Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, it a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We heard from previous speakers why we are tonight discussing and debating the proposed changes to PIP. I refer to my interests in the register particularly relating to autism. It is about autism that I will speak in the context of PIP. I support particularly the regret Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.

Of course, autism is not a mental illness; it is a lifelong communication disorder. People with autism are born with it and die with it. It is also a spectrum, ranging from people who need 24-hour care for most of their life right through to a group of people capable of university degree-standard education and holding down demanding jobs. It is worth saying that only 15% of people on the autistic spectrum obtain paid employment. Perhaps that gives a clue as to why I want to raise their needs in the context of this debate.

An interesting but sad figure is that of people on the autistic spectrum in their 20s, some 7% are identified as committing suicide. The reason is not that autism is of itself a mental illness. Rather, as people with autism, particularly at the higher-functioning end, struggle to make sense of life, communicate with people and take their part in society as the rest of us do, they try and try but there is that glass wall that without help and support they never get through. That is what causes the mental illness to develop on top of the autism.

I was in this Chamber when the House debated the Welfare Reform Act 2012. As with others, I remember the assurances given in both Houses at that time. I particularly remember the assurances given to the late Lord Newton of Braintree who, colleagues will remember, rose from his hospital bed night after night, sometimes needing oxygen to support him. He made the case particularly for this group of people. When they walk into a room, it is not obvious that that have a serious disability, but they certainly have needs. That assurance that PIP would assess barriers that individuals face and not make judgments based on their impairment type was something we all clung to in the hope that that promise would be kept.

As far as the autistic community is concerned, another Act is very important to this Chamber: the Autism Act 2009. In both Chambers and across the House, Members agreed and put on to the statute book an Autism Act because it was recognised that people on the autistic spectrum fall through the gap. That gap is often about very simple, straightforward things that benefits such as PIP provide for them. It is about taking their place again in society. Anxiety and psychological distress are among the most common effects of being diagnosed with autism. People with autism experience levels of distress about things that the rest of us really never worry about. To them, they become huge problems.

I will share with the House a case study that came to my attention about somebody recently denied PIP. This is from a mum, Amanda, who has a 16 year-old son on the autistic spectrum. She says:

“My son recently failed his PIP assessment which we are now appealing. He has autism and dyspraxia which means he is highly anxious and has such poor spatial awareness that he can’t judge speed and distance for road safety”.


He can probably plan a journey but is actually quite at risk when he is out there on the journey. She continues:

“Currently he is unable to leave the house alone. He cannot attempt a journey as he is so anxious and scared of change and people that using public transport is out of the question. He is unable to speak to strangers and can’t even order a drink when out or sit alone when his carer goes to the loo. At the moment he’s very isolated because he can’t go out alone and can’t socialise with new people. Even for extracurricular activities at school he needs a parent to go and support him. For example on a field trip to Anglesey for three days he was not allowed to travel with the other pupils as he can be a danger to himself and others”.


It turns out that his dad was DBS-checked so he could take time off work to accompany his son so he could go on that field trip.

Educationally, that young man is potentially a university graduate, yet he has been denied PIP. This is why the Autism Act was brought in, because a lot of these people have huge potential, but if that potential is denied, your Lordships do not need me to spell out the consequences. I am very disappointed that we are having to have this debate tonight. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this to the attention of the House.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, Winchester is well represented this evening. PIP’s broad design flows from the Welfare Reform Act 2012. From the beginning it was intended not just to reset the DLA thresholds to determine who gets what but to decrease the overall expenditure on benefits by attempting to target them more effectively than DLA, and specifically to give more weight to mental health problems.

The department said that of those with mental health conditions receiving the mobility component of DLA, only 9% had been entitled to the higher rate, whereas 27% of PIP claimants receive the enhanced mobility rate—or 28%, according to the Minister’s letter this morning. The Government’s own consultee, the SSAC, asked the pertinent question: so what impairments do these 27% have? Are they a combination of physical and mental impairments? The department evaded the question, saying that perhaps 27% was “somewhat imprecise”. We do not know what is going to happen to claimants who may be reassessed quite soon, but we do know that the new regulations undermine the welcome support PIP can give to those with mental health problems, and I urge the Government to withdraw them for further consideration.

