Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely understand why the Government want to get rid of a fuel payment to many people who can afford to deal with even the heightened cost of fuel for heating, but I make no apology for repeating what others have said, because it seems to me that it has to come from right across the House in order for—just possibly—the Minister and therefore the Government to listen to what we are saying. I do not think, from what I heard happened in the Commons yesterday—although I was not in this country—that there is more than a faint hope of that, but it is so important that we should be saying this from across the House.

We know that those eligible for universal credit do not always take it; we have been told that. But we also know of a large number of people who have an income just above universal credit and that is the group about whom I am most concerned when it comes to an increase in heating costs. The triple-lock pension increase does not come until April, but the heating cost is coming now. These people are going to suffer this year and I find it inconceivable that a Labour Government who have done so much for this country in so many ways should put themselves behind depriving ordinary, elderly people—and I speak as a very elderly person—of the opportunity to not have to choose between eating or heating. This seems to me the saddest thing I could possibly think of.

It may be a short-term problem in the sense that the triple-lock payment may help for next year, but, having heard what other speakers have said today in your Lordships’ House, that seems to me unlikely and it does seem that we will need a fuel payment for those on universal credit and those not on universal credit but earning very little more. I absolutely beg the Government to think again.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my erstwhile noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on her powerful opening of this debate. I agree with the arguments she put forward, as well as those of my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is very little for me to add to what they have already said about this decision that the Government have made and for which they have no mandate. They have not even had the respect to set out a proposal in a Budget in a much more rounded way, as put forward by my noble friend Lady Altmann.

I want to make a bigger point. What a lot of people find quite hard to take at the moment is that, alongside this decision, the Prime Minister has the gall to say that his Government are acting in a way which will restore public trust. He seems not to understand that all of us in the political class over the last few years have lost public trust—himself included—because of our disregard and disrespect for what the electorate have been demanding from us. For this Government now to take decisions that affect people so directly without any notice—believing that such decisions can be justified because the Prime Minister and his Chancellor are convinced that they know best—damages public trust further.

Of course, the impact of this politically on the Labour Party is a matter for it, but I urge the Minister and the rest of her Government to accept the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Altmann today. I hope that she does not mind me calling her my noble friend; she will always be “my noble friend” to me.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Absolutely. She will always be my noble friend.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I also urge the Prime Minister to drop his misplaced belief that he and his Government are somehow morally superior and are acting in a way which will restore public trust. On the basis of this decision, they are not.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, the decision by the Government to remove the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners is both cruel and reckless. It will mean that many elderly people will have to decide, as others have noted, between heating and eating this winter.

This is an attack on many who worked hard and contributed much to the prosperity of our country over their lifetimes. Many pensioners in Northern Ireland have no alternative to oil-fired burners for heating their homes and, with this Government’s proposal, 250,000 will lose this payment. Citizens Advice, Age UK and other charities across the United Kingdom have warned of the implications of this proposal—that low-income households that are already struggling will face intolerable choices—but their voices and warnings are falling on deaf ears. Surely Ministers must acknowledge that those now forced to live in cold home conditions are at increased risk of serious illness. Vulnerable pensioners and those with disabilities can add to the burden placed on our National Health Service this winter. In fact, it is believed that, through this proposal, many will die.

It is also noted that the Government chose to invoke the emergency provisions that permit them to bypass the scrutiny of the Social Security Advisory Committee. I thought that this Government proclaimed that, coming to power, they would be transparent and open and would restore integrity to our system of government, but at the very first hurdle they have failed miserably. I hope that the Minister will honour this House by giving us an answer to a simple question: when will they publish the impact assessment for these regulations? That question was asked three times in Prime Minister’s Questions today in the other House, and the Prime Minister gave no answer at all.

This decision was taken by the Labour Government also without consultation with the devolved regions. The action taken by the Government is callous and was not in the Labour Party’s general election manifesto. This is an attack on vulnerable pensioners, and a deliberate one. I know that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, “We had to do this”, but that is not true. They did not have to do this; they chose to do it.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know how unusual this is, but we are on the same page across both sides of the Committee.

First, having signed the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I express my support for the first batch, Amendments 199 to 201, which are strongly supported by the Advertising Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau for obvious reasons. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Bassam, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, have expressed why they are fundamental to advertising on the internet. Audience measurement is an important function, for media owners in particular, to determine the consumption of content and to price advertising space for advertisers.

I understand that the department, DSIT, has conceded that most of the use cases for audience measurement fit within the term “statistical purposes”. It is this area of performance that is so important. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seemed to indicate, we may be within touching distance of agreement on that, but the Minister needs to be explicit about it so that the industry understands what the intent behind that clause really is. As a number of noble Lords have said, this is a specific and targeted exemption for audience measurement and performance cookies that limits the consent exemption for those purposes and, as such, should definitely be supported. I very much hope that, if the Minister cannot give the necessary assurance now, then, as a number of noble Lords have said, he will engage in further discussions.

