Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blower Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower
“Child rights impact assessment(1) A Minister of the Crown must prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment in relation to any legislative provision, policy decision, budgetary decision, or other decision of a strategic or operational nature that has or will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing,social care or education, which are undertaken by virtue of the provisions in this Act.(2) The purpose of a child rights impact assessment is to secure better or further effect of the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).(3) A child rights impact assessment must include consideration of the views, wishes and feeling of children and young people affected by the decision, insofar as the Minister is able to ascertain those views.(4) A child rights impact assessment should be undertaken on all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which are undertaken by virtue of the provisions in this Act at the earliest possible opportunity and prior to making final decisions.(5) The UNCRC includes the rights and obligations set out in—(a) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1;(b) Articles 1 to 6(1), 6(3) and 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict;(c) Articles 1 to 10 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;(d) any other Optional Protocols to the UNCRC that the United Kingdom may in future ratify.(6) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act are subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom as may be in force at the time. (7) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act should be interpreted in the light of General Comments prepared by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under rule 77 of its procedure and Concluding Observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in response to a United Kingdom report under Article 45 paragraph (d) of the Convention.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers – and thereby government departments – to routinely prepare and make publicly available a children’s rights assessment of the impact and/or expected impact of any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary decision or other strategic or operational decision undertaken by virtue of the provisions in this Act as they relate to children’s wellbeing, social care or education.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, having worked on these amendments with my noble friend Lady Lister, and in her unavoidable absence from the Chamber today, I shall move Amendment 469, speak to Amendment 470 and also mention Amendment 502F.
Amendment 469 introduces a duty routinely to prepare and make publicly available an assessment of the expected impact of any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary action or other matter that will have an impact on children. Amendment 470 provides for a more general duty, requiring Ministers to consider, protect and promote children’s rights as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Together, these amendments probe all options in the round. Amendment 502F, which is broader in scope, is complementary, but a clear duty to have regard to the UN CRC is preferable to the somewhat vaguer qualification “the desirability of”.
Amendments 469 and 470 had input from the NSPCC as part of the Children’s Charities Coalition, the Children’s Rights Alliance and UNICEF UK. They would place a clear duty on Ministers to have due regard to the UN CRC, although those bodies ultimately aim for full and direct incorporation of the UN convention in law, as in Scotland.
Three years ago, the British Academy published a report Reframing Childhood. It was the outcome of a wide-ranging programme chaired by my noble friend Lady Lister. Three themes emerged, each of relevance to this Bill. The first was “being and becoming”; this drew attention to the importance of childhood as a state of being of great significance to the child. The final theme was “children’s voices and participation”, and the second was “children’s rights” as articulated in the UN convention. This is missing from the Bill.
The Secretary of State has argued that the Bill represents the importance of understanding and promoting child-centred policy. Key to this is children’s rights. They help us value children as children, particularly those in the most marginalised groups. A children’s rights approach could encourage more coherent policy-making. These two amendments offer a practical way for the Government to explicitly enshrine a child-centred orientation in legislation.
UNICEF UK argues that children’s rights should be central to plans to improve children’s well-being and opportunities, as they are in these amendments. Having ratified the UN convention, the UK must comply with its principles and standards but, beyond ratification, Article 4 of the convention requires states to
“undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention”.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has ruled that the development of a children’s rights perspective is required for the effective implementation. In its 2023 report on the UK, it recommended that greater efforts to incorporate the convention into UK law and the development of mandatory children’s rights impact assessments for relevant legislation and policy should be taken. These amendments would be important steps in complying with that recommendation and would also bring England closer to the protection of children’s rights provided for in Wales, Scotland and Jersey. They would add teeth to the Government’s aim of child-centred action across departments and facilitate the Government’s mission-led approach in the opportunity mission in particular.
