(3 days ago)
Lords ChamberI apologise: clearly, I have not explained myself clearly enough. Let me try again, because we are absolutely not doing what used to happen. We are doing different things, and they are starting to have an effect. For example, when I say that we have rebalanced universal credit, what the previous Government did was to freeze the rates for universal credit but not for disability benefits. What then happened was that people were either driven into poverty or were diverted into sickness and disability benefits. What we have done is to rebalance universal credit. We have invested in right to try, so that people who are disabled can take a risk on work, knowing that if it does not work, they can still get support. Crucially, we are investing in employment support to help people to get out there and into work. If the noble Lord looks at the trends, the number of people who are economically inactive because of long-term sickness has been going up stratospherically; that rise has finally levelled off. That is the difference that we are beginning to make. We will not do this overnight. Nobody has ever fixed this overnight. Oppositions often pretend too; Governments do not. We are going to make a difference.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that Labour’s commitment to strengthen rights to flexible working will help to lower the barriers to employment that many people with disabilities and mental health problems have experienced? Does she agree that, rather than punishing people with health conditions, one of the best ways to get more money into the Exchequer is by improving dignity at work?
My noble friend raises a really important point. We know that many people would like to work but struggle to. We have to do a number of things. We have to invest in them—for example, our Connect to Work programme involves working with people who have disabilities or other barriers to try to find out what work they could do and what they would like to do, match them to a job and, crucially, support the employers to make that possible.
Charlie Mayfield, who did the brilliant Keep Britain Working review for us, produced recommendations for employers. Ten months on from that, we are now developing Britain’s first workplace health system, bringing together better workplaces, support and intelligence. Our job is to make sure that everyone who can work should be working. If they need help to do that, it is the Government’s job to give them that help and make sure that employers can encourage those people into the workplace and enable them to stay there.
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberCan my noble friend the Minister confirm that official figures show that spending on non-pensions social security will remain at the same percentage of GDP for this Parliament—at around 5%—and that we should deal with the root causes rather than the symptoms of dependence on social security by creating decent jobs, decent homes and decent healthcare?
My noble friend is absolutely right about the level of GDP. It is around 4.9% of GDP and, as a share of GDP, spending on social security is due to remain broadly stable all the way up to 2030-31—I say in passing that, on that basis, overall welfare spending is in fact forecast to rise by less than half as much as it did under the previous Government. What is most important is that as a Government we are still committed to reforming the system. Certainly, we want to make spending sustainable, but we also want to improve outcomes. It is not good for people to spend most of their lives with no opportunity to work. We know that is the problem. We have to reform the system, and we are committed to doing that.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, the parental leave and pay review launched on 1 July 2025, and we expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings in which the Government will outline next steps for taking any reform forward to implementation.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does she accept that the case for change is urgent? Most forms of parental leave are unpaid or pitifully low paid: £187 a week equates to less than half the national minimum wage, and many mums and dads and partners simply cannot afford to take the pay cut necessary to spend time with their babies and children. The benefits are clear: there is compelling evidence that if, for example, paternity leave were increased to six weeks at 90% of pay, that would improve economic participation and growth and, of course, narrow the gender pay gap. Will my noble friend agree to consider urgently bringing the conclusions of the review forward so that young families can get the start in life they deserve?
My Lords, I pay tribute to the advocacy not only of my noble friend but of her former employer, the TUC. The Government have met with many stakeholders and had many encouragements to act in lots of different directions. My noble friend is absolutely right that the system needs reform. We know that it does not work for everybody at the moment. Having a child is a joyous occasion, but it is a challenge for many parents. We need to get this right. The Government opened a call for evidence, and we had almost 1,500 responses. We need to consider those carefully and find a way forward that provides a proper balance for employers, employees and the Exchequer. We will get this right.