Amendments 203, which I have signed, and 205 are extremely important too. Amendment 203, picked up clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is potentially important; it could save an awful lot of aggravation for users on the internet. It is potentially game-changing given that, when we approach the same site—even Google—we have to keep clicking the cookie. I very much hope the Minister will see the sense in that because, if we are changing the EC regulations, we need to do something sensible and useful like that. It might even give the Bill a good name.

As all noble Lords have rightly said, the Secretary of State needs to think about the implementation of the regulations and what they will affect. Amendment 202 is fundamental and badly needed. You need only look at the list of those who are absolutely concerned about the centralisation of cookies: the Internet Advertising Bureau, the Advertising Association, the Data & Marketing Association, the Market Research Society, the News Media Association, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Association of Online Publishers and the Professional Publishers Association. I hope that the Government are in listening mode and will listen to their concerns.

As the PPA says, centralising cookie consent with browsers could cause consumers far more harm than good. The Secretary of State’s powers would override cookie consent relationships between individuals and specialist publishers, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, talked about in particular. As the PPA says, in all likelihood a significant number of internet users would not consent to cookies from the browser but would consent to cookies on the websites of publishers that they know and trust. If the Secretary of State were to use this power to enforce cookie centralisation, many publishing businesses would be forced to present consumers with paywalls in order to be financially sustainable. As the PPA says, this would lead to consumers missing the opportunity to access high-quality publishing content without having to pay a fee.

The PPA has made an extremely good case. This would amplify existing barriers to competition in the digital market. There are provisions in the DMCC Bill that would give powers to the CMA to address any problems, such as enforced data sharing from platforms to publishers, but centralising cookie consent would completely undermine the objectives of that legislation. It is clear that this Bill should be amended to withdraw the provisions giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce these centralised cookie controls. I very much hope that the Minister will have second thoughts, given the weight of opinion and the impact that the Secretary of State’s powers would have.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, if the Committee will indulge me, I was a little late arriving for the introduction to this group of amendments by my noble friend Lord Lucas, but I heard most of what he said and I will speak briefly. I am quite sympathetic to the arguments about the exemption being too tightly drawn and the advantage that this is likely to give the likes of Google and Meta in the advertising ecology. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, a range of different trade bodies have raised concerns about this, certainly with me.

From my perspective, the other point of interest that I want to flag is that the Communications and Digital Committee is currently doing an inquiry into the future of news. As part of the evidence that we have taken in that inquiry, one of our witnesses from the news industry raised their concerns about a lack of joined-up thinking, as they described it, within government when it comes to various different bits of legislation in which there are measures that are inadvertently detrimental to the news or publishing industry because there has been no proper understanding or recognition of how the digital news environment is now so interconnected. Something like this, on cookies, could have quite a profound effect on the news and publishing industry, which we know is reliant on advertising and is increasingly feeling the pinch because the value that it gets from digital advertising is being squeezed all the time. I just wanted to reinforce the point, for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister, that concern about this is widespread and real.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to make my first foray at the Dispatch Box on this Bill in what has been an interesting Committee stage thus far. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling these amendments and other noble Lords who have signed and spoken to them in support.

Many people are irritated by repetitive pop-ups that appear on websites seeking consent for cookies and other similar technologies. The current cookie rules apply to all organisations placing cookies on a person’s device. Rather than engaging with these banners, people will select “accept all” so that they can access the webpage as quickly as possible. We want users to be able to make more meaningful choices over their privacy. One way in which web users may be able to reduce the number of consent pop-up banners that they see is by using automated consent management technology.

New Regulation 6B, which Amendment 202 seeks to remove, is important as it will allow the Secretary of State to require relevant technologies to meet certain standards or specifications, thereby ensuring that individuals using this technology have effective control over their privacy when they are online. Amendment 203 seeks to amend Regulation 6B by making it clear that consents given on individual websites should override any prior choices made using automated technology. However, this could pre-empt the outcome of consultation with relevant sectors, civil society and regulators on the design of any new regulations. I fear that this amendment could have the effect of encouraging the continued use of consent banners, may not reduce the overall number of pop-up banners and could increase the risk of influencing consumers to give up more personal data than they intended.

We feel that Amendments 204 and 205 are unnecessary and duplicate existing requirements and standard practice. There is already a requirement in new Regulation 6B to consult. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders on this Bill and will continue to do so in the context of using any of the new regulation-making powers linked to these clauses. Our engagement so far has highlighted the complexity of the ecosystem and the range of impacts on different interest groups. We will continue to consider these impacts carefully when considering whether to use the new regulation-making powers. Impact assessments are generally required for all interventions of a regulatory nature that affect the private sector, civil society organisations and public services.

