Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Report Stage: Clause 1, 4, 7 and 8
House of Lords
25th January 2016
For more information please contact:
Parliamentary lead: Rebecca Thomas 020 7832 7853
rebecca.thomas@equalityhumanrights.com
Legal lead: Joanna Owen 020 7832 7811
joanna.owen@equalityhumanrights.com
1
1. Introduction
The Equality and Human Rights Commission welcomes the aim of the
Welfare Reform and Work Bill to encourage and help more people to
work (where they are able to). However, we have concerns that some of
the measures in the Bill could exacerbate, rather than reduce, existing
inequalities and that they may undermine progress towards fulfilment of
the UK's obligations under national and international human rights law.
The Commission has already raised concern that the impact
assessments and human rights memorandum which accompany the Bill
do not fully assess the effect of the Bill on equality and human rights.
This may make it difficult for Parliamentarians to properly consider the
Bill’s implications.
This briefing supports Amendment 1 which would insert a New Clause
after Clause 1, Amendment 2* which would insert a New Clause before
Clause 4, and Amendments 8 and 11 to Clause 4. It also supports
Amendment 24 to Clause 7 and Government Amendments 29 and 30 to
Clause 8 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
2. Clause 1
Amendment 1
After Clause 1
Insert the following new Clause—
“Disability employment gap: reporting obligation
(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament
annually on the progress which has been made towards meeting
the commitment to halve the disability employment gap.
(2)
The report under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) how the Secretary of State has interpreted “halving the
disability employment gap”;
(b) the factors that the Secretary of State has used to
determine whether progress has been sufficient, including
the extent and speed at which progress has been made; and
(c) if progress under subsection (1) has been insufficient,
what remedial steps will be taken.
2
(3)
The report under subsection (1) must contain data on—
(a) the overall rate of employment, and
(b) the progress of the rate of employment of people at
working age with—
(i) a learning disability;
(ii) autism;
(iii) mental health problems;
(iv) visual impairments; and
(v) any other disability as the Secretary of State may
by regulation specify on the grounds that the people
with the disability are marginalised from the labour
force and require a specific focus.”
Commission's recommendation
Support Amendment 1.
Explanation
This Amendment would insert a New Clause that would require the
Secretary of State to report annually on progress towards halving the
disability employment gap. It also sets out what information should be
included in that report.
Analysis
Our recent review of equality and human rights, Is Britain Fairer?1,
revealed a significant difference in unemployment rates between
disabled people and non-disabled people (11.1% of disabled people
were unemployed compared to 6.4% of non-disabled people in 2013)
and that between 2008 and 2013, unemployment rates increased more
for disabled people than non-disabled people. This has become known
as “the disability employment gap”.
1http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/IBF/Final-
reports/revised/EHRC_IBF_MainReport_acc.pdf p37
3
The State’s obligations under international human rights law require it
not only to eliminate discrimination against disabled people in the
workplace, but also to strive towards equality in practice. Indeed, in
2009, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
recommended that the UK should “reinforce its measures aimed at
ensuring that persons with disabilities, including those with learning
disabilities, have equal opportunities for productive and gainful
employment, equal pay for work of equal value, and provide them with
improved, expanded and equal opportunities to gain the necessary
qualifications, in line with its general comment no. 5 (1994) on persons
with disabilities.” In 2013, the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women expressed “concern at high
unemployment rates amongst women with disabilities and
recommended that “the State Party…create greater opportunities for
women with disabilities to gain access to employment.”
During the general election campaign, the Conservative Party made a
commitment to halving the disability employment gap2. We support this
goal. However, we would also encourage the Government to report on
progress towards closing the disability employment gap at regular
intervals. Amendment 1 would require it to do so. In our view, this would
allow the Government and others to evaluate whether actions taken to
close the gap have been effective and/or whether a change of approach
is needed and to bring some transparency and accountability to around
the achievement of this goal,
3. Clause 4
Amendment 2*
Before Clause 4
Insert the following new Clause—
“Child poverty: reporting obligation
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of
Parliament an annual report on child poverty.
(2) The report must include information on the percentage of
children living in households where—
2
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto Page 19
4
(a) equivalised net income for the financial year is less than
60% of median equivalised net household income for the
most recent financial year;
(b) equivalised net income for the financial year is less than
70% of median equivalised net household income for the
most recent financial year, and which experience material
deprivation;
(c) equivalised net income for the financial year is less than
60% of median equivalised net household income for the
financial year beginning 1 April 2010, adjusted in a
prescribed manner to take account of changes in the value of
money since that year; and
(d) equivalised net income has been less than 60% of
median equivalised net household income in at least 3 of the
survey years.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the survey years are
the calendar years that ends in the financial year addressed in
subsection (2)(a) and (b), and the 3 preceding calendar years.”
Amendment 8
Page 4, line 41, at end insert –
“() children in low income households where one or both
parents are in work.”
Amendment 11
Page 5, line 8, at end insert –
“(g) low income
(h) in work.”
Commission’s recommendation
Support Amendment 2* and Amendments 8 and 11.
Explanation
The Child Poverty Act 2010 (CPA) requires the state to report on levels
relative and absolute income poverty and material deprivation. Clause 6
of this Bill would repeal that obligation. Clause 4 would instead place a
5
duty on the Government to report annually against measures of
worklessness and educational attainment in England.
Amendment 2* would create a New Clause that would retain the
reporting requirements in relation to relative and absolute income
poverty and material deprivation currently held in the CPA.
Amendments 8 and 11 would require the Government to also report on
the proportion of children in low income households where one or both
parents are working and to set out how the terms ‘low income’ and ‘in
work’ have been interpreted.
