Child Poverty

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

Poverty Reduction

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“collective shame, social tension and anxiety”.

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

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

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

Understood. I shall draw my comments to a close.

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