The Government have taken powers in the Bill to remove consent requirements for other purposes if the evidence supports it while recognising that this is a complex and technical market. The Government will therefore continue to engage fully with all players before introducing any new exemptions or deciding to set standards for the market.

The new power in Regulation 6B recognises that there is a range of different stakeholder interests that would need to be considered before making regulations. The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner, the Competition and Markets Authority and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate. While browser-based or centralised consent options have been discussed as a possible solution, nothing in the Bill mandates them. The regulation-making power, which follows the affirmative resolution procedure, would allow the Secretary of State to set standards of design that will be key to ensuring that the regulations can move with technology.

Amendments 199 and 200 would permit the storage of information or accessing information stored on a person’s connected device, including the internet of things, to enable the organisation to generate audience measurement information. This proposed new exemption does not explain what data would need to be gathered to meet the objective of the amendment and is potentially broad in its application. For example, if it permitted activities such as tracking and profiling, it may not be appropriate to permit it without the consent of web users.

Love Matters (Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households Report)

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Friday 8th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the most reverend Primate. I congratulate him on a very powerful speech. I agree with much of what he said, especially his statement that family is indispensable to the state. In fact, when I saw the subject of his debate this year, I was particularly pleased, because nothing matters more to me than family.

But I have to confess that my heart sank a little when I read the Love Matters report, interesting as it is. I was pleased, as a single person myself, to see the status of “single” being included in the report. I look forward to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who will speak about single status. I do not know whether it was meant to make me laugh, but it amused me that, in the bit of the report about single status, Jesus was held up as a great example of a single person. I thought, “Well, if it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me”.

But, in a report from the Church of England about love and families, I had expected to find marriage front and centre. It is in there, but is not, for example, mentioned in the key messages or the key priorities for action. I was surprised; I do not think that the most reverend Primate mentioned marriage in his speech. We all understand how important it is not to discriminate or judge families that take different forms; the most reverend Primate reminded us of his own. Relationships do break down irretrievably. It is right that women, for whatever reason, can choose whether to marry the father of their child. Like women, men too can find themselves bringing up children alone, through no fault of their own. In all these situations, there are fantastic parents whose children grow up to be fantastic adults. Nobody disputes that.

Even so, we ought to be able to say—and I think the Church of England should say—that marriage is, none the less, the most secure and optimum arrangement for couples who want to commit to each other, especially if they want to bring up a family and create the best chances for their children to succeed. I find it hard to understand why it does not. Even though the take-up of marriage in the UK has halved since 1990, the benefits of being married are clearly evident to high-income couples, as 83% of us choose to do it, yet we seem happy to ignore the fact that 45% of low-income couples do not choose all the benefits of marriage that we enjoy.

If we want a strong and cohesive society that is more equal in providing opportunities, we should do everything we can to turn this situation around. One of the great things about marriage is that it transcends difference: religion, age, class, education, ethnicity. Since Parliament passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 10 years ago, it is available to any couple who wants to honour the institution and gain all the benefits it has to offer. Now, I know that gay marriage remains a contested and difficult issue within the Church of England. I do not know whether it is resolvable and— I mean this sincerely—it is not for me to tell the Church what it should do. I am as committed to religious freedoms in the context of gay marriage as I am to people’s freedom to say that they disagree with it. But I do know that not promoting the benefits of marriage to society as a whole will make the internal difficulties on gay marriage that much harder for the Church to resolve.

Because this year marked its 10th anniversary, I have reflected quite a bit on the way we succeeded in passing the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act through this House. Do not get me wrong: I do understand that the challenges facing the Church are greater and far more complex than any that a Government face when trying to pass a contentious Bill through Parliament. But there are lessons worth highlighting and something for all of us—politicians, the Government and the Church—to learn from going over some old ground. And by the way, as it has been a while and some in the Chamber today might not remember, I was the Minister in charge of the equal marriage Bill.

As noble Lords will recall, the Bill had been fiercely contested in the House of Commons and, while it left the other place with a large majority in favour overall, the majority of Conservative MPs had voted against it. The expectation was for similar difficulties here. Indeed, uncertainty was very evident among many Peers—and not just on the Conservative Benches. So I decided that we, the Ministers and Bill team officials, would take a different approach. Essentially, we reassured rather than demonised those who were against or unsure whether to support what, at the time, was a radical change. We made being unsure about the Bill a perfectly respectable position to hold. We worked hard to demonstrate that all the legitimate concerns of those opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds had been taken seriously, and we amended the Bill further to provide the clarification and comfort that some sought, when it cost us nothing to do so.