That is not the only reason I think the regulations should not be proceeded with. I hope other Members of the House will be as uneasy as I am at the Government immediately reaching for the statute book in order to negate a very careful decision of the Upper Tribunal. Ministers say they are restoring the original intention of the relevant descriptor regarding planning and following a journey, and insist that the legislation is clear, but they gloss over the fact that the Secretary of State said in the case of HL in December 2015 that,

“overwhelming psychological distress could depending on its nature, frequency, duration and severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfil the terms of descriptors 1d and 1f”.

Descriptor 1f gives the higher rate. We are now told that the Secretary of State made a mistake and had to explain to the court that a concession had erroneously been made. This is all very unsatisfactory and leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. Whose hand is round the Secretary of State’s throat? What he said sounds to me to be exactly what the original policy intention was. Why do the Government not come clean and say that they are changing the policy for enhanced rate mobility by not allowing psychological distress to be taken into consideration?

Why the indecent haste in changing the law? As the Secretary of State is appealing the Upper Tribunal’s decision, he could have used other powers he has to prevent the decision of the Upper Tribunal having immediate legal effect by giving directions to decision-makers and courts about how the descriptors should be interpreted. Why not wait for that outcome? The timescale is curious. If he was going to wait three months from the judgment, why not use that time to consult properly? The impact assessment estimates that 71,500 claimants in the current caseload will go from standard rate PIP to nil, the same number from enhanced rate to nil and 21,000 from enhanced rate to standard, so 143,000 claimants with an enduring health condition are estimated to lose the benefit altogether. The disorders likely to be affected, according to the DWP, range from schizophrenia and autism to bipolar affective disorder and cognitive disorder. So much for parity of esteem between physical and mental health.

There is another aspect which must be considered. The Secretary of State is keen to say that no one already getting an award under the old regulations will lose it, presumably meaning that no one will have the money clawed back, but some awards are only for a year before another assessment is demanded. Thousands of claimants are in this position. The new assessment will presumably be under the new rules, meaning that many existing beneficiaries of standard or enhanced rate mobility will lose all entitlement.

I accept that the reason the Secretary of State is making this change is not to make even more savings than have already been announced, but is it fair to tear up the carefully constructed mobility descriptors and the Upper Tribunal’s carefully explained judgment with such haste and without proper consultation? Is it not yet another tightening of the screw around the whole independent living project, which is assailed on every side? These regulations should be set aside to await proper consultation.

I shall end with a word about voting on SIs. I am particularly addressing my friends and colleagues on the Labour Benches. I shall quote from the 2005 Cunningham report Conventions of the UK Parliament, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, dismissed:

“The Government appear to consider that any defeat of an SI by the Lords is a breach of convention. We disagree. It is not incompatible with the role of a revising chamber to reject an SI, since (a) the Lords (rightly or wrongly) cannot exercise its revising role by amending the SI or in any other way, (b) the Government can bring the SI forward again immediately, with or without substantive amendment”.


We should have the courage of our convictions and vote to annul these regulations.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance, the precursor to the personal independence payment. I therefore have an interest in this type of benefit. Two simple and basic points make the case against these regulations, open and shut.

First, this is a clear breach of faith with the disability community. Back in 2012, when PIP was first introduced, Mind and other mental health charities raised concerns that people with mental health problems would be able to score points only under the criterion which used the words “psychological distress”. The Government gave reassurances that that was not the case and that people with mental health problems could potentially score points under a range of criteria if their condition meant that they struggled to plan and follow a journey. On this basis, PIP was welcomed by the mental health and wider disabilities sector, because for the first time people with mental health problems felt they would be given access to disability support equal to that of people with physical disabilities.

The Government made clear commitments that people who experienced psychological distress would be eligible under the very criterion that is now being changed. These commitments were underlined in statements by Ministers in debates on the Welfare Reform Bill at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has quoted the statements by Maria Miller and Esther McVey, so I do not need to repeat them. However, in practice, the DWP has not deemed people who experience psychological distress eligible for the full range of points, regardless of how severely that distress affects them. This has meant that 164,000 people have received a lower rate than they were entitled to.

This is the origin of the two cases which came before the Upper Tribunal at the end of 2016. The tribunal’s rulings did not extend the scope of PIP, as the Government suggest, but clarified it. That is what tribunals do: they do not make the law; they clarify what the law is. It is the Government who are now seeking to restrict the scope of PIP from what it has always been understood to be by removing psychological distress from criterion 1f as a reason for not being able to follow a familiar route without assistance, so that a claimant can only be awarded four points under mobility descriptor 1b. The regulations are in clear breach, if not of a manifesto commitment on this occasion, then certainly of pledges given to those with mental health problems in 2012. This change to the eligibility criteria also flies in the face of the statement in the Work, Health and Disability: Improving Lives Green Paper that the Government will not seek to make any further cuts to disability benefits following the already controversial cuts for those receiving employment support allowance in the WRAG, for new claimants from 1 April this year.

