Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to an afternoon of four Questions for Short Debate. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes, but, as can been seen from the screens, there will not be a Division. Indeed, if noble Lords do not mind my saying so, I rather wish this Committee was starting half an hour later so that I could ask a supplementary question in the spending review Statement about the importance of science and technology to the future growth of this country—however, it is my job. Indeed, I thought if I sang “Happy Birthday” to the noble Lord on his feet in the Chamber, I wonder how Hansard would report that, but that is a separate matter as well.
Cardiovascular Illnesses
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Booth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the detection, prevention and treatment of cardiovascular illness.
Lord Booth (Con)
My Lords, the idea for this debate came about at the end of January, when I was lying in a hospital bed, where I had been for nearly four weeks receiving treatment for my heart. Those were the later stages of what had been a long journey for me since 2011. One surgeon described me as an interesting case, so I intend, with the indulgence of the Committee, to tell you about my heart history, as it is important.
When I came into House last year, I was told that our individual expertise and experiences should form part of what we do here. It is an area that I intend to pursue further. Since I initiated this debate, I have received lots of representations from different groups; before then, I did not appreciate the significance of cardiovascular disease and its causes, which are considerable.
It is very difficult to talk about your own health; it is a very un-British thing to do. I saw on Facebook earlier this week when someone asked, “What do we do as the British?” an answer was that we say, “I’m fine, thank you”. That is how we tend to react to things. I find coming out to Peers and telling them about my heart and health issues far more difficult than I did the more traditional way of coming out, which I did many years ago.
My heart issues began in 2011, when I was at the peak of my business career. I was fit and healthy; I went to the gym three times a week. I was floored by an illness called endocarditis, an infection that goes around the heart valve. Its detection was very difficult, as were the subsequent detections of the other heart-related illnesses that I have had. I intend to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly, because there have been some very good and very bad responses from clinicians, and I have seen some very ugly things in hospitals in the United Kingdom.
In 2011, I suffered a flu-like illness, getting fevers and sweats at night. I went to my GP, who basically told me that I probably had the flu and that I should go away, rest and take a couple of paracetamols. Unfortunately, that persisted over a number of days, and I presented myself to accident and emergency. There, I was again told that I probably had flu and that I should go away.
It was not until a week later, when my partner insisted that I go back to accident and emergency, that we began to have some results. If I had not seen a young African lady doctor, who was brought up and trained in Africa, the endocarditis would not have been recognised, because it is not very common in this country. It is increasingly common; in Africa, malnutrition causes endocarditis, and in this country, it is more common for people on drugs because, as they progress with serious drug taking, they become malnourished too.
That was my first episode, in 2011. As a result of that, I had angiograms and all sorts of heart checks. They decided that I had had a bicuspid valve from birth. I do not know whether noble Lords know this, but valves in the heart are tricuspid—they have three chambers. However, it is not uncommon for people to have bicuspid valves; 10% to 15% of people do. It is not recognised when you are younger, because you are fit and healthy, but it becomes prevalent as we get older and everything begins to clog up inside. That necessitated a valve replacement. In May 2012, I had a tissue valve fitted—I chose that rather than a metal valve because the thought of something ticking in my chest horrified me, and still does.
That was a life-changing event. I was at the peak of my business career, but major open-heart surgery—I am a member of the “zipper club”—makes you think about everything you are doing in your life. I retired, and we decided to move from where we lived in Brighton to Cornwall. The finances worked out, as in those days it was much cheaper to live there, and the treatment with the valve was at the time very successful.
I then entered what I call the fallow years for my heart, which lasted until much more recently. The only medical interventions I had were in 2015, when I had my left hip replaced, and 2017, when I had my right hip replaced. That is part of the reason why medical people say that I have an interesting history.
In 2022, one Monday morning, I woke up and literally could not move. I was in utter agony. If I tried to move my leg one inch, all the muscles in my leg spasmed. A lady doctor later told me that I had discitis, which she described as like being permanently in birth for six weeks—the pain was that bad. It was at the tail end of lockdown; I managed to get the local hospital to acknowledge my illness, which was again a difficult process, over about 10 days, and I went in. Yet again, the discitis may also have been endocarditis, because the treatment for the two is the same—six weeks of intravenous antibiotics four times a day. The hospital was in lockdown, so they were not prepared to move me around the hospital to find out whether I did have endocarditis.
At the end of that, in 2023, I had a TAVI valve fitted, which is a sleeve that fits inside another valve, because the discitis, and possible endocarditis, was caused by my artificial heart valve leaking. The TAVI valve goes inside. They hoped that the sleeve inside the valve would solve the problem, which it did, so I was very lucky to come out in one piece again.
That was the cardio side of it. The vascular side started in 2023 when I went to my GP complaining of pains in my legs—in my calves—which were sometimes really bad and made it virtually impossible to walk. They did various tests, but did not find anything at that stage. They sent me for scans, which showed that I had a narrowing of the arteries in the leg, which was causing the pain. It is known as intermittent claudication, which is named after the Emperor Claudius, who limped.
I beg your Lordships’ indulgence for a slight amount more; I know that I am coming to the end of my time. As part of the treatment, I was fitted with a heart monitor at the beginning of this year. I was called two days later and told that I had to go into hospital to have a pacemaker fitted. The long and the short of it is I went into hospital and they did the tests for the pacemaker. It was found that I needed two stents. I then acquired a massive hospital infection. I collapsed at home the day after, which is why I was in hospital for nearly four weeks, after which time I had the pacemaker fitted.
That is the history. It is quite complicated. I had intended to go on and talk about all the other people who have sent me information, but I see that I have reached my 10 minutes, so I will cease shortly. My questions to the noble Baroness are on whether we could look more at prevention and diagnosis. I was failed in diagnosis in primary care, so can we look more at diagnosis? The treatment that I had—the surgeries—was excellent, but I found a failure in the aftercare in all the processes that I went through. I am a minute over time, so I will finish now. I appreciate your Lordships’ indulgence.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing this debate, on his very personal account of what he went through and on sharing with us his experiences and what we can learn from them.
As a former Health Minister who had some responsibility in this area, I know that cardiovascular illness can be particularly prevalent in areas of high deprivation. NHS figures show that, in 2023, the most deprived 10% of the population were almost twice as likely to die of cardiovascular disease compared to the least deprived. An NAO report published in 2024 said that, in 2020, deaths in those aged under 75 due to cardiovascular disease were four times higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least.
I recently attended an event organised in Parliament by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vascular and Venous Disease, where I was particularly struck by the points made about those regional variations—not just in death rates but in treatment and prevention. In the South Yorkshire ICB area, only 3.1% of the population received a health check in 2023-24, despite 32% of adults being obese and 23.5% being physically inactive. There are also worrying disparities in amputation rates. In Yorkshire and Humber, there are 12.6 amputations per 100,000 people, which is almost double that of London; only the north-west and north-east of England have higher amputation rates.
I know that the British Heart Foundation has welcomed the Government’s recognition of CVD as one of the UK’s biggest killers and their ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% in the next decade. The foundation has also called for a national cardiovascular disease plan. I wonder if, in her closing remarks, the Minister might address whether the Government are looking at that idea to bring together areas that need to be tackled, such as obesity, smoking, air pollution and increased research.
In the time I have available to me, I want to make a few practical points that could address some of these disparities. Health checks are so important, but the 2024 NAO report said that there was “no systematic” way of
“targeting … those most in need of”
health checks, as well as little incentive for primary care providers to provide them. It also said that
“DHSC and local authorities cannot … access data … so cannot assess the impact”
that health checks are having. Perhaps my noble friend could address this or write to me if she does not have the information to hand.
The all-party group has made a number of points. For example, appointing more nurse practitioners would enable what it called hot clinics. In many ways, this would help to reduce the length of waiting times. At present, there are patients who are at risk of amputation of their legs. Obviously, they need to be prioritised. A hot clinic could do this by having nurse practitioners who could assess the patients, compare their blood pressure on the arm and on the leg, see how bad their condition is, then fast-track them through the system. That is one suggestion from the APPG. Also, appointing multidisciplinary team co-ordinators could greatly assist in keeping track of patients, moving them through the system and reducing the time that consultants have to spend on doing this.
Co-locating services is also vital. For example, if there were ultrasound scanners and access to sonographers in out-patient departments, they could increase the number of out-patients because patients would not have to go back and forth to and from hospital. This would improve the patient journey. Hybrid theatre facilities would allow consultants to do a range of services in the same space, again, without having to duplicate services and the patient having to go backwards and forwards for different appointments.
That brings me nicely on to the fact that, as my noble friend the Minister knows, the Doncaster Royal Infirmary is greatly in need of some investment. The recent announcements of an increase in NHS capital spending are very welcome. Part of the plans would be to help in this important area, so I hope that she might cast a sympathetic eye over the points that I have made.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to and respect for my noble friend Lord Booth for being so honest and brave with us in this Committee about his experience. I know that we all wish him well.
I intend to concentrate on the prevention of cardiovascular illness and the importance of regular physical exercise in the overwhelming majority of cases of CVD; physical exercise is widely considered the most effective preventive measure against CVD. I declare my interests in this subject as a former Minister for Sport and as the chairman of the British Olympic Association in the build-up to, and during, 2012. Also, thanks to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I fortunately succeeded in a campaign to make defibrillators available in every school.
Unless we address prevention with as much urgency as detection and treatment, we will be left lagging behind other countries in a critical area of health policy where we have no excuse not to lead. For, as has been evidenced in multiple randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it is indisputable that exercise reduces the risks of hypertension, cholesterol, BMI values and diabetes, all of which are linked to the development of CVD.
After the first major lockdown of 2020, Sport England commissioned the Sport Industry Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University to assess the social impact and economic importance of sport and physical activity in England. There were two fascinating parts to the research. Part 1 measured the social impact of sport and physical activity, including on physical and mental health, and part 2 measured the economic importance. The results showed that, for every £1 spent on community sport and physical activity in England, an economic and social return on investment of £3.91 is generated. From the point of view of the NHS, the report stated that a huge £9.5 billion was generated through the physical and mental well-being impacts, which included the prevention of 150,000 cases of heart disease and stroke, 900,000 cases of diabetes and 8,500 cases of cancer.
It is important to look at why there are various barriers to achieving activity levels, including motivation, perceived capability and lack of facilities, because the landscape of the UK’s level of physical fitness is bleak and deteriorating. We face high and growing rates of inactivity among both adults and children—both aligned to a growing obesity problem. Although there are tangential positive trends, such as increased gym membership and the rise of digital fitness, a significant proportion of the adult population in England is classified as inactive.
What is worse is the growing representation of health disparities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, pointed out in her excellent speech. It is the relatively well-off who join gyms. It is the independent sector of education that has overwhelmingly provided the best sports facilities for young people. It is the private sports clubs that have been the backbone of UK sport. Therefore, it is no surprise that we face what is known as the Jubilee line of health inequality, where life expectancy decreases as you travel east along the Jubilee line from Westminster to Canning Town, and where approximately one year of life expectancy is lost for every two Jubilee line stops heading east.
Socioeconomic conditions, access to healthcare, environmental factors and the inequalities that arise from a lack of school and local authority sports facilities, along with a lack of a national culture of sport, health and well-being, drive the high level of cardiovascular illness.
Prevention is essential. In Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I are proposing a national school strategy for sport, health and well-being. After all, well-being is in the title of the Bill, yet in this key cornerstone of the Government’s schools policy there is not a single mention of physical education, physical fitness or sport.
A National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing, published by your Lordships’ ad hoc Select Committee in 2021 stated:
“We are concerned about the high levels of inactivity at the grassroots level, particularly among women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, the elderly, and people from less affluent backgrounds … Numerous underwhelming attempts to boost activity rates and improve population-level physical and mental health and wellbeing have not been as successful as hoped … Our overarching recommendation is the need for a new ambitious national plan for sport, health and wellbeing and a new approach within Government to deliver and fund it”.
That is why the committee on which I sat believed that sport should be moved from the DCMS and placed at the centre of the Department of Health and Social Care. There, it should be aligned with health and well-being at the epicentre of government.
Today, we have rightly focused on the gravity of the CVD problem. Yet we are doing nothing to match or exceed the CMO’s physical activity guidelines, which would prevent many cases of CVD. More than a quarter of adults in England, some 11.9 million people, are classified as inactive. A further 5.1 million average 30 to 149 minutes of activity a week. In a country that has prided itself on sport, fitness and well-being over the generations, successive Governments seem blinded into passive acceptance that 17 million adults in this country do not meet the CMO’s basic recommendation for physical activity. What is in some ways worse is that 30% of children do fewer than 30 minutes of exercise a day and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and one hour. This means that more than half our children, some 3.9 million, do not meet the CMO’s recommendation.
It is time to act. It is time to elevate the importance of this subject, which was so well introduced by my noble friend Lord Booth.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for securing this debate. I say as an aside to his opening remarks that if the most common British response is, “I feel fine”, the greatest fear any British person has is of asking someone how they feel and actually getting a detailed response.
The significance of CVD is unanswerable. It is responsible for about one-quarter of deaths in this country and is probably the biggest single contributor to premature deaths and to people leaving the workforce early. It plays a key role in the level of economic inactivity in this country. In pure economic terms, different figures have been put about, but the British Heart Foundation calculates the cost to the UK as £29 billion a year.
Beyond the societal and economic impacts, every statistic that we will cite in this debate today represents an individual and an individual family. We are also faced with the major challenge that whereas mortality rates for CVD dipped in 2019, the figures seem to have begun to rise again after having largely been level over the past decade or so. There is a key challenge about how we can start to drive those down. I suspect that all of us will be united about what we are hoping to achieve—a reduction in the incidence, impact and level of deaths—so it is a question not of what, but of how. I will be interested in the Government’s response on a range of issues.
First, the 10-year plan for the NHS is the correct approach to look at this strategically, and I hope that it will lead to more holistic, joined-up approaches and mean that when it comes to budgeting we can look at things much more strategically. However, it has been highlighted by a range of key stakeholders in this field that there is a need for a specific cardiovascular disease plan. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response on how we can balance the specifics of a plan with the more general strategic direction that we are seeking for the NHS. Similarly, we know that emerging technologies can play an important role, from AI to data science. Any information that the Government can give on how specifically they intend to harness those in the fight against cardiovascular disease will be critical.
Secondly, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, prevention is the critical element to this. For many people who suffer from cardiovascular vascular disease, the first symptom is a major event, a stroke or a heart attack. It is quite often symptomless. Within that context, we know the range of risk factors, from smoking to obesity, alcohol and air pollution. I know that the Government are taking action on some of these fronts but, again, there is a concern, particularly given the figures, that we are starting to get diminishing returns on certain elements of behavioural aspects. It will be critical to say that in educating on the risk factors, we can act as a driver to harness that and make a real difference to people’s lives.
Thirdly, on testing, it is important that, for example, blood pressure tests are expanded and rolled out more. We know that NHS health testing could have a critical role in prevention and diagnostics, yet we see a mixed bag of take-up of those tests. In particular, we know that men can be more prone to cardiovascular diseases and have a higher incidence level but are perhaps more reluctant to go to a doctor to get those tests. This can also apply to a range of ethnic-minority groups such as the black and south Asian communities, who have statistically higher levels of CVD. I would be interested to hear how the Government can ensure that we better target testing and perhaps look at the commissioning of testing, and how we can incentivise primary carers to encourage people much more to do testing.
Fourthly, we need to raise our ambitions beyond simply the mortality rates. For strokes, for example, there is a target of a 25% reduction in deaths. I would like to see—and I ask the Minister whether there is an intention to have—a similar target of 25% in reducing severe disabilities as an impact of strokes. Allied to that is a key role for improving review and rehab facilities to ensure that, once someone has suffered a stroke or a cardiac event, it does not reoccur and we are not left with a far worse situation.
Finally—and this is not unique to CVD—there is the question of how we can have a level of consistency. I have mentioned testing already and the need for greater levels of use of community pharmacies, for instance, for blood testing. For something such as thrombectomy, the rates are very different. If you are in London, their usage is at around 10%; at the other end of the scale, in the east of England, it is about 1%. There is a range of issues around how we can drive greater consistency in treatments in the health service. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing the debate. After listening to his story, I am rather glad that we were able to listen to him today. I have also listened to grieving families, passionate campaigners and dedicated cardiologists, each of them urging us to act more boldly on the issue of sudden cardiac arrest in the young.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege of co-hosting a symposium with the Italian embassy and Ambassador Lambertini. We brought together leading cardiologists and sports scientists from the UK and Italy to share insight, evidence and experience on preventing sudden cardiac death in young people. Tragically, it is not a marginal issue. Every week in the UK, at least 12 young people—children, students and athletes—die from sudden cardiac arrest. That is the equivalent of a full secondary school wiped out every year. What is more disturbing is that 80% of those young people had no prior symptoms. They were seemingly healthy, vibrant and active. Sport can exacerbate hidden conditions, putting young people at three times greater risk, yet 80% of these deaths occur in sleep, which means that defibrillators, while essential, cannot be the whole answer. We must move from crisis response to prevention.
I have campaigned alongside Mark King, who tragically lost his son Oliver at just 12 years old during a swimming lesson at my old school—King David High School in Liverpool. Together we pushed for greater access to defibrillators in schools and public venues, but even more pressing is the need for screening to detect these conditions before they claim a young life. One mother, Hilary Nicholls, shared with me the story of her daughter Clarissa. She was just 20 years old, full of promise, physically active and with no diagnosed heart condition or health issues. Her sudden death from an undiagnosed cardiac condition was devastating. Tragically, her story is not unique, so the case for widened access to ECG screening is clear.
In elite sports such as football and rugby, we have mandatory screening in place, led by UK-devised international ECG protocols. But, beyond elite sport, there is a vacuum. Students, grass-roots athletes and local community clubs are largely left unprotected. Compare that to Italy, which I recently travelled to with Hilary to see the model in action. For over 40 years, it has had a mandatory pre-participation screening programme. Young people must present a certificate before taking part in organised sport or joining a gym, and the result is an 89% reduction in sudden cardiac deaths. While I acknowledge that there are different views across Europe on the rigidity of such systems, the outcome speaks for itself. Italy shows us what can be done when there is political will, public buy-in and healthcare alignment. I also pay tribute to CRY—Cardiac Risk in the Young—and its chief executive, Steven Cox, for the excellent work the charity does in raising awareness. It has been doing so since it was founded by Alison Cox in 1995.
I do not propose a copy/paste solution, but I urge the Government and my noble friend the Minister to act on what we already know. What is needed is modest and actionable: first, more specialist training to interpret ECGs in fit and active young people; secondly, increased local capacity to carry out screenings in schools, universities and community sport—I urge the Minister to meet Hilary to look at some of the remarkable programmes in testing that Clarissa’s friends have put in place at Cambridge University; and, thirdly, greater education around cardiac health, defibrillator use and prevention woven into our schools and clubs.
We must listen to families; we must act on evidence; we must catch the condition before it catches our children. These are preventable deaths. Let us not look back in five years and say that we could and should have done more. Let us act now to save young lives.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for arranging this Question for Short Debate on cardiovascular disease and for sharing his emotional and personal experience. The statistics about cardiovascular disease paint a stark picture of a health crisis that demands urgent and comprehensive attention. My thanks go to the British Heart Foundation, the Stroke Association, Diabetes UK and the House of Lords Library for excellent briefings.
The facts are that every day in the UK 240 individuals wake up to the catastrophic reality of a stroke. Stroke remains the fourth-leading cause of death in our nation and a primary cause of disability. Every three minutes, a family loses a loved one to cardiovascular disease and CVD causes more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.
However, nearly nine out of 10 strokes are preventable, often associated with modifiable risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking and physical inactivity. High blood pressure alone is the largest risk factor for stroke, contributing to 50% of all strokes. The number of people living with diabetes, or pre-diabetes, now exceeds 12 million in the UK, equivalent to one in five adults. Their risk of death from CVD is 4.2 times higher than for those without diabetes. Each week, diabetes leads to 812 strokes and 568 heart attacks. It is therefore vital that we optimise the detection and management of high-risk conditions such as high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation and high cholesterol.
As part of that, we need strongly to support the measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to further reduce the prevalence of smoking in this country, as we have done through successful regulatory measures over the past few decades. We need to support the reduction of other modifiable risk factors, including drinking alcohol to excess and obesity. The measures put forward by the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity, which was chaired by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, need to be given much more respect by the Government than has so far been the case.
The current system for health checks, such as NHS Health Check, has the potential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, but more needs to be done to expand those checks, particularly to those at highest risk, including individuals under 40. It remains alarming that millions of people with diabetes are missing essential health checks annually which are crucial for detecting and preventing serious long-term complications.
Beyond prevention, we need to consider many issues concerning treatment and care. There is still a critical lack of imaging capability for diagnostic testing, all of which delays patients’ access to specialist stroke units and time-sensitive treatments such as thrombectomy.
We need to ensure 24/7 access to acute stroke treatments, including thrombectomy and thrombolysis, through pre-hospital video triage and access to specialist stroke units. We need a dedicated plan to drive action to address CVD and its risk factors. I know that the Government have committed to a 25% reduction in deaths from CVD and stroke by 2035 but, to achieve this, we need steps to reduce disability.
Scientific research and innovation are the basis of progress in this field. The British Heart Foundation, a leader in cardiovascular science, funds more than half of independent cardiovascular research in the UK. It has powered advances that have nearly halved the number of people who die each year from cardiovascular disease. We are in an era of immense scientific opportunity, with revolutionary advances in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics and regenerative medicine. BHF-funded scientists are already using AI to better predict heart attack or stroke risk.
For those who have suffered a stroke, prioritising and investing in rehabilitation, in line with national guidelines, is critical to prevent recurrent strokes, as one in four survivors will experience another one within five years. Every stroke survivor should be offered a six-month post-stroke review to tailor recovery plans. Beyond this, we must continue to inspire the nation to learn CPR and continue to ensure greater provision of public-access defibrillators, as survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are significantly higher in countries where bystander CPR is more prevalent. We must address the basic glaring issues of health inequalities in order to address these problems.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for securing this important debate and, as other noble Lords have said, for sharing his own experience in a very moving way. It really brought home to us that this is about not just figures or statistics but the human side of this story. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is not a particularly political debate; across the political spectrum, we can agree that we should work as constructively as we can together to try to address these issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, reminded us, cardiovascular disease is the cause of one in four premature deaths in England. More than 6.4 million people suffer from it and it has resulted in 1.6 million disability-adjusted life years. According to the British Heart Foundation—many noble Lords will have read the excellent briefings that we have received from many organisations, to which we are grateful for informing us—this disease may be inherited or it may develop later in life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, said, those in the most deprived 10% of the population are twice as likely to die prematurely from these diseases than those in the least deprived 10% of the population. The highest premature mortality rate is in the north-west region, and men are twice as likely as women to die prematurely from this disease.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, the NHS has identified high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, diabetes, kidney disease, inactivity—to which my noble friend Lord Moynihan referred—and obesity as risk factors. We also know that those at increased risk of developing this disease include people of south Asian and black African and Caribbean backgrounds.
The King’s Fund think tank has estimated that there are 220,000 admissions for coronary heart diseases and 100,000 admissions for stroke a year, costing the NHS an estimated £10 billion and the economy £24 billion, so the human and financial cost are alarming. We must think about how we can work on this together, across the spectrum, to improve our use of resources and to reduce the number of deaths.
As noble Lords discussed, in January 2025 the Select Committee on Health and Social Care considered the NAO’s report, alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, on progress in preventing cardiovascular diseases. Following this, a letter of recommendation was sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention on improving data collection on cardiovascular disease.
When we were in government, we set out ambitious plans in the NHS long-term plan to detect and treat people with the risk factors of developing these diseases. This is not party political; any Government would have done that, because it is important. It included the NHS health check and face-to-face check-ups for adults aged between 40 and 74 in England. It was commissioned through local authorities and delivered through GP surgeries, to help spot early signs of heart disease. Indeed, many noble Lords spoke about how we identify and diagnose, as well as how we prevent. We also introduced a digital NHS health check to operate alongside the in-person NHS health check, to reduce the pressures faced by GP surgeries, particularly as more people now are aware of digital technology and are happy using it.