Our approach neutered the political opportunists, who quite frankly did not care about marriage much anyway, and prevented them using the Bill to cause division. Instead, we created the right conditions for us to make a positive case for what we were trying to achieve. Our argument was that the legal difference from civil partnership for gay couples was zero, but that opening up marriage was profound. Yes, it would make a big difference to the lives of previously excluded gay couples, by giving their committed relationship equal social status to those of a straight couple getting married. But the Bill was even bigger and more important than all of that. Passing it would future-proof the institution of marriage itself. In short—and this was the critical point—all of us would gain from this important change to our law.

We won the Division at Second Reading by a larger margin than in the Commons. A majority of Conservative Peers helped us win that and every other Division during the passage of the Bill. Afterwards, public acceptance of equal marriage grew swiftly, and I felt that the lesson from what we had achieved was clear. Profound social change can be successful only if it is beneficial to everyone, and its purpose is a stronger and more cohesive society. And by the way, it is okay if some people benefit more directly than others, as long as their gain is not at other people’s unfair expense.

Equal marriage did not happen because of our differences or what divides us. It happened because, during those few weeks in the summer of 2013, we understood that marriage upholds important values that we all share. But we seem to have forgotten that lesson, and sometimes I think we did not learn it at all, because collectively we—the Government, Parliament, the Church, all of us—have done little, if anything, since to promote marriage and why it is the best kind of setting for couples and families of all kinds. We should not be surprised, then, that the rate of marriage has continued to fall. At the rate it is going, some predict it will not even exist in 40 years’ time.

I said earlier that the Church of England might never get as far as allowing gay marriage in church. Whether it does or not is not actually what matters most. Promoting the institution of marriage to society is more important if that institution is to survive. Doing that would help future-proof the Church itself, and the purpose of both institutions surviving into the future is the role they have in ensuring a strong, cohesive society for the benefit of us all. I hope the most reverend Primate can at least agree with me on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy mayor for fire and resilience in London. I thank the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York for commissioning the report Love Matters, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for choosing this as the subject of his annual debate. I have learned a lot during the course of the debate, including from many personal recollections and the perspectives of many noble Lords.

I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the reach of the Church of England and the approach it has taken in making recommendations to itself as well as to the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response to questions directed at the Government, both in the report and in the course of the debate.

The most reverend Primate presented families as the original social unit, predating what we now view as society, and it is worth remembering that. It would be hard to disagree with his view that families and households, of all types, including those made up of friendship bonds, have a value and should be supported. In the spirit of not quite quoting Larkin, it is also true that families are not always ideal and should not be idealised.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Davies that those without faith also have a view on this issue and are a vital voice. Like the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, I remained single until my 40s. However, I think this is where our shared view ends, and I am afraid I disagreed with most of what he said.

Like my noble friend Lord Davies, I recognise frustration over the use by policymakers of terms such as “family friendly”, and I add my pet hate of the use of the phrase “as a mother” to justify a political point of view where it could easily be replaced with, “as a decent human being”.

The report notes that love is rarely referred to in any analysis of family life, nor in policies or services. It also concludes that love on its own is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure that everyone can flourish. I am not sure the country is ready for manifestos next year leading with a pledge on love, but I think the country is ready for a commitment to ensure that everyone in society has their basic needs met.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to the commission’s sentiment that, without a roof over our head, and without food or money, daily life becomes a huge struggle for survival. I want to focus a bit on low income. Low income has been found by the Trussell Trust to be the main driver of rising hardship and hunger. When I started doing research on food poverty as a new member of the London Assembly more than 10 years ago, my first report aspired to a zero-hunger city. The truth is that, since then, the aspiration to achieve this in London and around the country is even further away. Shockingly, the Trussell Trust is, for the first time, expecting to provide more than 1 million food parcels this Christmas, with families with children continuing to be the most likely to need support from food banks.

Can the Minister tell us the Government’s assessment of the level of hunger in the UK and why it appears to be continuing to rise? What are the Government doing to address this, including supporting emergency provision over this Christmas period? Research from Barnardo’s has found that families are having to prioritise food and heating over replacing mouldy bedding or broken beds.

My noble friend Lord Davies highlighted the need to consider older people, but the report focuses on children, and my comments do as well. Shockingly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated that, in 2020-21, around one in five of the population were living in poverty, including almost 4 million children. Just this week, we saw appalling statistics published by UNICEF stating that child poverty in the UK has increased by 19.6% since 2014. How can we have reached a place where the UK is bottom of the 39 high-income countries considered in that study in worsening child poverty rates? Why do the Government believe this to be the case and what is their strategy to tackle it?

As we have heard repeatedly throughout the debate, poverty in childhood has lasting consequences. As the report states, the number of children living in poverty is

“a barometer of social injustice in the UK today”.

