Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Amendment 456 in my name would require new state schools opened after this Bill enters the statute book to have a limit on faith-based selection for admissions of 50% when the school is oversubscribed. This has been a requirement since 2011, but, as it stands, the Bill would end that requirement. We often hear amendments being dismissed by Ministers who warn of unintended consequences, but this appears to be an example of a Bill itself in danger of causing unintended consequences.

The determination by a succession of Tory Governments, initially hand in hand with the Lib Dems, to undermine maintained schools while promoting academies and free schools vigorously has meant that, since 2011, all new schools had to be free schools. There was one benefit of that policy, because free schools are subject to the 50% faith-based cap on admissions as part of their funding agreement. Clause 57 would remove the presumption that all new schools should be free schools and would instead allow other types of schools to be opened. That includes voluntary aided or foundation schools, which can be 100% religiously selective. Those types of schools will be allowed to open for the first time since the cap was introduced 14 years ago.

Was that an unintended consequence? If it was initially, it seems that the Government were not greatly concerned by it. When the issue was debated in another place, an amendment similar to Amendment 456 was voted down by the Government in Committee, and the same thing happened on Report. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that, on deeper reflection, that is a position that she does not want to defend.

I say that because a cap on faith-based admissions has been demonstrated to strengthen ethnic integration. Analysis of data on faith schools shows that religiously selective schools operating under the 50% cap were significantly more ethnically diverse than schools that were 100% religiously selective. We should bear in mind that, at a time when the far right is seeking to divide communities on grounds of ethnicity, it is surely inappropriate to allow schools to entrench differences. This is a time for the Government to be promoting social and ethnic integration, not facilitating a means by which children grow up potentially not knowing anyone of their own age who is different from themselves. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want to see happening.

Faith-selective schools remain less inclusive across multiple factors. Compared to other schools, faith-selective schools admit fewer children eligible for free school meals than would be expected for their catchment areas, and 100% faith-selective admissions would only exacerbate inequalities in the school system. Last year, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator said that disadvantaged children, including those in care, miss out on school places because of faith-based admissions. Studies by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics reached the same conclusions. We know that 100% faith-selective schools will open if the provisions of Clause 57 remain. The Catholic Church and the Church of England will certainly do so, and it may be that Jewish, Muslim and Sikh groups would wish to do the same. They already exist.

In Committee in another place, the then Schools Minister Catherine McKinnell MP said,

“on the faith schools cap provision, we want to allow proposals for different types of school that will promote a diverse school system that supports parental choice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/25; col. 454.]

Supporting parental choice is admirable, but allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open would not expand parental choice. It would actually limit it for parents in an area who do not adhere to the faith of the new school or indeed any faith. According to the British Social Attitudes survey, 53% of people now have no religion. Thus, potentially more than half of all parents have fewer choices for state-funded schools than their religious counterparts, and 100% faith selection allows their children to be rejected from an oversubscribed school on their doorstep in favour of the child of a parent in a home possibly miles away whose choice—that is, the religious affiliation—is the factor that allows them to be selected for admission.

I suggest that that is neither right nor fair. Lifting the 50% cap on admissions would be a regressive move, and not one that I believe should be sanctioned by a Labour Government. I suggest that Amendment 456 offers a means of avoiding that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my own Amendment 457 and to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, both of which deal with the issue of faith- based selection in school admissions.

My Amendment 457 speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools, and therefore we do not know how many parents are missing out on their preferred school placements because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils and whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice.

Amendment 456 should, I hope, be uncontroversial. Since 2011, all new faith schools, as all new schools, had to be free schools, and have been subject in their funding agreements to a 50% cap on faith-based selection in admissions when oversubscribed. In this situation, Amendment 456 is a simple tidying-up exercise—that is how I read it anyway—extending a standing policy for free schools with a religious character to all new state-maintained schools with a religious character that could open under Clause 57.

The Government have not in any way suggested that they oppose the 50% cap in principle. Following a consultation on the cap that showed overwhelming support for it to continue, the Government have stated that they will maintain the cap for free schools with a religious character. If the Government are supportive of allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open, I ask the Minister to state that clearly before the Committee.

I wish to be clear that neither of these amendments oppose the opening or continuing service of faith schools in this country, many of which provide exemplary education for their pupils. What the amendment seeks to do is ensure that faith schools cannot limit parental choice and pupil diversity by hand-selecting whom they wish to accept.

