fact an essential means of ensuring that policies do not adversely affect those groups that were already disadvantaged. This is not about tick-box stuff, as the Prime Minister calls it; rather, it is a means of ensuring that policymakers have the right information to make informed decisions.
The Scope report highlights the fact that the BME disabled population is growing rapidly. In September 2011, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination criticised the Government’s failure to address racial equality and introduce a national race equality strategy. The refreshed disability strategy to be published in May, linked to a race equality strategy and underpinned by a joint implementation plan and bringing together the Office for Disability Issues, the Government Equalities Office and the DCLG, presents an excellent opportunity to address the issues facing BME disabled people that have been rehearsed in this debate.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I recently put my name down to this amendment at the instance of the TUC. It is one of the many bodies that have written to us, including the Law Society and other organisations, which are very concerned at the requirement in this Bill to remove the general Section 3 duty from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The general duty is very important. It is essential because it requires the EHRC to encourage and support a society based on freedom from prejudice and discrimination; individual human rights;
“respect for the dignity and worth for each individual”;
and on having an,
“equal opportunity to participate in society”,
and a,
“mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for … human rights”.
A recent report from the European Commission on national equality bodies said:
“In order to … realise their potential in promoting equal treatment for all, equality bodies should develop a vision of their role within the administrative culture and society”.
This is exactly what Section 3 does. Furthermore, it provides a guiding vision for the EHRC that unifies equality and human rights.
Section 3 of what became the Equality Act 2006 was extensively debated within Parliament during its passage and its final drafting, from which this Bill takes a piece away, was agreed by all the parties participating. There is very general agreement around what we are proposing. I hope therefore that the Government will think very seriously about what was set before us so eloquently, if I may say, by my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton. It really is terribly important for all kinds of groups to ensure that the general duty in the Equality Act is maintained in this Bill. To leave this provision in the Bill would threaten a lot of the work that the EHRC has done. That would be an awful shame. Certainly, a lot of bodies have written to us to say, “Please, please don’t let them get away with this. We don’t want this to happen”. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen very seriously to what has been said and accept what we are proposing.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because I do not support the removal of the commission’s general duty. The Government say that it is too broad, then go on to say that there is nothing in Section 3 that is not sufficiently covered elsewhere in the Act—in other words, that it adds nothing. Yet if it adds nothing, it cannot be too broad. You cannot have it both ways. Again, the Government say that Section 3 is aspirational and that there is no way that the commission can accomplish all that is encompassed in it but, again, that is at odds with the argument that the same ground is covered elsewhere in the Act.
No institution can achieve all that it was set up to do all at once; there would otherwise be no reason for it to go on existing. Yet that is no reason not to have a statement of aims or objectives to indicate the direction of travel or guide the commissioners in framing their actions. On balance, the commission concludes that removing Section 3 is unlikely to have much practical effect. The Government have made great play with that, but the commission agrees that a unifying statement of principle is important and that it is beneficial to have a vision or mission statement, such as is provided by Section 3, for symbolic if not for practical reasons. However, if its inclusion has symbolic value, is it not the case that its removal will have symbolic significance also?
This, I think, is the nub of it. The repeal of Section 3 is just part of the Government’s broader attack on the EHRC. The commission’s statutory remit was the product of cross-party agreement when the Equality Act 2006 was passed. Indeed, the original wording was amended in the House of Lords to take account of Conservative concerns that it was too broad.
What has changed in the past six years to make it no longer appropriate for the commission to have the general duty set out in Section 3? I will tell you what has changed. The Government have changed. The commission is charged with championing the cause of those who are the victims of prejudice and discrimination on the part of those in positions of power and privilege and with promoting a more egalitarian society. This does not always go down too well with those in positions of power and privilege. We all know that anything with the words “human rights” in it is like a red rag to a bull to the right-wing of the Conservative Party. The Government have decided to throw the dismantling of the EHRC as a bone to their right-wing. Labour in another place has described this as abolition of the EHRC by stealth, but I am not sure what is so stealthy about it. Already, in relation to its grant-making function, the commission’s helpline and conciliation functions—the very things which ensure that it remains anchored in the realities of life with which it needs to engage—have been removed. The Bill proposes also to remove its good relations duty—something else which helps it to remain grounded. By 2014-15, it will have had its budget reduced by 62%, a far bigger cut than is being imposed anywhere else in the public sector, and will have lost 72% of its staff.
