Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

I beg to move.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendments and of this Bill. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, asked noble Lords a few moments ago to listen to the people out there. We live in an increasingly diverse society and are observing shifts in our lifetime from one generation to another. When most of us were young, it was assumed that most people were Christians—or at least claimed to be. Nowadays, among young people at least, the opposite is true, and surveys and polls show that the majority are not religious. Even in the census, which was very conservative, 25% of us said we had no religion. Among the under-50s, more than 40% said so.

There are, of course, those who do not welcome this move away from religion. One consequence is that among young people with no religion—I suspect among older people, too—many nevertheless have strong beliefs and commitments that are not necessarily religious but still provide answers to questions about the importance of relationships, respect for others and moral standpoints. I would maintain that most young people have strong moral commitments at the personal and social level. What for many previous generations was expressed in Christianity, many young people today express in beliefs about respect for each other, the world and future generations.

This is relevant to the amendments that we are debating. These young people, when they marry, often wish to do so in a ceremony that expresses their humanist commitments and beliefs, and their respect for other people. Just as for many religious people the idea of a wedding in a register office is a mere legal formality compared to the vows they make to each other and to God in a church wedding, so for these young humanists it is second best to settle for a civil wedding conducted by a registrar who, regardless of his faith or lack of it, is not allowed by law to give expression to any religious belief, including humanism.

The Bill is about equal marriage. It is also about equal weddings and allowing this growing segment of our population—already growing in size, as my noble friend said—to conduct their own legally recognised weddings within the framework of their own humanist beliefs and commitments. The proposal has wide support. In Scotland, as my noble friend said, humanists conduct more weddings than any religious body apart from the Church of Scotland. A YouGov poll tells us that more than half the population support the proposal, with only 6% strongly opposed and another 6% tending that way. I understand that the Church of England told the British Humanist Association last week that they would not oppose it.

The British Humanist Association was accommodating in drafting the amendments proposed at earlier stages of the Bill and in responding to suggestions made at meetings with government Ministers and officials. The difficulties that were expressed then now seem to have been resolved. The amendment breaks no new ground in being based on an organisation rather than a building: the Jews and Quakers are already in this position. The principal concern expressed by officials at Church House last week to the British Humanist Association was that the public nature of marriage should be preserved. That is something that we can surely all endorse but it does not require a registered building, only that the place intended for the wedding is known and open to all who wish to attend. The amendment specifies “with open doors” and the location for all weddings is already included in the notice of marriage required under the Marriage Act 1949.

The proposal is not for a celebrant-based system; what the amendment says about nominating registering officers is precisely what the law says about non-Anglican churches nominating their clergy as such. There are no implications for the safeguards for religions not wishing to conduct same-sex marriages.

I am told that Bills about marriage come along about once in a generation. Let us not, through excessive caution, allow the injustice of the present system to wait for another generation to be put right.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the new schedule proposed in Amendment 27A.

Whenever I am asked what my religion is I reply, “I am a Church of England atheist”. I hasten to say that this is not some glib witticism, but a true reflection of my position. I do not believe in God and I am a member of the All-Party Humanist Group. However, the King James Bible, the Cranmer prayer book and Hymns Ancient and Modern are a part of my DNA. Their role in our history and their language are part of what makes our country what it is today. Consequently, when noble Lords talk about traditional marriage, I understand and respect where they are coming from.

I am a little concerned, as was my noble friend Lord Deben, that a number of religious believers in your Lordships’ House may, with the greatest courtesy, have been attempting to load up the Bill. I shall concentrate my remarks on the allegation that this amendment undermines, as it were, the whole basis of the law on marriage. As the law stands, any religion may conduct legally recognised marriages so long as they have use of a registered place of worship. Any sect of any religion that can afford a building can register it as a place of worship, and then re-register it for marriages without any obstacle whatever. In effect, provided you are a religion, you get a bisque.

Putting aside the 11 main Christian denominations—the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, made reference to this—there are almost 4,500 places registered for the solemnisation of marriage by minor Christian groups, and more than 650 by non-Christian groups. Many of these, to put it as kindly as I can, are a little eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to the Aetherius Society, which believes that gods from outer space visit the earth in flying saucers—and, yes, the Aetherius Society is registered to perform marriages.

This amendment simply proposes approval for organisations that, unlike religious bodies, which sail through unimpeded, meet a number of serious criteria. The first one in Amendment 22A—it is printed on the Marshalled List so I will not tire the Committee by reading it all out—makes a series of requirements. They must be registered charities of good repute, they must have been established for at least 10 years, the ceremonies must be rooted in their belief, written procedures must exist and so on. In other words, a simple visit from a flying saucer will simply not suffice for the humanist group. A serious list of terms and conditions is set out in the proposed new clause.