My second point can be made even more briefly: the proposed changes would create a legal distinction between those with mental health problems and those with other kinds of impairment when it comes to benefit assessments, a distinction which flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to parity of treatment for people with mental health conditions. The Government have said that a person with a cognitive impairment alone will still be eligible for the highest mobility rate, but the term “cognitive impairment” far from covers the full range of people with mental health problems.

I believe these regulations are trying to move the goalposts by excluding people who experience psychological distress from eligibility for the higher number of points necessary for the higher rate of mobility component. In doing so, they effectively discriminate against people with mental health problems. This is clearly against the original intention of PIP and runs counter to the commitment the Government made to people with mental health problems—that they would be assessed in the same way as other disabled people. I support the Motions before us this evening to oppose these regulations and if the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, moves for a vote, I will support hers.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, as ever, I have had a huge number of emails on this debate tonight. I had several hundred after the last debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, on the 20/50 rule, so I am expecting many more tonight.

I understand that many charities have written to the Prime Minister on this issue, and I am concerned about the way the question of who is eligible has been misunderstood. It has been suggested that this is not a big change, but like other noble Lords tonight, I have many concerns. To add to something that my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton said about visible and invisible impairments, with something as simple as the use of a blue badge, there is huge misunderstanding about who can qualify for one—who should have one and who should not—and how people are treated if they are perceived as not disabled enough to need one. That is relatively simple compared to some of the intricacies of the PIP assessment forms.

I have issues with the name “personal independent payment”, because it is not terribly accurate. It is a contribution towards independent living but does not cover all the costs of someone with a disability living independently. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of PIP, and was a recipient of disability living allowance. I went through the transfer process last year, which was interesting and arduous. Just the forms to tell you that you have to transfer are complicated enough, but when I made the phone call to register, I was left on hold for over 25 minutes. With each passing minute, you are worried that the phone call is going to drop out. Then I was asked a number of questions which could be construed as confusing. I have some understanding in this area, and they were really difficult questions for me to answer. I was asked the same questions repeatedly, back and forth. I was asked the name of the medical personnel who could best describe my impairment, which is really difficult because I am disabled, not ill—I cannot even remember the last time I went to the doctor. It got to the point where I was even doubting my own answers, and I am not exactly lacking in confidence when it comes to being able to understand and explain the challenges that I face with being mobile.

I have said it before and I will keep saying it: it is essential that we have a better decision-making process. The cost of mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals is simply too high. Scope has said that 89% of applicants who have gone to a tribunal for a mandatory reconsideration or appeal in the last quarter have received a new decision. Could the Minister say how much the mandatory reconsiderations and appeals are costing? If decision-making were better, how much money could be saved to plough back into the system?

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton, although I do so with some trepidation in view of his great authority in this area, as in many others. I declare my interest as a member of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, but make it clear that anything I say is in a purely personal capacity.

As we have heard, the main purpose of the Bill is to provide for a system of elections to the House of Lords. I have some fairly major reservations about that, but let me make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that that does not mean I am against reform. I am in favour of reform, just not this reform. But the noble Baroness has made a serious contribution to discussion of the future of this House with her Bill and I assure her that I take it seriously.

Before I get on to that, I shall mention a few points of detail. I am not sure that a membership of 292 will be enough to cope with all the work the House has to do. When the coalition’s House of Lords Reform Bill went through Parliament, the Joint Committee considering it said that,

“a House of 300 members is too small to provide an adequate pool to fulfil the demands of a revising chamber, for its current range of select committees, and for the increasingly common practice of sitting as two units: the main chamber and Grand Committee … Accordingly, we favour a House of 450 members”.

A range of views were canvassed, but the committee’s view represented the consensus.