Separately, the review of the public sector equality duty, one of the most powerful engines for change and progress on the equalities front, has been brought forward. Taken together with those changes, the removal of the general duty can be seen for what it is: part of a sustained attack on the equality agenda in our society and the institutions which exist to promote it. Of course, the Minister will tell us that the Government are fully committed to equality and that the Bill is just about housekeeping and legislative tidying up, but I am reminded of an occasion when I had been rather critical of someone’s organisation. When he challenged me about it, I replied—rather lamely, I fear—that I meant no ill will, to which he said, “But if you tell me something is chocolate pie but it tastes to me like cardboard, what am I supposed to think?”.
The heads of justice, the Fawcett Society, Mind, the Refugee Council, the Equality Trust and others have expressed opposition to those changes in an open letter, stating that they will leave the EHRC a weaker body. In their consultation paper of March 2011, the Government state that Section 3 has no specific legal function, but that is not correct. The eminent lawyer, Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, who was co-author of the Cambridge independent review of the enforcement of UK anti-discrimination legislation, which is the foundation stone of much of the equality legislation of the past decade, has issued to a memorandum in which he set up three reasons for thinking that.
First, in the absence of a purpose clause in the Equality Act 2010, the courts and others enforcing the Act were able to use Section 3 as a guide to the interpretation of the single Equality Act, enabling them to fill gaps and resolve ambiguities. The absence of a purpose clause in the single Equality Act is less important than it might otherwise have been because of the EHRC’s general duty set out in Section 3 of the 2006 Act. He says that the repeal of Section 3 will deprive those applying the law of interpretive principles and will leave equality law rudderless. It increases the likelihood of inconsistencies in the way in which the single act is applied.
Secondly, repeal will remove the unifying principle linking equality and other fundamental human rights. Respect for and protection of each person’s human right is at the core of the EHRC’s general duty and implicitly underlies the specific rights against discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and the positive duty to advance equality, which are set out in the Equality Act 2010. Professor Hepple cites the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who was chair of the advisory committee to the Cambridge review in the debates on the Equality Act 2006, as emphasising the importance of equality as a fundamental human right to be enjoyed together with other human rights—civil and political, and economic and social—and of promoting a culture of human rights. The Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 seek to overcome the fragmented approach to different strands of discrimination, which Professor Hepple says has characterised British legislation in the past. Repealing Section 3 will undermine the historic unification of equality and human rights law which was achieved under those Acts.
Thirdly, taken in the context of all the proposed changes, the proposed repeals are likely to further weaken the EHRC’s case for accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the ICC, as an “A” status body in full compliance with the Paris principles, which Ministers have consistently said is a high priority for the UK Government. The International Council on Human Rights Policy has emphasised:
“The most effective national institutions generally have a broad and non-restrictive mandate … an all-encompassing jurisdiction”,
and “adequate budgetary resources”.
The EHRC’s “A” status is already being questioned. In a letter from the ICC chair, Dr Mousa Borayzat, to the Home Secretary, Dr Borayzat suggests that the Government should use the opportunity of the present Bill not to weaken the EHRC but to strengthen the provisions in the Equality Act 2006 related to the commission’s independence. This letter was part of correspondence between the UN and the British Government, centring on the UN’s concerns that the Government’s approach to the commission might compromise its independence and thus jeopardise its national human rights institution status.
The Government argue that Section 3 does not cover any ground that is not perfectly adequately covered by the EHRC’s core equality and human rights functions in Sections 8 and 9. But there are reasons for thinking that repeal of Section 3 could well have the effect of making the commission’s duties at Sections 8 and 9 more vulnerable to judicial review on the ground of challenges based on the proper statutory remit of the commission, thus handing power to the courts to determine the EHRC’s scope and weakening the influence of Parliament.