On the registration of buildings, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, I think this is a bit of a red herring. Any marriage needs to be preceded by a public notice—either banns in a parish church or a notice under Section 27 of the Marriage Act 1949. The amendment ensures not only that the place is known but that the marriage is to be celebrated under open doors. I believe, therefore, that this objection is without substance. The proposal is organisation-based in the same way that the law already recognises the organisations of Jews and Quakers. I recognise that what we, as humanists, are seeking to do is, as it were, to slipstream in behind the Bill, which I strongly support.

In conclusion, I say with respect that the two main Christian religions in our country are in some danger of falling out of step with civil society. For example, any corporation that made it clear that women were excluded from top positions in its organisation would find itself in court. Consequently, the debate about women bishops now going on in the Church of England raises a few eyebrows in this day and age. Most young married couples are involved in family planning and yet, as I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church continues to regard this as a mortal sin.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I hope that the words of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will not be forgotten; I greatly support him.

I shall speak today about children and young people and education. I will suggest that a strategy for youth is long overdue. Such a strategy would involve uniting elements of young people’s health, education, employment and other services. I am pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is to respond to this debate—somehow, for it is an unenviable task—because I think that he genuinely understands the importance of structures and systems working together.

The gracious Speech last week referred to the Government’s commitment to a fairer society where aspiration and responsibility are rewarded, to giving every child the best start in life regardless of background, to improving the quality of education and bringing forward plans for a new national curriculum, to helping working parents with childcare, and to encouraging those leaving school to go on to further education or into training.

On further education and training, a recent UNICEF report comparing child well-being across 29 richer countries highlighted that the UK has the lowest further education participation rate in the advanced world—I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK. It is clear that an emphasis on FE and training for young people must be a priority and I hope that it will be. The Children and Families Bill, which will be with this House shortly, covers a vast range of issues concerned with child well-being. I look forward to debating those and sharing perceptions on that Bill across this very knowledgeable House.

Today, I shall touch on issues of curriculum and education. Curriculum and education are of course not the same. Education is about fostering a love of learning and ambition, while the curriculum is a list of topics. I was a teacher myself once; I taught modern foreign languages. I am all for high academic standards, but I would also want to foster curiosity in young people, to encourage personal awareness and skills and to encourage discussion of religion and cultural values. I would want to give opportunities for young people’s sporting and artistic talents. I share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Billingham about the dangerous inroads being made into sport for young people. Having said that, I applaud the Lord’s Taverners’ Chance to Shine initiative, which continues to flourish.

I am also acutely aware that some young people need security and confidence in themselves before they can learn. I was interested to see the Youth Parliament announce earlier this month a campaign to support what it called preparation for life. It is after all made up of people experiencing education. It said that the focus of the proposed change in education is mainly within academic subjects—the curriculum again—at the expense of other skills essential for life. The Youth Parliament asserts that young people need to know about communities, politics, finance, sex and relationships, and cultural diversity and that it is not enough to expect parents to provide this knowledge; it must be taught in schools. I agree with that.

These skills need not be curriculum subjects in their own right, but they must be offered in school policies and the school ethos: in assemblies, in relationships within and outside the school and across subjects in the school. Such skills must be incorporated into certain subjects. They may also be offered by specialists—not necessarily teachers—in the school, as sessions in the timetable. They may include issues such as volunteering, local and national politics, how the police and other services work, and so on. Information must of course be appropriate to the age of the child and must not be one-off. Just one assembly on drugs is certainly not enough, for example. The different phases of growing up demand different content and approaches. It is interesting that the soft skills, as they are called, are also appreciated by the CBI and employers, who want their workforce to be able to act in teams and be good communicators—a long way away from a rigid curriculum.

A new report by Ofsted evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of personal, social and health education in primary and secondary schools in England. I want to dwell on that for a few minutes. Ofsted expressed concern that sex and relationships education,

“required improvement in over a third of schools, leaving some children and young people unprepared for the physical and emotional changes they will experience during puberty, and later when they grow up and form adult relationships”.

Ofsted was also concerned that such a lack of sex and relationships education might leave young people,

“vulnerable to inappropriate sexual behaviours and exploitation”.

We cannot forget nowadays the problems as well as the wonders of the internet and its influence on young people. Young people must not be left uninformed and without the confidence and skills to recognise exploitation. Of course, they are also susceptible to alcohol and drug misuse, which was spoken of earlier. Again, they need the knowledge and skills to combat inappropriate risk taking.

The Ofsted report also quotes a significant DfE research report stating that children with higher levels of emotional, behavioural, social and school well-being have higher levels of academic achievement. I for one am not at all surprised by that, so I hope that the Government will make it clear that these issues—these soft skills—are important and must be taught in schools. If they are not, children might be deprived of vital information and the skills to protect themselves.