The report makes it clear that

“being hungry has significant negative impacts on children’s ability to learn”.

This simply is not rocket science. A Labour Government would be ready to break down the barriers to opportunity. That includes a breakfast club in every primary school so that no child has to start a day in education hungry and unable to learn.

The most reverend Primate rightly focused on early years in preventing adverse childhood experiences that lead to issues later to life, including issues around offending. Early investment helps. The report highlighted research that demonstrates that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are essential. Your Lordships’ House debated childcare and early years last week. During that debate, it was made clear that many early years and childcare providers were struggling to stay afloat while many parents were struggling to pay for childcare —in some cases, the cost were higher than their rent or mortgage payments. As has been widely reported, there is a staffing crisis in the sector while the cost of doing business crisis has seen thousands of nurseries shut their doors. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham highlighted the role that family hubs could play in supporting family relationships. Will the Minister commit to the Government considering this?

Labour would reform childcare and early years. We know that children who are eligible for free school meals are already five months behind their peers when they start school. With that in mind, Labour has commissioned an early years review, led by the respected former chief inspector of Ofsted, Sir David Bell, who will be supported by a panel of independent experts.

My noble friend Lord Griffiths gave a powerful personal account of what threatens families in dire cases, such as housing and claiming processes—barriers that the state can put in the way of families thriving. However, I am not going to have an argument with him.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford focused on the need for stable, affordable and decent housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, highlighted, there is an extreme need for housing, and income determines whether people can afford decent homes. A good start in life can be enhanced by external support, but a safe, warm home is essential. The report that we are debating makes it clear that:

“Overcrowding and unsuitable housing can cause stress, depression and anxiety”.


The housing market in many parts of the country, both rural and urban—London was mentioned—is effectively broken and pricing people out of decent homes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and my noble friend Lord Davies highlighted the need for multigenerational homes. The Labour Party plans to build 1.5 million homes over five years, including social housing, to provide families with a secure home in order to build a family, with first-time buyers getting first dibs on new homes.

Cold homes and damp homes with mould have been mentioned, and both have physical and mental health impacts. While energy bills and the cost of living have soared under the Tories, Labour’s plan to switch on Great British Energy could save struggling families up to £1,400 a year and ensure that people do not have to choose between heating and eating in the winter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, highlighted the risk to children of abuse or neglect in their own homes. For many children, their home is not a safe place. That is echoed in the report, which also refers to the pressures on the 800,000 young carers looking after a family member. I note and commend the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on child abuse in Cleveland. The need to see children as people with their own voice and needs is key, as she referred to. In my view, listening, which she recommended as a policy, is an act of love.

With most local authorities under immense financial pressure and some of the statutory services failing to meet urgent need, will the Ministers say what more the Government will do to avoid children taking on the burden of caring responsibility? How will they ensure that the children’s social care system can cope with ever-increasing needs?

The report makes it clear that there are many shapes of family and that

“the protective effect of family depends on the quality of family relationships”.

It highlights the risks of loneliness and the way that Covid-19 exposed these in quite brutal terms. The lasting impact of the pandemic was reflected in the report, which states that the country is picking up the pieces relating to isolation and loneliness, deteriorating mental health, self-neglect and a huge amount of unresolved grief. Research commissioned by the Greater London Authority, published in 2022, described how 700,000 Londoners experienced severe loneliness even before the pandemic. This is reflected across the country. The research highlights the major factors that contribute to loneliness, including acute poverty and disability, through to prejudices and the challenges associated with major transitions in life. A cross-governmental and cross-societal effort is required to address this, but the Government can do more to address the mental health crisis, including by introducing the long-awaited mental health Bill.

The report also referred to the disproportionate impact of the pandemic and how it highlighted levels of inequality, disadvantage and discrimination in England today, including racial inequalities and discrimination. Can the Minister outline what the Government are learning from this, ahead of the Covid inquiry reporting, and how they intend to address this social injustice?

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham highlighted the need to support relationships through marriage preparation. I should probably declare an interest as somebody who went to a church preparation session before I got married. The potential for more formal signposting by registrars would surely be beneficial to many.

A number of noble Lords have reflected on marriage. The full report goes into some detail on this, including the costs, which I consider that many people would find prohibitive. That may be one of the reasons for falling numbers of people getting married. Clearly, the strain that comes with poverty puts a strain on relationships—and conflict in relationships harms children. We should recognise that there are clearly cases in which marriages should end where they are not healthy. This includes violent or financially abusive marriages, or relationships which do harm. I welcome the proposals for greater investment in support for couples at all life transitions, including before marriage, at the start of parenthood and at the point of separation, and to keep children’s interests at the heart of this. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, highlighted issues to do with family law, which surely increase many tensions.