Using selection of faith leads to less inclusion. Church of England and minority religion schools, subject to a 50% cap, have higher ethnic diversity compared with those not subject to the cap. Faith schools compared with schools without a religious character in the same catchment area have been found to accept fewer children on free school meals, according to the Sutton Trust; fewer children in care, according to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator; and fewer children with additional learning needs, according to research from the London School of Economics. Amendment 456 and my Amendment 457 would promote fairness and parental choice in the schools admissions policy. I commend them both to the Committee.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to my amendment in this group and leave the summing up to my noble friend. I use the term “off-rolling” in this. It may be out of date and unfair, but the fact of the matter is that there has been an increase in the number of children not in school over recent years. A Commons report on the issue came out in 2020, but it has been exacerbated by the Covid situation. It is about time we had a real, in-depth dive into why more and more pupils are not within the mainstream system.

There has been some suggestion that the academy system wanting to get rid of bad pupils is to blame or that the greater emphasis on special educational needs has led to the thought that people might be more trouble for the school. I would like to know. I know that some of the academies—the better ones—have fought against this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, getting extremely annoyed about the idea of that practice in a Committee stage debate on another Bill. If there are academies that are avoiding it or some that are falling to this, we should know. If academies are here to stay, under this Bill, whether we like it or not, because we have accepted them, can we find out whether there is a specific problem there or if it is something else? The increased number of people not in school is a problem that we have referred to throughout Committee, and it is about time we had a decent and in-depth look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey, who has unfortunately had to leave to get the last possible train home.

I want to say just a few words, as the hour is so late, on Amendments 471 and 465, which seek to clarify in legislation the requirement for schools to teach about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, in religious education at all stages. I am aware of the ongoing review into the national curriculum. It may be that, through the review, it is recommended that religious education becomes part of the national curriculum. This would be welcome, to ensure that the subject becomes impartial, objective and balanced, with clear national minimum standards that teach children about all the main religions and non-religious belief systems within our country.

However, as this may not come to pass, my amendment seeks to ensure the teaching of non-religious beliefs in religious education. In 2015, the High Court ruling in R(Fox) v Secretary of State for Education declared that religious education curricula should include the teaching of non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, to comply with the rights of freedom and belief under the European Convention on Human Rights. Nearly a decade later, in 2024, Ofsted released Deep and Meaningful? The Religious Education Subject Report. It reported that half of all secondary schools and a majority of primary schools still did not teach about non-religious world views in their RE lessons.

It is vital that children and young people learn about non-religious belief systems alongside the major religions. Humanism has a long and significant history in the UK, stretching through our sciences, arts, culture and politics. Many people in the UK live their lives around the values of the scientific method, making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and a concern for all living life, and that in the absence of a God or afterlife we must strive to improve ourselves and our communities in the time that we have.

My Amendment 471 would ensure that religious education must teach about non-religious beliefs, providing clarity and direction to schools and local authorities. Amendment 465 seeks to remove the requirement for collective daily worship in all state-funded schools without a religious character. It would not remove the ability for schools without a religious character to provide collective worship if they choose to do so, nor, as some noble Lords have seemingly misunderstood, would it ban prayers, Christmas carols or any religious holidays.

It simply removes the legal requirement of mandatory Christian worship in these non-faith schools. While faith schools will still be required to provide collective worship, schools without a religious character will have to provide an assembly once a week that furthers the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of all pupils, regardless of their faith or belief.

This amendment is about freedom of choice and respecting the diversity of our society. It cannot be justified, when in the recent census over a third of the population in England and Wales had no religion, rising to over half of those in their 20s, that when non-religious parents send their children to a non-religious school, the school is still legally obliged to perform Christian worship. When the alternative is to pull children out of lessons or assemblies and leave them sitting in classrooms or corridors by themselves, this is not a real choice.

The current situation demands that parents choose between ostracising their children and forcing them into religious worship they do not want for their family. I know that there are many noble Lords who deeply and sincerely believe in the values of Christian worship, and I respect that belief. That is why my amendment does not remove the requirement of collective worship in faith schools. In return, I ask noble Lords to respect those of us in society who do not believe in any faith, and to allow parents the equally valid choice to have their children attend schools that do not require daily worship. Children should also have the right, as under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to remove themselves from worship if they do not believe in it.

Maintaining the daily collective worship obligation for state-funded schools without a religious character is not respectful to those families from other religions or with no religion. We should provide more choice, not less, to schools and parents, to reflect the needs and beliefs of children.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, at this late hour, I sound a slight note of caution and concern over Amendments 465 and 471. I do not have any particular problem with Amendment 463, which is something all of us should be able to embrace, in terms of ensuring education around prevention of sexual violence and promoting respectful relationships.

Amendment 465 in many ways transposes the proposed Private Member’s legislation and tries to put it within this legislation. By removing the requirement for collective worship, what is put in its place seems to be quite vague and ill-defined in its nature. It talks about assemblies that have to promote

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural”

aspects. It strikes me that it almost replaces a religious assembly with what is, in effect, a humanist assembly. That is a conclusion which a lot of people will draw.