These Benches also welcome the current Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver a renewed drive to tackle the biggest killers—cancer, cardiovascular disease and suicide—while ensuring that people live well for longer. I understand completely that the Government are in their early days, but, unfortunately, we are yet to see action in some of those areas. I admit that we were slightly disappointed that the new Government scrapped the major conditions strategy. I also understand, however, that we are waiting for the 10-year plan, and if these issues are integrated into the 10-year plan, as I hope they will be, that might be a better approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, we should look at these things not in isolation but as part of an overall integrated plan. We would welcome any announcement from the Government on whether and how they would form part of the, I hope, more integrated 10-year plan. Like many other noble Lords, we eagerly await its publication.
I conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. How do the Government plan to improve support for vulnerable communities who are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, including men, those in more deprived areas and people of south Asian and black African or Caribbean backgrounds?
On 18 June, I will host an event with BRITE Box, a wonderful prevention charity that helps families from deprived areas to budget and to cook healthily on a budget, as a family together, to improve their health. I thank the Minister for agreeing to speak at that event. What specific programmes are the department aware of to improve this sort of prevention, including healthy diets and physical activity? How are the Government working with non-state, local community civil society organisations, such as BRITE Box, to make sure that we tackle these issues?
My noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the role that physical activity plays in support and prevention. What other specific steps are the Government taking to close the health inequalities of communities in the most deprived areas, especially those faced by some ethnic groups? What progress have the Government made to ensure that those commissioning and delivering health checks are obliged to collect and report on the demographic data so that we can improve the data on age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, so that we can target better?
My noble friend Lord Polak spoke about Cardiac Risk in the Young. I was slightly disappointed that when I wrote to one of the Minister’s colleagues in the department, they declined to meet with Hilary Nicholls, whom I had met to hear her daughter’s story and those of other people. I hope that the Minister and her officials will be able to accept the invitation from my noble friend Lord Polak, so that at least one person from the department can speak to Hilary Nicholls and Cardiac Risk in the Young. I hope that the Minister can confirm that this will be part of the overall 10-year plan.
I understand that I have asked lots of questions and gone over time, as usual in my typically Socratic way, like other noble Lords, but I look forward to the Minister’s answers. If she does not have them now, I know that, thanks to the wonders of technology and her wonderful officials, she will write to us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing such an important debate. I am very grateful to him for doing that on the back of his personal experience. It shines a light and, while I realise that it is difficult, what he has done is worthwhile. Many of us will be affected by cardiovascular disease, either directly or indirectly, which is why we heard the noble Lord’s message so clearly.
As we have all said, too many lives are cut short by CVD. In 2023, an estimated 6.4 million people were living with cardiovascular conditions and almost a third of CVD-related deaths in England occurred among the under-75s, which gives us the scale of the challenge. Over 1 million people report cardiometabolic conditions as being the main or secondary reason for being out of work due to long-term sickness. This is a challenge on so many levels.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Weir, for understanding that this requires a systematic approach across government, which we seek to have. In seeking to build a health and care system that is fit for the future, we are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. That is supported by the investment and direction of the Chancellor’s spending review of just yesterday. It is also why our health mission sets out an ambition to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within a decade.
It is important to go straight to the points that have been raised. Many noble Lords rightly raised prevention. As they are aware, around 70% of CVD cases are linked to preventable risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar and smoking, to mention but a few. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about the importance of exercise and I certainly share his view on that. I assure him that we work across government on this and I take his point that this is not particular to my department. We work very closely with the DCMS to ensure a joined-up approach.
I remember hearing the noble Lord’s solution some years ago, I think on the Health and Care Bill. We have not committed to it, but the principles behind what he says are absolutely right. For example, we are working on better health resources, which include free evidence-based apps, websites and other digital tools, which will help people make and sustain improvements to their health. To take one example, I know the popularity of Couch to 5K. We will continue this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred to the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill that is progressing through your Lordships’ House, which will help deliver our ambition for a smoke-free UK. We need to remember that smoking still claims some 80,000 lives every year. It is a cost not just to individuals and their families and communities but of some £3 billion to the economy, yet this is a preventable cause of death. Noble Lords will have heard in yesterday’s spending review that we are investing at least £80 million per year in tobacco cessation programmes and enforcement to support the Bill.
The noble Lord also referred to obesity. There is a wide range of weight management services, from behavioural support in the community to hospital-based specialist services. This year, we will extend the NHS digital weight management programme to people living with obesity and awaiting knee and hip replacement surgery, which picks up on his point about preparation for treatment where necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, expressed disappointment in the Government’s response to the Lords committee report on food and nutrition, which I very much welcomed. I am sorry that he is disappointed, but I have drawn to the attention of his noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that, just this week, following a recent Question in the Chamber, there was a change in the advice given by the department on the use and appropriateness of prepared baby foods, which she was rightly concerned about.
A number of noble Lords talked about the NHS health check. It supports people to manage their risk through referral to weight management or smoking cessation. It is free and aimed at those aged between 40 and 70. It prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. It is about identifying early.
I absolutely accept the points made by my noble friend Lady Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—I am particularly interested in this matter—about the National Audit Office report and the Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry on doing more to extend engagement with and take-up of the check. One of the things is a new development that will be piloted from this summer: a new NHS health check online, which people can complete at home. It will be piloted through the improved NHS app and, specifically, we will be independently evaluating the impact on equalities to inform the development and rollout.
We have also engaged community pharmacy by investing heavily in blood pressure checks. Nearly 3 million checks have been delivered in over 9,000 pharmacies in the past year, and we are also embarking on new trials. So we are looking at ways in which we can engage better and, if I may say so, improve the NHS check as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised the great potential of AI and technology. I can tell him that a considerable announcement on this was made just this week when I was in Cambridge. We are slashing red tape that currently inhibits innovation while protecting patient safety and encouraging innovation—something for which the industry and many others have been calling for some time. We are also getting the regulatory regime in the right place and investing in research, innovation and being up to date. Some years ago, we could not have dreamed of regulating AI but, now, we are absolutely right to look at how we do that. As the noble Lord said, technology and AI are absolutely key.
I turn to the points on inequalities made by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Winterton. Our approach is called Core20PLUS5 and it is a national approach to support the reduction of healthcare inequalities at both the national and the local system levels. One of the five clinical priorities in that framework is the treatment and management of high blood pressure, which is, of course, a key risk factor for CVD. That is just one of the areas.
Noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether we would commit to a CVD action plan. We have already set the ambition. We are committed, as noble Lords are aware, to publishing a 10-year health plan in the not-too-distant future and to delivering that shift from sickness to prevention. In all of that, we are considering policies—along with, of course, our workforce plan, which will be published in the summer on the back of the spending review, as well as all that will follow from that. We are carefully considering the policies, including those that have an impact on people with CVD, as we develop the plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised that men may be less likely to come forward to seek advice. We are in the consultation phase of developing a men’s health strategy, to which I hope he will contribute, and part of that is about recognising the point that he made. We are determined to close the gender gap in care. We also know that, among people with CVD, women are less likely than men to achieve target cholesterol levels. That has to change, so we will pursue it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on his work in this area. I believe he introduced me to Hilary in the House. I heard his request for a meeting, and I will pick that up with the department. While I never like to disappoint him, the position at the moment follows the advice given by the UK National Screening Committee, which concluded that introducing population-level screening for sudden cardiac death in young people would run the risk of causing more harm by misdiagnosing some people and by providing false reassurance to those at risk of sudden cardiac death whose risk may not be picked up by screening tests. However, I am sure we will have the opportunity to pursue this further.
A number of other points were raised, which I will of course review. In closing, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, that I absolutely hear what he said about recognition, diagnosis and issues in aftercare. We will address this through the number of future developments that I referred to and the NHS long-term plan that is already in existence. I hope that he will be less disappointed should he or a loved one have to seek treatment, care or aftercare in the future, and I thank him.
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to apply to reinstate the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short debate. I have an interest to declare in that I live in the Isles of Scilly much of the time, to which the only passenger access in the winter is by air. There are a few problems there, which I shall come on to. In my short speech, I shall cover the many safety benefits of EGNOS, the benefits for pilots, the history of it and what happened before and after Brexit. I still see the cancellation of EGNOS at the time of Brexit as a very unwise and, frankly, stupid decision, but I shall come on to that.
I will first introduce what EGNOS is, because it may be that not all noble Lords understand what it is. It is a geostationary navigation overlay service, which enhances the standard GPS signal and provides accuracy, integrity and other improvements. In simple terms, it is a way of being able to land your plane at and take off from a small airport without all the very expensive, but very good, equipment that major airports have around the country and the world. If you do not have EGNOS, you cannot fly. It is not unique; it is used all the way across Europe. I think there are 700 airports using EGNOS-enabled LPV, and in the United States there is a great deal more of it.
Just before Brexit, the UK introduced EGNOS at a handful of airports, including Guernsey, Alderney, Cambridge and others, and many airlines had installed the equipment in planes that would enable it to work. The estimated cost for installation then and, I think, now is about £35 million a year to cover the whole country.
In my many discussions with Ministers—including with some colleagues here—we have always been told that the Civil Aviation Authority was dead against this. It was unsafe, it would not work and it would like to see something else. Last week, I had a very useful meeting with the CAA to hear from the horse’s mouth, if one can call it that, what its view was, which I shall try to summarise. It is a technical necessity, not a political concession. All it needs, I am told, for us to rejoin is a service agreement with the European Commission.
During those discussions, we had many chats about alternatives. Ministers in the previous Government said that we ought to go for something else: a sovereign UK satellite-based augmentation system, or SBAS. We went to see it, and the only problem was that it would require a £1 billion investment over 10 years—assuming that the Government would commit to 10 years’ funding, which is probably rather unlikely—and the operational costs would be even higher than EGNOS. Many people have asked why we should introduce a new system when we can get the whole EGNOS system for £30 million, which is one-third or more of the price of the other one. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. Maybe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested in that after her announcements yesterday.
To summarise the benefits, it is not just a “nice to have”; it is an essential safety and commercial add-on to safe flying. I fly as a passenger to the Isles of Scilly. Other noble Lords have much more experience in this. It is quite clear from talking to many pilots that they cannot fly in unpredictable weather because they cannot navigate properly. There are regional airports on coasts in many places, but if you cannot land and take off safely, your businesses are not going to enjoy it very much. Then we have to think about local communities. We have air ambulances around many parts of the country, including Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and I know of many cases where they have not been able to fly because there has been no EGNOS. All in all, there are really good reasons for reinstating it.
I shall try to summarise where I think the CAA has got to, which was extremely helpful. It said that it is working closely with the Department for Transport and the UK Space Agency on the operational benefits, airspace modernisation, resilience and future readiness. Basically, from a regulatory point of view, it ticks all the boxes. We all know how good the CAA is at organising safe flights and everything.
It really surprised me that, although it had done all this work in the last two or three years—the reports are available on the website—at the end of 2024 it will hand over responsibility for the next phase of the SBAS initiative, which is EGNOS, from the Department for Transport to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the UK Space Agency. It is jolly nice to have the Minister from the Department for Transport here answering questions, but is that the right department?
I have put down several Written Questions in the last few months, and they were all answered by my noble friend Lord Vallance of Balham. It is worth reading one out: what is the cost of reinstating our membership of EGNOS? The response from my noble friend was:
“The Government is considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system, following our withdrawal from the EU’s European Geostationary Navigation Overlay (EGNOS) system. This work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made. The Government engages with the European Commission and European Space Agency on space programmes but has not specifically discussed access to EGNOS”.
My question to the Minister is: why have they not discussed this and when will they? People are just sitting there while businesses and transport are suffering. We just seem to be getting nowhere.
A very interesting comment came from one of my colleagues in the other place, the Labour MP Stella Creasy. She said that it made no sense to separate the EU and the UK from an aviation perspective. She is right because, if you look at a map of the different aviation systems around the world—there are all kinds—one for just the UK would very much be the smallest.
Are we prepared to sign agreements of 12 years for fish and four years for produce, just taking EU rules without any challenge? Why do not we not sign one for aviation? I do not know whether it would be for four years or 10, but I suspect that it would be much longer, because once people have got used to having EGNOS again, they would struggle to change it.
I hope that, when my noble friend responds, he will say that we are about to start proper negotiations on EGNOS with the European Commission and other agencies in order to produce a service agreement. A service agreement is not a political agreement; it would get us back into the fold and help a large number of people who rely on short-haul or small planes to get around their business in a very sensible way, with minimal delays. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I always feel that I learn things by participating in debates with him and following him in debates, but I am also grateful to him for raising this interesting issue.
I wanted to participate in this debate not because I profess to any expertise in aviation matters—I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in that respect—but because I want to explore the relationship between programmes in which the United Kingdom has participated in the past and those in which it may wish to participate in the future. EGNOS is not the only one of those; there is also, for example, Galileo, which is distinct from the Copernicus project that we rejoined two years ago.
I have an interest as a member, this year, of the UK Engagement with Space Select Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is also a member. However, I emphasise that any view I express is entirely my own and not that of the committee.
In our discussions, one of the questions we are trying to devil away at is whether some of these programmes are accessible to the United Kingdom if we wish to join them. There are two parts to that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that he thinks we probably do wish to and there is a benefit in doing so. My question is different: is it accessible to us if we want to join? He may say it is a service agreement, but, from the European Commission’s point of view, it may be a political decision, and there are difficulties that may be associated with that. I suppose that part of the issue that I want to explore with the Minister is whether the circumstances and the political circumstances have sufficiently changed that it may now be accessible to us and we should therefore have exactly the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has initiated—and, I would say, about not only that but Galileo.
I will not dwell on Galileo, but EGNOS is a good example. We were involved at the outset. National Air Traffic Services was one of the co-funders of the original design scheme through the European Space Agency. The whole point is that, once it was all set up, it was then operationally transferred to the European Commission. Where it stands at the moment is that, as far as I can see, it is funded and operated by the European Union, so it is not available to us through the European Space Agency. We are members of the European Space Agency and ESA programmes are entirely available to us, but this is not, in that sense, available to us in the same way as the ESA programmes are.
I hesitate, because I know the Minister replies for the Government, and this will definitely be the Space Minister bit, as it were, which is in DSIT, but there is definitely a question here that I want to put. Insofar as EGNOS is a good example, we may have a valid use for it, and there may be alternatives. EGNOS is not fully developed, as I understand it, for all the civil aviation purposes for which it might be developed. There are other issues; for example, the extent to which we could use it with other satellite-based augmentation systems, because it is interoperable with them. We could perhaps use others, although I do not think the coverage in Europe is available for those. We have the two ground stations, as it were, in Swanwick and Glasgow, so we are in this system; the question is whether we can use it. Really, the question is this: it accessible to us? If I can, I attach to this, although it is not EGNOS itself, the question to the Minister of whether Galileo is accessible to us.
From my point of view and, I suspect, the Government’s point of view, there is a bigger issue: GPS. We have access to it and, for military purposes, have access to the military codes for it. None the less, GPS is one system for position, navigation and timing. As I know from a visit I made to NATO headquarters last week and discussions I had, there is always a question of whether there is a genuine security requirement for backup systems, and Europe might see a benefit in having the development of Galileo as a backup system to GPS. Galileo has certain technical advantages, and GPS has certain advantages from the resilience point of view, so there is a trade-off; it is not obvious that we would want to be in Galileo. I am just using this debate, if I may, to ask that question: if we want, now, in changed political circumstances, to examine the practical case for these two programmes—Galileo and EGNOS—and can see that there may be potential advantages in access to these systems, would they be accessible to us? I do not think they form an obvious part of an industrial strategy for space, since the Galileo contracts have pretty much already been given, and I do not see that there is likely to be any chance of any of the EGNOS operational activity being additionally undertaken in this country: it all seems to be in the hands of a French company in Toulouse—which, for those people involved in space matters, is not surprising.
If I may, my question to the Minister is this: are these programmes accessible to us if, taking the well-argued points by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we wished to join them?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and learn of his interest in satellites. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for—and, indeed, congratulate him on—gaining time for this debate, as well as for his relentless work in pursuing the issue of EGNOS. I declare my interests as the vice-president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK and as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation; I am an aviator and have particular interest in this matter. Much of what I want to say has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I hope to add some detail to it. I come to this from a general aviation perspective.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, commonly referred to as EGNOS, is designed to improve the integrity and precision of GPS services. To give it its correct title, it is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service. Those three words—safety of life—are particularly important and significant. In the world of aviation, EGNOS enables users of GPS services to be confident that the information being supplied to them is accurate and precise. It is used when operating into airfields in inclement weather conditions; examples of this include when descending through cloud, foggy or misty conditions. Descending through cloud and relying on the EGNOS system allows the aircraft and the pilot to arrive blindly but safely at the end of the runway. This is of use not only to aviation but to the maritime sector, in avoiding obstacles or perhaps entering a port in fogged-out conditions.
Sadly, as a result of our exiting the European Union, the UK’s participation in the EGNOS programme ended on 25 June 2021. Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that the UK contributed to the Galileo satellite system, this led to a withdrawal of legal indemnity for the use of EGNOS; it therefore cannot be safely and fully utilised by aircraft any longer. Although the signal remains in place, reliance on it that might end in an accident would undoubtedly invalidate the aircraft’s insurance. The upshot of this is that UK aircraft operators cannot use EGNOS Safety of Life any longer; of course, this extends to all other users, such as agriculture, surveying and maritime, but it particularly affects aviation, which has additional inherent risks.
Perhaps it would be helpful at this point for me to explain that large airports have a sophisticated and expensive-to-maintain instrument landing system, commonly referred to as ILS. This uses two directional radio signals: the localiser, which provides horizontal guidance, and the glideslope, which provides vertical guidance. These signals are ground-generated by radio signals or, in some cases, microwave signals. EGNOS, on the other hand, is Europe’s regional satellite-based augmentation system. It is used primarily by smaller airports as it can be utilised at a vastly reduced cost; the onboard aircraft equipment necessary for its operation is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively cheap to install and operate.
The Brexit negotiations removed Britain’s access to EGNOS, not because of technical necessity but because EGNOS is managed under EU governance structures. Post Brexit, Britain became a third country. Unless specific agreements were made, access ceased. Maintaining EGNOS access would have required around £30 million to £35 million a year—trivial compared to the economic damage of degraded aviation connectivity—but we did not retain access.
In 2022, the APPG for Aviation commissioned a report arguing for the reinstatement of the EGNOS system. An excellent report by Oxera in Oxford also convincingly argued the case for continuing the service; I thoroughly recommend its reading to the Minister. Oxera argues the case for EGNOS for several reasons. First, it enables precision farming, which improves the efficiency of field working, fertiliser and pesticide use; this leads to higher crop yields and lower costs. Secondly, it improves safety and efficiency in the maritime sector, supporting UK trade. Thirdly, it provides greater resilience at airports when, for example, ground systems fail. Fourthly, it provides more reliable services, including aviation approaches, to the Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly, where there is no other option but to travel by air in winter.
There is also improved flight safety—EGNOS reduces controlled flight into terrain, one of the CAA’s “significant seven” risks, by a factor of four to eight—and improved reliability of search and rescue and helicopter emergency services. EGNOS enables point-to-point technology, allowing helicopters to operate in poor weather. The CAA has stated that a number of HEMS and SAR operations have experienced accidents and incidents due to poor visibility, and EGNOS was required to reduce these risks. There is also improved access to essential services; with EGNOS, those living on UK islands with poorer access to NHS hospitals will miss fewer appointments every year, which tend to be for urgent treatment or diagnosis. The case for EGNOS is overwhelming.
I understand that the current position of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is that the Government are considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system following its withdrawal from EGNOS and that
“work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made”.
That is to be applauded, but meanwhile this life-saving facility has ceased to function and places those who rely on it at risk—all for the sake of a sum of money, which, in the grand scheme of things, is peanuts when compared to the lives at stake. Does the Minister agree that development of a new system will be years in the making and that, as an interim measure, access to EGNOS would be a positive and sensible way forward? What of the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK’s aviation regulator, whose core work revolves around safety? What representations has his department had from it on the potential dangers to aviation due to the disappearance of EGNOS?
Martin Robinson, the chief executive officer of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK said in a recent article:
“Britain’s aviation future depends on confronting political vanity and embracing real-world cooperation … Restoring access to EGNOS is not just an operational necessity. It is a test of leadership. We rejoined European programmes such as Horizon 2020 … because it was the right thing to do without any political concerns. So why not EGNOS”.
We must act now to restore what is an essential life-saving service to the many sectors that it previously served, in particular aviation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this debate and for his comprehensive overview of the service, the issues and the need for this service.
Before today’s Question for Short Debate and my preparation for it, I was not aware of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service known as EGNOS and the important pan-Europe service it provides as a satellite enhancement navigation system that augments global satellite systems, helping to improve accuracy. As we have heard, it can help enable planes to land in a broader range of circumstances, helping to improve services and reliability. I am sure this will not be the first time I learn something new in my spokesperson role in this place.
EGNOS is a crucial system for safety-critical manoeuvres, such as navigating ships through narrow channels or flying aircraft, particularly for regional airports. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for clarifying that its full title is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service and for the details he has provided on its use.
Last November, when discussing an SI, my noble friend Lady Randerson requested an update on membership of EGNOS, highlighting that smaller airports such as those in Bournemouth and the Isles of Scilly, as we have heard today, are at a disadvantage because they have been unable to operate safely in poor visibility. Leaving EGNOS has been a costly decision for the aviation industry, including causing issues with training for commercial pilots.
Who knew that yet another consequence of leaving the European Union would be that the UK is no longer part of EGNOS? I have to put on record that Brexit has been an absolute disaster in every single way for our country. This is yet another service that we have removed ourselves from, pointlessly in my opinion and with implications for safety, just for a political headline.
Throughout my decades in public life, I have supported innovation where it is needed, but I also strongly support the principle that we do not need to reinvent the wheel and that partnership working is always the best way forward. This is a great example of that. Why should we not be part of this safety-critical system working with our European neighbours? Why would we look to spend money and time creating our own bespoke system at a cost, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of at least £1 billion just to set it up? It makes no sense.
I will ask the Minister questions similar to those asked by other colleagues. Has rejoining EGNOS featured in any of the discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU? The past year has been an important reset moment in our relationship with the EU. I hope it is on the table and is accessible to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked. If it is not, why not? When will this be on the table? Surely, as we have heard today, this is not controversial. It is a system that we were once part of that helps to improve the accuracy of maritime and aviation navigation. Surely it is an obvious scheme to rejoin. Liberal Democrats strongly believe in scientific collaboration between the UK and the EU, on which I hope this Government would agree. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this important debate on the Government’s plans to reinstate the UK’s membership of EGNOS. We are committed to, and will work with the Government on, upholding the best safety standards for aircraft, pilots and passengers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, EGNOS uses a set of geostationary satellites and a network of ground stations to increase the accuracy of GPS. These signals are acquired by ground stations deployed around Europe and are gathered and processed through a central computing system. It is at this stage that differential corrections and integrity messages are calculated and broadcast back to users across Europe via a set of three geostationary satellites. We recognise that EGNOS improves the accuracy of global navigation satellite systems’ positioning information while also providing a crucial integrity message that allows users to get an extremely reliable guarantee on its residual positioning errors, both horizontally and vertically.
As my noble friend said, we have been made aware of the strong opinion of the head of the UK branch of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association about the importance of the UK remaining part of EGNOS to improve safety and resilience for pilots and passengers in the UK. While there is no doubt about the accuracy benefits of EGNOS and its safety-critical functions, it is essential to determine whether the benefits can justify the funding requests made by the European Union. In government, we sought to continue access to EGNOS services through the UK-EU trade negotiations but did not reach an agreement due to significant financial demands from the EU to secure services. The cost to taxpayers would have been £30 million per annum, a cost that the Government at that time could not justify.
While no decision was made to rejoin the EGNOS programme, we recognised that steps needed to be taken on satellite augmentation. This can be demonstrated through a commitment made in DSIT’s government policy framework for greater position, navigation and timing resilience to a UK precise point positioning satellite-based augmentation system and projects carried out in 2024 that defined a future system and architecture options and trials.
While the current Government have been conducting a wide range of negotiations with the EU, no decisions or details have been set out regarding the UK rejoining EGNOS. The Government recognise the importance of PNT technologies for the UK’s security and prosperity and are implementing the government policy framework for greater PNT resilience.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, following discussions with the EU, do the Government have an updated figure for the cost of the UK rejoining EGNOS? Given the financial cost of rejoining it, have they discussed with the aviation sector whether it could cover this cost? With moves towards more sustainable aviation routes, do the Government recognise that EGNOS could improve fuel economy and landing and take-off in the aviation sector? Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the benefits of EGNOS could also be used to improve the integrity of location and the efficiency of our rail sector? I look forward greatly to his response.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. This has been an important discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I was not aware of EGNOS until recently. I am afraid that I have also concluded that it is imperative to use acronyms in this speech because I cannot spell it out every time over 12 minutes, which is a shame. The topic has been amply explained by noble Lords and I do not need to explain it again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for setting out the history of EGNOS, with which I concur. It understandably attracts interest, particularly from the aviation sector and those with an interest in its future success.