Of course, Section 3 is susceptible to judicial review. But the lesson from elsewhere, particularly Northern Ireland, is that the more specific and less general the duty, the more susceptible to challenge it becomes. Related to this point, in the absence of Section 3, there is little by which to judge whether the duties under Sections 8 and 9 are sufficient as they become freestanding and detached from any specified outcomes or overarching purpose, thus making further reform of the commission’s duties and powers more straightforward. This is of particular concern given that the terms of reference of the review of the public sector equality duty include the EHRC’s duties and powers in relation to the duty.
The appeal of Section 3 signifies that the Government have no great love for the EHRC. It is opposed by many highly reputable organisations that are in a good position to know about these things. The courts will be deprived of a road map for interpreting the legislation. That legislation will be stripped of its unifying principle linking equality and other fundamental rights. The commission’s standing as an “A” status national human rights institution will be weakened. The commission will also be rendered more liable to judicial review. In the light of all that, I do not believe that the repeal of Section 3 has anything at all to be said for it.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Crisp, for supporting me on the amendment. This is by way of trying to be helpful. As the Government, in their wisdom, chose to alter our equalities framework, we thought that we would take them at their word and make even more improvements. I suspect that the amendment is not perfect, but I hope that it gives the gist.
I acknowledge, as was outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, when she was in her place, that the balance of accountability has already started to shift. I should also say, as a member of the Government who put the 2010 Act on the statute book and supported the Equality Act 2006, that perhaps we did not get it quite right then. This is an attempt to remedy that. The amendment amends the Equality Act 2006 so that Parliament can have a greater say in appointment to the EHRC, its budget setting and its reporting.
The EHRC put forward a proposal that required the commission to lay its business plans before Parliament, achieving, as he put it, an optimal balance between independence, accountability and transparency. I recommend Members of the Committee to read what the commission said in its document of 2011, Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That discusses in detail what the balance between independence, accountability and transparency should be. This amendment is drawn very largely from those proposals.
Parliamentary accountability was recommended also by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated that,
“the standard model of 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 (or indeed the proposed single equality body, whether or not integrated with a human rights commission)”.
Similar constitutional bodies with a role in holding the Government to account, such as the National Audit Office, report directly to Parliament, as do other national human rights institutions such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
Furthermore, the previous and current chairs of the UN International Coordinating Committee endorsed this model. In June 2011, the then chair of the ICC, Rosslyn Noonan, wrote to Theresa May MP and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, stating:
“The challenge is in the nature of the accountability, which should not be, as proposed, to an agency of the government, but should be to the Parliament … Providing an individual government agency (other than the official Auditor) with active oversight powers would undermine the independence of the NHRI in relation to its monitoring of that agency”.
To this end, we tabled this amendment, which seeks to change the balance of accountability of the EHRC in accordance with the Paris principles that gave our EHRC its “A” status.
I hope that this will be seen in the light of trying to start a discussion. The amendment will strengthen the commission’s accountability to Parliament, thereby making it better able to fulfil its mandate as Britain’s equality regulator and national human rights institution. It covers the appointment of commissioners and the chief executive of the EHRC and includes requirements for the commission to lay annual reports and strategic plans before Parliament and for the commission’s budget to be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
The commission has a strategy responsibility to assess how the Government are complying with their domestic and international equality and human rights obligations. It will do that job very much better if parliamentary accountability provides it with the appropriate independence from government. I mean any Government, not just this Government. I include what I hope will be my own Government after 2015. That is the right way to go. It is not always comfortable for Governments to be held to account in this way on their equalities and human rights record, but it is vital that they are.
In addition, this approach will offer long-term consistency of accountability arrangements to the commission. This will overcome some of the major difficulties recognised in the establishment of the commission, which to date has had a number of different sponsor departments. Again, I hold my own Government responsible for the movement of the Government Equalities Office and therefore for the commission. I understand that it is now on the move from the Home Office to the DCMS; a machinery of government announcement was made just before Christmas. Frankly, that is not consistent. We will have a few months of planning blight, because that is what happens when departments have to move their base and find themselves a new home. I do not think that that is a particularly good move, but if the commission is accountable to Parliament for its work, that will help and perhaps, as the future unfolds, we will find a permanent home in government for the Government Equalities Office. That would be a very good idea.