The vagueness of what is being proposed to, in effect, replace the collective worship will lead a lot of schools into trying to find other forms of lectures and lessons that they will try to put across within an assembly. There is no doubt that this will lead to a widespread and vast difference of interpretation. There is also no doubt that many of the subjects, while very merited, can be quite controversial. We would be naive if we did not believe that this would create a situation in a number of schools in which there were levels of friction, perhaps between parents and the school, or between governors and the school. There is a certain element of the hornet’s nest being stirred up.

The proposer of the amendment also then talked about choice. It is absolutely right at present that no child or family is compelled to attend religious or collective worship. The right to opt out is enshrined in legislation and, as such, clearly will remain, and I think everyone would accept that. However, the way the amendment before us today is drafted creates this alternative form of assembly, which is compulsory for everyone. It would mean that if a parent objected to a particular assembly, to a lesson, there is no right for them to withdraw their child because there is no provision directly to do that.

There is a danger of unintended consequences as a result of this. Mention was made on a number of occasions today of not wanting to go down the route of Northern Ireland education. Without going into the details, some of what has been said was a bit oversimplified and wrong. But leaving that aside, Members made the point that they see the best social mix of education where there is a wide range of faiths—where, indeed, there is a considerable level of mixing. Removing collective acts of religious worship will actually push some parents much more towards faith schools, feeling that perhaps the faith of their children is not being represented. That will create a situation that makes integration less likely, albeit perhaps in a relatively small fashion. So there is that question of unintended consequences.

I do not believe that Amendment 471 is necessary. The curriculum already at times reflects non-religious topics within RE. This, to some extent, supercharges the non-religious issues within RE. Whether we have faith or not, I think everyone in this House probably, in different ways, holds non-religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell is gone. I share with him one unfortunate trait, in that I am a lifelong Manchester United supporter. I have a belief that within the next few years, Manchester United will win the Premiership again. Perhaps that is not a non-religious belief, because the amount of faith required to hold that belief is such that it perhaps tips over into being much more a matter of faith over hope and experience.

Nevertheless, we have seen that the definition is tied to the provisions of a particular part of the ECHR. We know that, as a result of that clause, there has been quite a lot of case law, not just here but throughout Europe, in relation to the definition of non-religious beliefs. A very wide range of topics has come into play and been defined in case law. Again, all those are perfectly legitimate topics. However, it raises the prospect of the non-religious belief side overwhelming the religious side of RE. I may be quite literalist in my view, but I think religious education should principally be about religion, and this clearly dilutes that to an unacceptable extent.

In conclusion, I appreciate, given many of the figures that have been quoted, that we are becoming an increasingly secular society, so I suppose what I am saying may be regarded as a bit unfashionable. But I believe that, in an age when perhaps there are a lot of unnecessary divisions within this country, a lot of our laws and collective values ultimately rely on Judeo-Christian values and traditions. We should not abandon those in a school setting, on a casual basis without specific consultation. These amendments take us too far in that direction.

Child Poverty

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I have certainly taken note of the point raised by the noble Baroness, but I say again that we have extended eligibility several times and to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half a century. Free meal support is also available to around 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education, so an awful lot has been happening in that space.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that nearly one in three children in the UK are living in relative poverty is the logical outcome of years of starving social services and funding for the most vulnerable in our country. At worst, that translates into empty tummies, cold homes and even no bed to yourself. I am sure the House would be interested to hear the Minister’s excuse—surely not Ukraine again. In an election year, I have to tell him that the British people will neither forget nor forgive what this Government have done to our children.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I think that is a little unfair from the noble Baroness. She will recognise, as I think the House does, that Ukraine has played a part. In the previous Question we heard about our role as a country, which is continuing, and we have had support from the Opposition on that. We have set a clear and sustainable approach, based on evidence of the important role that parental employment plays in reducing the risk of child poverty. We have a huge number of initiatives in my department to encourage more people to get into work. That is why, with more than 900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on supporting parents into and to progress in work, which helps directly with poverty.

Poverty Reduction

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am quite overwhelmed by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and his very inspirational speech, and I thank him. Poverty is not a subject on which I normally speak, so this has been a real eye-opener for me and I have learned a lot. I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. His exposition of rural poverty bodes very well for the contribution that he will make to this House. I also bid farewell to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and thank him for all the work that he has done in this House.

I looked up definitions of poverty to try to make sure that I knew what I would be talking about. We all have an idea of what we think poverty is, and the government measures of poverty fall into several categories, but they seem to be a relative low income and an absolute low income, and they are all linked to the median income of people in our society. It rankles me that anyone can be defined by their poverty. I thought the concept from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was very interesting, although I know that it is much more complicated than any of us wants to go into today, but it was a useful thing to say that, above this income, you cannot be defined by your poverty.