I said at the beginning that I would make a plea for a government strategy on youth that involved young people in its development. That would be a wonderful opportunity to prove that dialogue works. Such a strategy for youth might include issues around guaranteed services for young people—for example, health and education; it might include guarantees of the availability of sport and leisure, including the arts; it might flag up the rights and responsibilities of young people as citizens; and it might encourage engagement in the political process. I maintain that young people are special and that too often they are demonised when we all know of wonderful, kind, positive young people. They should be given a prominent voice in decisions about their own welfare. They clearly can and want to be involved. Perhaps the Government can take a lead in engaging young people in developing such a strategy. Perhaps then education and involvement in the institutions of our society, such as politics, would become more meaningful.

Child Poverty

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight]

My Lords—

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords—

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

We have just had a Labour question, so it is this side.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, there is a lot of variation around the country on child poverty. Again, I go back to the UNICEF report, which came out recently and which I found fascinating. Finland, which spends only 2.5% of its GNP on children and families, comes out very near the top. One thing that is so special about Finland is the emphasis that it puts on early years education, which seems to have a big impact there. We have to get to the causes of poverty and not just look at the pure measure.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, is the Minister aware, having quoted the recent UNICEF report, that other recent reports, including from UNICEF, concluded that under the last Government child well-being increased substantially? It is very worrying that more recent reports and evidence now suggest that, under this Government, child deprivation is increasing dramatically. Is it not a concern to him that jeopardising the chances of children is a serious matter?

International Women’s Day

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her introduction to this debate. I know that she has had a heavy week, and I hope that this will relieve her spirits somewhat. I know that the debate will be, as always, both stimulating and thoughtful. It is a great pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe-Flint. Unfortunately, I cannot call her my noble friend because she is not on the same side as me, but for years she and I have campaigned for girls and women—indeed, young people—to be involved in sport. We were comrades some time ago in batting and bowling, and thereby hang many tales. It was also a great privilege to hear the moving comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and to listen to his positive support for the role of women in the Anglican Church.

I want today to look at the issue of invisible women and ponder whether they are becoming more visible. This may seem a strange thing to bring up in your Lordships’ House. When I talk about involvement in this House, everyone always assumes that far more than 24% of noble Lords are women because, as we know, women in this House are far from invisible.

However, let me go back to my theme of invisible women. In the 1980s, a feminist called Dale Spender wrote several challenging books about the lack of profile of women in education, literature and business. She maintained that patriarchy served to subdue women and that they thereby became invisible. She reminded us that there were very few women in some professions and very few at the top of most professions. I want to explore whether this is still an issue. An earlier feminist, Simone de Beauvoir, speculated on why women always seemed to be wrong, why men were more representative and more authoritative and why women’s differences were seen as deficiencies. Is this still the case?

Dale Spender maintained that men and power are the problem. She stated that men are seen as authoritative; that male experience counts; and that males have more influence on systems. Men are attributed with qualities such as reason, objectiveness, leadership, independence, authority and strength; women with being emotional, irrational, weak and hysterical. In mixed contexts, Spender maintains, men talk more, interrupt more and do not know that they are doing it. When women become visible and assert power, then patriarchal values are under threat and it is scary—look at the Suffragettes. In a recent survey, mentioned earlier, reference was made to this. Many women would assert, as do many men, that when the distribution of power is more equal, men also benefit. Some men would agree.

I return to invisibility. I shall give a couple of examples from literature. Spender points out that there were hundreds of women authors writing for at least 150 years before Jane Austen—invisible women. Let us take as an example the successful playwright and novelist, Aphra Behn, writing in the 1600s, who produced plays, poetry and novels that were immensely popular—Nell Gwynne starred in her most successful play, “The Rover”. Aphra Behn was also an international spy for Charles II. She was described by critics as being “disgraceful” and “bawdy”, whereas Virginia Woolf called her, more flatteringly, shady and amorous. Another example is Mary Wollstonecraft, the 18th-century philosopher, who wrote novels, historical plays and travel books, as well as being an advocate of women’s rights. She was described by Walpole as “a Hyena in petticoats”. When six volumes of biographies on women were published in 1803, Mary Wollstonecraft was missed out—invisible women. The novel Mary Barton was published anonymously in 1848 to great praise. When it was known to be by a woman, Elizabeth Gaskell, praise then turned to criticism. Women had to publish under male pseudonyms—invisible women.

Has this invisibility made a difference to how women see themselves today and to why women are still largely absent from top posts in industry, politics, sport, the Church and the media? Has it influenced how men see women? Are women destined for certain jobs but not in the first flight? Much worse than that, can women be treated with disrespect—even violence? Is the status of women also improving life for other women?

I shall share one anecdote with your Lordships. A close female relative of mine went into a boardroom recently to set up a presentation. Three men were already sitting there and one said to her, “Hey, girlie, where’s the coffee?”. He was shocked and embarrassed when she turned out to be a senior vice-president of the company, setting out its future strategy.

