Unemployment: Disabled People

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The fundamental change in the new benefit structure—a single benefit in the form of universal credit—allows people to stay in their benefit while they have varying amounts of work. Some of the main beneficiaries will be disabled people, many of whom do have fluctuating conditions. Today, they are frightened of going into work if they are having a few good months, because they could lose their entire package. At the moment, there are silo packages and a person can be labelled and told, “You are in this disability package; you cannot go into work”. Under UC, you can move up and down the taper depending on how you are doing, which is one reason why I was able to relax the permitted work rules when we went through the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. With universal credit, we no longer have to patrol so tightly the legacy system.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, with help and support, some disabled people are able to work from home. What help, support and assistance are given to people who can take advantage of those opportunities in order to become self-sufficient and independent?

[Lord Freud]

I had not thought about that point, and I will do so. Access to Work works with employers, and there is a system there. To be absolutely honest, I am not sure how or whether it would work with homeworkers. I will check that out and write to the noble Lord. I thank him for raising the point.

Poverty

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We are trying to move away from the income transfer approaches that we have seen for some time, to try to handle the fundamental causes of poverty. I agree with the noble Lord that that is where the effort has got to go. It is difficult, but that is the only real way to tackle this problem.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one measure of national poverty is the number of people using food banks? Can he therefore provide a report to this House saying whether that number has gone up or down since the general election?

[Lord Freud]

We do not collect those figures. There have been figures: I believe that the Trussell Trust put out some not so long ago, which showed those figures, from its perspective, flattening out. There has also been quite a lot of research on food banks, and the APPG did a very good piece of work, which showed that what drives people to this emergency support provided by the community—which one welcomes—is a very complex matter.

Pensions: British Citizens Overseas

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

The issue of what will happen if this country leaves the European Union has not yet been decided, but if there are reciprocal agreements and legal obligations to uprate, pensions will be uprated.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that those members of the Gurkha regiment who are entitled to a pension are in receipt of their entitlement?

Pensions Bill

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, in supporting this amendment I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Hollis. I know that she has marshalled the arguments and found the evidence, which she has advanced with authority and passion. Nevertheless, in this debate I seek to reinforce two points that I feel strongly about. First, all the evidence tells us that many people will be adversely affected by not having national insurance credits, not only while they are in work but, most importantly for this Bill, when they move into retirement. Secondly, for too long we have known that this situation is occurring, but we have made the excuse that not many people are in mini-jobs. That argument no longer holds good. We are told that they are here today and gone tomorrow, so we have avoided tackling the problem.

We must remind ourselves that the economy is changing. It is more demanding and is now a truly 24/7 economy which has to be serviced, so those who are affected by the Government’s lack of effort to find a solution to the problem are hard-working people who deserve not just our praise, but our recognition that they, too, should enjoy the same rights and security as others. The answer we have received so far is that they are only part-timers, although it is recognised that many are earning less than the lower earnings limit. The evidence tell us that many are on low pay and that people have not just one mini-job, but two or even three of them under so-called variable contracts spread over five, six or seven days a week. More than that, although they are in work, they are insecure and many have no knowledge of what they will be expected to do next week or the week after. They suffer the inconvenience of not being able to plan their lives and look after their families. People in mini-jobs are doing what the Government have asked us all to do—to be flexible—but of course flexibility in this instance does not provide the security of universal credit or jobseeker’s arrangements. In fact, these people are being penalised for doing exactly what is required to maintain a stable and robust economy. In reality, this group of people should enjoy a system of deferred credits as they are making themselves ready for work for when the economy gathers momentum, as we all know it will.

I said earlier that we have not tackled this problem because we believe that not many workers are involved, but the numbers have been played down. The DWP states that 50,000 people are affected, and this figure has been widely cited by Ministers in both Houses. However, as my noble friend Lady Hollis set out so clearly in her evidence, that figure of 50,000 is a gross underestimate of the number of people in so-called mini-jobs. I suggest that anyone who doubts the number of people involved visits the interchange at Bank DLR at around 5 pm on any working day. Thousands of financial sector workers flow off the DLR only to be replaced by thousands of cleaners and maintenance workers flowing back to service the offices of Canary Wharf and elsewhere in east London. However, that is not the end of their day. Many return later at night to clean hotels and shops. This can be seen wherever there are offices, factories, shops and restaurants in the towns or cities of the United Kingdom. It is a universal pattern of work that has evolved in the past half decade.