The duty on Ministers in Amendment 470 would ensure visibility of children’s rights and best interests in policy-making so that their needs and well-being were not overlooked. In line with Article 12 of the convention, it would mean listening to children so that they were heard and had their views respected. It would help to strengthen the public awareness of children’s rights, in particular through the publication of three-yearly reports. The duty could easily be integrated into existing decision-making processes. It is a step that other nations have taken, with positive results. A key element of the duty would be to involve mandatory children’s rights impact assessments, or CRIAs, as recommended by the UN committee in its report on the UK.
Amendment 469 spells out how CRIAs would be used to enable a systematic consideration of how children may be affected by a policy under development so as to identify, avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. They also enable policymakers to identify proactive measures, leading to better realisation of children’s rights. Evaluations have shown that CRIAs, properly conducted, are effective in improving policy-making from children’s perspectives. A comprehensive CRIA was provided for this Bill, but it reads more like an end-of-process assessment rather than one used from the outset to guide policy development. The expectation of the UN committee is that the CRIA would be part of the development of new policy and legislation from as early a stage as possible.
In response to an Oral Question earlier this year, my noble friend the Minister confirmed that
“the Government recognise the importance of considering children’s rights in that way”.
However, she added that they were continuing to encourage departments
“to carry out children’s rights impact assessments when they are making policy changes”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 9.]
But the fact that her own department does not collect information on the number of CRIAs carried out, as revealed in the Answer to a Written Question, shows that the Government do not know how many actually are carried out.
In discussing this with my noble friend Lady Lister, she described trying to get a CRIA published on previous asylum legislation as like trying to get blood out of a stone. When one finally emerged for Third Reading of the Illegal Migration Bill it was, alas, inadequate —a post hoc attempt to justify measures that actually undermined children’s rights.
Moreover, when asked about CRIAs, there is the tendency for departments to respond by referring to equality impact assessments carried out under the public sector duty, but EIAs are no substitute for CRIAs, which require consideration of children’s best interests and the full range of children’s rights. In the interests of good government, I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the case for mandatory CRIAs that follow the UN committee’s guidance.
Over 115 organisations support these amendments, representing national charities and grass-roots groups, spanning areas such as child poverty, disability, youth justice and social care. More than 25 academics have written to the Minister for Children and Families to voice their support, pointing out that it is simply not possible to meet children’s needs in any of the areas covered by the Bill without first respecting and promoting their rights. Members of the Committee may have received an email from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which states that:
“It is essential that this legislation includes measures for ensuring children’s rights are upheld”—
hence it, too, is supporting the amendments.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is both a pleasure and somewhat of a challenge to respond to this extremely good and wide-ranging debate. I am extremely grateful for the mentions of our late noble friend Lady Massey, whose absence from this debate we feel quite deeply. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, even those with whom I disagree—I do not think I have ever before been described as being motivated by an elitist desire to thwart democracy when seeking to advocate for children’s rights.
However, the contributions were all extremely interesting. I am very pleased to have had the support of my noble friend Lady Longfield, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
In particular, I would like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who spoke about the need—this is really important—to balance parental choice and children’s rights. This may not occur often, but it may occur and we need to pay attention to that balance. He also mentioned the extremely worthy rights-respecting schools in which children can begin to advocate for themselves and understand what children’s rights really mean.
The need for children’s voices in the care system to be heard was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and that is important.
I will not be tempted into a discussion about academic selection, even though it is a matter on which I could say a very great deal.
I am pleased with the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, who said from the Dispatch Box that she is fully committed to children’s rights. I am sure that we will continue to discuss the question of a children’s rights impact assessment and the ultimate possible incorporation of the convention. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blower Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower
“Duty to provide relationships and sex education and PSHE to persons who have not attained the age of 18 at further education institutions(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows. (2) In section 34 (education relating to relationships and sex)—(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) relationships and sex education to be provided to persons who have not attained the age of 18 and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(d) in subsection (2)(c), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.(3) In section 35 (other personal, social, health and economic education)—(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) to persons who have not attained the age of 18 and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(d) in subsection (2)(c), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would extend the existing provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to people under the age of 18 who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, given that my noble friend Lady Lister is unable to be here this evening, it is my pleasure, with her permission, to read her speech to move this amendment.