I begin by reaffirming this Government’s unwavering commitment to maintaining a safe, modern and innovative aviation system. I welcome the noble Earl’s endorsement of those principles, too. In answer to the question of why this department is here and why I am speaking, the Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That goes much wider than EGNOS and aviation, impacting all parts of our lives. DSIT is leading on this wider work with the Government’s framework for greater PNT resilience, but my department is working across government to understand the requirements for transport.
We recognise the value the sector places on services such as EGNOS in supporting aviation safety and reliability, particularly during difficult weather and at smaller aerodromes. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the programme as a result of leaving the EU, as noble Lords have heard, flights have continued to operate safely with no degradation in our overall safety regime. We are carefully examining all available options for supporting the continued operation of safe and reliable flights, which could well include membership of EGNOS. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is right: we are talking to the European Union and a better relationship will enable us to participate if we choose to. That answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about whether we could join if we so wished, but it depends on whether we choose to or not. He also made a point about Galileo, which I am not equipped to answer, but I will speak to my noble friend the Technology Minister so that he can have an answer in due course.
It is critical that any solution is based on clear operational needs and a strong value-for-money case for both users and taxpayers. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, if the previous Government had considered paying for the system, they could have done so during their time in office. This Government are continuing this work and we will continue to work closely with industry experts and stakeholders to find the most effective and sustainable solution. If noble Lords have further evidence to contribute to a value-for-money case, my department will be pleased to hear it. I note the suggestion from the noble Earl that we should ask the aviation industry whether it would be prepared to contribute to the costs of joining.
On safety, we must be clear that we have a highly robust safety regime in place in the UK supported by navigation aids and procedures that remain fully compliant with international safety. The Civil Aviation Authority continues to ensure that all procedures are managed appropriately. We recognise that EGNOS or a similar SBAS could have operational benefits for small, regional and general aviation airports. It would provide greater resilience in poor weather and support access but, as the noble Lord Davies, said, ILS is used at larger airports which are not affected and this would not be useful to them.
The Government appreciate the frustration of those facing delays and disruptions to their flights from poor weather as well as the importance of reliable connections, especially for those living in more remote areas of the United Kingdom. Since I took office, I have heard several times from my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the needs of residents of and visitors to the Isles of Scilly, and I respect his continuing advocacy on their behalf. The Government are already taking important steps to support the connectivity of communities, and we are continuing to look closely at this issue to see what more can be done.
It is also important to be clear that emergency medical and search-and-rescue operations have continued safely and effectively since our withdrawal from EGNOS. These services have access to a range of procedures and capabilities, such as point-in-space approaches, which greatly assist in increasing the utility of air ambulances and helicopters in poor visibility conditions. SBAS services, such as EGNOS, are not currently widely used across Europe to support operational capabilities. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s aviation safety regime remains world-leading, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the United Kingdom. This work is continuing, and no decision has been made.
It is clear that noble Lords who have contributed today, and others, deeply care about having an SBAS such as EGNOS, and we fully recognise that it can have benefits. However, it is also important that every penny of taxpayers’ money, particularly in a time of tight finances, is spent responsibly, efficiently and wisely and that any decision made represents value for both users and taxpayers. We are continuing to consider what an effective, impactful and deliverable solution that works for the UK could look like, and no decision has been made.
The Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That is why we are implementing the policy framework for greater PNT resilience and developing proposals for a national timing centre and enhanced long-range navigation systems. The work around UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system is an important part of that, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the UK’s specific requirements.
I turn to the future of flight because there are constant developments in emerging technologies—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister moves on to another subject, given the particular circumstances in Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to, and the many islands, if the Scottish Government wished to make a service agreement with the European Union for this purpose, but the United Kingdom Government had chosen not to, do they have any scope to do so?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Rather than filibustering for a few minutes while I refer to the knowledgeable officials behind me, I think I had better write to him about that. I can see an answer coming: it says, “Not sure. We’d need to check”. That is very wise.
I turn to the constant developments in technologies, particularly in drones and uncrewed aircraft. This is an important, evolving area, and the full range of requirements are still being mapped out. There may well be applications where SBAS and EGNOS could be useful. As the Government have ambitious plans for the UK to be a global leader in creating a future-of-flight ecosystem fit for the future, ensuring that we can fully realise the social and economic benefits of new and emerging aviation technologies, we must continue to think about this work. It could be said that I am saying that we are just not doing anything, but we are doing something. These rapid developments, particularly in drones used beyond the line of sight, may well provide an increasing case for this technology and for EGNOS in future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has given us a very interesting progress report on any discussions taking place with the European Union, the CAA and others, but no decisions have been made. Can he give us any estimate about when the next decision might be achieved?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is a good question because developments in drones, particularly drones beyond line of sight, uncrewed aircraft and flying taxis have been much in the news recently. There are many applications way beyond traditional air applications. There is activity for drones beyond line of sight not only on the railway but in better policing. Those things would affect a judgment about an investment in this and whether the continuing cost of it is worth investing in. I urge my noble friend not to ask us to be too peremptory in making a once-and-for-all decision when technology is changing as, because of that, the justification for doing this might increase and we might get to the answer that my noble friend wants.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which reflect the strong interest in maintaining the UK’s continued leadership in aviation safety and innovation. We remain committed to ensuring safety and efficiency. We recognise the real value of systems such as EGNOS, but we must also consider the financial implications and seek solutions that offer the best value for money.
On the contributions of noble Lords about the cost of it, or the cost when it was around £35 million—I cannot confirm whether that might be the current cost or not—if the previous Government could not justify it, in these difficult financial circumstances we have a duty to justify public expenditure. However, noble Lords will have heard me say that we are considering it not only for the benefits from EGNOS for the purposes described in the discussion today but because the future of drone and uncrewed aircraft technology is rapidly developing. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we are strongly considering it. I am grateful for all that they have said.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but what representation has the department had from the CAA on this issue?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The department is in constant discussion with the CAA on this issue. I do not have any evidence that the CAA believes that reimplementing EGNOS is a matter of the greatest concern, but as the noble Lord asked the question, I will go away, find out what the current position with the CAA is and write to him about it.
Craft Industry: Support
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freyberg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the craft industry.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the Government’s role in supporting the craft industry, a sector that combines our economy, heritage, identity and national well-being. In speaking today, I declare my interests as an artist member of DACS and a former craft practitioner, having studied ceramics at Camberwell College of Arts—a course that, regrettably, no longer exists, exemplifying the very crisis that I wish to address today.
I thank Patricia Lovett, who has worked tirelessly to raise the profile of craft in Parliament as the secretariat for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft, for this and her briefing, and those from the Church of England and the UK jewellery, silverware and allied crafts sector. I thank the Minister for meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me earlier this year to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing the craft industry. Lastly, I extend my gratitude to all noble Lords participating in today’s debate; I eagerly await their contributions.
Craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human, combining creativity, skill and joy in ways that connect us to our heritage and each other. It is an economic force, a skills engine, a bridge to education, a custodian of cultural heritage and a foundation for innovation. Yet, despite all this, it remains routinely overlooked in national policy.
Let us begin with scale. In England alone, craft contributes £4.4 billion in gross value added, which is more than the fishing industry and on par with sectors such as electrical goods and sports, recreation and amusements. Approximately 210,000 people are employed in heritage crafts, which is more than in clothing manufacturing. However, reliable and up-to-date statistics remain difficult to obtain. I hope the Minister will commit to publishing new figures to help address the current lack of accurate data, as highlighted in How Do we Measure Craft?, published by the Crafts Council in 2023.
However, economic value tells only part of the story. Numerous creative industries and heritage sectors are rooted in traditional craft practices. Fields such as textiles, ceramics, jewellery, glass, leather, woodworking and metalworking—and a host of other overlooked and unsung heritage crafts that I wish I could single out individually today—demand skills that are not only materially productive but rich in cultural expression.
Craft is also deeply interwoven with wider policy goals. It improves health and well-being, supports education and skills, anchors regional identities, and drives tourism, exports and diplomacy. In short, it sits at the intersection of industrial strategy, education, heritage and soft power.
Yet this vital sector faces an existential threat. According to the latest Red List of Endangered Crafts, 165 crafts are at risk: 94 are endangered and 71 are critically endangered. These include scientific glassblowing—which is essential to advanced research—and the production of encaustic tiles, as found in the Peers’ Lobby.
We are witnessing the transition of traditional skills from viable to critically endangered status, often more swiftly than our support systems can respond. Most of these skills are passed down through person-to-person training. They are not widely taught in schools, nor can they be meaningfully learned online. Once lost, they are lost forever.
We see this decline in real time. Newark College has suspended its musical instruments degrees, the only full-time courses of their kind in the UK. In Stoke-on-Trent, three pottery firms have closed recently, including Moorcroft, founded in 1897. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect systemic fragility. Historical craft is a high-value, low-visibility sector, dominated by micro-businesses and sole traders, with limited structural support.
So what could the Government do to turn this around? First, we need urgently to review how government skills policy works for crafts. The current apprenticeship model is fundamentally unworkable for most craft businesses, which are often sole traders or firms with only one or two employees. They cannot meet the requirement for 10 employers to form a trailblazer group, nor can they afford to reduce productivity in order to train an apprentice while still paying their wages.
We welcome the new growth and skills levy, as well as the introduction of shorter and modular apprenticeships under Labour’s post-16 strategy, but we need these reforms to extend to the craft sector specifically, with direct funding for trainers, contributions to apprentice salaries and a reduction in administrative burdens. The new Skills England body has a clear remit to map skills pipelines across sectors. It must treat crafts as part of the creative economy, not an afterthought. Following yesterday’s spending review, how much of the new investment money for skills and training will be allocated to the crafts industry?
Secondly, we must reverse the collapse of full-time craft training. There are now only two single-honours ceramics degrees left. Courses in bookbinding, horology and instrument making are disappearing. The result is that only the independently wealthy can afford to train. We need targeted funding for FE and HE courses, particularly those teaching endangered skills. Many such courses currently fail to qualify for public funding. As with the performing arts, crafts education should not be confined to the privileged.
Thirdly, the Government should move swiftly to deliver on their obligations under the UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, which the UK ratified in 2024. Traditional craftsmanship is one of its five domains. Ratifying states must identify, inventory and safeguard such practices, yet no safe-guarding timetable or funding has been published. If we delay too long, the damage will be irreversible; I hope that the Minister can provide an update.
Fourthly, crafts should be treated like other sectors of similar size. Fishing, for example, receives tax breaks worth up to £180 million and has a £27 million seafood scheme, as well as a new £360 million coastal growth fund. Craft, which contributes over five times the GVA of fishing, receives no comparable support. Would it be too much to ask to invest even 2% of that into preserving craft skills? A £10 million annual fund could transform training, stem skill loss, and generate lasting cultural and economic returns.
Fifthly, post-Brexit trade obstacles have significantly impacted makers. Couriers are unwilling to accept small shipments. Export guidance lacks consistency. Items are being held up at customs. Organisers in the EU are becoming more hesitant to accept entries from the UK. We urgently need a dedicated help desk—a single point of contact for craft micro-businesses to access accurate trade advice. Trade agreements ought to incorporate cultural exemptions for crafts, recognising their importance in both diplomacy and commerce.
Sixthly, crafts deserve a place in creative education. They are too often excluded from discussions about arts in schools, yet crafts improve cognition, motor skills, resilience and mental health. They also open vocational pathways for students who may not thrive academically. Let us ensure that creative education includes making and that schools have the resources to teach it. Again, I hope that the Minister can provide an update on how the spending review will support this.
Seventhly, crafts are not only a domestic concern but an export strength—a soft power asset and a driver of regional growth. Labour’s refreshed creative industries sector plan and its cultural global Britain strategy rightly position culture at the heart of our international offer. Crafts must be at the heart of that strategy. From Stoke-on-Trent ceramics to Sunderland glass, from Leicester’s rattan-weaving to Devon’s thatching, crafts are rooted in place. Small investments in such place-based industries boost local pride, employment and tourism; they also reinforce the UK’s international reputation for excellence and authenticity.
If this debate achieves anything, I hope that it establishes that craft is not marginal or an anachronism. It is a vital, economically significant, socially valuable part of our national fabric. We do not need huge sums to save the sector, but we need a strategy, data and targeted support, and we need them soon because, once these skills disappear, they will not return, and we will have lost not just livelihoods, but irreplaceable strands of our national story. Let us act before that happens.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I do not have his credentials as a maker, but I am vice-chair of the APPG for Craft, and I support all the points he made so admirably and succinctly, particularly his emphasis on the economic impact of the craft sector.
People have been making glass since the Bronze Age. The technique of glassblowing was developed by Syrian craftspeople in the first century BC. Across the Roman Empire, vessels and objects were produced in their thousands for drinking, shipping food, storing oils, mirrors, windows and much more. In other words, these handmade vessels were not only beautiful, but immensely useful. The remarkable Charles Ede gallery recently displayed 60 Roman glass pieces, some of them filled with lovely naturalistic floral displays showing that, although now eminently collectable, they are still useful. They are functional works of art transcending time.
That ancient tradition survives today but, like so many other handmade crafts, it is under threat. In his excellent, comprehensive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, highlighted many of these threats: the higher costs of materials and energy; cuts to creative education in schools and universities, reducing pathways into the sector; limited apprenticeships compared to other skilled trades; and an ageing workforce where older crafts women and men retire without successors. These are among the key reasons for the decline, and I share all the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
There are some inspiring rescue stories. The Financial Times has a great track record of showcasing the sheer range and quality of UK crafts. It highlighted recently how two young artisans are reinvigorating the art of rush-seated chair making, which has been practised in Britain since Anglo-Saxon times. They were able to do this through the commitment and backing of one person—entrepreneur and estate owner, Hugo Burge. Just eight years ago, that ancient craft was under existential threat with the retirement of the last full-time artisan in the country. Fascinated by the craft and well-advised by the Heritage Crafts Association, Burge funded two apprenticeships. The Hugo Burge Foundation continues to fund apprenticeships to secure the future of this endangered craft.
This is far too precarious a way forward for the future of our amazing craft industries. There are a number of barriers faced by skilled makers in relation to apprenticeships, such as the impact on makers’ time, and therefore income, of helping to transfer skills. A more imaginative, flexible and focused approach is needed to ensure that craft skills can continue to flourish, and I hope my noble friend will in her reply offer some hope that this is indeed how she sees the way forward.
The very effective secretary of the APPG for crafts has, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, done sterling work in showcasing many of these crafts and, in particular, demonstrating the economic contribution that they make, yet they remain largely invisible in policy terms. I would not necessarily have expected a specific reference to craft in yesterday’s spending review announcement, but I hope that the Minister will be able today to give us some real confidence that it will figure strongly in subsequent departmental allocations, as well as in the soon-to-be-announced creative industry strategy.
I know my noble friend is passionate about this agenda. She made that clear in her recent meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me, and I hope she will reiterate today her determination to raise the profile of the craft sector and ensure that it fulfils its potential. I hope she will undertake to ensure that the new Skills England body specifically recognises crafts as an integral and invaluable part of the creative economy, our national fabric and our shared heritage.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education.
I will speak about an important and brand-new initiative in heritage crafts: the Wren international centre of excellence at St Paul’s Cathedral. It has been created out of a space at the level of the cathedral’s crypt, which was previously used for storage, and obviously named after Sir Christopher Wren, who is buried nearby. The new centre is a workshop and training space for heritage craft skills. Rebecca Thompson, the director of property at St Paul’s, says that it is hoped to be
“a leadership network to address the national shortage of heritage skills”.
Its first apprenticeships will be shortly advertised—in stone-masonry and carpentry—and those appointed will begin practical work in the summer, with concomitant college courses in September.
From 2005, I came into close contact with the heritage skills required at St Paul’s for, as Knight Principal of the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor, I had the job of supervising the creation of a new chapel there for the knights from an area that had hitherto been used as a depository for office equipment. I was able to prepare the preliminary drawings with the Surveyor of the Fabric and to oversee the necessary work, which obliged me to raise £1 million. It required specialist carpenters, turners, masons, welders, enamellers, silversmiths and bronze workers, and was opened by the late Queen Elizabeth and the late Duke of Edinburgh in 2008.
Innovations of the kind now in train at St Paul’s are very seriously needed. As we have heard, the number of people entering the heritage skills sector is in decline, and in many cathedrals such as St Paul’s, there are teams of conservators and crafts professionals with an ageing demographic, with retirement on the horizon and with the unwelcome likelihood that they will not be replaced.
We of course sit today in a world heritage site, and it will face the huge task of restoration and renewal in the coming few years. This will require a large number of trained heritage crafts professionals. Attractive jobs here will inevitably entice talented people away from other sites, such as cathedrals, exacerbating the shortages of skills that already exist.
In our several debates on restoration and renewal, I have recommended to your Lordships that we have a duty to construct, when R&R details become clearer, a Palace of Westminster scheme to showcase apprenticeship. It should be a subject of contract, between the House authorities and the firms fulfilling the necessary heritage craft tasks here, that they will guarantee to employ and teach apprentices. It is vital that restoration and renewal is not just a consumer of crafts skills but an active source of training for future careers in these important heritage areas.
I have recommended that all apprentices working here, or on associated projects off the site, should be registered with the Westminster apprenticeship scheme and, at the successful completion of their training, receive a special certificate. I have already persuaded the Speaker and the Lord Speaker that they should present them when the occasion arises. We want these young people to be proud of being part of the history of the Palace of Westminster and to come to understand the craft vision of Sir Charles Barry and of Augustus Welby Pugin that underpins it. I commend that initiative to your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this debate and for his expertise.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who will speak later, I believe that cathedrals and churches are some of our nation’s most significant and tangible assets, shaping our history and identity, as well as being the beating hearts of our communities. I regret, therefore, that the Government’s decision to curb support for the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme affects our ability to maintain and renew this precious inheritance. I hope this has been recognised in the spending review.
The reality is that the Church of England cares remarkably well for the biggest portfolio of listed buildings in the country thanks to local parish endeavour. That is why the decision to cap support, even for projects that are already contracted, budgeted and otherwise funded, is a real body blow. In my diocese, the impact for Holy Trinity Clapham amounts to £1 million, which puts at risk a programme of works that is already in progress. Another large fabric project has been paused.
Church buildings, as your Lordships may imagine, support a bewildering array of craft skills. Should churches cease to do so, many skills would atrophy. I am thinking of masonry and stone-carving, the intricate textiles of altar frontals, banners and vestments, the ceramics of tiles, painting, stained and engraved glass, and all manner of metalwork in buildings, utensils and liturgical objects, as well as woodwork, both functional and artistic. What would become of the sole remaining bell foundry in England were it not for orders such as that from Holy Trinity Church, Roehampton, in my diocese, for the casting of four bells in 2023? How would the skills needed to repair great organs flourish without the refurbishment of the organ at St John the Divine, Kennington, which is also in the diocese of Southwark? It has a massive local music outreach programme for children, with beneficial social impact. Organ-building is a heritage craft at risk.
Again in my diocese, at All Saints Church in Kingston upon Thames—the place of coronation for West Saxon kings including, in this anniversary year, that of Æthelstan, the first king of all England—there is an ambitious and contemporary textile project depicting seven Anglo-Saxon monarchs. How will contemporary embroidery fare without the commissioning of large and challenging works such as this; or traditional stonemasonry without commissions such as the repair of the tower and wall at St Mary’s Church, Beddington? Indeed, how will any of these skills survive without this activity? Every bishop in every diocese can recite many telling examples. Yet the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not list bell-founding, organ-building, stone-carving, stained or engraved glasswork, masonry or wood-carving as core craft activities. I ask the Minister to explain this and expand the current list.
In summary, the reduction in the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme announced in January and concerns over its future beyond March will have a direct effect on commissions and contracts awarded to skilled craftspeople and artists. It will inhibit apprenticeships and dampen economic growth. As a final point, I ask the Minister, if only on grounds of economic utility, to please guarantee an expanded future scheme.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of English Heritage. As well as looking after 400 of the nation’s most important heritage sites, we are one of the biggest investors in building conservation and heritage management in the UK, so English Heritage is well placed to observe and comment on the state of the heritage skills world.
I am sorry to say that it is not good news. For stone-masonry, roofing and thatching, joinery and metalwork, the demand for traditional heritage skills greatly outstrips the availability of people with those skills. For specialist interventions on heritage buildings, such as flint-knapping, which involves repairing a built form and which is no longer practised in new buildings, we are literally at the end of the line. There are few or no new entrants and hardly any training opportunities to continue this ancient skill.
Horticulture in historic gardens is a specialist and skilled activity—a heritage skill of its own—but it is also an underpopulated profession. At English Heritage, we are proud to have run the Historic and Botanic Garden Training Programme—a difficult phrase to say; it is better known as heebie-jeebies—with the support of the National Garden Scheme. Over almost 20 years, we have supported more than 300 trainees, who are now employed across the heritage world. The vast majority of our horticulture trainees have gone on to be highly skilled gardeners at some of the most high-profile historic gardens in the UK and abroad. Much of the credit for this goes to our soon-to-retire head gardener, John Watkins, who engineered this remarkable revival.
The most recent addition to our portfolio of historic properties is Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings. This was the first multi-storey iron-framed building in the world and therefore can claim the title of being the grandparent of the skyscraper.
Between 2017 and 2020, Historic England delivered a programme of heritage skills activities supported by the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation. Work placements, site tours and training events were targeted at all levels, from students to industry professionals. We want a similar commitment to heritage skills training in the delivery of all large lottery-funded projects like this one.
But these are examples of best practice; the picture across the country is far too fragmented—much more Jackson Pollock than Picasso. It is difficult for enthusiasts to find entry points for specialist heritage skills. There are few placement opportunities in heritage organisations and very little on-the-job learning. Once the training is completed, pathways to employment are ill-defined and hard to identify. Employment opportunities are often small scale, insecure and poorly paid. Short-term funding means that even large organisations such as English Heritage can no longer permanently employ in-house teams of construction professionals, as was the case many years ago.
In allowing professions such as heritage skills to dwindle and die, we have not just deprived the country of important construction skills and neglected the UK’s great heritage assets; we have also allowed traditions, customs and local communities to disperse and almost casually disappear. In your Lordships’ House, we are assiduous about maintaining our own traditions. We should also have a care for the traditions and communities of people less high profile, but, perhaps over the long run, even more important than us.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Freyberg on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech. I thank Patricia Lovett for her excellent briefing on heritage craft and, indeed, whose expertise in this area informs us all. I thank the Minister for the helpful meeting she had with my noble friend Lord Freyburg, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and me.
I am a fine artist, so my view of craft is that of a close and equally significant next-door neighbour; indeed, there is considerable overlap in our practice. Yet, whereas we have debates and Questions in this House on many of the creative industries—many on music—I cannot remember the last time we had a debate on craft, so this one is especially welcome, since the infrequency of such debates is sadly also indicative of a public perception about craft that is entirely at odds with the reality of the importance of this area, not least financially.
It is worth repeating the statistic that heritage craft alone contributed £4.4 billion GVA to the economy in 2012, which is about five times more than fishing, which contributed £862 million in 2023. Unlike the fishing industry, it receives no funding from government, while contemporary craft, which is funded through the Crafts Council, still receives nothing like the investment that is made in the fishing industry. I do not want to press this comparison too much, not least because some of the ancillary activities connected with fishing, such as net and withy pot making, are themselves crafts. We should be on the same side, but the Government need to think seriously about a more equitable distribution of direct investment, particularly as they rightly identify the creative sector as a growth area. While it is good that, through the spending review, heritage venues will be better supported—perhaps the Minister can say something about that—the overall cuts to DCMS funding are worrying and deeply disturbing.
I will concentrate the remainder of my remarks on the effects of Brexit on the craft sector. That effect is profound. Europe is the most significant trading partner for craft goods. However, Brexit is not behind us: as in all the creative industries, artists and artisans have to live with it daily. Most immediately, it makes us face enormous concerns over paperwork, costs and delays, but the exchange of ideas, tools, materials, teaching and training between the UK and the EU in the craft industry has all but stopped, including the display of work at European craft fairs and exhibitions. The shop window that such exhibitions afford, even when no work is sold, is hugely important in terms of initial cultural engagement as a precursor to trade. Will the Minister look at this?