The full report goes into more detail on single-sex marriage than the summary, including many examples of religious ceremonies within other denominations and faiths where it is permitted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that if marriage is desirable, it should be promoted to the whole of society. I pay tribute to her work as the Minister in taking the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act through this House. I know that is something she worked closely on, across the House and cross-party, and recall a picture of her with my noble friend Lady Thornton holding a placard saying, “Girls marry girls—get over it”.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

We did not get married, though.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes, I know that you did not marry each other. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, for sharing his personal and political perspective on that legislation, and the joy it has brought to so many people.

For institutions to survive, they need to adapt to social change. The commission has thought very carefully about how to present what is a clear division of views on the issue of same-sex marriage, and we have heard the counterview from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, today. It is welcome that the Church of England has now allowed blessings of same-sex unions and I hope that, in time, the current decision not to allow same-sex marriage will be further reviewed by the Church.

Finally, I particularly welcome the recognition that couples without children are also a family, that families take a range of shapes and sizes, and that singleness should be recognised and honoured as a major part of society. However, this must not be at the expense of failing to recognise the particular pressures on single-parent households and single people, or those without children in a world that still largely assumes that to be a family that is valued, you must have children of your own.

As I said at the start, it is unlikely that we will find mainstream political parties putting love as a commitment in their manifestos. But government should recognise that all parts of society, including government, faith groups, civil society and the voluntary sector, and those with and without faith, have a role to play in creating a more just society—a fairer society, in which every individual and every family and household can flourish.

Life Chances Strategy

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

I am sorry, but some of my noble friends are walking in front of my noble friend while he is trying to introduce his debate. I ask my noble friends to leave the Chamber in such a way that does not cut across in front of my noble friend, because I know that those who are remaining for this debate very much want to hear him introduce this very important Question and hear what he has to say.

[Lord Farmer]

Thank you. I will begin again. I am delighted that time has been found for such a debate this side of Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech next week. I cannot think of a better way to spend precious time in your Lordships’ House so near the end of this Session than to talk about how the Government can most effectively help the most disadvantaged people in our country.

I thank from the outset every participant in this debate, for whom the striving for better life chances is not just an agenda item but a lifestyle: a cause that gets them out of bed in the morning and wakes them up in the middle of the night.

I am sure that much personal insight will be shared today. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has a towering reputation not only as a former chief executive of Gingerbread, which campaigns tirelessly for parents raising children on their own, but also played a crucial role in the riots commission. This body came to the very important conclusion that at least half a million families in this country were close to breaking point and has, I am sure, been a prime mover in the expansion of the troubled families programme. We are indebted to her; strong and stable families are the wellspring of good life chances and her work has obviously borne much fruit with the present Government and the previous coalition Government.

I am similarly eager to hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro has to say. As chair of the Children’s Society, he represents an organisation that has an impressive track record in championing all children and especially the most vulnerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, will I am sure have many insights from the time when she led Relate most ably before she came into this House. She has been a leader of cross-party efforts to ensure that mental health is at the forefront of all our minds. She also chairs CAFCASS, which assists families going through contested complex court cases at that most stressful time of divorce, separation and public law proceedings. Finally, the quality of representation from my own Benches could not be higher than those who have kindly put their names down to speak at such short notice—for which I am deeply grateful.

To set the scene, the championing of life chances by our Prime Minister is the maturation of a process that has unfolded over the 10 years that he has led my party. On his first day as leader he went to London’s Eastside Young Leaders’ Academy, which nurtures and develops the leadership potential of young African and Caribbean men—often living in disadvantaged communities—and enables them to succeed. Moreover, the first policy group he set up to give him the ideas that he would need to transform Britain was the Social Justice Policy Group, led by lain Duncan Smith and charged with looking at the full range of root causes of poverty. The focus desperately needed to be shifted away from the simple redistribution of money and on to tackling the drivers of the problems that poison life chances. As soon as he became Prime Minister, he asked Frank Field MP to lead a review on poverty and life chances. This again signalled his intent not to ignore poverty—this has never been the way of one-nation Conservatism—but to address it root and branch, broadening the focus away from the income targets that had impoverished the poverty debate.

The poverty plus a pound approach can callously leave people behind if, say, alcoholic parents are deemed beyond the concern of government when a financial transfer tips them over an income line but their lives and those of their children remain unchanged. Since 2010 a deep evidence base has been laid by one review after another: for example, on the importance of early intervention and the early years. These led in turn to the establishment of several What Works centres, such as the Early Intervention Foundation, which act as guardians of effective practice to improve poor life chances.