It is an honour to move Amendment 463, which would extend the provision of relationships and sex education to young people aged under 16, in post-16 institutions in England. It is an honour because it has been dubbed the Massey amendment as a tribute to our late friend and colleague Baroness Massey of Darwen. Had she still been with us, she would have been the ideal person to move this amendment, given her experience and commitment to young people’s social health and well-being. It was to honour Doreen that I agreed to table this amendment, even though I do not claim any expertise in this area.
Another reason that I agreed to table the amendment was that I was so impressed by how Faustine Petron, who approached me, founded the Make It Mandatory campaign and enlisted the support of many important bodies such as Brook—of which Lady Massey was a former president—the Sex Education Forum and the End Violence Against Women and Girls coalition. She has received the endorsement for this amendment of 50 organisations, and has collected over 105,000 signatures for her petition. She says, in her own words:
“I am a university student and young survivor of domestic abuse. As an older teenager, I would have benefited from being provided with RSE after year 11 and an adequate education surrounding the early warning signs of domestic abuse, the different forms abuse can take, and places to get help”.
The third reason is that Faustine Petron has such a strong case: she has identified a real gap in the mandatory provision of relationships and sex education, which does not cover 16 and 17 year-olds, yet, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, these are still children.
Since RSE was made mandatory in schools, it has begun to make a real difference. The Office for Students is making it into a condition of registration for universities that they intend to prevent and address sexual violence. Filling the gap in FE and sixth-form colleges would contribute to a preventative strategy on sexual violence among young people.
This would also help address the concern voiced by the Public Accounts Committee that,
“to date, the approach to tackling violence against women and girls has not put enough emphasis on preventative measures that are necessary to achieve long-term change”.
The committee emphasised the key role that education can play in tackling this issue, including in preventing children from becoming perpetrators in the future. Among its recommendations was that the Department for Education should set out how it intends to work with children and young people to prevent violence against women and girls, including further changes to the relationships and sex education curriculum. Some 77% of young people surveyed—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for interjecting relatively late into her remarks, but I am reminded that, in the Companion, it is fairly clear that Members should not seek to have their speeches read by other Members of the House. Perhaps she could rephrase her remarks in a way that makes it clear that she is speaking for herself, not on behalf of another Peer.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee. Clearly, I and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, had misunderstood the rules relating to this.
As has been noted, national organisations backing the Make It Mandatory campaign, in addition to the Children’s Commissioner, all agree that the extension of relationships and sex education to this group would be important.
In conclusion, in a recent Commons debate on relationships education in schools, the Minister for School Standards emphasised the vital role that education plays in preventing violence and that the aim of relationships education is to support all young people to build positive relationships and to keep themselves safe. That education must equip them for adult life. It thus makes no sense that, just as they are at the cusp of adult life, they should not be assured access to relationships and sex education to help equip them. The Minister continued that, as part of the Government’s opportunity mission,
“we will equip our young people and children with the skills they need to form strong, positive relationships”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/25; col. 112WH.]
Although she was talking about the school context, this is clearly important in terms of an extension to post-16.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 463, to which I added my name. Government data shows that 16 to 19 year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group. Without mandatory RSE, we are leaving many 16 to 18 year-olds unsupported, just as they are starting their first intimate relationships. Tender, a marvellous charity that goes into schools to educate children in relationships, has been working with this age group. It found that only around half of the students could identify signs of an abusive relationship or knew where to find support; by contrast, after participating in Tender’s workshops, over 90% can identify abuse and will know where to find help.
Victim-blaming and perpetrator-excusing attitudes are prevalent in this cohort, in part due to a high percentage of young people viewing harmful content online. The End Violence Against Women coalition agrees, quoting the National Association for Managers of Student Services in saying that, “As the front line of support services in post-16 education, we know it’s been never more important to give young people a safe place with structure, to discuss and learn about positive relationships and to address the social isolation and misinformation a world living on social media has created”. In a confusing world, 16 to 18 year-olds seeking guidance deserve to be supported to critically examine and challenge harmful attitudes among their peers in a safe, supportive environment, which we can create through mandatory RSE lessons.