The report Sex and Power has already been mentioned. It points out that a girl child born today will be drawing her pension before she has any chance of being equally represented in the Parliament of her country. It discusses other deficits—in public appointments, the voluntary sector, the law, the Church, the police and so on. Two-thirds of public appointments go to men. Women still earn on average 14.9% less than men for the same job and they lose out on bonuses.

A study published in the Daily Telegraph by Experian expresses some cautious optimism, finding that the number of female directors is increasing but that some professions such as social work, hairdressing and primary school teaching, while dominated by women and having more women in senior positions, have not changed in profile. Both men and women seem to back positive action, and women’s networks are flourishing. Women’s performance is enhancing sport, but coverage is poor.

Has progress been made in the perception of women since the 1980s? Are they less invisible? The answer is a cautious yes. On paper they have more rights, and they are more likely to challenge discrimination, but we are a long way from a guarantee that those challenges will be taken note of.

We must not forget in our deliberations that women in many developing countries, as graphically described by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, are hounded, tortured and denied rights. On International Women’s Day, we should surely embrace and promote visibility for all women, justice for all women and an opportunity for all women to reach their potential.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, these amendments, to which I have added my name, are essential to protect the basic well-being of the very poorest children. Those seeking to justify restrictions to our social security system have continually argued two things: first, that we must fairly distribute the burden of national economic hardship, and secondly, that we must take tough decisions in order to ensure a sustainable future. Yet driving down the value of child-related benefits achieves neither of those objectives. Instead, it unjustly shifts the burden onto the most vulnerable section of our society and damages the future prospects of hundreds of thousands of young people.

The Government’s own impact assessment highlights that the Bill as it stands will disproportionately affect families, with lone parents experiencing the most significant real-term cut to their income of £5 per week. Noble Lords might think that £5 is not much, so let us put that figure into context: it is the equivalent of half an average weekly heating bill or two lunches for a child. The loss of it is a significant challenge to the increasing number of parents currently struggling to cover utility costs or turning to local food banks for their children’s meals. In practice, the actual shortfall is likely to be larger still owing to above-inflation rises in the cost of necessities such as groceries, fuel and gas and electricity. The net result will inevitably be more child poverty and greater family suffering, making a mockery of any notion that this is a fair or just mechanism for securing cost savings.

As Helen O’Brien, the chief executive of Caritas Social Action Network, said recently,

“it is absurd to suggest that a child going to school hungry or coming home to a cold house is shouldering their fair share of austerity measures; rather they are being deprived of a basic standard of living to which all children are entitled”.

Removing child-related benefits from the scope of the Bill will not completely prevent or reverse this hardship, as low-paid and unemployed families will still face a rapidly widening gap between their outgoings and their core benefit income. However, specific parts of the safety net designed to cover essential costs of caring for their sons and daughters will be crucially safeguarded if these amendments are agreed.

This is particularly important given that the relentless squeeze on the support available for poor families has already left considerable numbers of children not only without the facets of a good childhood but growing up in simply unacceptable living conditions. Reflecting on cuts to local housing allowance and the pending introduction of the household benefit cap, Alison Gelder, chief executive of Housing Justice, recently noted that,

“across the country we are seeing increasing numbers of children suffering from a life in sub-standard housing and being forced into overcrowded accommodation”.

Taken in conjunction with this April’s intended ending of council tax benefit and the imposition of social housing underoccupancy penalties on approximately 220,000 families with children, these measures are putting the income levels of the poorest parents under unprecedented strain. On top of this, child benefit is already subject to a three-year freeze, which stands to create a further annual real-term loss of £130 by 2014.

More than ever the most vulnerable families require protected child-related benefits in order to mitigate the most damaging effects of this rapid and extensive cut to their income. At the very least, the Government should allow sufficient time for the impact of recent and pending benefit changes to be properly examined in relation to child poverty. The result of committing to another three years of real-term cuts before many key restrictions have even come into force will be disastrous for children whose parents are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table.

Ultimately, increased levels of child poverty are not only devastating for individuals and families but stand to have a profoundly negative effect our society. One of the most significant risks is to children’s education, an issue previously recognised in the DWP’s impact assessment on restrictions to housing benefits. It stated that overcrowding resulting from the cuts could hamper children’s ability to do homework and affect educational attainment. Last year, more than half of teachers surveyed reported that financial hardship among families had resulted in children arriving at their classes hungry, with significant consequences for concentration and behaviour. A report from the Children’s Food Trust last week reinforces the picture of children going to school hungry. Of 250 staff surveyed, 84% said they had seen children without enough to eat and 68% said they had seen an increase in this over the past two years. If child-related income is driven down further this is only likely to worsen, jeopardising the potential of even more young people and undermining the prospects of the next generation.