Will the Minister consider expanding the list of eligible occupations in the creative sector to include heritage craft practitioners? This would enable knowledge exchange for residencies and collaborative projects under the PPE visa. Will she look at the huge challenges faced by journeymen and apprentices in such areas of itinerant work across Europe due to both Brexit and funding, which is either scarce or non-existent due to rigid eligibility criteria tied to fixed business premises?
Finally, I make a plea that the Government reinstate tax-free shopping for tourists, which would benefit both high-end fashion and craft goods. The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that its removal has deterred 2 million tourists a year from visiting the UK and is costing £10.7 billion in lost GDP, with much of that loss, of course, being the EU’s gain.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing it forward. I echo much of what was said by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Southwark and by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, with whom I worked at St Paul’s.
I would like to stress the importance of capacity for long-term funding in order that long-term planning can be undertaken by these fragile groups. I was disappointed that this morning there was no response from the Minister in the Statement on the spending review to indicate that there will be certainty about the future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme beyond 2026, which is essential for so many churches, parishes and cathedrals, nor a review of the capping system of the VAT application, which once again destroys much of the benefit of knowing that there is funding ahead.
Though I could simply echo some of the comments about the forms of arts and crafts seen in cathedrals, I am not arguing for special treatment for the Church of England as a discrete group that wants to be okay alone. This is about the impact that the Church of England—its parishes, churches and cathedrals—has in the wider community. For example, the masons’ team at St Paul’s Cathedral offered people, many of them from Essex, the opportunity of a career in masonry. They were often the children of people who had a career in masonry at St Paul’s. This sense that there is something ahead of us is a very important part of the investment that cathedrals contribute through their renovation programmes.
My second point is about the use of conservation—both developing conservation skills and the benefit of conservation for others. In two cathedrals, Rochester and Durham, the display of their inheritance is not only of interest to tourists, which I will come back to, but of profound interest and an education to pupils in schools. School visits are one of the most important ways of introducing children to their inheritance. Both Rochester and Durham are places where there are levels of deprivation which can be very destructive for children, until they discover that they are the inheritors of this beautiful history, which is theirs. Cathedrals have an educational and a formational contribution to make to these communities.
My third point is about textiles. When I was at St Paul’s, we were fortunate to be funded, through the generosity of many of the livery companies, to commission textiles. This was not simply for the use of a small group of people worshipping in that building; it put us in touch with Central Saint Martins, which ran a competition for international students to win the prize of commissioning and designing these textiles. As a result of that, a group of local people who were interested in broderie was started, and it continues now. It gives the local community—not necessarily Christians but beyond that confine—an opportunity to identify with something that will create a heritage for the future.
Finally, I turn to music. For children, access to cathedral choirs is one of the most important ways of enlarging their educational experience and giving them intergenerational experience of working with adults in a professional way. It has also been used by the Probation Service as a way of bringing people who are at risk of offending into finding purposeful skills for which they receive applause.
These are all ways in which crafts overflow from the Church into the wider community.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak about the crisis approaching us in building craftsmanship. Here we are, in this temple of British craftsmanship—we are very proud of its history—yet we are in real danger of losing many crafts as the last craftsmen reach the end of their careers without apprentices. On the other side of the equation, we currently have around 923,000 young people not in education, employment or training; that is one in eight 16 to 24 year-olds. These are young people whose potential is being squandered.
You may think that it is a rather unbalanced equation. When you hear “heritage building crafts”, it is easy to think just about the big prestige projects, such as Notre-Dame and the Houses of Parliament, but that is one of the mistakes we have made. We have ended up with specialist crafts all in their own little niches and struggling to be sustainable.
One-fifth of all our housing stock in the UK —5.9 million homes—was built before the First World War, using traditional methods and materials generally different from those used in the past 50 years or so. These all require maintenance from craftsmen, such as the plasterers who know how to work with lime and the carpenters who can fix a sash window frame. Some £28 billion-worth of work is done annually on these buildings. Equally urgently, these houses need retrofitting to higher insulation standards to help us meet net zero, as well as an understanding of how their fabric works. Then there is the conversion of old industrial buildings to new homes to help meet housing needs. There is a continuum of building craft skills, from the needs of the small, everyday houses to those of our most treasured and visited heritage buildings. Overall, the numbers of building craftspeople needed are very large.
Now think about the pipeline needed to feed this—that huge pool of young people who do not want to sit in front of a computer or at a desk, seeing their jobs replaced by AI and uninspired by corporate management structures. How do we match them with the thousands of self-employed building craftspeople, mostly in their 40s or older, who are ready and willing to give one-on-one mentoring—absolute training gold dust—leading to well-paid, satisfying jobs that are ideal for those who want to take pride in being able to see something they did and did well?
Here in the Lords, we know all too well that the hereditary system of jobs being passed from parent to child has pretty much gone. That potentially opens up opportunities more broadly, but we need to provide its replacement. Surveys show that half of young people have never considered a career in trades; nearly 40% said that they were discouraged from them. We need to inspire them with what these careers can be, and we need to make the pathways for them clearer and easier. Hands-on and heritage skills need to be part of all mainstream construction training.
Then there are the individual apprenticeships and small courses sponsored by the Church of England, the King’s Foundation, the parliamentary R&R programme, English Heritage, the traditional craft guilds and so many more. They are all doing their absolute best, but they need to be greater than the sum of their parts. Thankfully, though, there is no shortage of enthusiasm, ideas and—crucially—deep knowledge and understanding of what can be done. We have some really good reports, and so many organisations are ready to help. I thank especially the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Building Crafts College, Cadw, the parliamentary R&R programme and the Natural Stone Industry Training Group for helping me understand the situation.
What we need now is to bring together the vision and knowledge from industry and the Government’s ambitions. I spoke to Marianne Suhr, one of this country’s leading experts in traditional building crafts and the presenter of the BBC programme “Restoration”. There is no one more inspirational. She is absolutely fizzing with ideas, passion, deep experience and knowledge to help. Will the Minister and others in government please meet Marianne and a small group of experts to see how we can turn their great ideas into reality? To borrow the motto of the movement in France that seeks to support its traditional crafts, Les Compagnons du Devoir, be one of those who build the future.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate in such a powerful way; he is a trained craftsman himself and a staunch supporter of craft. I also thank Daniel Carpenter from the Heritage Crafts Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. How sobering it was to receive the latest list of endangered crafts recently.
I also pay tribute to Patricia Lovett, a wonderful calligrapher who has been the driving force behind the All-Party Group on Craft, of which I was a founder member. She has been instrumental in introducing us to a bewitching range of specialists in gold, glass, leather, printing, sewing, neon lighting, clock-making, instrument-making and too many other skills to mention. The meetings always leave us inspired and enriched, which is sadly not something we can say of all meetings in Parliament. As a winder, I regret that four minutes does not permit me to mention all the great contributions to this debate, but I thank all noble Lords.
This country is rich with heritage crafts but, sadly, a number are lost each year as the number of young people coming forward to spend time and trouble on apprenticeships to learn them is not sufficient to ensure their lasting appeal. Often, the practitioners are sole traders or very small businesses, who need financial support if they are to take time from practising their craft and earning a living to teaching it. Why can there not be a dedicated point of reference to help craftspeople through the myriad complications of trading, particularly —as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said—with the EU? It used to be a rich source of customers and colleagues.
We are aware that further education colleges do a great job in supplying teachers and opportunities, but, of course, they are beset by funding limitations. These skills require patience and attention to detail, which was part and parcel of my generation but is often a far cry from modern-day instant results. Setting up each letter in a printing press, having to mind the Ps and Qs, and, indeed, the need to type accurately with a typewriter are processes outwitted by the speed of computing. However, the satisfaction of a job well done is not matched by the speed of automation.
Craft skills and creativity are key to the country’s economy, as we have heard from various noble Lords, but we have lost many of the teachers who encourage the young into practical skills. Many state schools no longer offer woodwork, metalwork, cookery, needlework and pottery, which used to be part of our educational offer and enticed many young people into learning when maths and English were not their forte.
Part of the problem we have with the disturbing number of young people not in education, employment or training—the NEETs—is that their interests and skills were not on the timetable at school, so they lost interest in learning. Among them, there will be many potential craftspeople, who could be encouraged into work if their craft skills were recognised. Can the Minister say whether the curriculum review will recommend that opportunities for craft should be available in all state schools?
There are organisations, enthusiasts and livery companies who work hard to regenerate enthusiasm. In the livery world, we know that goldsmiths, leather-sellers, carpenters and many others promote the crafts on which they were founded, often many centuries ago, but which still have relevance today. We have heard from both right reverend Prelates about the importance of the Church, which has such beautiful buildings and artefacts that are of course made by craftspeople. When we allow this crumbling building to be renovated, we shall need all the skilled craftspeople available. We should not allow ourselves to be outdone by Notre Dame, which was renovated in such amazing time.
Might the Minister look to using the smart fund, a private copy remuneration scheme already modelled in 45 countries including much of Europe, Canada and Mexico, to generate much-needed funding for craft? Why do craft courses not qualify for funding? People often have to self-fund.
We are only too well aware that independent schools continue to encourage crafts as they do art, drama, dance. Surely, however, it should not just be the preserve of the privileged to be able to show talents and learn skills in these subjects. Crafts improve hand-eye co-ordination, enhance mental health and give a great sense of accomplishment when something beautiful or useful is being created. What steps are being taken to reintroduce craft disciplines into state schools so that the country’s proud tradition of excellence can be continued and so that young people are not turned away from learning and can contribute their talents to the economy?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and welcome the Minister to her first debate as Heritage Minister. What a fine debate it has been—long overdue, well attended and very perceptive. I was very proud to be the Minister who ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, and I am delighted to see the Minister taking forward that work with great enthusiasm, as her department leads on encouraging people to bring forward crafts and practices to be enrolled in the UK’s new inventory. Perhaps she can give us an update on that work and remind us how people can make a nomination. We all have our favourite examples: today I am wearing the Northumberland tartan tie that I wore with pride as Heritage Minister.
Inscription on the UK’s inventory and with UNESCO are important as a recognition not only of what we value as a nation but of what we stand to lose if we are not careful. Heritage Craft’s latest red list has been mentioned. It now lists 165 distinct crafts as “endangered” or “critically endangered”—19 more than previously. One should catch the attention of our Prime Minister as it is flute making. This work comes at an urgent time.
That is helpful to the Government for so many of the missions that they have set themselves. Whether it is creating economic growth and opportunity across the UK, providing new homes—not just building new ones but retrofitting historic properties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said—or making us a greener country as we seek to insulate old buildings and protect them from the changing climate, we will need all our skilled craftspeople. As in 1979, this Government could do with more thatchers, so will the Minister use her good office and things such as the cross-government Heritage Council to impress this point on her colleagues in other departments?
Will she press them, notwithstanding the “outright cuts” that her department was handed yesterday, in the words of the IFS, to ensure that heritage crafts are properly supported? As we have heard, at present there is no direct funding for heritage crafts. The Crafts Council receives £2.2 million through the Arts Council, but its focus is on contemporary craft, which is very important but distinct. Surveys such as Mapping Heritage Craft have shown that some 210,000 people are involved in crafts, contributing, as we have heard, £4.4 billion of GVA. Surely some of that can be reinvested to help the sector to grow further and to pass on skills to new generations.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned some of the specialist training we have lost. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and draw attention to the National Glass Centre in Sunderland, so close to the Education Secretary’s constituency, which continues the tradition of glass-making on Wearside.
Many organisations are doing excellent work. We have heard about livery companies. I was delighted to meet some of English Heritage’s brilliant gardeners and apprentices at Belsay Hall with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos.
I am very glad that we have two Lords Spiritual with us today. The Church of England provides apprenticeships and training opportunities, such as the cathedral workshop fellowship. We look forward to the opening of York Minster’s Centre Of Excellence, and we also heard about the Wren International Centre of Excellence from my noble friend Lord Lingfield.
We all share their anxiety about the changes and uncertainty surrounding the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I know that the Minister recently visited one of the properties in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in Rugby and had the opportunity to see for herself how the trust helps to keep specialists, such as Jim Budd, in work repairing stained-glass windows. Last summer, the CCT organised a heritage building skills summer school in Lancaster, helping to spread opportunity to people from a wide range of backgrounds. On a recent trip with the CCT, I was delighted to meet some of the apprentice stonemasons at Gloucester Cathedral, who are caring for that building as their forebears have done for more than a millennium.
As we have heard, we need skilled craftspeople for this very building if we are to look after the UNESCO world heritage site in which we presently sit. That was mentioned at the end of the debate in the Chamber last night, so, as my noble friend Lord Lingfield and others have said, there is an opportunity for us to lead by example.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important debate and all noble Lords on their thoughtful contributions today. Given the time constraint, I, too, will probably need to talk very fast, and I may need to write to noble Lords after the debate with any responses that I cannot cover in my response.
I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, described as the “unsung” crafts have heard their value sung out very loudly today. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, on the restoration and renewal programme, which was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, shows how relevant this debate is to the Palace of Westminster, as it is around the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, mentioned Notre Dame. I am proud, as I know noble Lords across the Room will be, about the role of British craftspeople involved in that project. It is important to recognise that we gain from what Notre Dame gained from our incredible builders, craftspeople and artists.
Many noble Lords will know from previous conversations I have had with them that I feel passionately about craft, as does every noble Lord who has spoken. That includes not just the traditions woven into our inclusive national story or, in the case of a number of noble Lords, their professional lives, but in my case as a means of rehabilitation from serious illness as a teenager and as activities I learned from my mother, grandmother and great-aunt.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said so powerfully in his opening remarks, craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human. When I was growing up, one of our closest family friends was a professional potter, Rosemary Zorza. She had a profound effect on me as a child, encouraging my creativity and imagination. However, beyond my personal experience, when I speak of crafts, I mean more than the physical objects that are represented. I mean the communities sustained, the skills preserved and the futures shaped. The craft industry is a custodian of heritage, a source of enrichment and a powerful driver of growth.
I turn to the point on data. The figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, covers a broader definition than our current DCMS methodology allows. The most recent DCMS figures from 2024 show that in 2023 the crafts subsector generated around £400 million in gross value added and employed 7,000 highly skilled artisans, which is a significant return for the creative industries. These are, on the whole, small but highly specialist enterprises. We continue to work to improve how such sectors are captured in official statistics, including where their work cuts across different categories such as manufacturing, design, heritage or construction skills. As a Minister, I am keen to understand what the data is telling us so that I can represent the sector effectively in discussions.
I want to add that this is not solely about economics, important though they are. This is about artistry, craftsmanship and our living heritage. From Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramics and Birmingham’s jewellery, for which Birmingham was recently recognised as a world craft city, to Northamptonshire’s shoemakers, these crafts are signifiers of place, character and British identity.
All noble Lords highlighted the pressures faced by the craft sector. This is an important debate for those reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, noted that Heritage Crafts’s 2025 red list of endangered crafts highlighted challenges in education, training and small business support. We recognise these challenges, which is why we support funders such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which in 2024 awarded £158,000 to Heritage Crafts for long-term sustainability. It also runs a heritage crafts programme offering bursaries to help people train in heritage crafts or develop their skills. I look forward to meeting the chief executive of Heritage Crafts in the coming weeks to hear more about the issues at stake.
In relation to wider support for the sector, since 2018 Arts Council England’s developing your creative practice programme has supported the development of creative practitioners by providing grants to give them the time, headspace and financial support needed to encourage development and experimentation to enable those practitioners to progress and flourish in their creative careers. Craftspeople specialising in textiles, jewellery or ceramic arts, for example, can apply under the visual artist field.
The spending review was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others. Following the announcement of the spending review on 11 June—yesterday—DCMS is now moving into the business planning phase to determine how the settlement will be delivered.
It is important to recognise that some of the risks to the sector are very tangible and real. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to the closure of potteries. The Government are working closely with Ceramics UK to ensure the future of the sector with regard to both traditional ceramics and 21st-century, high-tech ceramics. I look forward to the publication of the industrial strategy and hope that noble Lords will find it of interest when it is published in due course.
The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop of Southwark noted the changes to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I do not want to suggest that we do not recognise the role that the restoration of churches plays in the preservation of skills. However, given where we were fiscally, we had to make changes to that scheme. On its future, funding after 2026 will be considered as we work through the departmental business planning process. In January, the Government announced a one-year extension with a £23 million budget. I stress that 94% of applications will not be affected by the change, but I appreciate that the affected schemes have to explore other means of funding. I have spoken with the vicar of the church in Clapham mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, and I am aware of the issues that the church has with claiming money under the National Lottery scheme.
As the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned, last year we ratified the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. I recognise the work that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, did on that. He knows that I am as enthusiastic about it as he is, and I am delighted to take his work forward. Ratification has started a timely conversation about what we value and how, collectively, we safeguard our living heritage, of which crafts are a key part. We will create inventories better to map and understand the sector and its issues and to raise awareness. Submissions will open later this year, and I will report to the House about those plans. I am very keen for as many noble Lords as possible to get involved in promoting it in due course.
I now move on to talk about skills and education, and this is where my notes get very messy and I am at desperate risk of running out of time. I think all noble Lords raised skills shortages. This is one of the key areas raised in this debate that I am genuinely most concerned about. I recognise similar concerns to those raised with me by heritage stakeholders across the piece about making sure that we do not lose the skills we need. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe noted that people who are retiring are not being replaced, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised a very powerful point about the barriers of time and finances for young people to get trained by small family businesses or sole traders.
Organisations directly and indirectly supported by the Government are investing in craft skills, including Historic England, the Churches Conservation Trust and projects funded by the National Lottery. I pay tribute to the leadership of my noble friend Lord Lemos in championing craft and heritage skills through his work at English Heritage. Further excellent work is happening to address demands, such as at the National Trust’s Heritage and Rural Skills Centre and York Minster’s Centre of Excellence for Heritage Skills and Estate Management, and the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned the excellent work at Saint Paul’s.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others mentioned that we are reforming apprenticeships, but I recognise that some occupations do not necessarily fit into the very tight framework that some apprenticeships involve. For example, I understand from my noble friend Lady Anderson that it takes up to 10 years to train a master potter. I will pick up these points in writing. I will also pick up the points made in relation to skills, apprenticeships and education with my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, not least in relation to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe on Skills England. I note the point on trade and will respond to the noble Earl in writing.
In the very small amount of time I have left, I conclude by saying that we will continue to support the craft sector. People in this country produce some of the finest crafts in the world. I am clear that we have an incredible richness of craftspeople in this country, and I am seeking to identify ways to ensure that the sector is supported to grow. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing this debate.
Wildfires
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Caithness
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to (1) reduce the risk, and (2) mitigate the effects, of wildfires.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, wildfires are a natural phenomenon and an essential process in some ecosystems. Climate change is driving not only increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather but changes in our vegetation that are probably making it more prone to fire. Wildfires are becoming a persistent and growing risk to life, property and the environment with the impact that they have on carbon emissions, wildlife, humans and their health, insurance, and air and water quality. However, there is no single definition of what constitutes a wildfire, although the National Fire Chiefs Council, the NFCC, has long argued for one. Do the Government agree that a single definition is now a necessity?
By April this year, the total area burned by wildfires in the UK was already higher for the year than any other year’s total over the last decade. As of 4 June, more than 137 square miles—almost the size of the Isle of Wight—had already been burned. It is very hard to put a price on wildfires, but the Moorland Association estimates that the cost this year is already more than £350 million. In addition, as with all fires, there are ongoing legacy costs, which are unquantifiable, such as bare land being eroded and the slowing re-establishment of vegetation and recovery of wildlife at a time when nature is in crisis.
About 90% of wildfires are caused by humans, either carelessly or deliberately. Increasing public awareness of wildfires is a logical next step following the good work of the UK fire danger rating system project and it needs addressing by the Government, local authorities and landowners.
The largest number of wildfire incidents are in major metropolitan areas, with the greatest threat to people, health and livelihoods being the rural-urban interface. Due to wildfires, in July 2022 the London Fire Brigade had its busiest day since World War II, with more than 40 houses and shops destroyed. Wherever fires occur, we are extremely grateful for the courage and dedication of the fire and rescue service—the FRS. A fire can affect many FRS stations. On 10 March this year, a wildfire started deliberately at Canford Heath required the attendance of 13 stations.
This increased operational demand comes when firefighter numbers are down 25% since 2008. The ever-growing costs must be absorbed through core budgets that are already under strain, and there is no dedicated funding for wildfire response. All this, together with a lack of definition, is hindering long-term investment and the prediction, mitigation, control and recording of wildfires and their impact. I ask the Minister: do we really need another major catastrophe before the Government act and the NFCC’s sensible requests are addressed?
I was brought up on the heather hills in Aberdeenshire, so I wish to focus on heath-land and moorland fires, but in England. I have taken part in controlled burns and have helped fight wildfires. I have been fortunate to see and hear the biodiversity that is noticeably abundant on managed, as opposed to unmanaged, moorland.
A key determinant to any fire is the quantity and type of combustible materials available for burning. This influences fire behaviour and severity and is known as fuel load. The NFCC and private landowners agree that, the larger the proportion of the fuel load that is unmanaged, the bigger the fire and the higher the risk of damage. This is the very thing we all wish to prevent; thus, land management is critical. The FRS states that a flame length of over 11 feet puts people at risk—remember that the flame length on Saddleworth Moor was over 50 feet.
Recently, in the Peak District, due to the terrain, weather conditions and flame length, the FRS withdrew from fires and decided to let them burn themselves out. Why are the FRS volunteers and biodiversity being put at risk like this? The answer is that land managers are being directed by the Government through Natural England—NE—to manage land in such a way that it increases the fuel load.
There is a significant difference between a controlled burn and a wildfire. Controlled fire burns only the surface, not the underlying vegetation or root systems. Furthermore, the latest science shows that, over a 10-year period, controlled fires sequester more carbon than they release. NE used approved controlled burning on Dorset heath-land to restore habitat but, ironically, it is firmly against it on moorland, even though it does not burn the peat. Instead, NE demands the wetting of moorland, but wet moors still burn.
Indonesia is the only country in the world that has tried rewetting at scale and studied its effect on wildfire. Rewetting reduced the number of extreme fire events by 40% and only slightly shrank the area affected by fire by 5%. Of course, rewetting will help in some places but certainly not all. For instance, due to topography, 30% of the Peak District cannot be rewetted. The England Peat Action Plan identified the lack of scientific knowledge around the impacts of changing land managing practices. As a result, IDEAL UK FIRE is researching this, with a report due in 2027. Can the Minister tell your Lordships why Defra has undertaken a hurried eight-week consultation on further restrictions on traditional winter burning before this important report is received and studied? Does the Minister agree that no decision should be taken until we have the science available?
NE looks at facts from a single-issue viewpoint, is wedded to one form of fuel load control and ignored the latest scientific evidence. Its ill-informed evidence review—NEER155—has compromised Defra’s responsibility in the wildfire framework for England and, doubtless, the review of the EIP. I wrote to the CEO of NE in April, asking for an urgent meeting to discuss all this. It is a sorry saga to recount but, briefly, she has not responded to me, and my requests for a meeting have been ignored. That is unacceptable, especially from the Government’s advisers.
I conclude that NE is not fit for purpose. I am not at all surprised that there is a fundamental breakdown in trust with landowners to whom it dictates. Its behaviour is putting humans, our environment and nature at greater risk. Can the Minister tell us why NE is allowed to give instructions to landowners when it has no statutory responsibility for wildfires and, contrary to his recent letter to me, does not employ a single person with specialist knowledge? What action will he take to improve NE’s performance?
While on landowners, let us recall that landowners in England voluntarily spend millions each year on moorland management and promoting biodiversity. In parts of Scotland and parts of Italy and Spain, this is no longer so, with well-documented negative environmental consequences. If landowners withdraw their good will, it will fall to the taxpayer to fund and support biodiversity, and the FRS will have no help and local expertise when the fire occurs.
Many of your Lordships will have received the Wildlife Trust’s brief for this debate. Before it was circulated widely, I managed to get an inaccurate reference to an NE report corrected. I also told TWT that where the ignition source was known it represented less than 7% of upland fires. Significantly, it did not amend its brief further to reflect that fact. Are Ministers aware that not only do some NGOs wilfully confuse controlled burns and wildfires but they are sending out briefs that are more emotionally and politically based than science and fact based?