The new life chances strategy will stand on a sure foundation of academic research and tried and tested solutions that work across the whole of people’s lives to eradicate disadvantage. Similarly, the very concept of life chances has not just been plucked from a spin doctor’s playbook. It has an unimpeachable intellectual pedigree reaching back well over a century to one of the founding fathers of sociology, the German Max Weber. His concept of Lebenschancen, or life chances, is a social science theory of the opportunities that each individual has to improve the quality of his or her life. It is a probabilistic concept concerned with how likely it is, given certain risk and protective factors, that a person’s life will turn out a certain way.

I am sure that today we will be articulating not only what these risk and protective factors are—what will likely produce bad and good outcomes for individuals and families—but also how to boost the good and counteract the bad.

Chief among protective factors is the influence of safe, stable and nurturing relationships, which are essential foundations for human flourishing. If tiny babies, children, young people and adults do not have these, it is very hard to tackle the root causes and effects of poverty, such as addictions, serious personal debt, educational failure, mental ill health and worklessness. It is also nigh on impossible for those with disabilities to thrive if they do not have supportive relationships.

As I said in my maiden speech, my own origins were filled with shame, neglect and poverty, caused by my parents’ alcoholism and bankruptcy. My father died very early but bequeathed me a contact in a London Metal Exchange company, which enabled me to start my career there, albeit at the very bottom. This relationship gave me a much-needed starting opportunity as I did not cover myself in glory at school—partly, it must be said, because my family was collapsing around me.

I therefore speak from personal experience when I say that our epidemic levels of family breakdown act against the likelihood of having people to help one through adversity. Efforts to tackle this, particularly in our poorest communities, have to be front and centre of the life chances strategy. Two-thirds of children on our poorest estates are no longer living with both their parents by the time they are 15; half of them are in this position by the time they start primary school. This is not just about money: the stability of poor couples who are married is far higher than those who are not.

For example, we have to support marriage more effectively at the poorer end of the income spectrum, where its collapse has been most extreme yet where aspirations to marry remain high. Marriage is a social justice issue because it is so much harder to overcome cultural and financial barriers to marrying for those who are poor than for those who are comfortably off. Will the Minister take back to the Treasury the proposal that we should sharply increase the marriage tax allowance for those in the poorest parts of the country, where rates of single parenthood can be as high as 75%? Ironically, the money to do this is already in the budget because of the low take-up of the current trifling tax allowance.

Yet family support has to go beyond this. I have been speaking to Ministers across government about the need to have policies to support family stability in every single government department. We have universal healthcare, universal education and policies to encourage full employment, but all these social goods and reforms will be undermined by poor family functioning and the breakdown of relationships.

Universal family support, which would mean that all struggling families have somewhere to go where someone has the answers, such as family hubs, requires cross-government buy-in. The Department for Education has a clear interest but so do the Ministry of Justice, given the need to support prisoners’ families in the community, and the Ministry of Defence, which has thousands of service families who would also benefit—to name just two. This debate will, I am sure, cover many different areas, and it is clear that there will be no lasting success in any of them without several government departments and organisations working well together. Will my noble friend the Minister lay out what is being done to make sure that this is the case?

I reiterate the potential for good that our time together today holds. One of the paramount roles of good government is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to flourish, whatever their starting point. This debate will, I am sure, brim with ideas and examples of good practice, and I look forward to seeing the trace of our passion expressed today in the life chances strategy shortly to be unveiled.

Welfare

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To clarify, it was what the Minister said—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, this is not a debate; it is a Statement. The noble Baroness has asked her question and my noble friend is responding to it. He will respond to it in one go and then we will move on to the next question.

[Lord Freud]

We were told by Paul Gray, who did a study of this, that there was something going wrong with the way that the aids and appliances element was adding up. There were eight different categories and the points were tiered up. He thought that that was not going right and that a large number of people were getting PIP purely on this one category—that the figures were adding up in an odd way. That is what the consultation was about: it was driven by the need to make sure that it worked. When it got wrapped up into a debate on savings, that was not the driving force and it became something that was not acceptable to Conservatives in the Commons. It was decided, therefore, that we would not go ahead with it. That is the honest and full answer.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate but many noble Lords are leaving the Chamber and cutting across him. I remind my colleagues that it would be more courteous to the House if they were to exit without walking in front of him.

[The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. At Second Reading and in Committee I, along with others in this House, indicated our regret that these proposals as a whole might be seen as signalling that not every child is precious and deserving of love and support not only from parents and families but from communities, society and nation. Nevertheless, I recognise the intent of the Government.

I do not intend to rehearse the detailed arguments, numbers and costings used in Committee. The Minister and your Lordships are aware of them and of the perspective of my and other faith traditions. Whether personally supportive or not of the Bill’s provisions as a whole, noble Lords will see that my amendments do not challenge the main thrust of this part of the Bill: that decisions about family size should be made with responsibility and care and that any decision to have third or subsequent children should be made without expectation of benefit support. The exceptions I propose do not challenge the central plank of the policy, which seeks to influence parental behaviour.