When parents struggle to afford basic necessities for children, there is also the very real risk of running into long-term personal debt. The shocking findings by the magazine Which? last year showed that payday loan companies now spend over half a million pounds targeting cash-strapped mothers and fathers by putting their adverts on television during children’s programmes. This is indicative of the increasingly desperate situation that so many families now face. A growing number of parents are turning to these lenders, while some 25% now use credit cards to meet everyday living costs. The abolition of community care grants and crisis loans in April only stands to deepen this problem by closing the door to interest-free emergency funds.

It is difficult to see how pushing even more parents into debt by slashing the value of child-related benefits will contribute in any way to our future economic recovery; yet increased levels of debt are precisely what will result from this Bill. Children still need healthy meals, warm houses, winter clothes and new shoes. When parents are faced with a real-term cut in child benefit and tax credits, alongside above-inflation rises in the prices of these goods, they will have to turn somewhere to make up the shortfall. It is as simple as that.

These amendments are not only right, but imperative. Capping up-rating of child-related benefits at 1% for the next three years will exacerbate the already unsustainable pressure that parents are under. It will cause serious damage to our communities in the long run and, most critically, it will drive down the living standards of millions of children. Protecting the basic level of income required to meet young people’s most intrinsic needs is a fundamental test of our society and one that we cannot afford to fail.

At the general election, the leader of the Opposition, Mr Cameron, now the Prime Minister, said that we lived in broken Britain. I paid little attention to him at the time because I believed he was wrong. However, after two and a half years, we live in a Britain where multi-millionaires are about to receive thousands of pounds a week in tax cuts; we live in a Britain where corrupt bankers who fiddled the LIBOR rate are rewarded with pay-offs when they should have gone to prison; we live in a Britain where those who operate our transport system cannot run the trains on time but get big bonuses; we live in a Britain where energy companies have more than trebled their profits yet require pensioners to pay an extra 6% for gas and electricity; and we live in a Britain where hard-working low-income couples with children will now see their weekly income slashed, the unemployed and poor will have their benefits cut and disabled people will see what help they get now cut or taken away altogether. Now, in 2013, I have started to understand what Mr Cameron meant by broken Britain.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I want to make some very brief comments on the amendments, mainly to follow up some things I said at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lord Touhig just said, these amendments are imperative, crucial and brilliant, and I congratulate the movers on putting them so powerfully. Any amendments that will mitigate against benefits having a negative impact on children are very forceful and follow very well from earlier, powerful speeches about child poverty.

I suggested at Second Reading that anything that might increase child poverty should be removed from the Bill. I say that again and support these amendments. The Government should really think about listening very carefully to the organisations and experts who work closely with children and families and who understand child poverty. These organisations and experts have pointed out the negative implications of this Bill. Surely their analyses should be taken very seriously.

The Government have already announced that the Bill will directly increase relative-income child poverty by 200,000 children, of which 100,000 will be in families in work. Nearly all the highly vulnerable children that Barnardo’s works with are receiving in-work or out-of-work benefits. This Bill will impose a real-term cut to their income. One in 10 families will be affected by this Bill, the poorest families most.

Taxation: Families

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for securing this important and stimulating debate and for introducing it with her usual immense knowledge and commitment.

I should like to focus today on the impact of changes to tax and benefits on children. As my noble friend said in her opening remarks, government policy is likely to be detrimental to children. It is obvious to say that children are our future, but if we neglect children we will surely be burdened later with possible criminality, drug-taking, other risks and social unrest. All that is important, quite apart from the vital humane impetus to protect children and advance their well-being and educational opportunities, particularly children who are vulnerable or deprived.

I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. This year we are conducting an inquiry into what opportunities there are for children to achieve their potential and into how children see their needs. We listened to a number of children, and it is striking how so many of them place a huge emphasis on the importance of parents and families in their lives, including those children who have challenging family circumstances.

What happens to those parents and families in times of austerity must be considered, and I am dismayed at the potential disruption and depression that may be caused by government policies. Is it not surprising that Save the Children is, for the first time, focusing some efforts on children in the UK, or that, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we are seeing food banks in unexpected places such as Guildford and, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley tells me, in Ross-on-Wye?

It is easy to portray people in unfortunate terms using easy soundbites which appeal to popular prejudices and which are so often inaccurate, and it is interesting to note that many of us think that 27% of all welfare is claimed fraudulently. However, the Government’s figure is 0.7%, worth around £1 billion as opposed to the £70 billion lost in tax evasion. Further, most welfare payments go to pensioners. Unemployment benefit has fallen to 11% of average earnings compared with 22% in 1979. Therefore, myths abound. The fact is that since 2010 long-term unemployment has increased by 146% and I am told that there are plans to cut local authority budgets by 30%, to the dismay of those working to deliver services. All this will impact on families and children, and the poorest will be hit the hardest.