This does not mean that Ministers and the Government do not have responsibility for the overarching policy and the policy framework through which our equalities and human rights legislation should take place. That is not the purpose of this amendment; its purpose is to make the EHRC a more effective and accountable body to our Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I support this amendment, which has been ably moved by the noble Baroness. As a minimum requirement, “A” status national human rights institutions must comply with the Paris principles. The key ones among them relate to independence from government, guaranteed by constitution or legislation. Greater parliamentary accountability would also be helpful in this regard.
Parliamentary accountability has also previously been recommended by the JCHR in three reports. In 2003, it stated that the “standard model” of 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 (or indeed the proposed single equality body, whether or not integrated with a human rights commission)”.
The proposed single equality body did not exist at that time. Again, it said:
“On the whole we would tend to favour a form”,
of appointment,
“which requires a duty to consult Parliament on the appointment of commissioners as a guarantee of independence and democratic accountability, so long as this was a statutory duty”,
and that,
“as a guarantee of independence … Parliament should be directly involved in the setting of any commission’s budget”.
More recently, the JCHR has agreed the Belgrade principles, which relate to the relationship between national human rights institutions, such as the commission, and national Parliaments. The principles were adopted by participants at an international expert seminar led by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2012. The Belgrade principles include several mechanisms for closer relationships between Parliaments and the national human rights institutions: for example, that such institutions,
“should report directly to Parliament”,
and that,
“Parliaments should develop a legal framework for”,
the national human rights institution,
“which secures its independence and its direct accountability to Parliament”.
Again, the principles say:
“Parliaments should invite the members of”,
national human rights institutions,
“to debate the Strategic Plan and/or its annual programme of activities in relation to the annual budget”.
The Public Administration Committee has also emphasised the importance of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of non-departmental public bodies. As the noble Baroness has told us, many similar constitutional bodies with a role in holding the Government to account, such as the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, report directly to Parliament. So do other national human rights institutions, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Other regulators, such as the Office of Fair Trading, also report directly to Parliament with the status of non-ministerial departments. The Government have recently published plans to make the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England more accountable to Parliament. In future, that office will lay its own business plan before Parliament and will be expected to involve appropriate Select Committee chairs in developing its business plan.
In framing this amendment, we have taken account of many precedents that suggest the appropriateness of greater accountability to Parliament for national human rights institutions, both in terms of the advocacy of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Administration Select Committee and precedents constituted by the existence of a raft of other bodies, which report directly to Parliament. We have also taken account of the Belgrade principles in framing the matters which we think ought to come before parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Committee will feel that this amendment is very much in keeping with the way in which these matters have been developing over the past few years, and that we have framed the amendment by taking full account of the issues which it is suggested should form the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. I am happy to support the amendment.
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 Low of Dalston
My Lords, I have already expressed my concern about the signs of the Government rowing back from the equalities agenda. I do not intend to go over that ground again, though I share the suspicions of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which she has just expressed in moving her amendment.
In support of the amendment, I shall make two brief points. Doing away with the equality impact assessments would be a retrograde step—or “calling time” on them in the Prime Minister’s words. There are two reasons for this. First, they force people to think about marginalised groups who are often overlooked. Far from being a burden, these assessments have often been welcomed by people with responsibility for running organisations and providing services as helping them at the end of the day to provide a better service. Secondly, it is essential for the proper evaluation of the implementation of policy and for accountability that we should continue to have these assessments.
If we think about the role of EIAs in government, it may be convenient for governments to be able to avoid scrutiny, but it is not a very intelligent way to go about the rational development of public policy. It is rather an obscurantist Government who seek to avoid systematic evaluation of the impact of their policies. It would be helpful and a good development if the requirement to conduct equality impact assessments were to be written into statute. I support the amendment.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I have a different view about this. I will try to express it in the way that one does as one tries to run a business and is concerned with public activities as well. There is a danger that these discussions become polarised. There are those who feel that unless you write all this down in a precise way you can easily mix and miss the necessary duty to ensure that what we do in the public and private sectors is properly balanced so that services and provision are accessible to all. I am one of those who think that one has to be particularly careful about disadvantaged groups and those who are most likely to be vulnerable. I lean very much in that direction.
