International Women’s Day

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I spoke in this debate last year about the gender pensions gap. It is still there, but I am going to speak more broadly this year, following the theme—quite clearly set out—of how to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology.

Before moving on, I need first to congratulate my noble friends Lady Alexander of Cleveden, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, Lady Bousted, Lady Rafferty and Lord Jones of Penybont on their excellent and germane maiden speeches. They will all clearly be major assets to the House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern on her appointment as Minister for Women and Equalities.

I welcome this debate. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be here and to listen to what has been said. It is also a pleasure to contribute, despite the ever-present inevitability of mansplaining. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Jones and Lord Stansgate on their skill in avoiding that danger, but the only certain way to escape falling into the trap is simply to listen to the experience of women, particularly women with lived experience of success in science and technology. We have heard about that with great pleasure in this House today.

I also asked my older daughter. Not only is she a great friend and companion; not only is she a mother of a brilliant grandchild but I am immensely proud that she is an engineer. I have to emphasise that the credit is all hers that she is a professor in the engineering department at the University of Cambridge. I asked her what key point she would like to see raised in this debate. She mentioned in essence—I paraphrase—family-friendly policies that enable her to participate fully and deliver the work in which she is involved undertaking research, with that support both social and in employment. The specific issue she mentioned was support through maternity, through periods when, inevitably, women have children. Support for people in their careers through periods of maternity is obviously important to the individuals concerned and their families but it is also important to all of us, because it avoids the loss of the tremendous talent that is available, which we have to exploit—that is not quite the right word—or employ to the full.

In summarising the challenges and future directions, we have to understand that, despite the undoubted progress that there has been, women in STEM still face barriers, including unconscious bias, workplace discrimination and lack of representation in leadership positions. We have to foster sustainable change: efforts must go beyond entry-level recruitment and focus on career retention, leadership and policy reforms, not least addressing the issues that arise with maternity. We must recognise that women’s participation and leadership in science, technology, engineering and mathematics are vital for innovation, economic growth and social progress. The Government have made it clear that their number one goal is growth, and mobilising the full talent of women and girls is a crucial element in achieving that aim.

Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

As “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” had it, do you have that strange feeling of déjà vu? We have been here before; it is becoming a regular event—but that is quite right. It is an issue upon which I have strong views, and I always welcome the opportunity to express them.

I speak as a corridor child, although that was more to do with train timetables than any point of principle. However, I can testify to the pointlessness of being excluded from the life of a school, which is an inevitable result of the current approach. The Education (Assemblies) Bill is a necessary and overdue reform that seeks to replace the requirement for daily acts of Christian worship in non-faith schools with inclusive assemblies that cater for all students, regardless of their religious belief. In my view, the Bill represents a significant step towards ensuring that the education system in England reflects the diversity and inclusivity of modern British society. There is clearly a need for that.

I welcome that there has been a genuine debate at Second Reading. I note in particular that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to the flexibility of the current system. We need to be clear that that flexibility is available essentially because of an element of hypocrisy: enforcement of the terms of the law is not always followed through, which is clearly an unsatisfactory situation.

The requirement enshrined in the 1944 Act, reinforced in subsequent legislation, does not reflect the reality of today’s multicultural and multifaith society. The UK is home to people of many different religions and to many, including me, with no religion at all. According to the 2001 census, almost 40% of people in England and Wales identify as having no religion, and a growing proportion of the rest do not identify as Christian. Forcing students to participate in Christian worship—because that is effectively what happens—is not only out of step with societal changes but contradicts the principles of freedom of belief.

While parents have the right to withdraw their children from these acts of worship, that places an unfair burden on families and can isolate children from their peers. Despite my strong views, I never sought to withdraw my children from collective acts of Christian worship, because they were part of the life of the school. In a sense, you were coerced into participating in what is, essentially, a charade.

The Bill proposes a simple but powerful change: replacing mandated Christian worship with inclusive assemblies that promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of all pupils. I note that the right reverend Prelate, in setting the terms for what she wanted to see take place in schools, introduced the word “worship” into what should be regarded as an acceptable school assembly. I do not know how widely held that view is, but it is the worship that is the problem; it needs to be excluded from activities that are part of the collective life of the school.