Child Poverty: Benefit Cap
Baroness Blower Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the child poverty strategy group will urgently take advice in particular from teachers, who often find themselves at the forefront of attempting to alleviate the grinding poverty in which some of our children arrive in school, particularly because of the two-child cap.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I am very conscious that teachers are on the front line of this and that they see the day-to-day effects of the significant rise in child poverty we have seen in recent years. They are very much people who have things to say to us. That is why the strategy is being co-chaired by my boss, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and my noble friend’s boss, the Secretary of State for Education. Child poverty is not restricted to a single aspect of anyone’s life. It has many different causes and many different solutions. We will work across government, as a joined-up Government, to tackle this properly.
European Social Charter
Baroness Blower Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in signing a charter, the UK is indicating that it agrees with the contents as negotiated, but we can ratify it only when we know that we will be compliant with it, because to ratify a charter is to agree to be bound by its provisions. As I have indicated before, that would mean that the UK would need to make an assessment to be sure that it would in fact be compliant with the terms of the treaty before doing it. My noble friend will know that we have plans, including the employment rights Bill, which will change our position on some provisions in the revised charter, so we will certainly consider whether we can ratify the revised charter in the light of the Government’s reforms. On the collective complaints system, the UK has for some time held that it is among the majority of member states party to the European Social Charter who have not accepted that because we believe that the existing supervisory mechanisms are adequate.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, Article 6.4 of the charter protects the right to strike. Under previous Governments, the UK built up an unenviable record of being in breach of its conformity every time that it was reviewed since 1984. Will the Government now take the opportunity of the forthcoming employment rights Bill to ensure that we are in conformity with the right to strike?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have plans for reforming the whole landscape of employment. We value the important role that unions play in shaping employment rights, domestically and internationally, and we want to create a new partnership between businesses, trade unions and working people. That will include taking steps to strengthen the rights of UK workers and their representatives, such as repealing prohibitive restrictions. We will repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act to remove barriers to effective collective action and strengthen rights. It is right that the Government do the things that we consider right for this country, but we will in due course look at whether the changes we have made put us in a position to consider ratifying the revised Social Charter and make a judgment at that point as to whether that is the right thing for Britain to do.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Blower Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The schemes we are debating today provide vital support for sufferers of dust-related diseases often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if, sadly, the person suffering from the disease passes away before they are able to claim. This is in recognition of the suffering these diseases can bring to whole families.
The changes we are debating today will apply equally to those in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government recognise that addressing Great Britain’s asbestos legacy, particularly in public buildings, remains a key issue. We also understand the crucial role that research and early detection can play in the fight against cancer and other diseases covered by these schemes. We continue to make progress in this space, with the rollout of the NHS targeted lung cancer screening programme, and around £122 million invested in cancer research in 2022-23 through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. However, while individuals continue to be diagnosed with these terrible diseases, the lump sum schemes remain a vital source of financial support for sufferers and their families.
I will now take a moment to provide some additional background to the schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which—noble Lords will be relieved to hear—for simplicity I shall refer to as the 1979 Act scheme, provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. This includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.
The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 Act scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme. This may have been because they were a self-employed worker or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma, at their time of greatest need.
This Government recognise the suffering that diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis cause to sufferers and their families. I know that many noble Lords will be aware of friends and close colleagues from your Lordships’ House who have lost their lives as a result of these dreadful diseases. I have known two people who have succumbed. We must remember the great impact these illnesses have on people and their families.
Each year, the schemes continue to provide vital financial support to sufferers and their families. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the latest financial year for which data is available, 2,860 awards were made across both schemes, with expenditure totalling £42.3 million. However, between now and 2028-29, expenditure on the schemes is forecast to fall by 8% in real terms. In part, this may reflect historical changes in the domestic workforce but also improved health and safety provision more widely. This may provide some hope that fewer families will suffer the impacts of these terrible diseases going forward.