Perhaps I may give some examples that reflect the concerns of groups in the voluntary sector which are working with children and families. They include Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, Working Families, CARE and Save the Children. Contrary to the Government’s ambition, levels of childcare funding may lead to disincentives to work. Under universal credit, lone parents with more than one pre-school child could face losing a significant amount of any extra money they earn. I was impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on this issue. There may well also be an impact on the provision of free school meals, which is sometimes the only good meal that a child will have in a day. Some 1.2 million children living in poverty in England miss out on free school meals. The Government seem to be set on proposing that, under universal credit, families will be entitled to free school meals only if they earn less than a certain amount, which is another disincentive to earning more. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the administrative costs of means-testing.

The plan to cap the uprating of key benefits and tax credits for the next three years will mean that almost 20 million adults with children and 11.5 million children will be affected. This will hurt millions of families who are already finding it difficult to meet the costs of food, rent and other basic necessities. For example, by 2015, a lone parent of two young children working as a nurse and earning £530 a week will lose £424 a year. Primary and nursery schoolteachers have an average weekly income of £600. Some 150,000 of them will be affected by the cap. The charity Working Families estimates that around 205 of the 3,000 calls made to its helpline in 2012 were on the issue of benefits and tax credits. Some 41% of parents in severe poverty said that they would consider giving up work and 25% would consider reducing their hours as a result of cuts in the level of support. In times of austerity it can be difficult for parents to find extra hours of work as employers cannot afford it. This means that up to 210,000 families with 475,000 children may lose out on tax credits. Does the Minister not think that the Government’s policy is producing a negative rebound?

Parents with disabled children report difficulties due to the high cost of specialist or one-to-one care because there is no extra support in the system for the childcare costs for a disabled child. Paying for such childcare is turning out to be a huge barrier to parents going into paid work. There is also disappointment that the principle of universal child benefit has been undermined. Child benefit has been simple to administer, has a high take-up and carries no stigmas, and by and large ensures that the money reaches the right people. Some families are now going to lose out and the system has been made more complex. It would be interesting to know the administrative costs associated with the new system.

Maternity and paternity pay in real terms may encourage parents on low incomes to cut short that important time with a new baby because they cannot afford it. This may affect early bonding, which is considered by experts to be very important in child development. The 1% uprating will impact on those claiming statutory maternity and paternity pay, which is well below the national minimum wage of £135.45 a week. The benefit cap may also apply until a parent reaches the wages level set out in their claimant contract. I am aware that there are some exceptions, but it may force parents who are currently working part time on low wages to seek longer hours, thus affecting family life. The prediction is that the median income in households with children is set to fall and that child poverty is set to increase.

The tax and benefit changes are significant factors in these trends. The introduction of universal credit may offset them in some cases—for example, it has advantages for those without children and for a couple who are both seeking paid work. I again cite CARE, which has challenged the Prime Minister’s statement that the child benefit charge will apply only to the top 15% of the country. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the charity has figures to show that the charge is not targeted at the top 15% and will impact on many families in the middle income distribution. The policy takes child benefit from those in the lower half of income distribution while not taking it from two-earner families which are considerably richer.

I return to my original concern that the inequity in tax and benefits that makes children and families suffer is morally indefensible and may have long-term consequences that affect not only children but society. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Child Poverty

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will respond to UNICEF’s recent report on international comparable data on child deprivation and relative child poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, we welcome this contribution to the debate on child poverty. As UNICEF notes, although income matters, eradicating child poverty is about more than income. This Government are investing to tackle the root causes of poverty. In particular, we are improving early intervention, reforming education and, through the universal credit, making work pay. This approach is fundamental to our strategy for tackling child poverty, and we are pleased that UNICEF’s conclusions support this.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, first, will he acknowledge that since 1990 a great deal has been achieved in addressing child poverty and deprivation; secondly, can he guarantee that these trends will continue, given the Government’s policies on welfare; and, thirdly, will he support regular reporting back to Parliament on this important issue?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the level of child poverty has come down since 1998 but the cost has been very high. More worryingly, we are now the second-highest spender on transfers to children and families, spending 3.6% of GNP on it—the figure for France being 3.8%—but we simply do not get enough for our money. We are way down the ranking and that is why we need a new approach. I cannot think of a single reason why quarterly reporting would help that but we are clearly committed to reducing child poverty. We are committed to the targets for 2020 and we need to find new ways of achieving them.

Child Poverty

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their current targets for reducing child poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to eradicating child poverty but recognise that income measures and targets do not tell the full story about the causes and consequences of childhood disadvantage. We will measure the success of our approach to tackling child poverty through a new set of indicators including, but not limited to, the income targets set out in the Child Poverty Act. They include measures of family circumstances and drivers of children’s life chances.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I thank the Minister for that response. Does he accept that children are in poverty through no fault of their own and that, in neglecting early years, social costs may be very significant later? Will he also say whether proposed legislation such as the Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill will have a negative or positive impact on child poverty?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we certainly agree on the importance of early intervention. We have put in a number of measures to reinforce that, including: the fairness premium, on which £7.2 billion is being spent; the expansion of free early education for three and four year-olds and for 40 per cent of two year-olds; and the introduction of the pupil premium. As for the Bills mentioned, in the long run the universal credit is predicted to take 350,000 children out of poverty, but rather more important than that is reducing the number of workless households by 300,000. That is a behavioural response. On legal aid, we have retained legal aid for child parties in virtually all family cases.