A wider definition, which I like, is from the European Commission:

“People are said to be living in poverty if their income and resources are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living considered acceptable in the society in which they live”.


I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, would heartily agree with that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, would also be involved—I cannot refer to her without saying Martha; it is weird. She spoke very coherently and passionately about the importance of communication: if you do not have access to broadband or a mobile phone, that is very significant. How can you then participate in a world that is ruled by these communications? Most people in Britain would consider these to be essentials above the poverty line, and I totally agree.

As well as relatively low and absolutely low income, there is another category that has been discussed today, and that is destitution. It is defined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as when people have been unable to afford two or more of the following essentials, in the past month: shelter, food, heating, lighting, clothing and footwear, basic toiletries or a net income after housing of less than £95 a week.

We have heard plenty of horror stories about the number of working poor and children in poverty. The only good-news story is that the least likely demographic to be in poverty is now pensioners, who were once the most likely. That just goes to show what government policy can achieve, given the will.

Sadly, the divide between the haves and the have-nots is getting wider, not narrower. We are in a vicious downward spiral. To transform it to a virtuous upward spiral, we need investment in the most important assets for any Government to have—their human resources. We have heard plenty of excellent suggestions in this debate, as well as stark reminders of the consequences of not implementing them.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests five key ways that the UK could tackle poverty. These are: to boost incomes and reduce costs by ending the poverty premium; to reboot universal credit to ensure that work pays and provide a stronger safety net for those people who are just about managing but are tipped over into poverty by events as simple as a broken boiler; to improve educational attainment and double investment in basic skills to ensure that 5 million more adults are literate and have basic maths skills; to overhaul the childcare system, giving children a better start in life and making work pay for their parents; to back employers and, following the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, focus on investment in the long term and not the short term.

There is also the issue of decent and affordable housing, and I would focus on health as well. My noble friend did so with great explanation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai. If you are sitting on a 7.5 million-long patient waiting list for treatment, how can you focus on anything else? The downward spiral in our nation will not stop until we do these kinds of things.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has calculated that the total cost of poverty is approximately £78 billion a year—about £1 in every £5 that we spend on social services. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has a different figure, but it depends on what you add in. It is certainly one of the most important, damaging areas that we need to consider. There is an equation of investment to reward which multiplies the benefits to society exponentially, the longer that it is applied. It is so short-sighted not to invest in our people.

The downward spiral we are in today does not even take account of the social costs, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says are causing “widespread damage to society” and are a source of

“collective shame, social tension and anxiety”.

I do not know about noble Lords, but I do not want to live in a world like this. Unless we value our people and give them the resources and opportunities they need to be productive and to realise their potential, we are all impoverished, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said.

I feel that shame, in response to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bird—at how little I and so many of us in this House prioritise this issue. If we can put more emphasis on it, we can do it. We have done it with pensioners; they are not poor any more. But there are many different groups that we, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have talked about. We need to work together, and I hope that this will kick-start something. We can do so much better in looking after our people, so that we live in a happier society that we can all appreciate and enjoy.

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords on all sides of the House in commending this Bill today. I would like to thank Domestic Abuse Commissioner Nicole Jacobs and her team, as well as the charities Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse and our excellent Library service, for their input.

I well remember discussing the issue of withholding maintenance as an instrument of coercive control during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It was not tackled at the time and I am very glad that the Government are supporting this Private Member’s Bill today.

The death of Emma Day, which has already been alluded to—killed after she refused to cancel a child maintenance claim—was a shocking wake-up call and the logical consequence of making direct pay the default service in cases of domestic abuse.

In evidence to Dr Samantha Callan’s report, which was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions to look at how the Child Maintenance Service supports survivors of domestic abuse, Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, revealed how pervasive domestic abuse is among claimants for child maintenance: 58% of new claimants in one quarter alone were victims.

So it is to the Government’s credit that they accepted the majority of the Callan recommendations and, most importantly, backed this primary legislation. However, more needs to be done. It is important that undue emphasis is not placed on the risk of false allegations and the requirement to provide evidence of domestic abuse to access the new provision. We saw during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill how insidious and below the surface coercive control can be, but it currently stipulates that satisfactory evidence of domestic abuse needs to be provided. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his comments on the review. We do not know what will constitute “satisfactory evidence”, but research shows that many cases of domestic abuse are not disclosed to agencies, so victims may struggle to provide evidence. My first ask of the Minister is that he confirms that the requirement for evidence will not prohibit victims who have not yet made disclosures of domestic abuse to agencies from coming forward.