Then again, the status of Members entitled to sit and exercise the same rights as an elected Member but not vote is bound to give rise to questions. Indeed, it has given rise to a number from the noble Lord, Lord Norton. What are these rights of sitting and exercising the same rights as elected Members, except for voting? This suggests something more than just dining rights or using the Library. Will they be able to speak? The noble Lord, Lord Norton, assumes that they will. That would certainly be something new to get our heads around —although I suppose, by the side of elected Peers, it would be a mere bagatelle. On the other hand, the idea of selecting the 146 transitional Members on the basis of points allocated for the numbers of days they have attended, the number of times they have spoken and the number of times they have voted may have some attraction for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee.

Turning to my more major reservations, there are many reasons for being against elections as a means of recruitment to this House. First, it would tend to throw up the same kind of career politicians who stand for the House of Commons, not those with the kind of expertise and experience needed for a revising Chamber. If the same system were to be used as that for electing the House of Commons, the Lords would tend to duplicate the Commons and thus not add value. As Sir John Major said a few years ago, if the answer is another 300 professional politicians, we are asking the wrong question.

Secondly, the Lords would soon become more politicised and lose many of the qualities for which it is currently valued: no single party holds sway; Members are more independent-minded; and debates are, as I think Wakeham put it, “Less adversarial, better tempered and better informed”. In other words, the House of Lords has a more deliberative character, better suited to a revising Chamber.

Thirdly, there would be the possibility of turf wars at constituency level between MPs and Peers. When this was under discussion before, at the time of the coalition’s Bill, a Cabinet Minister was quoted as saying:

“If you’re an MP faced with an elected senator in your constituency purring about in his Jaguar with a higher salary than you, going to all the hospital openings, but not doing the social security casework, you’re not going to like it much”.


I thought that put it rather well. If Members were elected using a regional list system, I suppose you could have several Members purring about in your constituency.

Fourthly and finally, if a variant of the present system were used, especially if it involved an element of proportional representation as the noble Baroness proposes, the Lords could soon begin to rival the primacy of the Commons. It is claimed that elections are more democratic. Indeed, we have heard it claimed this morning. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has already shown that the equation of elections with democratic legitimacy is overly simplistic.

There is more to democracy than just being elected. From the standpoints of accessibility, openness and responsiveness, the unelected House of Lords is much more democratic. Organisations representing the needs of the poor and dispossessed find it much easier to get their point across and have it taken on board than in the House of Commons, which is much more politicised and dominated by the Whips.

As I have said, I do not favour election as the means of populating this House, but further consideration needs to be given to how Members are appointed. So long as appointment is based principally on a system of patronage, this House will continue to be vulnerable to charges of illegitimacy. I favour a system of appointment by an appointments commission, as at present, but greatly strengthened by a system of nominations from the different branches of civil society: the law, medicine, the arts, sport, education, the armed services, business, trade unions, the third sector and so on. Schemes of this sort are sometimes spoken of as a system of indirect election based on electoral colleges, but in truth they are more correctly thought of as a more broadly based system of appointment.

This is my idea, but a range of alternative proposals have been made in a similar vein. The best and most fully worked out scheme of which I am aware was devised by John Smith of Stamford in Lincolnshire. He proposes a system of indirect election from what one might call constituencies of expertise, with a general college for those not affiliated to any particular constituency and a parliamentary college for politicians.

I was pleased to see that both the Joint Committee on the coalition’s draft House of Lords Reform Bill and the alternative report on that Bill called for further work on the question of indirect election. That would provide a framework for examining the various proposals made for strengthening the system of recruitment to this House. Once they have finished addressing the question of the size of the House, I hope the various groups looking at these things may agree to undertake some work on this issue of appointment. I like to think the Government might give some support to that work.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I was a member of the ad hoc Select Committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, along with others who have already spoken. It was a great learning experience. In my long lifetime, if not as long as some in this House, I have always been struck by the immense progress that we have made over the years. But when you get into the detail, you are absolutely appalled that the rest of society imposes on our many colleagues with disabilities that they shall not enjoy that which we all take for granted. Imagine if we were not able to go into a restaurant or a pub—I am a teetotaller, but I spent half my life in pubs and bars trying to find Labour Members when I was Labour Chief Whip. It is appalling that we expect disabled people to put up with second best.

The Act put through in 1995 by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, is one of which the Tory Party is rightly very proud. I ask the Government to live up to that Act and agree to the amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I want to deal briefly with the argument that the amendment is not necessary because it simply duplicates what is already in the law. Licensed premises, including entertainment venues such as pubs, clubs and restaurants, are obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled customers. It is intended to be an anticipatory duty; it falls on service providers to make the reasonable adjustments and take the appropriate action ahead of any disabled person coming along and asking to be allowed to avail themselves of the service. However, the Equality Act duty is widely disregarded, placing the onus on the individual to enforce the duty, when enforcement is extremely difficult for the individual on account of its cost and complexity.