Social Fund Maternity Grant Amendment Regulations 2011

Baroness Massey of Darwen Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Sherlock secured this debate and I pay tribute to her for doing so. However, it is with great regret that she has had to withdraw, and she has asked me to speak in her place. I agreed to do so willingly, but alas I fear that I will not execute the task as well as she would have done. I should also declare an interest as president of HomeStart in my former constituency of Islwyn.

The two poorest groups in our society are those at the extreme end of the age range—pensioners and young children—and the change the Government are making to the Social Fund Maternity Grant is an outright attack on young children born into some of the poorest families in Britain. Put simply, at present women receiving certain means-tested benefits can get a grant of £500 to help with the costs of a new baby. The Government intend to abolish this payment for the second and subsequent children. A woman who gives birth to a new baby will lose the grant if she already has another child aged under 16 in the household.

The Government are planning £9 billion of cuts in the tax and benefits system, and some £4 billion of those are going to come from child support. I believe that this shows that the Government are out of touch. They assume that parents need only to spend the grant to acquire a pram, a pushchair, a cot, baby clothes and all that is needed for a newborn child just once in a lifetime. I suppose they imagine that all these things can be stored away as the first child grows out of them in case another child follows, and they assume that this storage can go on for 16 years.

This is an attack on some 150,000 of the poorest families in Britain. The Government are taking this step without proper consultation and against the advice of well-known family support groups such as Gingerbread and the Social Security Advisory Committee. Yes, even the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the independent body which provides impartial advice to the Government on these matters, is being ignored. The advisory committee has described the proposals to restrict the maternity grant as lacking a “coherently argued rationale” and has stated that they appear to run counter to Government policy to abolish child poverty by 2020.

The department responsible, the Department for Work and Pensions, has stated that:

“This change will undoubtedly cause hardship for some cases. However this will not impact on the child poverty figures”,

due to the fact that maternity grants are one-off lump-sum payments which do nothing to increase annual income. The department is known across Whitehall as DWP, which is also a word in Welsh—“dwp” means stupid and daft in the head. Anyone who actually believes that this measure will not impact on child poverty is not taking the issue seriously at all. Indeed, Gingerbread has said:

“The DWP fails to recognise the significant and negative impact that this measure will have on the ability of poor and low-income families to buy essential baby equipment. Single parents are more likely than couple families to be poor: 52% of children in single parent families grow up poor. If a single parent has just separated from a partner, they are likely to have experienced a drop in income. If they are pregnant, or later become pregnant and cannot claim the [grant] because they already have a child under 16, many will struggle to buy items such as a pushchair, cot and car seat. If they have fled domestic violence and have no belongings for themselves or their other child, this situation is [made even worse]. The impact is likely to be particularly great where there is more than a two-year gap between children”.

Gingerbread also points out that the,

“DWP mistakenly assumes that [the grant] will have been claimed for the first child”,

But the organisation’s helpline suggests that large numbers of people do not claim the grant for their child through ignorance or the complexity of the tax and benefits system.

The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House said that the Government’s target of 24 January for the coming into force of the instrument in order for the change to take effect in April of this year,

“has severely curtailed both the time available for consultation and for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Furthermore, the SSAC was able to consult for only nine days on this proposal—a dismally short period. Alas, this is becoming typical of the Government, who seem to view consultation and scrutiny as optional, rather than viewing them as mechanisms which can improve government proposals and mitigate their worst, ill-thought-out effects.

As the Merits Committee noted, no impact assessment has been provided to Parliament. Little information has been given on the costs of alternative policy options and the department had not explained why the option chosen was preferred. Again, this looks like policy made on the hoof for short-term political, rather than long-term welfare, considerations.

The Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that the way in which Government have alighted on some decisions as part of this policy change lacks reasoned explanation. The committee pointed to the way in which the Government had arrived at the exceptions to the new rules, and why the option to restrict to payments who are the only children under 16 in a family was chosen above the other options presented to them. The proposal is that if there is a child in the family under the age of 16, there is no entitlement to the maternity grant. The SSAC believes that,

“this is an unreasonably high threshold and should be set at a much lower age, possibly as low as five”.

This point is reiterated by the Merits Committee, which noted:

“The rationale for limiting eligibility to households where there is no child under 16 is not explained. While it is reasonable to expect some recycling of baby equipment among siblings, the SSAC points out that it seems unrealistic to think that parents of a fifteen year old would retain baby goods that long”.