Our analysis
We agree with the assessment of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty
Commission that the key issue is 'less how child poverty is measured
and more how it is tackled'.[2] However, in order to be effective in
tackling child poverty, policy initiatives must be based on appropriate
evidence. We welcome proposals to measure indicators of causal risks
that contribute to the perpetuation of child poverty. However, we
consider the measures of relative and absolute income poverty as well
as measures of material deprivation in the CPA are necessary to give a
clear picture of child poverty in the UK, and should be included in any
new set of measures.
Relative and absolute child poverty and the proportion of children living
in low income and material deprivation reduced between 2007/08 and
2013/14, but the proportion of children living in poverty by these
measures remains far higher than the targets set in the CPA.[3] When
poverty is measured after taking into account housing costs, relative
child poverty levels are higher and absolute child poverty levels have
actually increased in the same period.[4]
The Commission is concerned that the proposed changes will highlight
issues relevant to the UK Government’s strategy on work as a route out
of poverty, but will not bring to light whether, once in work, conditions of
work are just and favourable, in line with Article 7 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It is
important to measure the proportion of children living in poverty who are
[2]
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, Press release, Response to government child poverty
statement, 1 July 2015, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-government-childpoverty-statement
EHRC, Children’s Rights in the UK, 30/31, July 2015, available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Pdfs/UNtreaty/Childrens%20rights%20
in%20the%20UK%20Sept%202015.pdf
[4] EHRC, Children’s Rights in the UK, 30/31, July 2015, available at:
[3]
6
living in households in which someone works, so that remedial policies
can be developed if necessary.
In our submission to ICESCR[1], we recommended that, in order to
realise progressively the right of children to an adequate standard of
living, the UK Government should take steps to:
 ensure that any new measures of child poverty address relative
and absolute income poverty, and material deprivation, as well as
taking into account causal risks that contribute to the perpetuation
of poverty, and
 in line with recommendations made by the Office of the Children’s
Commissioner and the Social Mobility and Child Poverty
Commission, UK Government responses to child poverty should
address the immediate effects of poverty on children, as well as
addressing in-work poverty and the improvement of conditions of
work
The Amendments and the New Clause would set a legislative framework
for the measurement of child poverty that would better enable the
Government to progressively realise the right to an adequate standard of
living of children as protected by Article 11 ICESCR and Article 27 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
However, the Commission notes that action to tackle child poverty must
not stop at measuring the extent of the problem. The CPA targets to
reduce child poverty would be repealed by this Bill and would not be
replaced. Targets for the reduction of child poverty can provide a focus
for Government actions to address this issue, and serve as an
accountability mechanism. We urge the Government to consider
alternative ways of providing this focus and accountability.
4. Clause 7
Amendment 24
Page 9, leave out lines 5 and 6
Commission's recommendation
Support Amendment 24.
[1]http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Human-Rights-International/20150917%20-
%20ICESCR%20Statement%20-%20PSWG%20-%20FINAL.pdf
7
Explanation
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 placed a cap on total household benefits
The cap is applied to all the included benefits to which an individual,
their partner, and any children for whom they are responsible are
entitled. Amendment 24 would exempt Carers’ Allowance from the
welfare benefits to which a benefit cap can be applied.
Our analysis
Including the Carers’ Allowance as one of the benefits to which the cap
applies is likely to have a significant adverse impact on disabled people,
because their carers may not be able to afford to continue caring for
them. Amendment 24, which proposes to exempt Carers’ Allowance
from the benefit cap, is particularly important given the recent decision in
Hurley and Others v SSWP [2015]EWHC33823.
This case concerned three claimants who argued that the decision not to
exempt carers from the benefits cap was unlawful discrimination,
contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR). The Commission intervened in the case and submitted that the
benefit cap has the potential to lead to significant and adverse impact
upon severely disabled people. The Court held that, because of the
level of the cap, care by members of the family may not be able to
continue and that this would inevitably have an adverse effect on people
who are disabled. The Court held that, while the policy did have a
legitimate aim, the failure to exempt individual family carers from the cap
was unlawful because it amounted to indirect discrimination which was
not objectively justifiable.
This amendment would enable the Government to resolve the
outstanding breach of the ECHR identified in the Hurley and Others
case.
5. Clause 8
Amendment 29
Page 11, line 21, leave out from “subsection” to “may” in line 23
and insert “(4) insert—
3https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwi5lp3xxdHJ
AhWMmBoKHSd3AmoQFgguMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixlaw.co.uk%2Fuploads%2Foth
er%2F26_11_2015_11_23_57_26.11.15.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFoSkLv7kNWuwB97RMM2Aveirp-kQ
8
“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under
section 96A”
Amendment 30
Page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (6)
Commission's recommendation
Support Amendments 29 and 30.
Explanation
Clause 8 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct at
least one review of the benefit cap in each Parliament to decide whether
it is appropriate to increase or decrease the cap. It also provides that,
when reviewing the cap, the Secretary of State must take into account
the national economic situation, as well as any other factors which the
Secretary of State considers relevant. These Government amendments
would have the effect of requiring statutory instruments containing
regulations about benefit cap reviews under section 96A of the Welfare
Reform and Work Act 2012 to be laid in draft and approved by resolution
by both houses of Parliament.
Our analysis
Everyone has a human right to an adequate standard of living. A change
in the level at which the benefits cap is set can have a profound impact
upon whether or not people enjoy this right in practice. Given this, it is
right that any such decision is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
About the Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory body
established under the Equality Act 2006. It operates independently to
encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and
protect and promote human rights. It contributes to making and keeping
Britain a fair society in which everyone, regardless of background, has
an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential. The Commission enforces
equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage
and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex and sexual orientation. It encourages compliance with the Human
Rights Act 1998 and is accredited by the UN as an ‘A status’ National
Human Rights Institution.
9
Find out more about the Commission’s work at:
www.equalityhumanrights.com
10