I understand that it has been said that providing fairness to people in mini-jobs will add to the work and put considerable stress on employers, and that the computerised systems of government departments cannot cope with the strain. The technological strain is nothing compared with the mental strain and insecurity of the people who are trapped in these so-called mini-jobs. The DWP and HMRC can resolve this problem. All that is needed is some joined-up thinking. They can resolve it, because we are talking about the lives of thousands of people and about fairness. If they are not provided for today while at work, society will have the responsibility and duty to provide for them in retirement.

In seeking to tackle in-work poverty, the Government are rightly proud of raising the tax threshold incrementally to those earning £10,000. However, what is the point of seeking to tackle the scourge of in-work poverty through the tax threshold system by creating poverty in old age through the Pensions Bill? There is not much point at all. In the past, Ministers have argued that this problem of crediting people with multi-jobs may place a burden on employers. The price of not placing a burden on employers is the price of placing a burden on the whole of society in the years ahead, as some of these workers become pensioners. With part-time working and zero-hour contracts on the increase, this is a reasonable expectation for any civilised society to place on them.

In the lexicon of today’s employment pattern, we hear the language of “mobility”, “flexibility” and “creativity”, but for the economy to thrive and deliver its full potential, management too must break out of its silo mentality and be creative and flexible in its ideas, as it seeks to determine how a reward package can and should be made, to ensure that we provide not just for today’s but for tomorrow’s pensioners. At the very heart of this must be the transferability of national insurance credit. It is simple. All we need are the two major departments of state to sit down, have a conversation and, of course, seek knowledge based on the experience of the people who are at the receiving end of these mini-jobs.

I strongly believe that we should make policy on what is right and fair for the workers affected. By any logic, the Minister must admit that it cannot be right that someone can be unemployed and get a credit, but get nothing for having some type of work—so-called mini-jobs. These workers do not seek favours. On their behalf, I hope that this House will give them fairness.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the gracious Speech and to the three excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today. I want to say a few words about the invisible generation, usually labelled as “the elderly”, and like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I have to declare an interest.

As the elderly, we are constantly reminded that we carry a high maintenance cost in respect of health, pensions and of course welfare support. We struggle with our technology and are sometimes described as non-productive consumers. Mostly ignored are the positive contributions made to society by the elderly. They are carers of a husband or wife, and sometimes of grandchildren and other relatives and friends; they are the providers of support for neighbours less able than themselves; they are minders of children whose parents are being told that they must go out to work. Very many give financial support to children and grandchildren who could not otherwise stay on at school, go to university, buy a house or pay a deposit on a rented property. They are the silent army, making up an estimated 30% of all volunteers for a wide range of organisations and often filling in the gaps in care homes, hospitals, hospices, schools and more.

Yet increasingly they are denigrated by politicians and the news media. The retirement pension to which they have contributed during their working life is now a benefit, which many politicians would like to see means-tested. The elderly are criticised for taking a free prescription and bus pass, a free television licence at aged 75 and the winter fuel payment that many of us in any case hand over to charity. For many, the loss of the travel pass would mean isolation. They would be unable to visit families and friends, get to the shops or the post office, or travel to their voluntary activities, particularly in rural areas. Bus routes would be closed. Those who could afford to use a car would be castigated for not being environmentally friendly.

Nearly every debate on issues affecting the elderly starts with the precursor “the problem is”. What a difference it would make to start such a debate by merely saying “the issues are”. The fact is that Britain is woefully underprepared for the rising numbers of elderly people. We are told on the one hand to welcome the fact that we are all living longer while on the other hand that it is not affordable. For those with retirement in sight, there is mass confusion. We have had the Turner and Dilnot reports, and the report of the Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change. Is it any wonder that fear and insecurity is the approach of many for their retirement plans?

At what age will they be able to retire? Who knows? We saw a change flagged up in the gracious Speech, which prompted calls for another increase because in today’s world the elderly are healthier and so able to work longer. Quite suddenly, the elderly are among the shirkers with the curtains drawn who do not look for work. If they do, they become the enemies of the young, who fear that the jobs of tomorrow are being taken by the old of today. What of pensions? It is not unreasonable that many pensioners are wary of the provisions of private pensions having lost so much in past debacles, yet we are now treated as though we are responsible for the pension crisis.