Community Pharmacy

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I thank my noble friend for that question. On the last part, I may have to get back to him, because I do not know the answer to that. It is important to remember that the proposals that the Government have been consulting on are part of a wider package of reforms to ensure that the NHS funds are allocated in the most efficient way possible, while promoting a high-quality community pharmacy service which is fully integrated with primary and urgent care and which makes better use of pharmacies’ valuable skills.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most valuable services provided by pharmacies is the delivery of medicines to people who are elderly and housebound, and that it is vital that the funding proposals that the Government come up with do absolutely nothing to undermine that service?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That service will not be undermined and it is extremely important that it carries on—again, particularly in rural areas.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a pretty miserable summer for the charitable sector and it has not been a great summer for the Charity Commission either. It is in the nature of being a charity to go through periods of being tested, and good charities come out the other side a lot stronger. One can but hope that that will happen as a result of what has transpired over the past few months.

I am not a member of this august committee—I never made it to the shortlist—but I had the great privilege of attending one of its sessions. It was really interesting—one of the most interesting breakfast discussions that I have had for a very long time. While it was absolutely true, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, said—he was also present on that occasion—that some people still did not quite get it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, a lot of people in the charitable world now absolutely understand that they cannot continue as before and that things must change.

I applaud the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as it is keeping the pressure up on the issue, but I think that it is premature in terms of process. What was most interesting over the summer was the number of people who wanted to chat to me about the ongoing issues. Time and again, people within the charitable sector talked not just about the severe economic pressures but their wish that that sector could be better than the commercial sector and better regulated than the private sector.

I hope that the report from Sir Stuart Etherington’s committee is hard hitting, not ambiguous in any way and issues a real challenge to charities. I am mindful that charities have to continue to raise funds and that people want to continue to donate to them. Although the reputation of individual charities has taken a battering over the summer, they are still among the most efficient and effective organisations tackling some of the biggest problems in our society.

The Charity Commission has not covered itself in glory this summer either, and I want to think long and hard about what responsibilities were given to it and the reserve powers to oversee fundraising. Charities know about the lives of vulnerable people much better than anybody else, and I want to give them the chance to come forward with a regulatory system that is better than the private sector’s.

I, too, add my congratulations to the Minister, who has conducted himself throughout our proceedings in the most exemplary way. He has been extremely good to work with and I thank him very much. In saying that, I do not want him to accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I ask him to ensure that, when the Bill returns from the Commons, we are given sufficient time, through the usual channels, to pay detailed attention to these matters.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests, which are declared in the register: I am vice-president of the RNIB and have had a long-standing involvement in the charity sector; and, most recently, I have been asked to chair a commission by ACEVO— the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations—on better charity regulation.

I have not taken a large part in the proceedings on this Bill because I felt that its provisions were pretty uncontroversial. Indeed, that has emerged from the debates as the Bill has gone through its various stages. It has been discussed in matters of detail but the proposals have been broadly—indeed, widely—welcomed. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for how he has conducted the debates on the Bill. He was kind enough to consult me at an early stage to take my views about the Bill. I appreciated that very much, and I appreciate how he has conducted the Bill from the point of view of the Government.

I was not planning to speak today at Third Reading but, listening to the debate, as I have been, I am prompted to make just one remark. It is perfectly true that charities have not had a very good summer, particularly on fundraising, but we have to be careful of tarring all charities with the same brush. I am sure that noble Lords have not intended to do that, but we need to be aware of it—I am sure that Sir Stuart Etherington’s committee will be. The charities sector reflects a good deal of diversity. It is important that we register the point that, as well as the bad practice that has been exposed, there is still quite a lot of good practice among charities. It is important that we retain a sense of perspective in that light.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I join everybody else in welcoming the Minister to his new position and in congratulating him on a most accomplished and confident maiden speech. I do not think he has any need to feel trepidation. He has made an extremely auspicious start in the way he has lost no time in reaching out to stakeholders with an interest in the Bill, and that, too, I very much welcome.

As for my own interest, I have a long-standing interest in the charitable sector due to my 40-year involvement with the RNIB, of which I am now vice-president. Most recently, I have been asked to chair a commission on third-sector regulation by ACEVO, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations. These interests I now declare.