However, there is also the other side of the argument; namely, that sometimes we have got ourselves into so prescriptive a situation that it is very hard for people to get on with the job. I want to give an example which is sufficiently far in the past for it not to be seen as party political. When I lived in Ealing, if you wanted an extension into your roof, which a lot of rather big houses in the area wanted, you could not get the decision from the planning authority until it had been discussed by the sexual orientation committee and the racial committee. Something which obviously had nothing to do with either of those committees had to go through the format to deliver. What worried me was that it was the cause of considerable aggravation for people who just wanted an extra couple of rooms for their family. It did no good for people’s views about either sexual orientation or racial equality.
I have taken that example because it is extreme but it actually happened. It caused real problems and was promoted by the then governing party in Ealing as a wonderful example of how good it was on precisely these issues. I thought that it was a terrible example of how to distort and upset the very careful balance that you have to have between practicality and the important ethical issues with which we are concerned.
Therefore, my concern about the proposed new clause is that it can so easily lead to a simple system of adding to bureaucracy without achieving any end. The important thing is that all of us in our public lives and in our private business lives—leave alone our private lives—should seek to carry through our duties, whatever they may be—familial, business or public—in a way which constantly encourages us to ask, “Is this proposal one which disadvantages sections of the community?”. You have to be pretty careful about how you define those sections because sometimes people get left out. If you are not careful, you get a whole lot of other people added in because someone says, “Oh, you have that list, but there is this lot and another group and another set who we might have missed out”. I am much more interested in framing the legislation in such a way as to encourage people to see their duties in whatever they do in this context.
It is equally difficult to argue that we should have a note in here saying that everyone should carry out their public duties remembering that they have to tell the truth, or should carry out their public duties in such a way that they do not waste money, because, if you say that, you are assuming that people do not think of those two things if they are appointed to public office. I think that most people doing these jobs already consider them in this way. I would much prefer to look for a solution that encourages people’s training and makes sure that they have sensible ways in which to remind themselves of these importances without having these detailed requirements, which very often will be used as a necessary factor in things which really have got nothing to do with the issues that we are talking about.
There is an in-between, a balance, between these two positions. We have to be careful of producing an answer which says, “If you don’t agree with this kind of detailed listing, somehow or other you are less enthusiastic about equality than those who do”. I am very enthusiastic about equality—I have a record of fighting for it all across the board—but I have to say that I also hate bureaucracy: it makes people who are on our side in the first place less on our side because of what they have to do when what they have to do is unnecessary.
Health: Atos
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of all the concerns that have been raised concerning Atos Healthcare’s conduct of the work capability assessment, some of which have already been mentioned in the exchanges that have preceded my question. Given that, can he explain why it has been appointed to carry out the new assessments for the personal independence payment? Have any lessons been learnt that might enable these new assessments to be carried out in a way which better commands the confidence of the disability sector?
Lord Freud
My Lords, one matter that concerns me a lot is the way in which Atos has been attacked. It is something that has also concerned Professor Harrington, who writes in his latest report:
“The WCA continues to be portrayed in an extremely negative light, often fuelled by adverse media coverage, representative groups and political points scoring. … Some recognition of the considerable work to date would give a more balanced picture”.
Atos’s quality target, which is to be below 5% on the quality side, has been achieved in 10 of the past 12 months and is now running at around 4%. Indeed, we are looking at whether we should now move the target figure for quality down from 5% to 4%.
Disabled People’s Right to Control (Pilot Scheme) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the introduction of these regulations, which have our full support. Right to Control is an important new right for disabled people, giving them greater control and choice over the support they receive to go about their daily lives. It results from the powerful advocacy, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who the Minister rightly referred to, which was advanced during the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 and from the approach of co-production which helped frame these important opportunities. We were also supportive of Right to Control being piloted through trailblazers prior to being rolled out nationally, with the inevitable lessons and challenges that emerge from its practical application.