One provision about which we are clear within the gracious Speech is that of the single-tier state pension, but can we please have a guarantee that recipients will not be told that this is a benefit for which they should be grateful rather than a pension for which they have paid? In March we heard from the Chancellor that the Government will introduce in 2016 a modified version of the proposals in the Dilnot review. Given the continual change in the retirement age and the state pension arrangements, early and clear decisions would be welcomed by those contemplating retirement.

The gracious Speech sadly missed the opportunity to confirm the welcome statement from the Chancellor that funding reforms for long-term care for the elderly will be introduced and that the maximum anyone will pay is £72,000. I am not clear what will happen to those who do not have £72,000. I am guessing that, as Dilnot proposed, they will be expected to sell part of the equity of their homes to pay for their needs—assuming they have homes. Currently, there are many cases of elderly people attempting to do that and risking large sums of money as a result. I fear that many will do so in future.

Many of those issues have been rehearsed in this House and in another place. I return to my original point. Old age is seen as a problem, and elderly people are seen as a liability. Those negative portrayals must change, not only for the elderly but for other groups labelled and taunted. There was a time when the target was immigrants and the unemployed. Then it was the turn of single parents and those on benefits. Over recent years, people with disabilities have been in the firing line. Now it is the turn of the elderly.

The denigration of groups and communities in our society must end soon. I very much regret that the gracious Speech made no reference to the Select Committee report, Ready for Ageing?, which could be our compass for future travel into retirement. I, for one, hope that the Government will set out their analysis of the issues and challenges and their vision for public service in an ageing society, and that a White Paper is published well before the next general election.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I, too, support the sentiments and comments made by all noble Lords who have spoken. I will add one further point. The distinction between compliance and a general duty implies that there is no need for anything until the point of compliance. However, many issues that relate to people with protected characteristics are often cultural, and may not get to a point where compliance is necessary straightaway. It would be much better for that culture—for example, the treatment of adults with learning disabilities, perhaps in one or two homes before it starts to gather momentum—if there were a general duty on the sector, and if the commission could go in, offer support and start to change the culture before a crisis develops that requires compliance. I echo the sentiments of others who have spoken before, and very much hope that the Government will reconsider the deletion of Section 3.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Section 3 represents more than a statement. It represents a commitment to the principles of equality—equality of opportunity, equality of dignity and the responsibility of the state to its citizens.

The EHRC needs a benchmark, a flag, by which it can promote the principles on which it was founded. It needs to be measured, not against the principles of race, disability or gender, but in a much wider context, because it makes a statement about the sort of society we are, the aspirations that we hold for ourselves, and the signals that we send far and wide.

In that context, if the amendment before this House is not embraced, we will be sending a negative statement. We will be saying that after all that we have achieved over many years in terms of race, gender, disability and children, we have turned around and are heading in a totally different direction. It is not my belief that that is the Government’s intention: I believe that the Government’s intention is to continue to improve the standards and opportunities of all their citizens. However, in any journey, we all sometimes take a wrong turn; I genuinely believe that on this occasion, the Government—with all their good intentions—have got it wrong. It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister to look again and to say to the Government that so much depends on their credibility with a vast swathe of this nation and its citizens that to take this wrong turn would be an inevitable downgrading of the concept of equality of opportunity for all. We all believe in that principle and it is in that spirit that I support the amendment, but more importantly, I ask the Government to think again.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I cannot begin to emulate the eloquence of the speech that we have just heard. I too regret that I was not present when this matter was discussed in Committee on 9 January but, after reading Hansard, it is clear to me that the debate was of an exceptionally high standard, particularly the contributions of my noble friends Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lord Low of Dalston. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Low cannot be here today; I cannot begin to take his place, but I agree with everything he said in that debate.

There is another person who cannot be here today for a different reason. He was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as one of those who led the way in this area of the law in the 1990s and long before that. I refer, of course, to the late Lord Morris of Manchester. It is not difficult for me—or I suspect, anybody else in the House today—to imagine what Lord Morris’s reaction to the proposed repeal of Section 3 would have been. I do not doubt for one moment that he would have regarded it as a serious backwards step, and he would have said so in his usual trenchant terms.

I want to deal first with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as a lawyer—I am sure that his heart was not really in it—that if we leave out Section 3 we are losing nothing. Secondly, I want to comment on the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, at the end of her reply for the Government’s decision to repeal Section 3. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave two reasons for his view. The first was that Section 3 was purely aspirational, so it would make no difference if it were repealed. It contained nothing, he said, that could be enforced in a court of law.