I thank all noble Lords who are speaking in this debate. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Gove, another Aberdeenshire loon, but nae from the hills, and my noble friend Lord Jack of Courance, in whose former constituency I spent many of my farming days. I am delighted that they have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this important debate. Wildfires are a current and very real threat to us and our environment that climate change will only exacerbate. We all need to do more to rise to the challenge, but we need a more concerted lead from the Government based on further and better scientific evidence advice than they have recently received.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a very great honour for me to be standing here today. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness not only for proposing this debate but for his excellent speech. I agree with every word he said. I also thank my two noble friends who supported me at my introduction, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning. To those two noble Lords, the doorkeepers—I am going to do it in reverse order—the Clerk of the Parliaments and, obviously, Black Rod and many others who have given me invaluable assistance and advice, I give my heartfelt thanks.
I think, before I turn to the substance of this debate, it is customary for me to say a few words about my background. I was born and bred in Galloway. I married Ann, a Galloway girl who was my childhood sweetheart, in 1987. We have three grown-up children, all nicely married, and we have three wonderful grandchildren. Between the early 1980s and 2017, I had an entrepreneurial business career, then, through a rush of blood to the head, at a day’s notice, I stood for Dumfries and Galloway, an SNP seat, in the 2017 general election. Five weeks later, I found myself on a train to Euston with a change of career, and I have not regretted a day of it.
On arrival in the Commons, I sat on the Treasury Select Committee, and after that I joined the Whips’ Office. Then in July 2019, I was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, a role I held for five years and 10 reshuffles, which I think may be a record in its own right. Following my five years in the Scotland Office, I have many reflections on intergovernmental relations and the devolution settlement. During that time, I certainly put out a number of political wildfires, many of them started by my noble friend Lord Gove. However, I will return to those reflections at a future date.
Turning to the substance of this debate, as noted in my register of interest, I am the proud owner of some heathland and moorland in south-west Scotland and, consequently, this is a subject very close to my heart, because we all know that when accidental fires break out in areas of moorland with, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, a large fuel burden, the consequences can be devastating for wildlife, biodiversity and the carbon release if that fire gets down into the peatland.
However, it is a common misconception that muirburn is peat burning. It is not. Muirburn is a cold fire. Your Lordships can go online and watch videos of cold fires going across Mars bars that have been laid in the heather and not damaging them or harming them in any shape or form. That is the point. It is a cold burn. These cold fires preserve the peat. They have the dual purpose of preventing wildfires and creating a mosaic of biodiversity that is quite exceptional.
In conclusion, prevention is the best solution to wildfires, and that comes through land management. That means government taking a sensible approach in terms of rules and regulations and not burdening land managers with unnecessary bureaucracy. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to make these observations, and I look forward to playing my part in the work of your Lordships’ House in future.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jack and to congratulate him on an excellent and most informative maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in future. Looking on the internet this morning, I was delighted to see that my noble friend is a former chairman of the River Annan board—another Scottish river on which I have failed miserably to connect with a fish. I declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers’ Union.
In its wildfire rapid response assessment, the United Nations Environment Programme emphasised the importance of auditing full wildfire costs and investing in planning, prevention and recovery—not just response. This is because the costs of wildfire mitigation and prevention are a fraction of those associated with suppression by the emergency services and the economic and environmental impacts of a wildfire. However, no such systematically collected data exists in the UK, and until the direct and indirect costs of wildfires are understood and recorded, their challenge to humanity will be dangerously overlooked.
The costs go far beyond the obvious direct costs of suppression by the fire services. Wildfires impact our health, close roads to traffic, impact schools and businesses, lead to the evacuation of residential areas, damage our infrastructure and homes, impact our water supplies and water quality, and release carbon and pollutants into the atmosphere while destroying crops and killing wildlife. If they occur on peatland, you can add to that list the loss of stored carbon accumulated over millennia.
All these costs are simply not recorded as a matter of course and are therefore not fully accounted for in the decision-making process. Individual assessments exist, such as the £21 million cost of the health impacts from the Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, due to a 300% increase in PM2.5 levels; the £83.5 million insurance payout in 2022 due to farm fires; and the almost £2 million of publicly funded restoration costs lost in the 2018 wildfire on Saddleworth Moor.
By bringing these diffuse sources together, the Moorland Association has estimated that, to date, wildfires have cost the UK more than £350 million in 2025, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said—the same amount of money that the Government committed in 2020 to help heavy industry reduce carbon emissions. These costs are a potential avoided loss if wildfire policy is focused on mitigation through managing the fuel load.
I must point out that moorland management, including controlled and specific moor burn carried out by highly trained and skilled gamekeepers, plays a vital role in the prevention and control of wildfires, as was seriously demonstrated in my area of the Peak District earlier this year. That fact needs to be noted and appreciated by Natural England and others.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted—and surprised—to say that I agreed with a lot of what the noble Earl said in his opening speech. I congratulate him on bringing this topic here. He is absolutely right that wildfires are a natural phenomenon, but the current year is on track to be the worst on record. They used to be a rare occurrence but are becoming much more common. This is due to a combination of factors, including dry and windy weather conditions, abundant vegetation from damp winters, and, of course, the impact of climate change.
The Government need a plan—a strategy. They need practical solutions as well as some answers to practical questions. For example, are the fire services ready and able to deal with wildfires? Do they know the best way of doing it in each circumstance, including the urban/rural divide? Do they have the spare capacity if they need it?
The best way to strengthen our resilience to wildfires is to restore and strengthen our native ecosystems. The problem is that we have some inherent invested practices here in Britain that make it much more difficult to protect our own ecosystems, such as shooting. For example, we have had endless promises about stopping the use of lead bullets. They are highly poisonous and toxic to people, especially if you eat them in pheasants. We have to stop it—and we also have to stop the practice of pheasant shooting altogether. There should be no hunting in Britain; it is a selfish and senseless way of behaving.
For example, the millions of pheasant chicks imported into the UK every year have a detrimental effect on our native ecosystems, wrecking our wildlife as they out-compete native UK birds. Hawks are being shot by gamekeepers, and the chicks of the game birds are put into crowded battery-cage conditions then sent all across the UK to be shot.
It is inherent in our country that people like nature. I know that Labour does not entirely get the concept of nature, but it is important to support and strengthen it. It is obvious that we must act to preserve our peatlands and woodlands without deliberately contributing to their deterioration; the Government must adopt very effective strategies.
I point out that, in this debate of 12 speakers, we have four Earls and only two women; it strikes me that this is quite typical of your Lordships’ House. How we will miss our Earls.
Lord Gove (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to have been chosen to join this House. I am deeply grateful for the support and kindness that I have received since I arrived. In particular, I thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lady Finn. I also thank the staff of the House: Black Rod, Garter King of Arms and, in particular, the staff of the Library and the doorkeepers, who have given me invaluable assistance since I arrived.
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for introducing this debate. Like me, as he referred to earlier, he is a teuchter from Aberdeenshire. He spoke with considerable authority and expertise about a cause close to many of our hearts: making sure that our environment can be preserved and enhanced for future generations.
I come to this House having served an apprenticeship of 19 years in the other place, during which time I spent 13 years as a Minister. I regard this as inadequate preparation for joining this House because, during my time as a Minister, I learned that respect for your Lordships’ House was a precondition of achieving anything in politics. The collective expertise, across party and of no parties, which the House of Lords provides is a huge asset to our constitution; the voices raised and points made in this House undoubtedly enhance the quality of governance that the people of the United Kingdom enjoy.
I am very glad to be speaking in this debate, not just because my noble friend Lord Caithness has devoted time both in government and on the Back Benches to enhancing our environment but because the vital issue of ensuring that we, first, prevent and, secondly, mitigate the impact of wildfires goes to the heart of a series of environmental questions that we face.
In the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Jack, we saw two apparently conflicting but, to my mind, overlapping points. The plea that I would like to make in this speech is a plea for understanding—understanding of the importance of making sure that our peatland and moorland landscapes are protected, but also understanding between what are sometimes seen as warring interests. Whether it is the Moorland Association, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust or the many environmental NGOs that sometimes find themselves disagreeing just a little with one lobby or another, all have a shared interest in making sure that we hand on our environment, in what has become a very nature-depleted nation, in a better state to the next generation. That was my mission during my brief time as Environment Secretary. During my time in this House, I hope to work across parties to ensure that we enhance our natural environment, our built environment and the environment that we leave to the next generation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to welcome the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Gove and Lord Jack of Courance. They have made extremely important contributions to the work of Conservative Governments over the last 10 to 15 years. It was a pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Gove when I was the Chief Whip and he brought forward an important Education Bill. There is an old saying: once a Whip, always a Whip. Having been Conservative Chief Whip in this House, both in opposition and in government, I can fairly say that I will be very keenly watching my noble friends to see what their contributions to this House will be. I anticipate that they will keep us not only very interested but very well informed.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this short debate. He has made it clear: wildfires can harm people, property, ecosystems and the environment. The timing of his debate is particularly helpful, since it gives us the opportunity to follow up on questions raised in the Chamber a month ago which the Minister was not in a position to answer then. He courteously gave a commitment to follow up on the questions, so I would be grateful if he could assist by responding to two of them today.
His noble friend Lady Ritchie asked whether the Minister had had conversations with the devolved nations and regions about wildfire prevention and mitigation. He committed to conversations with his relevant counterparts in the devolved departments—he mentioned those in Northern Ireland in particular—to find out how the Government could do things more collaboratively. What progress has been made on that? My noble friend Lord McLoughlin asked whether the Government had considered banning disposable barbecues. The Minister said that my noble friend had made a strong argument and that he would take the issue away and reflect on it. What are the results of that?
During the Whitsun Recess, I spent a family holiday on the south coast at Camber Sands. I noticed that Rother District Council had installed signs at the entrances to paths leading through the dunes to the beach banning both fires and barbecues—not just disposable barbecues but all of them. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to promote public awareness of the dangers of lighting fires or barbecues both in the countryside and at the seaside? Has he met representatives of local authorities to encourage a co-ordinated approach to these dangers?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I often walk in the hills—I love them—and the heather, so I have frequently thought about this. In the old days, you would normally find firebreaks burned into them. The trouble is that there has been a big movement from a lot of people who do not really know much about the hills or heather, but because they did an environmental course somewhere, they reckon that all the carbon will be locked up in the peat below. However, the point about burning the heather in strips to get a firebreak is that it has to be of a sufficient width.
Two things have to be done. First, you do the burn in winter. It is a cool burn, and therefore does not burn the roots below and does not touch the peat—it must not, because you want these things to reshoot again. You then have a lot of tall rank heather in which birds can hide and, next to that, new, fresh and regenerated growth of young shoots and insect life on which the birds can feed. If a raptor comes over, it can then shoot inside the cover. That is how it works, and people have known it for years.
Interestingly enough, I was chatting to a gamekeeper on a moor who said something quite funny. Some people from the Environment Agency or somewhere had decided to come out to see the heather themselves and wanted a tour. He took them up and showed them some heather that they had burned two years earlier. There was some lovely growth, and they said, “God, this is just what we want. How can we get this? This is what we need”. He showed them the other part and asked, “Well, have you looked over here?” They said, “Oh God, that’s terrible. It’s all dark and rank, and there is no life under it at all”. What they were looking at was the effect of a proper heather burn. It encourages the wildlife and does not go down into the peat—that is the whole point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jack, mentioned the Mars bar test, which is famous because the burn would not melt one. If you put it just under the surface litter, you would see that the surface litter has not burned and nor has the Mars bar melted. That proves that it is not touching the peat. In contrast, a wildfire goes down into and burns up a lot of the peat; it will be a long time—possibly a century or two—before that is regenerated through normal peat growth.
What is being touted at the moment is completely the wrong way round, because of the lack of understanding from dogmatic people who say, “It is just about trying to shoot grouse”. It is not; it is also about maintaining the countryside, the heather and the hills.
The people who have lived and worked there for generations know what they are doing. It is about time someone listened to and took advice from them, rather than from some expert who has done a brief environmental course and borrowed a pair of green wellies to do a farm walk then writes lots of stuff about this. What they need to do is read the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s work on these sorts of things because it is a charity that does its research regardless of fear or favour; basically, I recommend it to those who are trying to control these things.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on bringing this debate forward. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Jack and Lord Gove on their excellent maiden speeches. It was a particular joy to serve alongside them in Cabinet—I actually mean that—and I am sure that they will add enormously to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords have highlighted their own experiences of wildfires domestically and of dealing with them, but I want to draw on an international example that I believe provides some learnings. A few years ago, I went to Seattle to attend a clean energy conference. We flew in overnight and, even from tens of thousands of feet in the air, as you looked out of the aircraft window, you could literally see the ground on fire down in Washington state below. At the time, terrible wildfires were raging across the state; as the plane drew lower, you could make out huge patches of forest on fire. I do not exaggerate when I say that it felt to me like looking into the jaws of hell. When we landed, we experienced the acrid smell generated by the wildfires and pollution; it hung like a heavy, choking cloak in the air.
I met some of the politicians and officials in the state government who were tasked with tackling these wildfires. They told me that, over the years, the fires have become more frequent and ferocious. One of the key learnings was effective preparedness: investing in equipment such as bulldozers and excavators; fitting aircraft with infra-red sensors and fire-mapping technology; recruiting more firefighters; sharing their learnings with other states prone to wildfires; and having in place equipment-sharing agreements with those states as well.
Of course, the wildfires that we experience in the UK are generally not as severe as those in North America—at least, so far—but, as we have heard in this debate, their frequency is on the rise and climate change is making things worse. I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to climate action more generally and to sticking with the aim of achieving net zero by 2050. I also welcome the Climate Change Committee’s progress report on adaptation from earlier this year, which called on the Government to create and implement a cross-departmental strategy with external shareholders in order to identify and mitigate the risks of wildfires.
I believe that this strategy should include an international component, with UK specialist wildfire experts learning and sharing effective mitigation actions, as well as training jointly with their counterparts in other nations, so that we can help each other when needed. That is currently happening across some jurisdictions. I also think that we need a national wildfire-fighting equipment asset register to allow for more effective sharing of resources across the country when they are needed. I look forward to the Minister’s feedback on these suggestions.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate; I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing it. I am a born-and-bred Londoner. Wildfires are not really an issue there, except that things have now become so bad that the urban-rural interface encroaches on London; this led to the London Fire Brigade’s busiest day since the Second World War, which has already been spoken about.
As we know, almost all wildfires in the UK are the result of incidental or deliberate acts by humans and have devastating impacts on local communities and wildlife. This issue was brought to my attention by residents near where I live in Essex, who have suffered greatly from fires. In 2022, Wennington was the scene of a wildfire that burned down 18 houses; at its peak, an area of more than 100 acres was ablaze. Some residents had their homes and all their worldly possessions completely destroyed.
There are various theories about the cause of that wildfire. One that many of the residents believe is that embers from a fire at the nearby Arnolds Field might have started the blaze. Under Arnolds Field are tonnes of years-old, illegally dumped toxic waste. It has been smouldering beneath the surface for decades; the site is now referred to locally as the Rainham volcano. Despite the slightly funny name, this is no laughing matter. The odour from the smoke emanating from the site has been the cause of misery to residents for several years. It has real-life impacts. Throughout the summer, the residents have to keep their doors and windows closed to prevent them choking on the fumes and smoke coming from the site.
However, these measures are not enough to keep residents from feeling the effects. One resident, Ms Pauline Claridge, has lived in Rainham for 15 years and was sadly diagnosed with asthma nine years ago and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emphysema about five years ago. She believes that her breathing has become worse because of the smoke emanating from these fires.
There is a continuing saga of blame being passed around: the local council is not the landowner, so it thinks the landowner should take charge; meanwhile, the landowner believes that the Mayor of London should take charge. The locals believe that somebody should take charge, because they are suffering. I urge the Minister to write to me so that I can go back to those residents, as they want to know who will take charge of this case. I ask him to take particular note of the Rainham volcano and to learn why the Mayor of London, the local council or the landowner cannot prevent these fires happening and remove the site.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for bringing it and for his excellent speech. Having recently asked an Oral Question on this matter, I am particularly grateful for the Government’s wildfire strategy and action plan.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jack, not just on surviving 10 reshuffles but on putting out the fires of the noble Lord, Lord Gove. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gove, on successfully passing his apprenticeship. I welcome both to the House and wish them well.
Climate change is undoubtedly the primary driver of the increasing wildfire risk. To date we have been lucky, but we cannot continue to rely on our good fortune. Urgent action is required: we need joined-up plans, dedicated funding and equipment, improved public education, and nature-based land management solutions.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue services, which are increasingly also our climate change emergency response services. We need to recognise the scale of the challenge and the lack of time we have to prepare. Met Office modelling says that we will have twice the number of summer days with dangerous weather conditions for fire, at under 2 degrees of warming. Extreme weather cycles are adding to the fuel loads that noble Lords have discussed: wet weather increasing growth, followed by extreme dryness and heat creating fuel for fire.
The Climate Change Committee, too, is clear and unequivocal that wildfires are more likely and will become more extreme. The year 2025 is no exception; more than 113 square miles have already been burnt. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness said, that is equivalent to the size of the Isle of Wight. Wildfires are devastating on so many levels. They are devastating to people and property, they are brutal to our biodiversity and they are a direct threat to our net-zero efforts. They kill organisms, alter habitats and release vast amounts of carbon.
We need more considered delivery and comprehensive policies and action plans. Can the Minister provide a clear update on when the strategy and action plan will be delivered? Does he agree that we need better joined-up thinking, not just between departments but between our different regions and nations? That collaboration is essential.
The National Fire Chiefs Council is clear that we are not prepared. Does the Minister agree that we need long-term sustainable investment and that our firefighters need specialist equipment to put out the fires? Do the Government agree that we need a single agreed definition of wildfires, so that we can best track them and find the solutions that we need?
These matters are urgent and critical. We have been lucky to date, but we cannot continue to survive on our luck alone.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this debate on government action on wildfires. I am sure he is also grateful for the attention that this debate has attracted.
It is a pleasure to hear the maiden contributions of my noble friends Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove. Both bring exceptional experience, ability and knowledge to this House and will be enormous assets to its work. My noble friend Lord Jack has also helpfully highlighted their ability to work together.
In the brief time available, I turn to the subject of today’s debate. In doing so, I bring the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests, particularly ownership of unenclosed land used for grazing in Dartmoor National Park and in the Flow Country of Sutherland, both of which are adjacent to the scenes of devastating wildfires over the past few years.
I agree with my noble friends that our current Natural England management regime is often too restrictive on managed burning and, in many cases, prevents a practice that is beneficial to reducing fuel loads and creating firebreaks, an important cycle that allows vibrant regrowth and food sources for our native wildlife. Peatland restoration or rewetting is not the only answer, being applicable to a minority of uplands, and even there it offers only partial protection against wildfires. In drought, when peatland dries out, it becomes porous and very vulnerable to fire.
Will the Minister take this debate to his ministerial colleagues in Defra to reassess the role of Natural England in restricting controlled burning, with the result that fuel load is building to increasingly dangerous levels in our upland landscape at a time when climate change is sharply increasing the occurrence of wildfires? Natural England has no statutory responsibility for wildfire, yet it is being allowed to take decisions that have a direct impact on wildfire risk. As other noble Lords have highlighted, decisions in this area need to rely on science, not opinion.
Will the Government consider proactive measures, such as organising financial incentives from the beneficiaries of reducing wildfires—insurers and infrastructure and property owners—to fund land managers to create firebreaks and manage fuel load to reduce the extent and intensity of these fires?
In closing, I thank the members of fire and rescue services, gamekeepers, farmers, rangers and wardens who put their own safety at risk to protect infrastructure, property and lives from these devastating wildfires.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before you today to address the important topic of wildfire risk and the devastating impacts that wildfires can have on our communities. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for raising this important debate and for his invaluable insight in this area. I also welcome the noble Lords, Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove, to their places and thank them for their valued maiden contributions, especially in the light of the time restriction of only three minutes.
Before I go further, however, this weekend marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I know our thoughts are with the bereaved families, survivors and residents as they remember those who lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare system failures, held government and industry to account and is now laying the foundation for urgent reform. We are determined to ensure that no community ever again suffers the way it has.
I also pay tribute to two firefighters, Jennie Logan and Martyn Sadler, who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty last month in Oxfordshire alongside Dave Chester, a member of the public. Two other firefighters were hospitalised in the same incident. My thoughts are with the families, friends and colleagues who have been impacted by this tragic event. Firefighters and wider fire and rescue service workers act with incredible dedication and bravery every day to protect the public. They will always have our deepest respect and gratitude.
Such events bring the risk we have been discussing into sharp focus, not least as outdoor fires, including wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact in the future, predominantly driven by climate change. We saw this in 2022, the UK’s hottest year on record, which saw more than 20,000 hectares of land in England burned, the destruction of more than 70 properties across the UK and at least 14 fire and rescue services declaring major incidents in their areas as they responded to numerous concurrent wildfires across the country.
This Government are committed to reducing this risk alongside mitigating the impacts they cause. Preparing for the future means not only tackling climate and nature emergencies but adapting to the changes they will bring to our environment. I recognise that wildfire is a complex area that cuts across many areas of interest and responsibilities. While my department, MHCLG, is the lead government department for this risk, we are reliant upon the good work of our partners. They include Defra and its agencies as well as the land management and fire sectors. We are also working with the devolved Administrations and fire services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to continue and build our close working arrangements to share best practice learning on tackling wildfires effectively. It is vital that we take a co-ordinated approach to this risk, working in lockstep with our partners to prevent and mitigate the impact on people, property, habitats, livestock, natural capital and wildlife effectively.
To directly answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I have asked the relevant Minister, Alex Norris, to meet with devolved departments. There is no proposal, in addition to the question, to ban the barbecue, but the Local Government Minister and officials are already talking to local government officials.
This Government understand the risks and complexities of this area, which is why my officials have been undertaking extensive engagement with stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and responses to the wildfires. This has informed a comprehensive policy-scoping report to inform next steps.
Fire and rescue services are actively preparing for wildfires, as they are required to plan for the foreseeable risks in their area through their community risk management plans. These plans also have regard to the views of other key local responders. Following the events of 2022, the National Fire Chiefs Council—NFCC—has worked to extract learning and good practice from the incidents attended, with a view to shaping the future of wildfire prevention, community education and response. The NFCC is progressing actions that emerged from this, including improvements to training, national resilience and operational response. In 2024, the Government took an additional step by funding a national resilience wildfire adviser. This role is an operational role within the fire services, focused on evaluating what further national capabilities are needed to boost resilience against wildfires and ensure that efforts across the sector are well co-ordinated.
I move to some of the points raised in the debate, starting off with that from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about definition, which was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to improve the data collected on wildfires. This will be invaluable in shaping future advice and policy decisions in this space. At present, operational data on wildfires that is collected by the national resilience reporting tool, while a good proxy, cannot be used as an official statistic, as it may be incomplete or inaccurate and is gathered primarily to inform incident response. Improvements are being driven through the introduction of the new fire and rescue data platform—a new incident reporting tool used by fire and rescue services. This will introduce a formal definition of a wildfire, which will enable the Government to collect official data on the number of incidents and publish official statistics.
The noble Earl said that no decision should be made until we have the science available. The Government are alive to this evolving risk, and we are committed to putting in place the necessary measures to mitigate the impacts while driving forward the UK’s resilience and response to the wildfires.
To reassure the noble Earl on the issue of consultation, general consultations generally run between four and 12 weeks as good practice. The eight-week consultation on the proposed changes to the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 has now closed. Defra is analysing the feedback, which will be used to inform next steps.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jack, talked about land management. As many of your Lordships know, Defra has responsibility for the promotion of wildfire mitigation and adaptation planning to land managers. This is set out in more detail within the wildfire framework for England. Defra colleagues highlight that landowners and land managers are encouraged to adopt good quality wildfire management plans, and use sustainable methods to manage habitat and restore their peatland, as evidence shows—although not conclusively everywhere around the world—that wetter, healthy-functioning peatlands are more resilient to the impacts of wildfire.