As the noble Baroness has said, we have had the benefit of the interim evaluation of the trailblazers. However, although not published until February 2012, this related to field work undertaken between June and September 2011, not long after the trailblazers had started. The interim evaluation is therefore inevitably influenced more by start-up issues and less by what might become the steady state. Nevertheless, there are some encouraging messages, even from this early assessment, around changes in culture, encouraging partner organisations to work together and positive influences on how delivery staff work with disabled people. The evaluation identified co-production as having long-term benefits for the design and delivery of services for disabled people.
However, at the early stage the evaluation pointed up some big challenges, including lack of awareness and understanding of Right to Control among staff, including front-line staff. This extended to a lack of certainty over process, a lack of differentiation from previous personalisation initiatives, and a lack of knowledge about legal entitlement.
There was also a lower than expected take-up of Right to Control in the Work Choice and Access to Work funding streams, although it was noted that young people’s access might be through their college rather than through Jobcentre Plus. There was caution on the part of some delivery staff about investing time if the future of Right to Control is not assured. There was the perception of conflicting priorities with the belief by some that it made it more difficult to safeguard vulnerable adults. For some trailblazers some funding streams were already tied into block contracts. Moving away from these has resource implications at a time of severe financial constraints. Budget cuts, redundancies and organisational restructuring have affected trailblazers, making implementation and delivery of Right to Control more difficult.
The Minister said in the other place, and the noble Baroness has reiterated it this afternoon, that the Government continue to monitor the position and to collect management information. Perhaps we can hear how matters are progressing on those above issues. What proactive steps are the Government taking to overcome some of these difficulties and challenges? Collecting information is all very well but there needs to be something more positive, particularly around awareness and understanding. Clearly, trailblazer authorities and stakeholders have a role in this, but so do the Government. Is it still the Government’s intention to see Right to Control being rolled out nationally?
As I said, we support these regulations and the extension of the pilots for one year—as we have heard, the maximum permitted under the 2009 Act. However, we would not wish that to be an excuse for doing nothing in the mean time to help make a success of Right to Control.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I declare an interest as an ambassador of Disability Rights UK, the largest pan-disability, user-led organisation in the United Kingdom, which has only come into being in the past year as the result of a merger between the Disability Alliance, RADAR and the National Centre for Independent Living. It supports the extension of these pilots but takes this opportunity to raise a number of key issues relating to the promotion of the Right to Control objectives and the evaluation of the pilots.
The Right to Control is about transforming disabled people’s lives and giving them real control over the support that they need to enable them to play a full and equal part in society. That was supported by all political parties when the Welfare Reform Act 2009 went through Parliament. It would be good to see the DWP explicitly recognise that objective, and promote it strongly and consistently both within the department and across government. I hope that this would be used as an opportunity to ensure that the evaluation process will be co-produced with disabled people. “Nothing about us without us” critically and essentially means that researchers should work with disabled people—in particular with disabled people’s organisations which have participated in the pilots—to shape and review the evaluation, so that disabled people are not involved only as respondents.
Disabled people also seek an assurance that, in looking at the cost benefits of Right to Control, the department will take full account of the outcomes achieved. Even where there are no direct savings from the pilots—although it is hoped that there will be savings, especially in reducing bureaucracy—there needs to be recognition that the benefits in freeing up disabled people so that they can access education and employment opportunities and play a full and equal part in society will bring long-term savings as well as improve their quality of life.
I observe that the trailblazers have suffered from a lack of consistency and a change in DWP structures and Civil Service roles. I hope that, in the time left for the project, there will be no more changes of this kind. I would also welcome it if the Minister met with disability organisations to discuss what personalisation means in the context of the work that the department is doing on Right to Control and how to advance choice and control for disabled people. This is particularly relevant in the light of the care and support reforms, the transition to the personal independence payment, the Access to Work review that is going on and the disability strategy.