However, if that argument were correct, it surely proves too much. If Section 3 is purely aspirational, so, surely, are Sections 8 and 9. How would the noble Lord enforce in a court of law the duty under Section 8 to promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity? How would he enforce in a court of law the commission’s duty under Section 9 to promote understanding of the importance of human rights? If the legal argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were correct, it would surely mean that we should repeal not only Section 3 but Sections 8 and 9, which would leave us with absolutely nothing. Of course, the truth is that the argument is misconceived. Recent legislation is littered with examples of duties which cannot be enforced in a court of law but serve, nevertheless, a very useful purpose. For example, Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provides that:

“This Act does not … affect … the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law”.

How is that to be enforced in a court of law? However, it serves an extremely useful purpose.

Another example that occurred to me is Section 1 of the Climate Change Act, which provides that:

“It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline”.

How—perhaps I should say, when—is that duty, clearly stated by Parliament, to become enforceable: in 2048, 2049, or when? Therefore, with respect, that argument carries very little weight. For all those reasons, I suggest, with the utmost delicacy, that the legal argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should not deter us in any way from supporting this amendment.

However, the noble Lord had a second argument. He said that there is nothing in Section 3 which is not also contained in Sections 8 and 9, so Section 3 is in effect otiose. I suggest that he is wrong, but suppose for a moment that he is right: if Section 3 adds nothing to Sections 8 and 9, how is that consistent with the Government’s argument all along that Section 3 is too broad? As the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, the Government simply cannot have it both ways. I suggest that he was right. In truth, Section 3 does indeed add something which is not in Sections 8 or 9, and something of the very greatest importance. It provides for the first time in legislation the unifying link between equality and other fundamental human rights. This was the point made by Sir Bob Hepple in his memorandum, which I hope the noble Baroness has read, and which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That deserves an answer and I hope that it will get one. Indeed, the assertion of a unifying principle in Section 3 was surely one of the main objectives of the 2006 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, himself pointed out when he was promoting the Bill. Therefore, I again suggest, as delicately as I can, that the noble Lord might in this instance have done better to follow his heart than his head.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, many adjectives have preceded the Leveson inquiry, which we are debating today. We have heard that,

“the whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal”.

We have heard it described as,

“an episode that is … disgraceful”,

and that there has been,

“the failure of our political system over many, many years to tackle a problem that has been getting worse”.

We have heard descriptions of the victims:

“Relatives of those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heroes and murder victims—people who have already suffered in a way that we can barely imagine—have been made to suffer all over again”.

Those were the words of our Prime Minister, David Cameron, when he made a Statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday 13 July 2011 about the phone-hacking scandal and the upcoming inquiry. Naturally, the entire nation found empathy with the Prime Minister’s sentiment. He spoke for all of us.

Over the following months, as the inquiry progressed, millions of us watched in disbelief as individuals described their harrowing experiences with journalists. We all know who the victims are and we all know what they experienced, as we have been reminded today by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. We saw the misery in their faces, and they surely hoped that something positive would come from them telling their stories to millions through the inquiry.

However, we did not hear from the silent victims of the press, those without power or a voice—benefit claimants, single parents, immigrants, people with disabilities, rape victims, the unemployed, Gypsies and black and Asian people. They have been abused, insulted and ridiculed by the media, sometimes even encouraged by the debate that politicians are engaged in. One example is the current debate about welfare reform. If you have your curtains drawn at 8 am, you are a benefit scrounger living off welfare. You could not possibly be a night worker who has just completed a 10-hour shift driving a bus, cleaning the streets or emptying our dustbins—oh no.

Now, though, we have an inquiry and a promise from the Prime Minister, made on the “Andrew Marr Show” in October, that Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals would likely be adopted unless they were too “heavy-handed” or “bonkers”. In the light of his response today, I will leave the House to choose between bonkers or heavy-handed. I think neither.

In his report, Lord Justice Leveson said that newspapers in Britain have been guilty of years of malpractice that has,

“wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people”,

and ultimately must be regulated to prevent further wrongdoing. In a Statement to the House of Commons in November last year, the Prime Minister reminded us why the inquiry had been necessary. He said:

“We should remember how the parents of Milly Dowler, at their most vulnerable moment, had their daughter’s phone hacked and were followed and photographed, how Christopher Jefferies’ reputation was destroyed by false accusations, how the mother of Madeleine McCann … had her private diary printed without her permission and how she and her husband were falsely accused of keeping their daughter’s body in their freezer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/12; col. 446.]