My wife and I have four children, and there was a five-year gap between the birth of our third and fourth children. I can tell your Lordships that when the fourth child arrived we had to go out and buy a whole new lot of equipment.

The advisory committee states that,

“the changes to the rules for Sure Start Maternity Grants are based on an assumption that the payments are made on the basis of meeting additional expenses incurred by the purchase of new items regarded as necessary for a baby, and that they fail to recognise ongoing or recurrent costs such as the need for the mother to eat healthily or for the home to be kept sufficiently warm”.

This would suggest that this policy, like so many that the Government have put forward, has not been properly thought through.

One respondent to the advisory committee noted that,

“each pregnancy and preparation for a baby costs an average of £1,600, and that this estimate does not simply include the ‘hardware’ required but also additional heating and travel costs for hospital visits: so there are considerable costs that cannot be met by ‘recycling’ goods from a previous pregnancy”.

The Government have not properly considered what costs incurred for children apply to every child and cannot be mitigated by hand-downs. As a result, their proposal to restrict maternity grants to the first child looks increasingly muddled and will produce significant hardships for families across the country.

There will be an intervening period of eight to 12 months between the introduction of the new rules for maternity grants and the introduction of mitigating measures to extend Social Fund budgeting loans to include maternity items. The Social Security Advisory Committee said that,

“this would mean that many people will be left without any alternative means for meeting the additional expenditure incurred by a second or subsequent baby beyond going without or having to resort to high cost lenders”.

One of the most worrying aspects of the proposals is the lack of a safety net for those who lose their grant. While a loan facility will eventually be available, the changes are not being put in place at the same time. The mitigation measures will not come into effect until at least eight months after the cuts to maternity grants have been implemented.

The committee said that it was particularly concerned about this, stating:

“It would be a difficult enough step for someone who would have been entitled to an SSMG of £500, to go to having to apply for a budgeting loan for the required items. But it is an entirely different matter if there is no provision to be made at all within the benefits system and they were expected to borrow commercially instead. People eligible for an SSMG would be unlikely to have access to low-cost credit – indeed many would need to borrow at APRs in excess of 100 or even 200%”.

The advisory committee urged the Government to look at halving their budget for this grant and to look at the impact of other changes; for example, to housing benefit, health in pregnancy grant and tax credits. It said that no such evaluation of the rationale had been presented to them. Respondents to the advisory committee pointed out that the cuts in the maternity grant will cause hardships for families which may translate into additional costs for other bodies such as local authority social services departments and the NHS. The SSAC therefore concluded that a more tempered level of saving may be achieved than other outcomes would yield.

The committee also observed that the low-income families eligible to apply for the grant are those most likely to have been in temporary accommodation or in homes with cramped conditions, which would make it unlikely that they would have had places for long-term, regular storage of baby equipment. Anyone with a new child knows how much stuff children can generate as they grow up and grow out of their baby clothing and equipment. People living in cramped conditions simply cannot keep such things just in case they have more children. The policy ignores conditions in low-income families and the realities of their situations, quite possibly because too many in the Government have no experience of, or any concern about, people living in such conditions. Most concerning, it risks exposing children born into low-income families to poverty from the moment they are born. That simply cannot be right for the fourth-richest country on the planet. It is not morally right either.

Rather than listening to the SSAC, the body which is supposed to advise the Government on these issues, the Government have instead pushed ahead blindly and said that they have no plans even to review the policy. It is typical of the arrogance that this Government now display that they never seem to listen to reasoned arguments or objections from any outside source, but rather they assume that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.

The Merits Committee concluded:

“This instrument seems to have been inadequately planned and explained”.

It wisely suggested that your Lordships,

“may wish to press the DWP for a better explanation of why the other options suggested were not pursued and what the anticipated impact on new mothers and children in low-income families will be”.

I hope that the Minister has some encouraging answers.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I support the Motion of Regret put so ably by my noble friend Lord Touhig. I shall speak very briefly and widen out the debate a little.

There has been a lot of discussion in your Lordships' House recently on early intervention. There have also been many reports recently, including one by Frank Field on child poverty and one by Graham Allen on early intervention. I thought and hoped that the Government would have understood the importance of spending now to save later.

During the recent debate on parenting of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I was greatly impressed by a statement from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He cited the Graham Allen report on early intervention, which said that decades of expensive late intervention had failed. In his response, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said:

“I hope that it is also fair to say that this Government, like the previous Government, recognise the importance of the early years in children's lives and development”.—[Official Report, 3/2/11; col. 1500.]

How true, but do the Government still recognise that?

This measure, cutting a grant to low-income families, may well contribute to both poverty and to poorer outcomes for children. It may not seem like much money, but it is to some people and some families generally. The loss of the money could affect the lives of not only the child or children—and some people have twins—but also affect the relationship between the parents. Stress can be created by poverty, and poverty affects relationships. It also affects maternal health, which is a key to good health and achievement in children.