Finally, I raise a question on the Access to Work review. What assessment has the department made of the readiness of Access to Work to be included in the Right to Control, so that users can make spending decisions across funding streams? The evaluation report says that most significant barriers to the integration of the funding streams under the Right to Control relate to money being tied into block contracts and framework agreements. As a result, there is low eligibility for multiple funding streams. People cannot spend budgets across funding streams while still facing different monitoring systems. However, those trailblazers that invested early in co-production with user-led organisations and individual disabled people have progressed further in this respect. As regards Access to Work, in particular, it is mentioned that someone with an eligible frequent need to use taxis could not buy a train season ticket due to Access to Work guidelines.
From evidence from the Disability Rights UK helpline, Disability Rights UK says that often people who get social care funding and who are also at work will be caught between social care and Access to Work. For example, someone who needs personal care such as help getting to the toilet is told by social care services that the latter do not have to meet the needs for personal care if they arise at work, and Access to Work says that it does not have to fund personal care because that is the responsibility of social care services. Indeed, at an event run by Disability Rights UK last year the case arose of a man who has an adapted bathroom at home and does not need assistance to get to the toilet. However, his workplace does not have an adapted bathroom and so he needs assistance when he is at work.
I would be glad if the Minister would take these issues of overlap and conflict between these different funding streams—Access to Work and social care—and consider how these conflicts can be resolved as the evaluation moves forward.
BBC: Resignation of Director-General
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Putting aside the very difficult issues that have arisen over these programmes—which I will not go into—the BBC inquiries will look at all the details and I am sure that in due course we will hear precisely what happened.
Lord Low of Dalston
I certainly associate myself with the important points that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made and that the Minister acknowledged. The BBC has obviously sustained a blow to its credibility and to the trust that is widely reposed in it, and I suppose that this may be described as a crisis. However, I hope that the Minister would agree—and I take it from what he said that he would—that these things must be kept in proportion and that it would be absurd to suggest that a feeding frenzy over particular incidents, however serious, constitutes a global threat to the BBC’s brand, which remains strong overall and rightly continues to command widespread trust and respect.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I agree very much with the comments of the noble Lord; we must keep the issues in proportion. He is completely correct. I was alarmed by the feeding frenzy that came out of the press, particularly some of the headlines regarding the resignation of Mr Entwistle. I believe this should be a period of calm; there is a need for stability to allow the BBC to work through these very difficult problems. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Lord.
Education: Conservatoires
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, all those who experience the arts as part of their very lifeblood and that of the community in which they live must be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for raising these important matters. It is a rash man who would venture into the same territory as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, with her unrivalled expertise in this area, especially in two minutes, so I shall not try.
Rather, I wish to use my time to highlight some of the problems that conservatoires are experiencing with the UK Border Agency, such as the costs and delay in issuing visas, their unjustified refusal and so on. Because the UKBA cannot give a more accurate estimate of the time needed to process postal applications than four to 14 weeks, some students with late offers have been forced to pay for the premium service. In most cases, application decisions are received sooner than this, but the unpredictability means that most students will not risk overstaying on their current visas in case they receive a rejection or refusal after several weeks. Added to the sort of problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, these things, together with the cost of tuition here and restrictions on post-study work, have begun to make training in this country much less attractive than it was.
London was always the number one destination for the world’s most talented music students, but the recruitment of international, and particularly non-EU, students, who have contributed so much to the high quality and worldwide reputation of UK conservatoires, as well as their financial sustainability, is now increasingly under threat. The tier 1 post-study work immigration route provided important opportunities for conservatoire graduates to gain invaluable performance experience, which is so crucial to the development of a career. The closure of this route and its proposed replacement with tier 2 graduate employment for those on a salary of over £20,000 has little application in the music and performing arts sector, where people have a portfolio career and are mainly remunerated by one-off performance fees or commissions. No wonder that a former overseas student of whom I have knowledge is saying that if she was looking to study abroad today, she would not come to the UK because the climate is too hostile. She would go to Australia instead.
There is more that I could mention, but I have necessarily had to be selective. I hope that the Minister will be able to take some of these points on board and address them in his reply, or if not at least to take them away for more mature consideration.