My second ask echoes points made by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and Members in the other place about the fees for the collect and pay service. The paying parent, as he said, pays a 20% collection fee and the receiving parent a 4% fee. Will the Minister look closely at whether that 4% fee could be waived? Even given that the majority of applicants are victims, surely that sum would be very small in relation to the overall costs of running the CMS. In any case, victims will doubtless need access to other forms of subsidised support from the public purse. I will call for an amendment to the Child Support Fees Regulations 2014 to that effect. However, if time in the parliamentary schedule is tight, can the Minister indicate that he will consider this matter in the accompanying secondary legislation?

Victims have no choice in needing protection via the collect and pay service and should not be penalised for it when they are already undergoing hardship as a result of leaving a controlling or abusive relationship. I was heartened to hear that the Minister, Mims Davies, said in the other place that consideration would be given to exempting the 4% for survivors. I have a heart full of hope.

That brings me on to my third ask, which is being called for by the commissioner, the charities Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse, and others. By the time maintenance payments eventually come through, a receiving parent and her children can be at the point of destitution. Gingerbread and many others want to see minimum payments made while the claim is assessed, while the payments are set up and if the paying parent fails to pay promptly, to help prevent them from sliding into poverty as a result. I hope there will be time to table an amendment on that subject too.

My fourth and final point relates to appropriate training for CMS staff in applying the new legislation and the implementation of the protocols. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner recommends that the DWP should commission a specialist gender-informed service to deliver training on recognising and responding to domestic abuse, including economic abuse, for CMS staff. This training should be accompanied by clear protocols for responding to disclosures of domestic abuse and should be developed in close consultation with the specialist domestic abuse sector and victims. The DWP should consult closely with domestic abuse specialists in the implementation of the legislation and all wider changes to policy resulting from the Callan report, and should ensure that it publishes regular updates on the progress of this work.

We are playing with people’s lives here. The processes and guidance must ensure that everyone involved has the tools and the knowledge to be able to tread carefully and sensitively in this emotional minefield.

Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, both these instruments refer to offshore and maritime workers who, because of their special work circumstances, have never fallen conveniently into any standard worker treatment regarding almost any working conditions you can think of. Indeed, the uncertainties and unusual working hours for these individuals have caused employers as well as government a problem in trying to squeeze them into legislation that would be appropriate for most other categories of worker.

As the Minister said, included in this group are offshore workers, such as those working on oil rigs, and seafarers, from people managing ocean liners to those on container ships. This variety of work types and circumstances has made the very issue of automatic enrolment for pensions a case in point, and the legislation embodied in the Pensions Act 2008 was no exception. As the Minister said, these workers were finally covered from 2012 following consideration of a series of complex issues relating to how the changes would fit in with international maritime law. However, the concept of “ordinarily working” in terms of periods of employment has been reasonably successful in ensuring that offshore and maritime workers are covered.

Today we discuss the renewal of this legislation, which is due to expire in the sunset clause on 1 July 2020. I would be intrigued to learn why the sunset clause was originally built in, since presumably automatic enrolment must be a good thing for all workers, even hitherto relatively prosperous oil-rig workers who have enjoyed better working conditions than many. I anticipate that it would be particularly appropriate in the case of the challenging circumstances of most seafarers, who may well endure a patchy working life, with long periods away from home potentially interspersed with periods of unemployment. I am sure that it would be particularly difficult in these uncertain Covid times for individuals to save regularly and build up their pension pot.

In the first two weeks of lockdown, 40% of North Sea oil workers lost their jobs. Supply ship workers have been hailed as heroes, keeping our supply lines going, while cruise ships are largely stuck off coastlines, unable to sail and their crew stuck on board. I ask the Minister if the challenges of having 150,000 workers in need of a crew change—who are waiting to leave or join ships—have been resolved as far as the UK is concerned. I gather that unions and employers have given the Government one month to facilitate these crew changes, but clearly the delays are taking their toll. Tragically, suicides have been reported as individuals suffer mentally, trapped on board and trying to get home, but unable to because of the lack of organised transport.

On the subject of Covid, on 14 May the Chamber of Shipping asked the Government whether the shipping and offshore industry would be exempted from the reported 14-day quarantine period for travellers entering the UK. Could the Minister please give us an update on that?

I for one am very glad that calls from employers, in the 2018 post-implementation review, potentially to relax some of the regulatory burden have not been heeded by the Government. The Explanatory Notes refer to potential “industry-specific carve-outs”, which could result from a relaxation of the compliance regime. Surely the overriding consideration is that individuals in those somewhat precarious industries are properly protected.

I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions on paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum for both statutory instruments, which deals with the impact of the legislation. The total equivalent annual net direct cost to business is reported as only £22 million, and the total annual net benefit to all individuals is—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness that we have a three-minute time limit.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

I was not aware of that, and I do apologise.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

I am sorry, but we are very tight on time. Thank you.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

Understood. I shall draw my comments to a close.