I will not look to speak too much on behalf of another department, and I know that the noble Earl has some concerns and reflections, which I will pass on to Defra colleagues, but I am also aware of how important this issue is to Defra across its range of responsibilities. I thank the people there for their invaluable contributions to the wildfire scoping work to date, and my department looks forward to continuing to work with Defra colleagues on this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I return to the point about barbecues. The Government have taken lessons from the devastation we saw during the 2022 wildfire season, working across departments to increase the prominence of wildfire messaging to the public. This included developing government social media messaging around periods of high wildfire risk and including wildfire as part of the Cabinet Office’s newly developed resilience website.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who speaks with great expertise on climate change, that this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is working with international partners to address wildfire risks. This includes through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. The Government encourage more exchanges on wildfire preparation, prevention, response and recovery, including through initiatives such as the Global Fire Management Hub established by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN Environment Programme. The hub brings key partners together to share best practice principles and create greater consistency in wildfire response. The noble Lord asked us to reflect further, and I will do so with my officials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about national resilience and capability, which is a very important issue. The Government are committed to ensuring that fire and rescue services can draw on national life-saving capabilities, enabling them to respond effectively to large-scale or critical incidents. It is for this reason that the department funds the national resilience specialist capabilities, ensuring that national assets such as urban search and rescue, high volume pumps and CBRN decontamination are strategically located across the country for times of need. In 2024-25, the grant to all fire and rescue services hosting this equipment amounted to £17.9 million. In addition, the department funds the national resilience lead authority in Merseyside with a grant amounting to £16.6 million for 2024-25. For this, it delivers a key range of services, including capability assurance and specialist training.
A number of noble Lords alluded to Natural England. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked a question during our recent debate in the Chamber on the wildfire strategy and action plan. I took away an action to engage Natural England on its use of scientific advice when advising NGOs and other landowners on the risk of wildfire. I was pleased to confirm to the noble Earl that Natural England utilises the latest scientific advice as part of these activities. This is set out in its overarching science, evidence and evaluation strategy. Natural England’s science and evidence work involves assembling and commissioning such advice, then using it to underpin advice, decisions and actions. The strategy also helps to embed and promote its evidence standard.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. Wildfire is a topic that arouses strong emotions. It is part of a range of climate risks we need to adapt to in order to protect our future. I recognise the level of concern out there. We are seeing it in myriad other areas, whether that is flooding or more extreme weather events, or in the impact of global warming on wider geopolitics and the movement of people.
This Government recognise the challenges and welcome the spotlight from this debate. I believe that with the right actions and the right collaboration we can make a difference to how our country manages wildfire, both now and into the future. This will not be an easy task, but we are committed to working through these challenges with our partners. To do this, we will need to take an approach that improves our resilience and reduces the impacts from wildfires, driven through enhanced integration between stakeholders.
We have made good progress in driving improvements in data collection to address gaps; in the way we issue public communications to protect life and property; and in providing funding for a national resilience wildfire adviser in the fire service. The policy scoping work is exploring where we can go further and how we can better work across divides. This is a vital area that I am proud to be delivering. I thank again the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this important debate, and all other noble Lords for their invaluable contributions.
Political Parties and Elections Act 2009
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to protect our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations. We are currently considering a series of policy interventions, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations. This will help enhance the protections of our system against potential risks. We plan to set out further details in our strategy for elections, which we expect to publish this summer.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, it is 16 years since Parliament passed the simple but powerful safeguard in Section 9, in response to a financial scandal over the origin of donations. Implementation does not require any time for primary legislation, nor for the Treasury to be asked for any money, but it would make our political finances that bit more transparent, ethical and trustworthy. So, what is the reason for the Minister not to go back to the department this afternoon and simply say to colleagues, “I’ve got a commencement clause. I think we should sort this”?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I know the noble Lord has done a lot of research in this area, and we welcome that research. But, as I said in my previous Answer, we are committed to strengthening the rules around donations, improving our democracy and protecting our democracy from foreign interference. That will all be laid out in the summer and I am sure that, when it is, the noble Lord will be able to have a look, reflect and feed back into the whole process.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in considering possible future changes, will the Government take account of political parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who received £2.4 million from a known and convicted fraudster, Michael Brown, and, 20 years on, have still to pay back that money to the people who were denied those resources?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot get involved in or discuss any individual donations, but I reassure him that we will ensure that we strengthen the law around political donations.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I know that, in my day, when I was party chairman—before I became independent—some of the biggest political donors were the trade unions. Does this review include the trade unions and the restrictions that could be placed on them?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, to the noble Lord’s question, your Lordships will have to wait until summer, when we will set out our strategy. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely keen, in her role as Secretary of State for MHCLG, to ensure that we have strong electoral reforms ready for the next election.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are talking about motes and beams in different parties, will the Government now publish the redacted elements of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report on Russian money flowing into the Conservative Party? While I am on my feet, do the Government intend to simplify in any sense the great mess of electoral law, given that the Law Commission has done a lot of work on this and that electoral registration officers struggle with the various Acts—some of which are still extant, others of which have largely been expunged—in accordance with which they have to conduct their affairs?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can understand that I am not able to comment on any particular donations to parties. It is not for government to interfere with that. But he makes a very interesting point, so I will take a moment to let the House know that, as set out in our manifesto, we are committed to strengthening our democracy, widening participation and upholding the integrity of elections. This includes improving voter registration, extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, reviewing and addressing voter ID rules, and strengthening rules around donations to political parties. I can let noble Lords across the House know that we will be bringing an election Bill within this Parliament, hopefully in the very near future.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked a question on Monday about expenses incurred by Kent County Council in relation to DOGE investigations and the hiring of 12 accountants and systems engineers? Perhaps I might inform him that Kent County Council Conservatives will be writing to the leader of Kent County Council, a Reform councillor, to seek clarification on precisely what form the costs incurred by these people will take and whether they will be declared as donations or, alternatively, as costs on the council tax payer. They will, of course, copy the Minister and the Electoral Commission into any correspondence they both send and receive.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Lord for informing me. I know that he has great depth of experience in this area. Any suspected violations of donation rules fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission has the authority to investigate breaches and impose civil penalties when necessary. As part of efforts to enhance the regulations surrounding donations, including donations in kind, we are reviewing whether adjustments to the regulator’s role and powers are needed to ensure effective enforcement across the political finance framework.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, if I am going to be pre-empted in a question by anyone, it has to be William Wallace, has it not? But he is absolutely right. Of all the disgraceful donations the Tory party has had, those it got from Russia are the worst. I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go back to the department and say that there is a strong view in the House of Lords that the report on donations from Russia should be made public as soon as possible.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could take this into account. I tried to give a donation to the Democratic campaign before the last election, but I was not able to because I do not have an American passport. Can the Minister ensure that we apply the same sort of control as regards money coming into this country?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend makes an interesting point. I would not want to talk specifically about that example, but I can reassure him that the concern he shares with the House is a big focus area for making sure that those who donate are eligible to do so, have an interest in the UK and are tied to being part of the UK system, so their eligibility is absolutely legitimate.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does my noble friend recall that, before the last election, the Conservative Government—for reasons that slightly bewildered me and I think some others—decided to massively extend the franchise to people living abroad who had lived abroad for more than 15 years, many of whom had barely ever lived in the country and for whom it was almost impossible to establish even an address at which they were last resident in the United Kingdom? Now that we have had an election under these rules, can my noble friend at least publish for us the extent to which these newly enfranchised people exercised their vote at the last election, which could of course potentially have had an effect in individual constituencies, how much the system cost and whether there are any plans to revert to the previously very satisfactory situation?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Just to reassure him, part of our strategy in the summer will reflect on the very issues that he is talking about, and in it we will set out our strategy on wider electoral reform, including donations and the source of donations.
Post-16 Financial Education
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sater
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that young people receive adequate financial education in post-16 education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, financial education is delivered through the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 through citizenship education and the mathematics curriculum. Although it is not compulsory at key stage 5, our 16 to 19 study programmes guidance sets an expectation that students take part in “other non-qualification activity” to develop life skills, including “managing personal finances”. If a student post 16 is studying a level 2 maths qualification, the maths GCSE and functional skills qualifications support financial education as well.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. This week, many schools are taking part in Young Enterprise’s My Money Week campaign. However, despite best efforts, according to the Money and Pensions Service, over half of our young people reach the age of 18 having received no meaningful financial education. Therefore, at this crucial time between the ages of 16 and 18, when they could be receiving their first pay packet and accessing financial products and services, we have no meaningful education available. Will the Minister therefore consider a national programme to ensure that all young people aged 16 to 18 are ready and equipped to navigate the financial world and manage their money? Perhaps this could be a good deployment of the dormant assets scheme.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I also recognise the contribution that Young Enterprise plays, having been both a participant in it as a student and an organiser of it as a teacher of economics and business studies. I know that it does enormously important work, as do others, in supporting children, young people and adults in understanding financial education. We could possibly look to the Money and Pensions Service, which is under the auspices of the DWP and set out in January 2020 a 10-year framework to help UK citizens make the most of their money and pensions, with a focus on financial education for young people. With respect to the dormant assets scheme, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed earlier this year that there will continue to be funding from dormant assets for precisely the point that the noble Baroness makes, which is to challenge financial inclusion and support financial education.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the Social Market Foundation reported last year—and this is very serious—that two in five young people, or 40%, are financially illiterate after they have been through school, so education in this field needs to start early. In the devolved nations, financial education is taught in primary schools. When will the Government start this in English primary schools? If they will not, why not?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
All primary schools in England teach many of the skills that are important for financial education as part of the maths curriculum. They also have non-statutory but important programmes of study for citizenship. Of course, from the age of 11, all students have compulsory financial education as part of their national curriculum entitlement to citizenship.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a fellow teacher, does the Minister agree that, rather than having token PSHE-day education, practical financial education should be embedded in the maths curriculum throughout the key stages?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the way that financial education is delivered, for example, through citizenship, but he makes an important point. I have just mentioned, of course, that financial education and the skills necessary to understand your finances and the concepts around them are part of the national curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4, and of post-16 maths study.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important Question from the noble Baroness. One in four 18 to 24 year-olds is in some form of financial difficulty. Lacking knowledge of where to go for help or services that can help them, they are often pushed to illegal loan sharks. Does the Minister not think that we should run a young person’s public information campaign, which could be targeted in colleges, jobcentres and sixth forms?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, this is part of what the Money and Pensions Service strategy aims to do, as is the work I identified that is being supported by the dormant assets funding. We also need to work alongside the legitimate parts of the industry to make sure that the support and information that it is providing is made more broadly available to young people—and, in fact, to people throughout their lives. I suspect that those of us who did not have the opportunity to have even the type of financial education that children nowadays get have a continuing need to understand our finances well into our lives and, in particular, into our retirement.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister that many excellent examples exist in primary schools right across our country of financial literacy being taught to young people. Although I absolutely accept that, some urgent attention is required to ensure that children and parents are educated about their presence in the online world. Children as young as five years old are playing Roblox, and they need to extract money and card information that might be automatically available online. There is an urgent need for education very early on, but also among parents. Does she agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the intersection of financial education and the need to ensure that our children have a good understanding about their online safety. Both those things, by the way, have been identified by the curriculum and assessment review that this Government set up as areas where it will want to say more when it reports in the autumn. As my noble friend says, parents have concerns as to whether there is sufficient space and direction in the school curriculum for these areas to be covered.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, we all know how important it is to manage our personal finances in adult life, and I am sure the Minister is aware that research shows that financial education makes young people more confident with money management and helps them to make better and more informed financial decisions. So, will the Government consider participating in the OECD PISA study of financial literacy, which could help identify gaps in current provision and allow better monitoring and benchmarking of progress towards every young person leaving education with a strong foundation of financial capability, which I am sure we all appreciate will be invaluable in their working lives?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have had some very good contacts with the OECD about the work that it is doing, not just in this area but more broadly. I cannot commit at this moment that we will take part in that study, but I will certainly undertake to go away and consider whether there are opportunities there.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, children leaving care are particularly disadvantaged in this area. Can the Minister say whether there will be special provision for children leaving care to be provided with financial advice for when they are really on their own?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about the need to support young people leaving care. That, of course, is the reason for making personal advisers available to young people in that position. It is why, as we have been, and will be, debating in the Bill that comes later and more broadly in the Government’s reforms, we must be much clearer about the support available to care leavers and the offer that needs to be made available to them in all parts of the country.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about citizenship in schools. We had a brilliant committee last year on 11 to 16 education, which came out with amazing recommendations, all of which the Conservative Government turned down, so it would be very nice to know that the Labour Government will pick those up. Can she say what success we are having in recruiting citizenship teachers? This was one of the big difficulties when all this was put into citizenship.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that since citizenship was established—in fact, I had some responsibility for it the first time I was a Minister in the Department for Education—there has been enormous progress in the ability to deliver those sorts of skills to children in our schools, but also an ongoing challenge to make sure we recruit the specialist teachers in order to be able to do that. That is why the Government are determined to increase the numbers of specialist teachers by 6,500, and why we have put in place the financial and training support in order to encourage them into the profession and keep them in it.
Ethics and Integrity Commission
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Steps we have taken already to improve probity and transparency include the new Ministerial Code, the strengthened terms of reference for the independent adviser and the new monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality. On an ethics and integrity commission, Ministers are assessing all the options and we will update Parliament on decisions in due course.
While we are discussing processes related to ethics, integrity and standards in public life, I should declare that my husband is a member of the Committee on Standards in the other place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I congratulate the noble Baroness.
This was a clear pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and Liberal Democrats agree that it is essential to re-establishing public trust after the many unethical actions, and even corruption, that we saw particularly under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. On my shelves at home, I have a whole file of reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from outside commissions, think tanks et cetera, setting out the options on this. There are some very clear and simple choices. If I were asked to write the consultation paper, I think it would take me a weekend. Why have the Government delayed so much in doing so?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we should discuss bookshelves. As for what we are doing, we have taken immediate action, but we want to make sure that, given how important ethics and integrity are in public life, and especially as—and I think the noble Lord agrees—one of the main ways in which we can challenge and counter the politics of populism is to make sure that people can genuinely trust their politicians, we need to make sure that the structures we put in place work and are right and effective. We are working on it, and I will update the House in due course.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, when this commission arrives, if it ever does, will His Majesty’s Government ensure there is no unprofitable overlap with the excellent work being done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an excellent question. That is one of the reasons we have not rushed into it—to make sure that we are not replicating the organisations and entities that govern standards, integrity and ethics in public life, and that we can come forward with a proper, genuine response to what is needed. I assure the noble Lord that we are factoring in his question.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is there not also a deeper issue as to who is entitled to decide who sits—particularly in the elected House—to represent people? Fundamentally, should it not be for the criminal courts of this country and the electorate to decide both on the individual they are being asked to vote for and, indeed, collectively the Government?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, as we are the unelected House, I completely agree that it is for the electorate—I have faced them several times; they liked and then did not like me—to decide who they seek to represent them and to have an understanding of the values of those people. I thank my noble friend, but we have very clear processes in place to protect standards. It is important the general public has faith in them too.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a real danger that ethics and integrity considerations could seriously impede the working of the Government by forcing them to reclassify minor misdemeanours, such as the killing and dismemberment of a journalist in a friendly country, as gross abuse of human rights, as seen in other countries?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has an interesting take on the questions of ethics and integrity in public life. Obviously, the Government have to look at all issues in the round when considering issues of diplomacy and engagement with all our allies. The specific point raised is a matter for the FCDO.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, on 25 July last year, when asked about progress on establishing an ethics and integrity commission, the Government Minister in the other place said:
“this is always going to be about ‘show, not tell’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/24; col. 797.]
We have since had a year of the Government telling us there would be progress. Could the Minister tell the House what the timescale is for when the Government will be able to show us progress?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Well, I query the interpretation of what my honourable friend in the other place said. He said “show, and tell”. We have told: we have updated the Ministerial Code; we moved the Nolan principles into the Ministerial Code for the first time; we have added the concept of service, which is incredibly important to this Prime Minister; we have updated the terms of reference for the independent adviser, who can now act without the Prime Minister’s instigation; and we have introduced a new monthly register of guests and hospitality. We have both shown and told. In terms of establishing the commission, noble Lords will have to wait a little longer and I will update your Lordships’ House in the normal way.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in July last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed in the other place that work had begun on the Government’s planned ethics and integrity commission. Obviously, the role of the chair of this commission will be very important. Can the Minister confirm that there will be proper oversight of the appointment of any future chair of the commission, that Parliament will have a role in the process and that the chair will remain democratically accountable to Parliament through Ministers in the usual way?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness tempts me to give details about what the commission will or will not look like. I am sure we will discuss this in your Lordships’ House when parliamentary time allows. With regards to the independence of the chair, the appointments to bodies and offices listed in the public appointments Order in Council are made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and so would the chair of any future commission.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister and most Members of this House will be aware that there have been a large number of examples of scandals and misdemeanours in Scotland by Scottish Ministers as well as Members of the Scottish Parliament. Will this commission cover the devolved authorities? I hope it will.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me into areas that are not appropriate, but he is right that there has to be a trusted and valued ethics and standards process in each part of our nations and regions. With regard to the devolved Assemblies, that is wholly a matter for the devolved Governments, but I would hope that any changes that the UK Government made are also considered—because I am sure they will be best practice—by our devolved Governments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, we have just had a round of local elections in England and many new councillors have taken up their responsibilities. Will this body be considering the local government dimension as far as ethics is concerned?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an excellent point, which I am just assured by my noble friend sitting to my right that we are working on in the English devolution Bill and that conversations are ongoing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this clearly involves considering a large number of bodies which are concerned with standards in government, Parliament and local government. Does the Minister consider that the process of establishing an ethics and integrity commission will require legislation, or can it be done through executive decisions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, work is currently ongoing about what we will bring forward and how we will bring it forward. I will update the House as soon as I can.
Winter Fuel Payment
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to change the entitlement to the Winter Fuel Payment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, we are extending eligibility so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the winter fuel payment. That means 9 million pensioners will now receive it—more than three-quarters of pensioners.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, since tabling this Question, we have had 40 minutes of exchanges on Tuesday. In fairness to the Minister, he addressed most of the questions, albeit at times provocatively. However, he did not answer the question from my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who asked why, when the Government needed to save money on the winter fuel allowance, they did not simply abolish it and then increase in November each individual’s entitlement to the state retirement pension by the same amount and recover it through the tax system. The Minister said:
“That may be one option, but it is not the option we have chosen”.—[Official Report, 10/6/25; col. 1224.]
Would that not have been simpler?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question. We have to remember the circumstances in which we found ourselves back in the autumn. We had to take many difficult and urgent decisions, because we needed to find in-year savings due to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited. We had to come in and make urgent in-year decisions. We therefore had to put in place a system that was able to generate immediate savings. The system that the noble Lord describes was not able to generate those immediate savings. That is why we did what we did. We are now able to extend eligibility, as I have said. We are extending it so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the winter fuel payment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord asks whether there is a plan. Can the Minister confirm that there is a plan, and whether, if it does not work, they will again have another plan? Things change so much. Is there a reserve plan for when this plan does not work?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure I entirely followed the noble Lord’s question. We have set out clearly what the policy is. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the support, as will all those on pension credit and certain other income-related benefits. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, will be made to all pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered by HMRC without the need for them to take action.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, earlier this week, when the Prime Minister was explaining the rationale for the Government’s change on the winter fuel payment, he said that because the economy was now growing as a result of the Government’s policies, they were now able to make this change. Given the news yesterday that the economy is no longer growing, but actually shrank in April, would the Minister like to have another go at explaining the reason for the reversal of policy, and perhaps be honest about the fact that it was just incredibly unpopular and very ill-thought-through in the first place?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
One thing that was ill-thought-through was the Liz Truss mini-Budget and the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which is why we had to take the action that we did. It might be nice if the noble Lord took some responsibility for what we inherited. As I said already, when we came into office, we had to take a number of very difficult and urgent decisions to put the public finances back on a firm footing. That involved difficult decisions on welfare, on tax and on spending, and one of those was means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have listened to the concerns about the level of the means test and we are now able—all the while still means-testing the winter fuel payment, because that is the right thing to do—to extend eligibility so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will receive it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by wishing my noble friend the Minister best wishes for his birthday today. He has the special treat of an Urgent Question and a Statement on the spending review—what more could anyone ask for?
I very much welcome the decision to reintroduce the winter fuel payment. In answer to the Question, my noble friend said that anyone with income above £35,000 would not receive the payment. There is one problem with that, in that some forms of income are not taxed. Someone with a substantial cash ISA—I understand that there is a Member on the Liberal Benches who has £1 million in his ISA; he has made no secret of it, and presumably receives a very substantial income—with a taxable income of less than £35,000, would presumably still receive the winter fuel allowance, or is some step going to be taken to avoid that problem?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and for his birthday wishes—that was very kind of him. Obviously, we had to achieve the right balance between a simple system to administer and getting the support to those who need it most. The system that we have come up with sticks with the existing rules of the tax system and, I think, achieves the right balance, as I described.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, like other Peers, I welcome this decision. The other day, I asked the Minister something to which he did not respond, and I wonder if I might ask it again. Is one of the lessons learned from this for the Government that, should they be making further cuts in spending, they might not look to vulnerable or disabled people.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I am sure that all of us have lessons to learn in life. I believe that it is very important that we reform our welfare system; it is not working and it needs reform, and I think everyone agrees with that. We will do this on a principled basis—namely, that those who can work should work, that those who want to work should be supported so that they can do so, and that we protect those with the most severe disabilities who will never be able to work.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I did not welcome this decision. Turning to principles, does he agree that cliff edges in the tax and benefits system are undesirable? Can he explain whether, when a pensioner’s income moves from £34,999 to £35,000, support will be tapered away, or whether £1 in extra income will result in a £300 loss of winter fuel allowance?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows much more about the tax and benefits system than I do, I suspect, having spent many more years working on it than me. The answer to his question is that it is the latter: it is up to and including £35,000, so it will be at £35,001 where that happens. At that point, they will lose the winter fuel payment in its entirety.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am glad of the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy birthday from these Benches.
We welcome the decision by the Government partially to reverse their decision on the winter fuel allowance. That will ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable citizens are better protected through the dark and cold of the winter months. However, when he answered questions before, the Minister did not adequately answer how this £1.25 billion reversal will be funded. Can he tell us today whether it will result in further tax rises, in departmental spending cuts or in increases in borrowing, and, if not, where the money will come from?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words. We are setting out these changes now to ensure that more pensioners are able to receive support this winter. That is important. As she knows, we have moved to just one fiscal event a year, so, as is now normal, these changes will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, which is the Budget in the autumn. This will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside a full forecast from the OBR—something that the previous Government did not do—and we will ensure that the fiscal rules are met at all times.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, following the reference to those on these Benches and ISAs, I should perhaps declare to the House that I do not have £1 million in my ISA—I wish.
The Minister said that all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would benefit from this. Where I live, in the Scottish Borders, he will be aware that there is a degree of uncertainty, because of the interaction with devolved responsibilities, and because the benefits and tax system is reserved. Can the Minister reassure those where I live, in the Scottish Borders, that they will indeed benefit from what the Government have announced?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that winter fuel payments are a devolved policy in Scotland. The Scottish Government will receive a mechanical uplift in their funding as a result of the change in England and Wales. The Minister for Pensions spoke to his counterpart in Scotland on the day that this policy was announced. We are very conscious of the need for sufficient lead-in time, and those discussions will continue.
Conduct Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Tracey McDermott CBE and Sir David Steel KBE be appointed as external members of the Committee in place of Mark Castle OBE and Vanessa Davies.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. The first group of four external members was appointed in autumn 2019 for an initial three years, renewable for a further three years—in other words, until later this year. To help maintain continuity, two of the external members have kindly agreed to step down a few months early, and I thank them for their service to the committee. The appointment of their successors has followed an open competition. That process was delayed by the sad loss of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, kindly agreed to step in to chair the interviewing panel. She was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Prashar, and by one of the continuing external members, Cindy Butts.