Two of the instruments we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off, lump-sum payments made under the 2008 Act scheme and 1979 Act scheme respectively, this time by 6.7%. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2024. As many noble Lords will be aware, these two schemes are not included in the main social security benefits uprating procedure. However, a 6.7% increase is in line with the September 2023 consumer prices index and mirrors the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit payments and other disability benefits. As I outlined this time last year, there is no statutory requirement to review the level of these payments annually. However, the department has decided to uprate payments under both lump-sum schemes together, in line with inflation, since 2010. I reassure noble Lords that this year will be no different, which reflects the continued importance of the support provided by these schemes.
This year, in addition to the uprating instruments, I ask that the Committee considers a third draft instrument. Unlike uprating, this instrument will not form part of an annual process. Instead, it seeks to extend the eligibility criteria under the 1979 Act scheme. This instrument will simply realign the diseases which may bring entitlement to a payment under that scheme with those that may bring entitlement to IIDB, ensuring that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is reflected in the legislation. In doing so, it will widen the 1979 Act scheme entitlement to customers suffering from two additional dust-related conditions; first, unilateral or one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and, secondly, asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung where there is no accompanying asbestosis.
As many noble Lords are aware, the department is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—an independent scientific body, called IIAC—on changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which IIDB can be paid. At the point that they were added to the 1979 Act legislation, the specified diseases exactly mirrored diseases listed in the relevant IIDB legislation. Over time, IIAC has recommended several changes to IIDB prescribed diseases that are also specified in the 1979 Act, which have been accepted by the department.
The unintended impact of accepting these recommendations was that people who suffer from one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and primary carcinoma of the lung with occupational exposure to asbestos, but no accompanying asbestosis, are now potentially eligible for IIDB but not eligible for an award under the 1979 Act scheme. This divergence was first identified in September 2023, when officials were asked to provide clarification on entitlement for an individual case. Officials have worked at pace since September to bring forward the legislation that we are debating today.
The proposed amendments seek to address this divergence by realigning diseases specified in the 1979 Act legislation with those which may bring entitlement to IIDB. If approved, this instrument will mean that the diseases specified in the 1979 Act legislation are based on an improved clinical understanding and that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is reflected fully in legislation.
Historically, payments have been made to sufferers of these two diseases, despite the divergence identified in the legislation. This was because the department was using diseases set out in the IIDB legislation when considering entitlement to a lump-sum award under the 1979 Act scheme. Importantly, our understanding is, therefore, that customers who made claims for these two diseases historically have not missed out as a result of the change not being made sooner.
As of 16 February, the department was holding 94 claims made since September 2023 where it has not been possible to establish entitlement under the current legislation, but where the criteria would be met under the proposed legislation. If it is approved today, we will pay these customers as soon as possible.
Overall, we estimate that this change will extend legislative entitlement to a 1979 Act scheme lump-sum award to approximately 300 people a year with one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung—a reflection of the vital role the schemes play in providing compensation to those affected by these terrible diseases. I am sure—I hope—that noble Lords here today will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation provided by these schemes.
Finally, as a part of my role, I am required to confirm that each of these three provisions is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I can gladly do so. I commend the proposed amendments to these schemes to the Grand Committee and ask noble Lords’ approval to implement them. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, as general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, I was aware of a number of members who died from school-acquired mesothelioma. I declare an interest: having worked in an asbestos-contaminated school myself, I have that registered on my medical record, although I am in good health at the moment.
These lump-sum payments are meant to provide some compensation for asbestos victims who cannot get civil compensation from a former employer, but there is an inconsistency in the schemes. If a surviving partner or dependant must claim after their loved one has died, they receive a substantially lower payment. In 2019-20, a 77 year-old with mesothelioma would have received £14,334 if they claimed themselves, but if they died before claiming, which can of course happen with a cancer that is both aggressive and difficult to diagnose, their surviving partner or dependent child would have received £7,949. Mesothelioma patients typically have months left to live at the time of their diagnosis.