I welcome the legislation: it seems a pragmatic way to protect the interests of workers who have very varied working lives and experience but all need security in their eventual retirement.

Retirement Age: Women

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, given that people are living longer, which of course we welcome, it is right that arrangements for the state pension system reflect changes in average life expectancy. We are doing much to focus on the need to ensure that we support people who are working longer. The Government are committed to improving the outlook for older workers, including women, affected by increases in the state pension age. The latest figures show that the employment rates for older workers have been increasing: there are 10.4 million workers aged 50-plus in the UK, which is an increase of 1.3 million over just the last five years, and 2.4 million over the last 10 years. But to enable people to work for longer, we have removed the default retirement age, meaning that people are no longer forced to retire at an arbitrary age, and have extended the right to request flexible working to all, which means that people can discuss a flexible working requirement to suit their needs.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a woman born in the 1950s. We know that many WASPI women and other women have made complaints to the ombudsman, and that has now been referred to judicial review. It has been a long time, and we will still have to wait until next June to get a result. These women have waited for justice for a long time, they are suffering, and many are set to suffer even more with the rollout of universal credit. So will the Minister commit today to implement the findings of the judicial review without delay as soon as they are published?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will appreciate that I am not able to make any comment on the judicial review. However, it is important—I can say this as someone who also was born in the 1950s—that this has a lot to do with not only the fact that we have an increase in life expectancy but with the equalisation between the pension ages for men and women. The fact is that between April 2010 and April 2018, the basic state pension has risen by £660 more than if it had just been uprated by earnings since April 2010, which is a rise of £1,450 a year in cash terms, and that by 2030, over 3 million women will stand to gain an average of £550 per year through the recent state pension reforms. However, we have to think about having a sustainable welfare system that means that generations to come can enjoy a state pension.

Domestic Abuse: Universal Credit Payments

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, it is important to stress that most couples can and want to manage their finances jointly, without state intervention, so split payments should not be the default. When an individual suffering from domestic abuse and violence requests a split payment, we will support them in putting the arrangement in place—but split payments in universal credit cannot be the solution, the panacea, to what is a criminal act. They are provided to any individual who requests them as a result of domestic violence.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, to get split payments, the survivor of domestic abuse has to disclose the abuse to their work coach and provide written evidence from an official. They are eligible for split payments only when the abuse has already reached crisis point in very exceptional circumstances. Why cannot each partner nominate a bank account, enabling separate payments to be made as routine? I am sure that that is not beyond the wit of man or woman to design a better, safer and fairer system.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, as I have already said in a previous answer, most people do not want split payments. They want to be able to judge their household affairs together as one. Therefore, it is important that we and our staff work hard with Women’s Aid and ManKind to develop as much as we can our support and training facilities to help people who are subject to domestic violence. It is not necessarily the case that domestic violence has reached crisis point. We treat this carefully as a private matter. We make training for our work coaches in Jobcentres Plus a priority so that we can give the right support at the right time.

Employment: Job Creation

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I am very happy to accept the correction.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

As the Minister said, we do not have precise international comparisons on job creation, but we are doing okay on the number of jobs. However, is not productivity also very important? On average, we have lagged behind the French by 20% over the last 20 years. Does the Minister agree that the answer is to invest more in people and lifelong learning? If he agrees, can he tell me what the Government will do about it?

[Lord Freud]

An economist would reply that the way to get more productivity out of people is to put more capital in and raise the quality of people’s input. It is clearly a long-standing issue that we have lower productivity than other major countries; the comparisons are often with the US and Germany. However, there is something about the structure of our service-based economy that means the comparisons are not necessarily what they seem to be. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that one of the major challenges of this economy is to get our productivity up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, is right in saying that 14 job- seekers —out of the millions a month who are looking for jobs through the scheme—were asked to pay for a Criminal Records Bureau check. The DWP is now working with them. Ten have put in for a compensation claim, and we are helping them to sort that out. If there is a bogus job or one that does not adhere to the terms and conditions on Universal Jobmatch, it is removed immediately. However, despite that one company, more than half a million companies are putting jobs up on the scheme to help people into work. I think we can all say that this is a resounding success.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

The Work programme provides tailored support to the people who are most at risk of becoming long-term unemployed, at a fraction of the cost of Labour’s flexible new deal. Companies such as EOS in my region have been successful in helping people in that way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be supporting the programme, rather than criticising it as the Labour party is doing?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course we have to support schemes that work and of course we have to support businesses that want to get involved with our scheme. What is interesting is that we have got industry signed up to everything we do. All the big companies and all the small companies are signed up to what we want to do. The Opposition have come forward with a job guarantee, but not one business has signed up to that.

amendment of the law

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will not let petty rivalries interfere in this important debate. He is right, however, because this is cumulative: it is not just about the historic cut in duty by a penny this year, but last year’s 1p cut in duty and the scrapping of Labour’s hated beer duty escalator. Added together, they have taken more than 7p off the price of a pint in our local community pubs. Beer drinkers, publicans and the industry will welcome and raise a glass to that, and it is part of the measures that have shown this Government to be the most pro-pub and pro-beer Government in generations. It is historic: this is the first ever Chancellor to cut beer duty two years running, and it comes after the previous Government, when beer duty rose by an eye-watering 42% between 2008 and 2012. Is it any wonder that the industry has been in such dire straits?