I think that I can speak quite briefly, especially given the authoritative contributions that we have heard already from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and other members of the joint scrutiny committee, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who have laboured tirelessly in this particular vineyard for a considerable period.

The Bill has come forward with a remarkable degree of consensus. It confers powers to strengthen the hand of the Charity Commission in regulating charities, which the commission has itself been seeking, and as a result it has the commission’s strong support. It has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which has led to the Bill being strengthened to include two further powers which the Charity Commission was asking for that were not in the original Bill but are now included as a result of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. It also enjoys a broad welcome from the two leading umbrella bodies in the sector, the NCVO—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—and ACEVO, which acronym I have already deconstructed, so I do not think there is much that is contentious in the Bill.

Following consultation by the Law Commission, Clause 13 removes any doubt that charities may engage in social investment: that is to say, in investments that both further the charity’s purposes and achieve a financial return for the charity. Measuring social impact might be a little more subjective and problematic. From a charity’s point of view, that will make it easier to undertake such investment, so it is very welcome.

The Charity Commission has made it clear that the Bill is aimed principally at strengthening the commission’s hand in dealing with the most serious cases, and that for the vast majority of cases it will have no direct impact. ACEVO has accordingly expressed some concern that this will tilt the balance more towards the commission’s enforcement as opposed to its advisory role, which is arguably of even greater importance in raising and maintaining standards of good practice, a tendency that can only be reinforced by recent reductions in the commission’s budget, which is down almost 50% in real terms since 2007. So care needs to be taken to maintain the right balance here. I was encouraged that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, underlined that point.

I will mention one or two provisions where there is room for some concern about the breadth or vagueness with which they have been drafted. I will do this quite briefly, because I am conscious that I am picking up on pretty much the same provisions which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, drew attention to. Concerns have been expressed that Clause 3(3)(b) and condition F in Clause 10(7) go too far in specifying the range of conduct the commission can take into account in exercising its powers of disqualification. Clause 3(3)(b) identifies,

“any other conduct of that person that appears to the Commission to be damaging or likely to be damaging to public trust and confidence in charities generally or particular charities or classes of charity”,

and condition F is,

“any other past or continuing conduct by the person, whether or not in relation to a charity”.

Those are indeed quite wide. The NCVO has concerns that past conduct could be brought into decision-making where it is not relevant to the case in question, since what is damaging to public trust and confidence in charities involves what they describe as an open and potentially subjective test. We will want to look at those provisions carefully in Committee to make sure that the right safeguards are in place.

As regards Clause 7, which gives the commission broad powers to direct the winding-up of a charity, ACEVO believes that the commission should be required to consult the charities sector on the criteria to be used in deciding whether to direct that a charity should be wound up.

Care also needs to be taken that we do not cast the net too wide when specifying the offences that can lead to automatic disqualification, which are covered in Clause 9. The Bill expands the list of criminal offences that automatically disqualify a person from being a charity trustee beyond those that involve only deception and dishonesty. In particular, anti-terrorism legislation includes offences that have an element not only of clear and deliberate wrongdoing but of inadvertent involvement. The criticism of the current criteria is that they are too narrow and fail to capture other behaviours that should automatically disqualify an unsuitable person from acting as a charity trustee.

The NCVO does not object to the addition of new offences to the list. However, the inclusion of a number of offences under terrorism legislation has raised concerns due to the extraordinary breadth of the definition of terrorism and the unforeseen impact that that could have on the work of international NGOs. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has expressed concern about the fact that criminal offences under UK anti-terrorism legislation are also capable of impeding the legitimate activities of international NGOs in conflict areas. It has therefore been suggested that the Home Office, the Treasury and international NGOs should meet to discuss how the objectives of antiterrorism legislation can be met without prejudicing the ability of NGOs to deliver humanitarian aid. It should also be remembered not only that participation in voluntary action can play an important part in the rehabilitation of offenders but that ex-offenders can also benefit others on the basis of their experience. For example, the Prince’s Trust specifically employs ex-offenders for many of its jobs.

So there is a general welcome for the Bill, to which I subscribe. Where questions have been raised, there is a good deal of agreement on what those are. I hope and believe, therefore, that after due scrutiny in Committee your Lordships will be willing to give the Bill a fair wind so that it can reach the statute book without undue delay.