Many surviving partners, often women on modest wages or pensions, suffer financial hardship after the loss of their loved one. Their household income falls, but many of their outgoings remain the same. In that situation, they are further disadvantaged if they can receive only the much lower posthumous payment, so there is a clear moral case for raising that payment. Of the 3,830 payments made in 2018, only 260 were posthumous claims, according to the figures I have from the TUC. It estimates that it would cost £1.5 million to equalise payments. In its view, and indeed mine, raising the level of posthumous payments is therefore affordable.
In 2010, the Government acknowledged that there was no justification for the differential payments, stating that the inequality in payments could put pressure on victims’ families when they are most vulnerable. Does the Minister agree that it is now time to change this and equalise the payments?
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is ironic that the all-party group on asbestosis is meeting as we speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I had to leave that meeting early to be here. That group is doing good work. I also pay tribute to the staff at the DWP for all the work they do in this area. They do not always get the thanks that they deserve.
My interest in this is not related to what I am going to say. I chair the oversight committee of the mesothelioma compensation fund on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. That committee consists of all the interests involved: victims, unions, employers and insurance companies. I have been doing this since the creation of the Act.
I simply want to support what my noble friend Lady Blower just said. This inconsistency has existed for 14 years now, and the Government themselves have always acknowledged it: if a claim is not made before the person is deceased, the family ends up with a pitiful amount of money. This is really a plea to underpin what my noble friend said, as something ought to be done to rectify this terrible anomaly.
Child Poverty: Ethnicity
Baroness Blower Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, for this debate and for giving us the opportunity to consider the ONS report and, of course, systemic inequality in general. Hungry children cannot learn as effectively and efficiently as those who are well fed, or at least adequately fed and nourished. Teachers and teaching assistants know this only too well; they deal with hungry children in their classrooms every working day of their lives and respond by providing food, often at their own expense. Hunger in the classroom is, alas, not a new problem but education staff observe it to be an increasingly prevalent one.
As we all know, the pandemic has exposed significantly different health outcomes by ethnic group, while the ONS report has shown that Bangladeshi, Pakistani and black ethnic groups have more children living in low-income households than the national average. These children must therefore be exceedingly likely to be disproportionately affected by hunger daily. As we all know, it took a young man better known for football than politics to draw on his own lived experience and push the Government to do something on food which they had no intention of doing originally. Marcus Rushford is no longer just a football star but a champion for the right to food—and now food for the mind, too, with his campaign on reading and access to books.
The pandemic has hit many families’ finances hard. Eight out of 10 teachers say that they have seen this impact. We know that many schools have organised foodbanks and delivered food parcels to pupils in their homes—some, of course, even before the pandemic. We cannot allow our children and their families to languish in hunger during the summer break. Local authorities can be well placed to provide recreational and educational programmes and include food as part of that offer, but they need sufficient resources provided in a coherent and timely manner, and on an ongoing basis throughout the summer and during the autumn half-term. In fact, this should happen in all school holidays to ensure that no child or family slips through the cracks.
If the levelling-up agenda means anything, it must mean an end to child and family hunger and poverty. It must mean a right to food and an end to systemic inequality, which has left so many facing a future in which their own future is less bright than it could and should be.
Unemployment: Support
Baroness Blower Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I will answer the noble Baroness’s last point first: of course, I am prepared to meet groups that are trying to help people in this very difficult position. I am sorry that I am not in a position to make financial commitments, but I can say that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to help those affected by Covid-19. We are keeping the situation under continuous review.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the level of unemployment that we are confronting is, frankly, unthinkable. We know that even before this crisis many individuals and families were literally one pay cheque away from financial disaster. Noble Lords may not know just how low benefits are and how impossible they are to live on. We as a society have to find the resources to ensure that people can keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs. Will the Government therefore convert universal credit advances into grants and end the five-week wait?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The noble Baroness asks about converting advances into grants. I am sorry to say that the Government have no plans to do that. On the five-week period, no one has to wait five weeks for their money, but the five-week wait is an integral part of the design of universal credit. The Government are cognisant of the difficult situations that people find themselves in and are doing everything they can to support them in this difficult time.