This industry is important for our community pubs. We talk about supporting community pubs, but seven out of 10 drinks purchased in a pub are a beer. This is a great British product that is brewed and consumed in this country and employs people in this country. Those 1 million jobs are important—46% of those workers are under 25, and more than 50% are women. If we want to help young people into the jobs market and get more women into the workplace, supporting the hospitality industry, pubs and breweries is exactly the way to do it. CAMRA, the Society of Independent Brewers, and the British Beer and Pub Association have welcomed the support that this Government have shown for beer and pubs.

Last year the Chancellor had a beer brewed in his name. Pennies from 11 was brewed by a Tatton brewery, and Sajid’s Choice was brewed in recognition of the support that the Financial Secretary gave the brewing industry during his time in the Treasury. I have no doubt that in weeks to come, Morgan’s Magnificent Mild will be brewed in gratitude.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, but no list of beers named after hon. Members would be complete without Ginger Rodent, which was brewed in honour of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) although I disagreed with many aspects of what he said, in particular his comments about bankers’ bonuses. Under the previous Labour Government, £12 billion was spent on bonuses but that has dropped to £1.6 billion. That is still too much, but it is less than what Labour intends to spend on its various projects, which it spent many times over.

I welcome this Budget, and I congratulate the Chancellor and the Conservative-led Government on getting to a situation where, by the end of the year, we will have virtually halved the deficit that we inherited from the Labour Government. Let us not beat about the bush: we as a country were borrowing £120 billion, not to build infrastructure projects such as HS2 or anything like that, but just to cover the running costs of day-to-day government in this country such as local government spending and housing benefit. Those things have to be paid for, and we were borrowing the money for it.

Who will pay that money back? Not necessarily my generation, but that of my children and grandchildren, will be the ones who pay back the money borrowed by the last Labour Government. There is no great morality in borrowing more and more money, yet that is all we saw from the last Labour Government, and that is all we will see if—God help us!—there is a future Labour Government. I applaud the Government for taking the right decisions. We have control over spending and that needed to be done.

I want to comment on the help for savers in the Budget. For five years we have had a 0.5% base rate of interest. When I was in business, I lived through interest rates of 7%, 8%, 10%, 12% and even 15%. They were crippling for those who were borrowing money, but for those who were saving and had money in the bank the high interest rates gave them a very good income. In this five-year period with a 0.5% base rate, our retired people and other people with savings have had a very low income from their savings. People will now be able to put up to £15,000 a year per person into an ISA, and that is to be welcomed.

I also welcome abolishing the 10p rate on savings income. If hard-working people on the base rate of tax have paid tax on their savings, why should they then have to pay tax on the income from those savings? This is, therefore, a very helpful measure. From 2015, pensioners will have access to a bond with a 2.8% return for a year’s savings and 4% on a three-year bond. In these very difficult times with very low interest rates for savers, that is very much to be welcomed.

It is a good idea that people will not automatically have to buy an annuity. For too long, pensioners have been held to ransom by those who sell annuities. There will now be competition. I have been on the Lamborghini website, but I have not seen a huge increase in the price of Lamborghinis as a result of what the Chancellor put in his Budget. I trust people to spend their money, which they have worked hard to earn and put into their savings all their life, in a way that they want. If they want to buy property and use it to provide somebody with a rented home, that is also good news for the economy.

Personal allowances are going up to £10,500 in 2015-16. They are always good for my constituents and good for the people of this country. The Government cannot create jobs or increase the buying power in people’s incomes by waving a magic wand, but they can reduce the amount of money they take away from people. That is what the Government are doing. Let us not forget that this is a Conservative-led Government. We are prepared to give hard-working people on low wages as much money as they can in their pockets, so that they are able to buy as much as they can.

[Lorely Burt]

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the Conservative-led Government, but this is a coalition Government. The policy on hard-working people keeping more of their money actually comes from the front page of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. He is most welcome to praise it and it is an excellent policy.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is indeed a Liberal Democrat policy, but it is also a Conservative policy. If we look at the make-up of the Government Benches, there are some 307 Conservative MPs compared with 50-whatever it is of Liberal Democrats, so I think the Conservatives can take a fair share of the credit for bringing the policy forward. As I said, the rise in personal allowances to £10,500 in 2015-16 is very good news, because it will take more and more people out of tax.