Lest we forget, all these were stories—and “stories” is the appropriate word—that the media thought that they had the freedom to publish, and which they thought it was essential for the British public to know. But somewhere on the road to Wapping, with the sun behind him, the Prime Minister had a conversion and announced that while changes were urgently needed, he would reject the judge’s recommendation for a statutory body to oversee the new independent press regulator. The Prime Minister went on to say:

“We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/2012; col. 449.]

Have we asked the victims what they think? At the Leveson inquiry, JK Rowling described her experience at the hands of the press as,

“under siege or like a hostage”,

in her own home. She was not the only victim wondering why the Prime Minister has spent public money setting up an inquiry, and why so many people have been asked to relive extremely painful episodes in the context of an inquiry watched by millions, if its recommendations were merely to be ignored. Clearly, JK Rowling and other victims who gave evidence to the inquiry had a right to feel disappointed, duped or even angry. And for what?

We are told by most parts of the media that their intrusion into our private lives and their taunts to minority groups are about freedom of the press. But where is the freedom for us, our friends and family, to live our lives without being hounded by the press? For more than 60 years, the press had insisted that it can regulate itself, but history tells us that, on every occasion that a self-regulatory body was established by the press, it has been told that this was its last chance. Clearly, some sections of the press have failed consistently to police themselves.

The challenge for us is simple. We cannot allow this process to be repeated again and again. Why? Because we want, and the British people deserve, a press of which and about which they can be proud: one which has the freedom to inform, but not the freedom to destroy.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on moving this amendment and on her very powerful introduction. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, missed that because it really represents the difference between what the victims of discrimination, whose rights are being eroded, want for a commission, and what a lawyer wants for an organisation that is a highly esteemed body, which can be looked at and admired, but is not reaching the people’s needs. That is what Section 3 and its retention represents for us who sit here opposing what is proposed in this Bill. That also helps to answer the question posed on many occasions about the notion that it would not make any difference.

We do not have any clarity about what the Government want to see the EHRC doing and how that relates to how people in our society—whether they are disabled or on the grounds of age, race, ethnicity or other characteristics—feel about a body such as this not meeting or responding to their needs, or giving any leadership or indications about how society can move forward in healing the problems that are afflicting the many people with those characteristics and who are affected by discrimination and the erosion of human rights.

We already know how far the EHRC has gone backwards in the aspirations that a lot of people had for it. That is not a criticism to suggest that it has not done good work because it clearly has, but it could have done so much more. To a large extent, I do not have any disagreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said but I believe that Section 3 is an important aspiration. It is absolutely right to say that it is a statement of purpose and it is very broad. For me, it enables the commission to do the sort of things in a flexible way—notwithstanding the way in which it is required to be strategic—which enable people on the ground to identify with it. That is the worst part of the past four or five years of watching the way in which the predecessor bodies faded into obscurity when the new body came on stream and lost contact with people on the ground. That is where I am addressing my concerns.

I see the general duty as a statement of purpose and a mission statement. In no way do I see it as constraining the EHRC from doing what it needs to do or what it has to do, while recognising the constraints imposed upon it by government and the limitations of its resources. That is the killer constraint, which I think will determine what exactly it will do in the years ahead. No justification has been put forward for removing Section 3, other than the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.

The loss of the notion of promoting good relations is very serious. I see promoting good relations as a common thread of connectivity across the diverse protected characteristics. It underpins the fundamental requirement of a body such as the EHRC to promote better knowledge and understanding of equality and human rights issues, to counter myths and prejudices with facts and to encourage good community relations across the diverse competing interests, which is quite considerable.

Should the EHRC have no role whatever in challenging policies, proposals and activities that damage community relations? Should it never challenge the Government? Clearly the Government would like an EHRC that never challenged their policies and activities. However, if the commission is not able to challenge, who will do that? This is the politics of madness at a time when tensions are rising, conflicts are on the increase, austerity is feeding prejudices, frustrations and anxieties, and blame and scapegoating are dominant features of everyday culture. Who is seeking to counter any of this? Should the EHRC not take on some of this activity? If not, why not?