I ask the House to approve the appointment of Sir David Steel and Tracey McDermott on the same terms as their predecessors: for three years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further term thereafter. Biographical details are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am confident that both will bring valuable experience and wisdom to the work of this important committee. The final two appointments will be made towards the end of the year. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, may I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a question? When we debated the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, there was an issue that there was a differential in the terms of office between the Peers who were appointed. He is suggesting that this appointment will be for three years, with the opportunity of renewal for another three years. Would that apply to Peers who are appointed to the committee?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. To clarify, the rotation of Peer members is a matter that will be coming before the Procedure and Privileges Committee. My understanding is that it was originally not intended that Peer members should be subject to the three-year rotation rule for this committee. That appears at some time to have blended into the three-year rotation. This matter arose, as noble Lords will know, from the review. It will come before the Procedure and Privileges Committee for consideration and will obviously come back to the House for clarification. That is the position; we are going to look at the procedure to clarify what I think was an error some years ago about the term of the Peer members.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am grateful for that answer but it seems to suggest making an appointment for three years, with which I very much agree, and holding out the possibility of a further three-year term. Is the Senior Deputy Speaker not pre-empting the committee’s decision? Or is it the case that, should it decide that Peers appointed to the Conduct Committee should have only a three-year appointment, the offer of an extension would be withdrawn?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I am seeking to say that it was originally not intended that the Conduct Committee membership should be subject to the three-year rotation rule. It appears that this needs to be resolved, and that is why it has come up for consideration by the Procedure Committee. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what the Procedure Committee or your Lordships may decide—I am very well aware of that—but I am setting out the parameters of what the Procedure Committee and the House may need to resolve so that the Peer members are not subject to the three-year rotation rule if that is what the House, and before that the Procedure Committee, should wish.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
It might assist the Senior Deputy Speaker and my noble friend if I add to what has been said. As a newly appointed member of the Conduct Committee and as one of the members who were part of the recruitment process, one of the things that has been important to me in the disparity between the appointment terms for Peers and non-Peer members is that there is no assumption that a non-Peer member, at the point of their appointment, will automatically get another three-year term at the end of their first term. That is important, because previously I had heard it being discussed that the non-Peer members were appointed for six years. That is the point that we need to get away from—the assumption that there will always be a second term.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
Without wishing to elongate this, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that. It primes that this is a matter for the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider. If there is further clarification, obviously it will come back before your Lordships.
Parliamentary Commercial Department
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.
In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.
The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.
In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.
I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I am not going to continue on the saga of the front door, although I agree completely with what the noble Lord has just said. Even I am considered occasionally a bit more diplomatic than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He is right that there are now a number of areas for which there is joint responsibility, and one of them is security. I have been conscious of the fact that the House of Commons seems to dominate decision-making. Wherever it comes from, whether it is the Speaker, the House of Commons Commission, the Services Committee or whatever, they always get their own way and the interests of this House are not properly considered.
Neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are blaming the Leader of the House, who does everything she can, as do the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Lord Speaker, but we should back them up and say that where it is sensible to have Joint Committees, we should have them. There should be more joint working on catering, for example; it seems crazy that we have two completely separate catering departments. There are whole areas like that which could be brought more closely together, but, in doing so, the interests of this House must not be forgotten. I say that having been a Member of the other place and recognising its pre-eminence regarding legislation; but in terms of this Building, the use of it and our own interests, we are just as important as the House of Commons.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that all those individuals—and I mean individuals rather than collective groups of people—who sign contracts on behalf of this House have professional indemnity insurance? Can she explain to the House what that level of cover is and what decisions were made in determining how much it should be?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
To follow up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my colleague on this lovely front door, I have good information that it is the first time that such a design has been used. Why should we be guinea pigs? We believe in precedent here for a large number of different things, but not in being a guinea pig for a kind of door that clearly does not work. Portcullis House has doors that seem to work all right—did no one test it first?
On the question of professional indemnity, is anyone going to be found to be at fault here? I imagine not, but we have to make sure it does not happen again.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about use of the Commons Terrace. I have been a Member of this House for very many years and occasionally have used the Commons Terrace. About a year ago I had one of my grandsons here for lunch in the Commons canteen, and I wanted to take him on to the Terrace but was told I was not allowed to. I found that deeply shocking. The Terrace that we have at this end is very small compared to the one at the other end. There is usually masses of room at the other end, particularly in the area reserved for Members, so I ask that representations be made to the Speaker of the House of Commons on restoring the use of the Terrace to Members of this House.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the report and what the Leader of the House has said. Some very important points have been made. As a member of the commission, I know that it is well versed in and very involved in discussions on these matters.
This is undoubtedly the right way forward. We are served in this House by some excellent and dedicated people, through all levels of service. We are going to see more joint working. Since I took over as chairman of the Services Committee, carrying on the excellent work done by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, we have looked at having some joint meetings with the Commons Administration Committee, which will be taking place later this year. I want the Leader to think about the way in which that joint directorate is in future going to be accountable to both Houses through its membership—not just the commission, though the commission is important. A lot of business goes to the commission, and sometimes there is not always time available to us as a commission to apply the kind of in-depth knowledge and attention that is sometimes needed to the various issues that come along.
I hope that the Leader will address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which I know is in her mind. We must ensure that the governance of any joint working body is seen to be clearly accountable to both Houses, and that it involves the memberships of both Houses. That said, I very much welcome the report.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
A number of Peers present at the moment, and indeed the Clerk of the Parliaments, went home rather late last night. As we did so—the door was conveniently left open for us to go through at our liberty—I noticed a large number of heavy-duty lorries outside, parked across the bus stop. This morning, as I came in, I noticed that fencing has been erected in front of the doorway. It looks to me like a bit of an eyesore, if I am honest, and I cannot understand why we have allowed this to happen.
In connection with last night’s debate, I wonder whether it is intended that Victoria Tower Gardens should be similarly surrounded by fencing of a similar nature. I think we should be told. It seems to have happened without much consultation, under the heading of “security”, and I think it is regrettable.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I want to add just one thing about what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. The dominance of the position of the House of Commons certainly resulted in the death of one Member of this House. Many years ago, when I came in, I fought for four years to get a defibrillator established in this place, because repeatedly a number of Members of the House collapsed after speaking. Most of the time this was innocent but, once or twice, we had cardiac arrests and people were taken to St Thomas’s Hospital.
When I finally tried to raise this with the officials of this House, I was given a meeting with officials in the other place and told very firmly that the House of Commons would not accept this. One of the things that was said to me was, “What would we do if a member of the public collapsed in the Gallery? Would it be our responsibility?” Interestingly, the medical advice in this House was not considered sufficient for the medical advice in the lower House.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Perhaps I might briefly add to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, focusing in particular on the door. There are many other points that could be made. I think it seems very sensible to do things jointly, although I am concerned this will lead to even less accountability. The important thing is to find out who is accountable. It is alleged that the door was going to cost £2 million and may have cost £11 million or £12 million. If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked. If it is true, we need answers and somebody, on every decision that is made, needs to be accountable.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.
I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.
On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.
There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer.
So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs.
On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that.
On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong.
The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements.
I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.
Lord Winston (Lab)
This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.
Baroness Browning (Con)
When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.
On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.
The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.
Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.
Chinese Embassy Development
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s own cybersecurity experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the city of London from the embassy. Even the Government of the United States and the Dutch Parliament have raised concerns about the presence of sensitive telecommunications infrastructure, especially cables, beneath the Royal Mint Court. Given the well-documented history of cyber-related and infrastructure-related intrusions linked to the Chinese state, does the Minister agree that planning permission should never have been granted to a Chinese embassy, for many reasons, including that the Royal Mint Court is adjacent to the Wapping Telephone Exchange, and it carries highly sensitive information?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the specific question from the noble Baroness, may I update the House? The inspector’s report was received on 10 June by the department. Parties have been notified a decision will be made on or before 9 September 2025. As the report has just been received, we have not yet begun to assess the case. The inspector’s report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it. Until that point, neither the recommendation nor the report will be made public. I hope that update is helpful to noble Lords.
Turning to the noble Baroness’s question, because we now have the report and we will be considering it, it would not be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised in the application while it is under active consideration by the department. However, all decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, setting out full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national policy, which is likely to include a wide variety of material planning matters that may include safety and national security.
On the specific issue of cybersecurity, as I have said, no decision has been made on the case. Ministers will come to a decision based on the material planning considerations I have referred to, in line with the established process that these cases follow.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That update from the Minister is most helpful.
We know from public warnings from the director-general of MI5 that China has been operating on an “epic scale” in its attempts to obtain political influence in the United Kingdom through educational arrangements and the use of state funds. That is why these Benches are disappointed that the Conservative Opposition have agreed this week with the Government to exempt China from the foreign influence registration scheme in respect of educational arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds.
We also know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal activities in the UK but who have bounties on their head. I shall not ask the Minister about any technical planning or security considerations, but what statutory provision can there be in the embassy to prevent foreign influence from the Chinese embassy on our political processes, and to help prohibit transnational repression of those living in this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
National security is, of course, the first duty of government more generally. On the specifics of the case, the inspector’s report will consider the application against all the national, local and regional issues, according to planning policy. Safety and national security will be taken into consideration to make sure that we have considered fully all the issues that may relate to this planning application.
It is difficult to answer general questions about the relationship with China in the same space as a planning decision, which has to be taken according to a fixed process. But noble Lords should be assured that we very strongly consider national security to be our first duty.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is hard to imagine that, if in 1980 the former Soviet Union had asked for a prime site for a new mega-embassy, we in Parliament would have agreed. It is even harder for me to understand why we are doing this for a regime accused by the House of Commons of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, one which has incarcerated over a thousand pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, including a British national Jimmy Lai, sanctions parliamentarians of both Houses—including me—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has just said, places bounties on heads of activists, including a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on the head of a young girl, Chloe Cheung, who lives in the United Kingdom. Why, in comparison with what we would have done in 1980, are we doing this now?
In the Commons, the Minister there said that the Government is open to further representations. To whom should they be made? How will they be considered? Given that the conditions set by the Government around the consolidation of Chinese consulate premises and access to the Cistercian abbey ruins on the site have both been rejected by the Chinese, how do the Government intend to address the rejection of those conditions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a number of points and I have heard him speak many times on these issues to my colleagues from the FCDO. The Government stand firm on human rights, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Members of the Government have raised human rights with President Xi and members of the Chinese Government. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account.
On the issue of Jimmy Lai, I know this question has been answered before in your Lordships’ House, but we continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20, and the Foreign Secretary raised it most recently with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in April. The Prime Minister is following Jimmy Lai’s trial closely, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific remains in regular contact with Mr Lai’s son and last met him on 28 April.
In relation to the noble Lord’s question, which I believe was about representations, representations can be made in the normal way to the Secretary of State or the planning casework unit in MHCLG. All material planning considerations will be taken into account in determining the case. If any noble Lords wish to do so, they should be directed to the Secretary of State or the planning casework team.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly outlined some of the concerns regarding the Chinese Communist regime and the way that it treats its nationals, let alone its international activities. However, international relations between states have never implied approval of those states, or indeed of their domestic regimes. They are about relations between states and that implies embassies as well. The fact is that big states have big embassies—for example, look at the US embassy south of the river. China is a big state; that is a fact. Can we dial down the rhetoric a bit?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not sure that was really a question, but I say to the noble Lord that the Government take a consistent long-term and strategic approach to managing the United Kingdom’s relations with China, which are firmly rooted in our national interest.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I had not intended to make any points on this, as I tread with care regarding accusations levelled at all Members of Parliament and community leaders who support people of Chinese heritage with whom many of us have long-standing relationships. However, following my noble friend’s question, the fallout from some of our high rhetoric and tension has an impact on the community outside. In my local area, I live alongside a large community of Hong Kong Chinese and I have had associations for 50 years with the Chinese community in Tower Hamlets and Newham, who have contributed hugely to the whole community. Will the Minister agree that, whatever the relationship is Government to Government, we must not make the communities the fifth column? I say this as someone who is Muslim and has experienced in the community the reverberations of the rhetoric in public discourse. Does the Minister agree that we need to make sure that we are extremely cautious in any condemnation of states and consider the fallout that may be experienced by the local communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is important to reiterate that this is a planning issue and will be considered on planning grounds. However, the noble Baroness raised concerns about the Hong Kong community. In January, the Foreign Secretary and Minister West met those who were recently targeted with arrest warrants and bounties by the Hong Kong police and, in June, the Security Minister and Minister West met those recently targeted by Hong Kong police with arrest warrants. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, as Labour pledged to do in our manifesto. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. The UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.
I reiterate that this is a planning matter and the issues will be considered by planning Ministers against the criteria, including national security and other security issues. A decision will be taken on or by 9 September.
Spending Review 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the spending review Statement, delivered by the Chancellor in the other place yesterday, made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Treasury has lost authority in determining how the Government spend taxpayers’ money. How else can the Treasury explain a spending review in which the Government will add another £140 billion to the national bill in extra borrowing, forecast over the period set out by the Chancellor? How else can the Treasury explain a cost burden so substantially increased that the Government are unable to rule out tax rises in the autumn? How else can the Treasury explain why it is subsidising tax reductions in Mauritius, but making decisions which will limit domestic economic growth?
Ministers are lauding a spending review which does not address the fundamental issues which we have raised in your Lordships’ House many times. Only a few weeks ago, we had an excellent debate on the crisis we face in light of the scale of our national debt. This situation has been made worse as a direct consequence of the spending review. Ensuring value for money in public expenditure—another issue we have raised time and again—has been virtually ignored.
However, I thank the Minister for the long overdue investment in nuclear at Sizewell C, on small modular reactors with Rolls-Royce and on the nuclear fusion prototype in Nottinghamshire. I just hope these will not take too long. They are essential to an energy balance, so we avoid the sort of problems we have seen in Spain.
Following on from our discussions last week on the transport package, I also welcome the extension of the £3 cap on bus fares, albeit only until 2027. London-based politicians do not understand how important buses are to so many of the less well-off in this country, especially in rural areas which are bearing the brunt of this Government’s policies in other ways. The introduction of a five-year planning cycle for capital is also positive.
However, I am very concerned at the way the Chancellor has hit police spending and defence to find yet more money for the NHS. Police chiefs are very anxious, and there is still no plan to reach the 3% we need on defence. The NHS is one of the major winners from the spending review, claiming over £29 billion per year in additional funding. But unlike our Conservative record, this new money from the Labour Government has come with no productivity conditions and no demands that services be improved or patient outcomes bettered. This is a major problem. In recent years, we have seen record levels of spending poured into the health service, yet productivity has not kept pace. According to the Office for National Statistics, NHS productivity still remains below pre-pandemic levels. We have an inverse ratio: the more money the Government give the NHS, the worse it functions.
What we are witnessing is a shortage not of funding but of effective reform. The NAO and other independent bodies have highlighted how much of this new funding has been absorbed by rising costs and staff pay.
I am grateful to the Government for allowing an extra 20 minutes for Back-Benchers to ask the many questions they will have on the detail of this Statement. To be honest, I would have preferred a full debate on this, as it sets the scene on expenditure choices for the rest of the Parliament.
Moreover, in the round, the Statement is a cause for concern. As the shadow Chancellor put it succinctly, “Spend now, tax later”. The fiscal rules have been loosened so the Government can borrow more and lay out a succession of goodies in a £190 billion spending spree.
There should have been much more focus on the nearly £100 billion of interest we are now paying on our national debt and on how to get that down—a debate on how we balance the nation’s books. Investment is separated out under the fiscal rules, but I am afraid it still has to be paid for. Is this investment being wisely invested?
To mention one angle, the promised new Green Book is not a new book but the findings of a review. It concludes—as I expected, given the changes that the Conservative Government made—that the current methodology is not biased towards certain regions. However, I was surprised to read that the existing Green Book puts too much emphasis on cost-benefit ratios and that a ratio of less than one might be fine. I am really worried about this as an encouragement to the approval of white elephants.
This, of course, is against a troubling economic background. Unemployment has hit a four-year high of 4.6%. A first estimate for May showed a 109,000 decline in jobs, which, if confirmed, would be the worst month since the height of the pandemic in April 2020. Since the Spring Statement, persistently higher gilt yields have blown a £5 billion hole in the Chancellor’s £9.9 billion buffer. Productivity was 0.2% lower in the first quarter of the year compared with the same period in 2024. The UK’s total rate of investment has been the worst in the G7, on average. On top of it all, the ONS today announced a 0.3% decline in GDP growth—partly, no doubt, because of the hikes in national insurance, which have hit businesses so hard. These are facts. The Chancellor should have taken corrective action in the spending review, but we can see that more taxes and higher council tax are coming.
Finally, I will come back to the Minister on a couple of points that he keeps making. He has alleged, often and aggressively, that when many new projects were announced by the Tories, no money was provided. That is, of course, because we rightly delayed the spending round until after the election. We, like the Government, would have allocated the money for what we had planned following a classic review.
This is linked to my other concern, about which I have been very patient with the Minister: that we had and have no plans for saving money to finance necessary spending. This is an inexactitude. Apart from the strong growth trajectory at the time of the election, undermined by Labour’s doom and gloom, we were on course to reduce the public sector. Instead, the civil service has risen in the past three months to over 516,000 full-time equivalent, the highest level since 2006—in contrast, according to Civil Service World, to the total of 384,000 FTE in September 2016, when I was serving in the Conservative Government.
This Government have chosen to give pay rises to the public sector costing £9 billion—and more, if you add on the future cost of their pensions—without the kind of link to productivity that any sensible managers insist on when a generous pay package is offered. Add to that the £30 billion for the Chagos Islands, which is funding reduced taxes in Mauritius not the UK, £8 billion on Great British Energy, and the abandonment of our ambitious plans for welfare reform and our attack on waste, of which, sadly, this week’s Blue Book is a pale imitation.
The truth is that the Government are busy creating their own black hole with all of this, and it has been topped up by the £1 billion reversal in the winter fuel allowance. We all understand why that was done, but it destroys confidence in the Chancellor’s determination not to raise taxes. My fear is that we will run into the autumn with anaemic growth, persistent inflation and a large new tax bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Chancellor faces real constraints, and this morning’s GDP figures for April underscore the problem. However, I am not going to use this opportunity to spend a lot of time talking about growth. It is such a big issue that we need some separate debate time set aside for it.
On these Benches, we are pleased with the significant allocations for the NHS and for housing in the spending review, though we are concerned that there are no targets for social housing, since we need at least 150,000 new social homes a year. I ask the Minister: given this additional money—which I know is only £3.9 million a year, but still, it is additional money—will we see that number of social homes come through annually? That really is the need that must be met.
However, nobody will be surprised that I was disappointed—almost to the point of devastation, quite frankly—to see adult social care overlooked, with no uplift until 2028, despite the reality that the situation is grim as we speak and that, without properly functioning adult social care, improvements to the NHS will be seriously undermined. If the Casey review is the hold-up, it should be and could be completed this year.
The Chancellor also suggested that she would back the fair pay agreement for adult social care workers sought by Care England. She absolutely should—care workers deserve every penny—but did I hear correctly that she will not fund it? The total package is £2 billion a year, and just the living wage and sick pay portion is £805 million a year. That kind of money puts in jeopardy not only many care providers but many local councils. If the Minister says that there was an uplift for councils, then not only does that rely on a 5% council tax increase in most councils but the additional money will be fully swallowed up by SEND, which is also in a dire situation. Will the Minister please explain what seems completely inexplicable: the overlooking of adult social care?
I also ask for clarification on defence spending. The Chancellor said she would raise it to 2.6% by 2027—which is the right direction—but is it correct that when she spoke, she treated spending on the secret services and on the Ukraine war as defence spending? If we speak in the terms that we have all been using up to now then the 2027 spend is, in my estimate, below 2.4%. I hope the Minister will tell me I have simply misunderstood. Will he help explain what exactly is going on with this defence spending? To me, all this confusion is underscoring the importance of cross-party talks, which my party has proposed, so that we collectively find a way to reach the necessary 3% well ahead of 2034. Boy, would I appreciate some clarification on what on earth is happening within that budget.
I am pleased to see new funds for the British Business Bank, whose greatest weakness, frankly, is its tiny size. However, to which bit of its activity is the additional money to be directed? I am particularly concerned about small business lending, and it could make a serious difference if much of the new funds are directed into the BBB’s Community ENABLE fund and its growth guarantee scheme. Who will make that call, is it dedicated, and does it have a target? Could the Minister please tell us more?
I could raise a lot of other questions, but I am anxious to hear properly from the Minister. I came away from the spending review, the Blue Book and the speech asking endless questions to which I could not find answers. I thought that I was going rather brain-dead. Then, I heard Paul Johnson of the IFS talk about the documents being so opaque that he was asking questions and could not find answers. If he cannot, we need help. Could we have clarity in the future, but in the meantime could the Minister please serve as our clarity?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions on yesterday’s spending review Statement.
It would have been perfectly credible for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to say she cannot support any of this investment because she did not support any of the difficult decisions that we took to make this investment possible. It also would have been perfectly credible for her to come here today and say she has changed her mind, now supports the difficult decisions that we took and therefore will support the investment that those difficult decisions have permitted.
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness did neither of those things. We heard her support for the huge amounts of spending we announced yesterday for the nuclear programme—for example, £30 billion into nuclear. We heard her support the £3 bus fare cap, even though her party had refused to fund it any longer than last December. Yet she has opposed every difficult decision every time we have stood here for almost a year now. She has opposed every single difficult decision we have taken to repair the public finances and fund the public services. Even today, she was opposing the changes to the fiscal rules that enabled the additional investment spending we have made. She supported the nuclear spending, which is investment spending, but she opposed the fiscal rule change that enabled that spending. That simply is not credible.
The party opposite cannot support the investment in the spending review without supporting the money to pay for it. We all know exactly how we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is exactly the approach that Liz Truss took in her mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates spiralling. We will not be repeating that mistake. The shadow Chancellor is distancing himself from the Liz Truss approach, and the noble Baroness should distance herself from that approach too. She talked about the money that is being allocated. I am not sure she understood the process of the spending review: the envelope was set by the Chancellor last spring. She cannot say in any way that we have lost control or are deviating from that envelope, because the Chancellor allocated every single penny of that envelope and not a single penny more. I fully understand what she is saying—that she understands that—but, in that case, I do not understand why she made the criticisms she did. The Chancellor was simply allocating the envelope that she set out in the spring.
The noble Baroness also said that the last Government delayed the spending review. We all know why the last Government delayed the spending review: because their sums did not add up. They had a £22 billion black hole at the heart of it, and they knew that the moment they did a spending review that black hole would be revealed. That is the reason why they delayed the spending review.
The noble Baroness talked about growth and the performance of the economy. In the first quarter of this year, the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Under the forecasts inherited from the previous Government, this year the UK would have been the slowest-growing economy in the G7. If she wants to compare growth stats, I am more than happy to do that with her all day. The figures out today show that April was a challenging month, given global headwinds. That was the month in which the tariffs were imposed by the US, and it was before we had agreed the trade agreement with the United States. If you dig into those growth figures, you can see that a lot of it is driven by a decline in exports because of that. It underlines the need to continue to deliver on our growth mission.
The noble Baroness talked about facts. The facts are that living standards are now forecast to grow four times faster than in the previous Parliament. Real wages have already grown by more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. She often talks about productivity and GDP per capita, but GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament. It is now forecast to rise by 5.6% in this Parliament. On top of that, the IMF has upgraded our growth forecast, as did the OBR in the Spring Statement.
It is disappointing to me that the noble Baroness often says that she and I agree on growth, but she did not mention any of the growth-boosting measures included in this spending review. She did not mention that capital spending would increase growth by 1.4% in the long term. She did not mention the £39 billion affordable homes programme, which is vital for growth. She did not mention the record amounts of R&D funding rising to £22 billion a year. She did not mention any of the major rail projects to connect our towns and cities and make sure that growth is felt right throughout the United Kingdom. She did not mention the skills budget and the amount of money we are spending on skills. It is disappointing that she says she supports growth but then does not welcome or mention any of the investment that we are doing to get that growth.
The noble Baroness mentioned borrowing and the public finances. Average borrowing in this Parliament will be 2.8% of GDP, compared with 5.6% of GDP over the previous 14 years. She talked about the investment rule. Obviously, we have changed that fiscal rule—quite rightly—to enable the much-needed investment infrastructure to deliver stronger growth in the future. She opposes that change to that fiscal rule and yet somehow also claims to support the investment that the rule brings about.
The noble Baroness talked about tax. Yesterday’s spending review allocated the envelope set out by the Chancellor in the spring. These record settlements have been made possible only by the tough but necessary decisions we took in the Budget last October. On future decisions on tax and spending, I am not going to write four years’ worth of Budgets at this moment, even if that was in my power. The independent OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget. The Chancellor will take decisions at that point based on that forecast, and I will not prejudge those now.
The noble Baroness asked me about funding of the winter fuel during Question Time earlier. As she knows, we will set that out in full at the time of the Budget.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, both asked about defence. As the Chancellor made clear yesterday, increasing defence spending is a strategic necessity, and that is why we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the precise definitions: 2.5% will absolutely be the case by 2027. If she wants to include the intelligence agency spending and the other spending she mentioned, it is 2.6%, but it is 2.5% excluding those things—I can give her that absolute certainty. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, but we will not be putting arbitrary dates on when we will meet that.