I was grateful, as I know others were, for the opportunity to meet the Minister last week. I was grateful for his courtesy, candour and understanding, which I hope might be shown today in his response.

The Bill incorporates exemptions for multiple births and after rape, an exemption on which I hope the Minister can provide clarity about the procedure, judicial or otherwise, to be used in relation to that. The further exemptions I propose relate in the same way to specific circumstances or vulnerability. All relate to the common good of society, to an understanding of what is just, right and compassionate, and to characteristics and behaviour that we wish to encourage and enable, sometimes in legislation.

The first three exemptions relate directly to unforeseen circumstances that could not have been planned for when a decision was being made about family size. However carefully and responsibly consideration took place, these circumstances could not have been reasonably expected. The death of a parent drastically changes family circumstances. The death may remove the principal source of income, or increased childcare demands may compel the surviving parent to reduce their working hours or stop working. I hope that the Minister and the Government will, as they have previously, show understanding and accommodate these distressing circumstances at least for a transitional period. Will they indicate some provision here so that the deep sadness of bereavement is not exacerbated cruelly by financial penalty? Parental death is unforeseen when family size is decided.

A parent suffering domestic violence is often driven, as a last and desperate resort, to flee the family home. Everything is left behind as parent and children lose home and security and, sometimes, their main source of income. The Government have boosted refuge provision to support such vulnerable victims of violence. I hope the Minister agrees that it would be consistent to recognise the vulnerability of these children in relation to this Bill. The threat and danger of domestic violence is not chosen or sought. To penalise children taken out of a dangerous situation cannot be right and does not reflect well on the concern we all have for the security and protection of vulnerable young people.

No parent either plans for a disabled child, yet we know that the impact on previously anticipated patterns of work and childcare can be hugely significant. A realistic and rational decision to have a third child can lead to a massive change of circumstance if the child is disabled. I recognise, of course, that a disabled child will, in some circumstances, attract some additional payment, albeit hugely reduced under universal credit. The impact for that family on their employment patterns, on childcare priorities and costs would be exacerbated by the strict application of the two-child limit.

Two of the exemptions I propose relate to the behaviour and decisions which I and, I believe, the Government wish to encourage and which policy and legislation can enable through these amendments. Kinship carers and those fostering and adopting step in to care for children with love and commitment when many would otherwise be in the costly care system. Around and across your Lordships’ House there is a desire to welcome, enable and encourage such generosity, which benefits the children themselves and our society. Surely, when kinship carers or fostering or adopting families take third or subsequent children, often to keep siblings together, we should be supportive of that, not really because it saves money for the public purse and the Exchequer—though it does—but because it is the right and good thing, to be welcomed by this House, Parliament and the Government.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to get up, but the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has been trying to get in for a little while. Then we should go to the Labour Benches.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, it is really welcome that the Government have initiated the discretionary housing benefit allowance to offset the negative impacts that the spare room tax has on people’s health and well-being. Despite this extra subsidy, many people are affected. They are going to food banks and are in significant rent arrears. This will be compounded by the ESA WRAG component, under which many people with mental health problems and with a disability may be further affected and may lose their homes. Can the Minister say how this effect will be mitigated?

Employment: Job Creation

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think that we ought to hear from the Lib Dem Benches, and then I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will want to go next.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, women contribute significantly to the UK economy, both through paid and unpaid work. Yet despite 45 years of equality legislation, there remains a gender pay gap, particularly for women working in finance and the insurance sector, as well as for women aged over 40. I welcome the commitment of companies that are going to show the gender pay gap for men and women next year, but what will be done about the root causes of gender inequality? Most women are in low-paid work and there are limited levels of progression to better-quality, higher-paid work.

Employment

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Lib Dems.

[Lord Wrigglesworth]

My Lords, encouraging though those national figures are, does the noble Baroness accept that they mask massive disparities between different regions of this country, in particular between the north and south? What are the Government doing about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal]

We will go to the Lib Dems but, if the contribution is brief, we can get another Labour Peer in.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, in education, girls outperform boys in GCSEs, A-levels and graduate studies. However, across 90% of all sectors there remains a pay gap for women working full-time, particularly for those working in the finance and insurance industry. What are the Government doing to address this gap?

Pensions: British Pensioners Overseas

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the House is signalling that it would like to hear from my noble friend Lady Hooper.

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us about the situation for British pensioners in the overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Gibraltar and so on? Would it be possible for the scheme of partial uprating described by my noble friend Lady Benjamin to apply at least to the small number of pensioners who live in our overseas territories, which are, after all, a very special case?