The general duty is a binding and unifying concept that intertwines equality and human rights. It guards the fundamental role of the EHRC. The reason for the removal in Clause 56 of Section 3 is to weaken further the EHRC and heighten its impotence in the eyes of many people who need an effective EHRC to champion their rights and assist them in building good relations, tackling inequality and promoting human rights.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, one of the disadvantages of being around as long as I have is that you observe the tide flowing in and flowing out—ebbing and flowing. I have followed the equality debate, participated in it and in some instances been a victim of it over many years. Tides such as progress in equality need to be measured. The section that we are debating is as good a measurement as one could get. The progress that we seek will be advanced by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. She advocates that the retention of Section 3 is an absolute requirement. The question is not just for those outside the debate but for those who are part of it.

Section 3 is the quality control mechanism by which the Act can be judged from time to time. However, it has a much wider purpose. It can be the section by which the Government’s commitment, activity and purpose in this field are judged. The proposal to repeal Section 3 is equivalent to the referee blowing the final whistle before the match has ended. It should not be the case, when debate is still going on and before it is concluded, that the key mechanism by which we can measure progress and draw some conclusions is under threat. That is why it is important that, whatever emerges in legislative terms from the Bill, Section 3 is retained. The message that its removal would send would downgrade all the other aspirations of the Bill.

Many pioneering people have made valuable contributions. However, as we have heard in the debate and read in the press, we have not abolished discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability or otherwise. There is still a job to be done. I do not believe that at this point removing the general duty would enhance confidence in the Government’s commitment to the whole issue of discrimination. The job is not done. There is much more to do. In the best tradition of the way in which your Lordships’ House is able to engage all strands of opinion, I believe that on this issue the Government should take note and retain Section 3. It is not just a question of how others would be measured; it is a question of how the Government would be measured and judged. I support the amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Morris of Handsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, we can all agree that an effective welfare system must be designed to promote the basic well-being of those in need. Rightly, the state demands a quid pro quo—work for those who can and support for those who cannot. However, this arrangement is not as balanced as it might sound because for the balance to be maintained work must always trump welfare, but that demands that there are jobs for people. With unemployment at 8 per cent or more, cutting benefits to make work pay is not a joke for those who are unemployed and struggling to find a job. Of course, there will always be people who try to beat the system. However, to give the impression, as did the Chancellor, that the unemployed see welfare as a lifestyle choice is plainly wrong.

I want to concentrate on the impact of the Bill on the housing sector. I declare an interest as chairman of Midland Heart Housing Association. I start by looking at what is described as “actual rent”. Actual rent is the amount paid by a tenant irrespective of whether they are in the social or private rented sector. The Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to set the level of housing benefit with no regard to the actual rent being paid. For many housing benefit means the difference between sleeping under a roof and, in some instances, sleeping on the pavement. These new powers for the Secretary of State will have two significant consequences. First, the gap between the benefit paid and the actual rent charged will put at risk security of tenure for many. Those who rely on benefits and cannot afford to fund the shortfall will have their independence and choice further reduced. The reality will be a greater risk of people being forced into poor quality overcrowded homes or being trapped in a cycle of homelessness.

The second downside is that the gap between benefit and actual rent will mean uncertainty for social housing providers who will be left on the horns of a dilemma. What do they do? They have the choice between evicting tenants or funding the shortfall, which in turn will leave less capital to build much needed social housing. That is the dilemma which will be faced by many social housing providers.

The new draconian measure in the Bill—the underoccupation penalties—will mean that the Government can cut housing benefit for social housing tenants who have an unoccupied room. According to the DWP’s impact assessment, this will affect an estimated 670,000 social housing tenants, more than half of whom are disabled. Many disabled tenants live in adapted, specially designed, supported and sheltered housing. Will they be evicted and, if so, where will they go?

Finally, I wish to say a few words about the Social Fund. Much could be said about that fund and other benefits but no doubt our discussions in Committee will be informed by noble Lords’ practical experience. They have the expertise to deal with these issues and ensure that a Bill emerges from Committee which meets the Government’s objectives of cost reduction and supporting those in need. The Social Fund supports families and individuals in crisis when they need financial assistance. However, the Bill abolishes the discretionary Social Fund and replaces it with local provision. This vital safety net for families in severe crisis should be made into a duty on local authorities. If they are to deal with that issue, the provision needs to be secure. There is a view that this fund should be securely ring- fenced to avoid it becoming a Social Fund postcode lottery.

In conclusion, much has been said, and much will be said in Committee, with the aim of improving the Bill. However, I repeat that an effective welfare system must promote the basic well-being of those in need. Sadly, as the Bill stands, it could destroy the safety net for the very people it seeks to protect. The responsibility lies with your Lordships' House to ensure that that does not happen.