Under this Bill there would still be opportunities for reflection, moral education and community building, but in a way that does not privilege a religious perspective over others. Such an approach would ensure that all students feel equally valued and respected, regardless of their personal beliefs. Schools would have the flexibility to design assemblies that encourage critical thinking, ethical discussions and a sense of community, without requiring participation in religious practices. I very much support this Bill and hope it will progress and, at long last, even possibly change the law.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I think the word he used, “charade”, is a description of our current situation. It is worth looking at how, in other debates in your Lordships’ House, we see some very intense discussion about the nature of our schools. We are seeing a lot of debate on mental ill-health among our young people. Having a charade, which is what it very clearly is, at the foundation of this is not good.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, for his kind words and apologise to the noble Lord for leaving the Chamber during his speech. If you do three Bills in a row, you have to time the comfort breaks quite carefully; I apologise for that.

As with many people in the debate today, I feel a sense of déjà vu in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for bringing this Bill, as I thanked her three years ago. The arguments for it now are clearer than ever.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I apologise; I omitted from my speech my thanks to the noble Baroness. I want to take the opportunity to say thanks again to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing this Bill back.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am very happy to give way on that basis.

I want to pick up points made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. The Bill the noble Lord described does not reflect the Bill I see in front of me. Arguments were made on the question of representing society. But this is not our society any more. Looking at history, I thought it was interesting that the noble Lord spoke about Judaeo-Christianism as a foundation of democracy. I am not sure if the noble Lord knows that some of the earliest democracy that we know of in the world was the old Assyrian empire, well before even the ancient Greeks. To make a claim of exclusivity to democracy does not stack up.

There are three main points I want to make. First, we often hear about how much pressure there is on schools and how much difficulty they have fitting in time for important lessons and activities. Here is a space and time for moral, spiritual and cultural development that we could be using far more creatively and better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, the time that is currently theoretically allocated for worship could be used creatively to learn about nature, and for the consideration of ourselves as human animals in a more than human world.

Secondly, we have not made a great deal of this argument today, but it is worth pointing out that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that the imposition of worship undermines children’s rights under Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention and Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As I said in the context of the first Bill I spoke on today, we are seeing the rule of law, human rights and UN traditions under such pressure around the world. That really does help to build the case for this Bill.

A 2024 poll showed that a large majority—70%—of school leaders oppose this collective worship. We have this provision, but we know that it is not being delivered. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, this is a charade. The UK is the only sovereign state where Christian worship is compulsory in state schools, including those without a religious character. We are talking about a law dating back to 1944. It really is time that we moved on and provided care and support for our children.

During this time, a local theatre group could come in and put on a little play that poses a moral conundrum, which could then be discussed. As I said, the time could be used to discuss nature, or there could be lessons in first aid and how to react in situations where it is needed. This time could be well spent on these really useful things—education for life, not exams—and that is what the noble Baroness’s Bill moves towards.

I finish by offering the Green group’s strongest possible support for the Bill, and I very much hope that it progresses.

Independent Schools: VAT

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have two points for my noble friend the Minister by way of background to this debate. Does she agree that it is not just those parents who pay for their children’s schooling who care about their children’s education? Also, we all must pay our fair share of taxation—some taxes on our incomes, some on our expenditure through VAT. We pay our taxes not as a fee for service but as part of our commitment to society as a whole.

Independent Schools: VAT Exemption

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing this debate. No one doubts the strength of his feeling on the issue. I suspect that much of his speech overrated the problems that the private sector will face, and my view is that it will survive, but he quite rightly raised a number of practical issues towards the end of his speech which I am sure my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern will address in her reply. I take the opportunity to welcome her to her place.

I speak as a parent but also as someone who had experience running a public education service, and that drives my view of the necessity for this measure. Of course, the actual discussion will take place when we get the finance Bill, when we will doubtless have this debate again, but it is entirely appropriate that we should discuss it now.