Taking a penny off the price of a pint of beer is great. The Otter brewery and the Branscombe Vale brewery are in my constituency. Of course, we also have Aston Manor brewery, which creates wonderful cider. While I am very happy that the Chancellor has taken a penny off beer and has frozen cider duty, I hope—being a good west country man—that cider will get its fair share in the form of a duty reduction at some point in the future.

There is no doubt that the council tax freeze that the Government have delivered, through both Conservative-led Devon county council and Mid Devon district council, has helped people greatly with their living costs, and I think that we, as a Government, should be commended for it. We in Devon welcome the help for social enterprise, because Devon has one of the highest densities of social enterprise in the country, and we welcome the help with fuel duty for the air ambulance service, because Devon has a very successful air ambulance.

The doubling of the business investment allowance to £500,000 is great news for the economy, because businesses do not get any relief unless they invest the money. If we want to see investment in the private sector, it is absolutely right for the allowance to be raised. The help for energy-intensive companies is also absolutely right, because of the rise in energy prices.

For all those reasons, I very much welcome the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Budgets aren’t what they used to be. It used to be that there were no surprises in Budgets because the measures were trailed in the media; that is what we got used to under the last Government. Yet one of the most far-reaching and long-term changes came as a surprise in the Budget statement, and I commend the Chancellor for that.

Budgets aren’t what they used to be because they used to be met by a vociferous and articulate Opposition pulling the Budget to pieces and expressing their hostility to measure after measure after measure. That has been replaced by a deathly silence on the Opposition Benches, and here we are with two hours to go still wondering whether the Opposition will decide to oppose anything in the Budget whatsoever. I do not know whether the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has yet worked out with his colleagues whether they are going to be more ambitious and more left wing in their response, or whether they are going to go along with what the Government have provided.

[Lorely Burt]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

Perhaps my colleague in the coalition will enlighten us on what she understands the Labour party may do.

[Lorely Burt]

As my hon. Friend was speaking, I wondered whether the Opposition have nothing to say because the Budget is so excellent.

[Richard Fuller]

That is a fair comment, but we would hope for critical thought—a thoughtful Opposition going through the Budget and finding good reasons to oppose what is in it. Again, however, we heard nothing from the Opposition. It is all very well trotting the shadow Chief Secretary into the media studios to claim—despite the fact that growth is up, unemployment is down and inflation is down—that everything is going badly, like a latter-day Chemical Ali, but the truth is the Opposition have no coherent response to what will prove to be one of the strongest foundations for long-term stability in our economy.

That foundation is based on the sensible principle that people know best how to spend the money they have earned. This Government recognise that and, more importantly, in this Budget we recognise that people understand that when they have spent a lifetime saving money from their earnings, they are in the best position to decide how best to spend it. They do not want to be artificially constrained by someone else telling them how best way enjoy their retirement. This Budget delivers that freedom to them and should be applauded. It comes after years of socialist trickle-down, taking money from working people to put into Labour’s big bureaucratic plans—out of touch with the realities of people—to find out whether their Highgate polices are somehow going to deliver from the socialist graveyards in Highgate to the people of Bedford and Kempston. We have dismissed all that top-down, trickle-down, socialist rhetoric, in order to give people back the money they earned. This is a Budget for working people, and I am proud to support it.

The Budget also shows that the Government recognise that as we were so highly leveraged—with so much debt—in 2010, it will take a long time to recover. A few years ago, I would have urged the Chancellor to go further and cut expenditure more, but he chose a middle path on reducing public expenditure. We have made progress in bringing the deficit down, and sometimes we are now joined by people who said a few years ago that we were going too far, too fast. The Chancellor has found a middle way with that.

The Opposition’s level of coherence on this Budget is most starkly demonstrated by their position on the benefit cap. May I say to the shadow Chief Secretary—if he has the time—that I understand from the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that the Opposition are going to support the benefit cap? Page 88 of the Red Book contains a helpful listing of the benefits that will be included in the benefit cap, which include housing benefit, other than housing benefit passported from jobseeker’s allowance. I presume that that includes the spare room subsidy. So my question to the shadow Chief Secretary, who, let us face it, ought to have some economic competence, is: if the spare room subsidy is included as a benefit, how can he keep referring to it as a tax? Does he understand the difference between a tax and a benefit? If he does not, and if he is going to vote on this, will he stop—[Interruption.] He is saying from a sedentary position that it is not just him, but he is charged with coming up with economic policies. One core feature of economic policy is understanding the difference between a benefit and a tax.