I want to stress that VAT is a tax—no surprise there, but there is a big debate within the public expenditure discussions about the appropriate balance between income taxes and expenditure taxes. There are those who believe that there should be a greater reliance on expenditure taxes. That is an issue, but it means that they are both providing the same function; they are both providing public revenue to provide public services. It is worth stressing that taxes are paid not as a fee for a service but as an individual commitment to society as a whole. It is no more reasonable for those who choose to spend their money on sending their children to private school to have a VAT rebate than for people to expect to get an income tax rebate.

The basic fact about this proposal is that it was in the manifesto. It was not hidden or avoided during the election campaign, and this party was elected with a commitment to implement it. Practical issues were raised, and I hope my noble friend will address them.

I have taken the opportunity to read all the submissions that were sent to me. There was a large number and I cannot claim to have read every last one or through each one entirely—there was a certain amount of copying and pasting—but I got a sense of the expressions of concern that were being made, almost entirely by parents. The issues on which I hope my noble friend will be able to provide some comfort are, first of all, children with special needs and, possibly to a lesser extent, military families.

I want to conclude with a point that makes me angry—so far none of the speakers against this proposal has made the fatal mistake of making this point—and that is the idea that parents who choose to send their children to private school care more about their children than those of us who choose to send our children to state schools. The last Prime Minister made that classic mistake, in answer to Questions in the House of Commons, so noble Lords should not dismiss it. I hope no speaker in this debate will give that idea a scintilla of justification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I have only four minutes so I will sum up my view of this policy in three words: wicked, stupid and cruel. I have spent the summer receiving emails from vast numbers of parents. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, told us he had not had time to read all of them. If he had done so, he would be heartbroken.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am not going to give way—he would not give way to me.

These are lone parents, single parents perhaps struggling with two jobs in order to pay. They are people who put themselves in danger to defend our country in the armed services. They are parents struggling with children with severe learning difficulties. Who in this Chamber can defend the idea of sending a child who suffers with autism to a completely different environment halfway through term? Anyone who knows anything about autism will know that that would be a cruel and disgraceful thing to do. That is the consequence of this policy.

The messages are coming from health workers, teachers and small businesses, people who are struggling to pay those bills. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in his place but he told me he was not going to listen to what I had to say because he has seen people turning up in their Range Rovers to schools. The people I am talking about do not have summer holidays and run old cars to scrimp and save to do their best for their child in their circumstances.

By the way, every single one of these parents is saving taxpayers money. For the noble Baroness to suggest that this was a tax break—it is not one unless you take the view that education should be taxed. What has happened to the Labour Party that set up the Workers’ Education Association and founded the Open University? The Labour Party was elected in 1997 on “Education, education, education” and has now become the party of “Taxation, taxation, taxation”.

I agree that state schools need more resources, but look at the impact that this is going to have on those schools half way through the school year. I guess Emily Thornberry did not get to be Foreign Secretary because she let the cat out of the bag. She said, “It’s fine: if we have larger classes, we have larger classes”. “Let them eat cake”—she did not add. One in four children in Edinburgh go to independent schools. How on earth will state schools be able to cope with people who are no longer able to pay the cost?

I confess that I have not always been a huge fan of the ECHR, but I hope that those people with the resources will put their hands in their pockets and help my noble friend Lord Lexden and others to take this Government to court over this issue, and that the Government will realise that their time is nigh. As for the idea that this will save money—the Government have come up with at least three figures, all reducing in number—they need to read the wonderful analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on their own Benches, as to how it will end up costing more than it will save.

I have a suggestion to make to the Government. I know they have made a silly manifesto commitment, and I know they feel that they have to do something, but they should at least take some time and not do this half way through the school year. If that is what they are determined to do, they could perhaps meet their requirement to put VAT at 5% rather than 20%, as we do on heating charges, and phase it in over a reasonable period of time. I fear that this is an ideologically driven policy of the kind that the Prime Minister showed during the election, when he was asked, “If one of your family were desperately ill, would you ever use private healthcare?” and he said no. We do not want that kind of politics in this country.