I have two final points: the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about efficiency and productivity. This is the first zero-based review done into spending for 18 years. The previous Government had 14 years to do a zero-based review, if they really cared about efficiency in public spending, and they did not do one at all over the course of 14 years.
The noble Baroness did not mention any of the reforms we are doing in the NHS. In fact, she sounded quite sceptical of additional money going into the NHS, which is a great shame as we know it is the most treasured public service in this country. She did not mention digitisation, for example—putting £10 billion into the NHS app to make it far more efficient in its spending. We are doing a great deal more on efficiency savings. All departments have identified at least 5% savings and efficiencies by 2028-29.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about social care. I am grateful to her for welcoming some of the other additional spending, particularly on the NHS and housing, for example. She talked about social housing: we have made the £39 billion investment into the affordable homes programme. That is crucial for growth, as she said.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, who has consistently campaigned on social care. The spending review provides an increase of over £4 billion available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26. That includes an increase to the NHS’s minimum contribution to adult social care via the better care fund, in line with the Department of Health’s spending review settlement. This will support the sector to improve adult social care, with further details to be set out shortly.
The noble Baroness asked about the fair pay agreement. As the Chancellor said yesterday, we remain committed to delivering a fair pay agreement in line with our manifesto commitment, and we will set out further details of that shortly. She also asked about the British Business Bank. There will be an increase to £25.5 billion, and it will set out further details as to how that will be allocated. In the industrial strategy in a few weeks’ time—access to finance is obviously a major issue for all those sectors—we will set out how the British Business Bank can help with those access to finance issues.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I also wish my noble friend Lord Livermore a very happy, significant birthday.
Communities across the country were told for years that they would be levelled up. In practice, regional investment plummeted and long-promised schemes were downgraded or pulled entirely. Does my noble friend agree that while it will take time for people to see the results of regional investment, the money allocated to English city regions and the devolved authorities will enable long-term schemes that provide jobs and growth and are genuinely transformative?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind words and her good wishes. I absolutely agree with her. One of the central themes of this spending review is making sure that growth is both created in all parts of the country and felt in all parts of the country. For too long, we have been reliant on just one or two regions of our country to generate that growth. Clearly, given our growth mission and the importance of raising sustainably the level of growth in this country, making sure that every part of the country contributes to that economic growth is absolutely vital.
On the regional investment that my noble friend talks about—in particular the transport investment that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to—the previous Government made lots of grand plans but never funded any of those grand plans. What we are doing here is setting out a very careful strategic plan to connect our cities, connect our towns to our cities, and funding that fully, so that those transport connections are made and people are able to get around cities and regions, which is absolutely vital to economic growth. It is no good having the jobs, the skills, the towns and the housing if they are not connected and people cannot travel around to them. I think that is an absolutely vital part of getting growth throughout the country.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the welcome moneys for the repair of cultural venues, the cuts overall to the arts are hugely disappointing. This will affect most the individual freelancer, who really had high hopes that finally there would be reinvestment in their sector. Of course, small and large organisations will be affected, too. So I ask the Minister, would he agree with me that these cuts make no sense, considering the Government have earmarked the creative industries as the linchpin of growth? They do not seem to grasp the vital role—a role in innovation—that the subsidised arts sector plays in the ecology of the creative industries as a whole. Neither is the 15% cut to staffing within the DCMS, while such cuts are not happening everywhere, a vote of confidence in the sector, so the Government do need to rethink these cuts.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know that he is a passionate and long-standing campaigner for the cultural sector. As outlined in the spending review yesterday, the DCMS will invest more than £2.9 billion across its entire capital programme to safeguard and modernise cultural and heritage institutions in towns and cities. I hear very much what he says about the wider cultural sector and I ask him to wait for the creative industries industrial strategy sector plan, which will be coming out shortly and which I hope will address many of the issues that he is talking about. As he says, we absolutely recognise the enormous value, both cultural and economic, that the creative industries offer. We will be setting that out in the sector plan for the industrial strategy in the coming weeks and I hope that we can discuss it at that point.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, there are things to welcome in the spending review: I would point in particular to His Majesty’s Government’s steps to support the most vulnerable, tackle regional inequality, increase investment in schools, social housing and healthcare and maintain some level of support for the arts and culture, recognising their importance. More support for libraries, which act as community hubs, is welcome. I hope that the benefit of churches, which are also public buildings that contribute to community life, especially in rural areas, will also be recognised and that DCMS will do this by resolving the long-term uncertainty about the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme beyond 2026 and the capping of grants, effectively, by VAT liability.
May I press, however, the Minister on two other matters that I think are important? The first is children—our nation’s future—and investment in them. While on the surface, the increased access to free school meals is welcome, could the Minister reassure the House that the Government have not uncoupled free school meal eligibility from the pupil premium? Secondly, given the impact of the cost of living on families and the growth in child and rural poverty, which I do see even in the diocese of Chichester, especially in our coastal towns, can the Minister give assurances that the much-delayed child poverty strategy will now be published as a matter of urgency, with further consideration being given to ending the two-child limit and reviewing other policies which so adversely impact the well-being and flourishing of our nation’s young people and their families?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate set out a number of issues that he agreed with, and obviously I am grateful for his agreement with those. He talked about child poverty and he knows that—as the Prime Minister described it—our free school meals policy is a down payment on the work that we want to do to tackle and end child poverty. I was lucky enough to be part of a previous Government—I worked for a previous Chancellor—who reduced child poverty by 1 million children, so there should be no doubt about my personal commitment to reducing child poverty. I had to sit by, as did many of my noble friends, and watch the previous Government increase child poverty by 700,000. That is not something that any of us wanted to see; so he should be reassured that we absolutely prioritise this issue.
The right reverend Prelate asked about free school meals. The children of every family on universal credit will be eligible for those free school meals. He described the child poverty strategy as much delayed. I am not sure I would accept that. I think we have set out when it will come—alongside the Budget this autumn—and it will consider all the issues and representations that are put to it. There is quite a lot in this spending review to tackle child poverty. As I say, that is a down payment and I very much hope we will be able to do more.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that the Chancellor reiterated yesterday, in the other place, a commitment to no unfunded increases in expenditure. Could the Minister reassure me about the other promise which she made in the autumn Budget—I am going to read it so I am not misrepresenting it—that there would be no further tax increases during the current Parliament? She said, “I will not increase your income tax; I will not increase your national insurance; I will not increase your VAT”. Does that promise still stand? How can it possibly stand with the Government’s debt interest bill now being £105 billion and rising and the costs of borrowing, because of the level of debt, actually being higher than they were at the time of the crisis under Liz Truss?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On the specific question that he asked about whether the manifesto commitments that we have given to working people still stand, yes, they still stand. The manifesto very clearly says there will be no increase in working people’s income tax, national insurance or VAT. That commitment continues to stand. In terms of future decisions on tax and spending, as I have said already, I am not going to write now—it is not in my gift to write now—four years-worth of Budgets. As he knows, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget, and the Chancellor will take decisions at that point, based on that forecast. He can be assured, though, that, at all times, we will meet the fiscal rules, but I am not going to prejudge those decisions now.
I am not sure whether he was defending at that point the Liz Truss mini-Budget or not. He shakes his head vociferously. I do not blame him: I would not want to defend it either.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this spending review. Can I especially welcome the £39 billion of investment in social and affordable housing that the noble Baroness mentioned earlier on? Shelter yesterday called this a game-changer. The National Housing Federation said it was the most ambitious affordable homes programme in decades. All of that is extremely encouraging. I note that the ramping up of extra funding is gradual, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned, reaching an additional £4 billion per annum by the end of the spending review period. What needs to be done as this money is ramped up in the next couple of years to ensure that this funding is generally transformational? In particular, I know he is passionate about improving the supply of skilled workers in the housing construction sector so that it really does result in the step change we all want in social housing.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The Government are providing the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, and giving social housing providers the long-term certainty that they need to focus on development. We are putting in £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. We are making a 10-year social housing rent settlement from 2026 at CPI plus 1, alongside a consultation on how to implement social housing rent convergence. We are putting in over £1 billion of new investment to accelerate the remediation of social housing. So I think that is genuinely, as he says, transformative, and I am glad that those experts in this field have welcomed that allocation.
As my noble friend said, it is a gradual increase, which is probably sensible for public finance reasons, but probably for delivery reasons too, to ensure that it can actually be implemented, but he is absolutely right to point to skills. In this spending review, we have a record allocation in terms of skills, but also, at the time of the Spring Statement, the Chancellor set out a construction skills package, which I think is vital. Clearly, not just on housing, we are doing a lot of infrastructure investment and a lot of infrastructure spending. We must have the skilled workers to do that work; I absolutely agree with my noble friend on the vital importance of skills alongside this investment.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as former chairman of the South East Wales Transport Commission and the North Wales Transport Commission. I want to make a few remarks with respect to those roles, rather than comment at this stage on the macroeconomic aspects of the Statement. I very much welcome the proposals in the spending review for the investment in rail services in south-east Wales and north Wales. My understanding is that this allocation will allow most of the recommendations of the two transport commissions that I chaired to go ahead. The new stations in south Wales will provide vital commuter rail services, connecting major housing developments to sites of potential economic growth on both sides of the border. They will provide an effective alternative to many existing car journeys on heavily congested roads and will improve opportunities for those without cars, who face serious challenges with existing public transport.
In the case of south-east Wales, much of the work has already been done to progress these technical studies for both projects. The development work is largely complete and the project is ready to go. In north Wales, there are projects identified that will also improve transport connectivity to important centres of good jobs, such as Deeside and Wrexham industrial estates, the aircraft facility at Broughton and the city of Chester. There is also, would you believe, the real possibility of connecting by train those two great football cities of Liverpool and Wrexham. Does the Minister agree that these funds should be used as soon as possible?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
In the Treasury over the past months I have heard many references to the “Burns stations”, so it is a great privilege to talk to the noble Lord himself about these stations. He is absolutely right. We are investing at least £445 million into rail enhancements over 10 years to enhance rail across Wales, including at Padeswood on the Borderlands line and through upgrades to the core valley lines, as part of the 10-year infrastructure strategy that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary will set out more details of next week.
This includes providing £48 million over four years to the Welsh Government to work with them to upgrade the core valley lines; up to £80 million for port investment to support floating offshore wind into Wales; and £2.4 million over three years to launch a new brand Wales programme promoting Welsh investment opportunities and exports around the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the Minister a happy birthday. In welcoming the increase in defence spending, I am sure he will acknowledge that diplomacy goes hand in glove with our ability to deliver on our defence and trade priorities. My former department has suffered the largest reductions, of over 8.3%, in both CDEL and RDEL. What assurance can the Minister give me and all Members of your Lordships’ House that important priorities such as the integrated security fund, which focuses on cybersecurity threats and counterterrorism, will be not just sustained but, in the ever dangerous world that we live in, increased?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind wishes. He is vastly more experienced and expert in these important matters of defence than I am. To answer his very specific question on the integrated security fund, the spending review settlement enables the fund to continue to deliver programmes that support the National Security Council’s national security priorities. The integrated security fund will focus on the most pressing threats facing the UK, whether posed by hostile states, instability in volatile regions or emerging cyber and technology-enabled risks.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to ask about continued funding by DfE for the music and dance scheme bursaries for talented young musicians and for the outreach work of the national centres for advanced training in dance. It is right that the Government fund schemes such as these, which ensure that dance training is not just for elites and that children from any background can access a world-leading vocational music or dance education. Can my noble friend the Minister convey to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education the need to protect and, when possible, to grow the funding of our leading pathway into music and dance careers for young people from deprived backgrounds?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will do exactly as my noble friend asks and pass that on. The important announcements yesterday that she mentions are incredibly welcome. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Chancellor also announced the dormant assets initiative to get more creative industries into more schools, so that the huge advantages and benefits of that kind of creative industry are available no longer only to privileged children but to far more children in state schools.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I can only welcome the 3% increase in NHS funding in real terms, although it is below the long-term average over decades of 3.6% increases. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation has said that this
“won’t be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments”.
With that in mind, it is disappointing that while “public services”, “public finances” and “public debt” appear in the Chancellor’s speech, there is no use of the phrase “public health”. Given that the NHS is under such pressure, surely the Government should look to decrease the demand for healthcare by improving the health of the nation, which is, compared with comparable countries, extremely poor. That would mean measures to deal with water, air and other pollution, our broken food system and the poor quality and lack of green spaces. Will the Government look at making the nation healthier to help the NHS?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes. The noble Baroness says that we are not spending enough on the health service. Over the next five years, £30 billion will be invested in day-to-day spending, with over £5 billion specifically allocated to address the most critical issues. The noble Baroness likes to tell us how she does not believe in economic growth. If we do not have economic growth, how will we find the money to fund our public services? I sat through the national insurance Bill. The noble Baroness opposed it and the additional money that it brought into our National Health Service. She says that this is not enough money. How exactly is she going to find the money? She is mouthing “wealth taxes”. If she thinks a wealth tax is going to raise that many billion pounds, I would love to see her proposals.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the capital investment contained in the spending review will be very welcome in many parts of the country. The problem will be making sure that it is money well spent. As those of us who were here in the morning heard, public bodies often are not the greatest at making sure they can build a door, let alone a motorway. How will the Government ensure that we get value for money on our projects? Just having an office called the “office for value for money” might not be enough. I was cheered that the Chancellor said the amount of money being spent on consultants had come down. Can the Minister put a figure on that and tell us what the budget for consultants over the next few years will be?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not have the specific budget for consultants over the next few years to hand. I am more than happy to write to her with that figure if it is available. She is right that we have reduced the number of consultants. It ballooned under the previous Government, who like to talk about saving money but did not always walk the walk.
We are investing an additional £113 billion in capital spending, which is enabling so many of the projects that we are discussing today. It would not be possible if we had not rewritten the fiscal rules that we inherited from the previous Government, which guaranteed neither stability nor investment. We inherited such a poor public infrastructure situation from them as they repeatedly cut investment spending to patch up the holes in their day-to-day spending. The noble Baroness mentioned the change to the fiscal rules. Alongside the fiscal rules, we have set out very clear guard-rails to ensure that that money is spent wisely and carefully through public finance institutions. I am very confident that we have set out those guard-rails and will ensure that we get the value for money that she is describing.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too wish the Minister a happy birthday, and I declare my interests.
Does the Minister recognise the damage caused to UK growth by pension funds? We have the second largest pension system in the world according to the Government, the Exchequer gross contribution is £70 billion a year, and our DB and DC schemes are no longer backing Britain and are selling or underweighting UK equities and risk assets, damaging investments and corporate financing costs. DB pension funds bulk buying annuities is driving up long-term gilt yields, which many noble Lords have mentioned, as the insurer sells the gilts they tell the pension funds to buy as soon as they take over the assets, competing with the Bank of England’s QT sales. Our economy is desperate for long-term investment. Our brilliant companies are being snapped up on the cheap by foreign owners or private equity. I believe in Britain, and the Government seem to have a clear opportunity to require pension funds, if they wish to receive these generous taxpayer subsidies, to put, say, at least 25% of their new contributions into British assets to reverse the doom loop that pension funds have created for our markets and restore some growth.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness and I, along with many others in this House, have discussed these issues many times before. I think she knows that what she wants and what I want and what the Government want are pretty much the same thing. She says she wants to see greater levels of investment by pension funds into UK assets, and that is exactly what we want to see as well. The Chancellor set out some proposals on that in her Mansion House speech last year. We have seen substantial pension fund reform announced by this Government, which should bring an additional £50 billion of investment into the UK. We have seen the Mansion House compact announced just last week—a voluntary scheme by pension fund providers to get more investment into the UK. The Chancellor will make her next Mansion House speech on 1 July. I hope this will include more interesting announcements on this regard. It will also include the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which I hope will achieve many of the things that the noble Baroness is talking about.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest: from 2018 to 2025 I was the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how much the Government are having to spend to rectify the appalling failure of the last Government to address the prison capacity crisis and all its consequences?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the expertise that he brings to this question. In the summer of 2024, at the time of the election, prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. Clearly, the previous Government, as I was saying before, did not believe in investment spending, because they kept cutting it. Our social fabric was in a terrible state when we took over. We are having to do a lot of investment spending now to make up for the damage done over 14 years. The Government in this spending review are providing £7 billion to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, today’s growth figures make tax rises in the autumn all the more likely, but one rise that we do not have to wait for is the 5% increase to council tax each year planned for in this spending review. The Minister will know that council tax is a regressive tax. He will also know that this is the biggest increase since the 2001 to 2005 Parliament. Can the Minister confirm to the House how much a 5% growth in council tax each year will cost the average working family?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness says that we do not have to wait for it. She is absolutely correct: we do not have to wait for it because her Government introduced it. A 5% cap in council tax is something introduced by the previous Government—we have not changed that. It is a cap. Councils do not have to increase council tax by 5%, but, under the rules, they cannot increase council tax by more than 5% without a local referendum. We have not changed that. That is to invest in things such as social care, but also, as is normal, to put money into policing.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the benefits of the infrastructure expenditure are wide-ranging and indeed thrilling. However, most of those benefits are going to be long term, and I think most people are still worried about the cost of living and their day-to-day access to public services. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about how the plan is going to affect ordinary people, day-to-day?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right when she says that a lot of our capital spending is long term. I think that is perfectly right. For example, the noble Baroness earlier talked about pension funds. I met representatives of some of the largest Canadian-Australian pension funds recently, and they told me that one of the most attractive parts of the UK economic landscape at the moment is the long-termism of our policy-making. They want to see long-term commitments and long-term investment so that they can invest into this country. The long-term nature of the policies is important, but my noble friend is absolutely right that people need to see improvements in their lives much sooner than that, because obviously they have lived through the cost of living crisis brought about by the previous Government. We need to see those cost of living improvements quickly.
One of the funds established yesterday was the pride in place fund. It is important that people see improvements quickly in their local communities. We also announced funding for the warm homes plan, with a total of £13 billion allocated across this Parliament to improve the energy efficiency of people’s homes. We did a big boost to social and affordable housing, with £39 billion, and expanded free school meal eligibility in England to all children with a parent receiving universal credit. We invested more to fund childcare entitlements for working parents. We funded the freeze to prescription charges at below £10 over the spending review period, and we launched a new crisis and resilience fund to help families when in crisis.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will recall the table to the spending review which lists the departmental expenditure limits. Within that there is a line for the reserve, which I assume is essentially the contingency reserve. I recall that, back in 2023-24, the contingency reserve was over £9 billion, and that was completely blown and we had to have supplementary estimates. The table shows that, for phase 2, the reserve is at 1% of the totals for DEL and does not increase over the three years: it goes from £6.7 billion, to £6.7 billion, to £7.1 billion. This seems to be an inadequate figure for contingency that far out and is not, as one would expect, a rising figure—a wedge of contingency—in the later years. I wonder whether the Minister might explain why that wedge does not appear as one would have expected.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
If I may say so, the rising wedge, as the noble Lord describes it, is his analysis. It clearly is not analysis shared by the Government. I do not know whether it is based on any economic theory. It may be, but it is clearly not one that the Government share, because they are the numbers that the Government have set out.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most welcome aspects of the spending review is the terrific increase in science and technology spending, which will drive innovation across the country. It is long overdue, especially as it is now linked to Horizon, with an explicit reference to the building of new partnerships and new skills. I hope we can attract some of those American scientists who are now rather destabilised, shall we say, by the Trump Administration.
My question is about how housing fits into the growth agenda—it clearly does. One of the most explicit elements is the new towns programme, which is lined up not just to fill housing need but to drive housing growth and economic growth linked to infrastructure in different parts of the country where we need that growth. Can the Minister just tell me how that fits into the £39 billion now made available for affordable and social housing?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend—both where she started and indeed where she ended. I completely agree about the importance of innovation and the spending that we have been able to do in this spending review. As I have said before, the industrial strategy will be published in the coming weeks. Clearly, innovation and R&D are vital to those high-growth sectors. She also talked about the importance of partnership, and that sits at the heart of the industrial strategy—a partnership between government and business, helping to systematically remove the barriers to growth. As my noble friend will know, we have increased public funding on R&D to a record high of £22.6 billion in the spending review.
My noble friend talked about housing and its link to growth. I completely agree that, for too long, people have not been able to live anywhere near the jobs that they want to do because they have not been able to afford the housing to be close to those jobs. That is absolutely not good for growth. I am certain that the £39 billion we are investing will help us to begin to tackle that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that the Government were elected on a promise of ending the housing of refugees in hotels within 12 months of being elected to office. For what reason have the Government now decided to continue to house refugees in hotels until the end of this Parliament?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Probably because of the inheritance that we faced from the party opposite, which did absolutely nothing to tackle or fund that issue. We have funded it in the spending review on the terms that the noble Baroness set out.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in contrast to the moaning dirge we have from the Front Bench opposite, my inbox is full of emails congratulating the Government on the spending review, and from some unexpected sources, such as Liz Cameron, director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, who welcomes the Acorn carbon capture go-ahead, the defence expenditure and the Edinburgh University supercomputer. That is a great welcome, but will the Minister confirm that the money being allocated to the Scottish Government is the largest ever grant since devolution? Will he do everything he can to make sure that that money is spent efficiently, effectively and according to our priorities?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the feedback that he is receiving. He is absolutely right to highlight the incredibly important things we have done in the spending review for Scotland, such as the investment of £8.3 billion over the Parliament in homegrown, clean nuclear power, alongside establishing a new government campus for energy that draws on the world-leading engineering expertise in Aberdeen, the Acorn carbon capture and storage project that he mentioned, and £750 million for a new supercomputer at Edinburgh University. Those are all genuinely exciting developments.
As my noble friend said, this is a record settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution in 1998. They will receive £50.9 billion per year on average between 2026-27 and 2028-29, including an additional £2.9 billion per year on average through the operation of the Barnett formula and £451 million of targeted capital funding in addition. My noble friend asked how we will ensure that that is spent on our priorities. Obviously, the best way to do that is to ensure that people vote Labour at the next election.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Like my noble friend on the shadow Front Bench, I was surprised that the review suggested that a benefit-cost ratio of less than one could still be considered value for money. It also committed to publishing the BCR for all the cases. Can the Minister say when that will happen and whether it will also include projects from the NHS?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness referred to the review of the Green Book. Its six key findings were that there was insufficient emphasis on place-based objectives; ineffectiveness at assessing transformational change; continued overemphasis on benefit-cost ratios in decision-making; overly long and complicated guidance; inadequate capacity and capability across the public sector; and poor transparency around appraisal. We will set out the information that she requires in due course.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I am sorry, but it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I join the House in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday and many more of them ahead. I too welcome yesterday’s Statement. We feel as if we are turning the corner and starting to take a longer view, which we have not had expressed by politicians for quite some time. It is true that there are risks for us and, given the instability in the world, it is desirous that we are not too inflexible about how we look to change our minds as needs require it when circumstances change. I do not like to see us digging in too firmly in saying that we will not change this or that when circumstances may force it.
In looking at our tax system, investment is one of the ways in which we will see progress be made, and Statements will be made on that very shortly. One of the things the Government—and, indeed, all parties—ought to look at is the way we try to maximise opportunities for raising funds. It is high time that council tax was subject to a review. It is way out of touch with reality and is now being run very unfairly. I suggest to the Government that, as they look at wider tax reform, they look in particular at council tax and at changes to make it fairer and more productive in paying for these investments.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree very much with what my noble friend said to begin with about uncertainty. I think he was talking about the increasing global headwinds we face as a country when it comes to the economy and about the importance of stability; I completely agree with him. The IMF, for example, in its most recent report when it upgraded its forecasts for the UK economy, said that our fiscal strategy is striking a
“good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”,
and that our
“Growth Mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity”.
On spending, it concluded that our plans are “credible and growth-friendly”, and
“are expected to provide an economic boost over the medium term”.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the points my noble friend made on council tax towards the end of his question.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned pride in place recently. It is understandable that people have pride in the place where they live. One of the indications of that is the number of volunteers who come forward to work in the Britain in Bloom scheme, but some volunteers have told me that there has been an enormous amount of vandalism, tearing apart the beautiful plantings that unpaid volunteers have made to beautify their local area and which have been much appreciated by local people. They say that part of the problem is there are not enough police on the beat and that, even when they have CCTV evidence and can identify the perpetrators, the police do not have time to do anything about it. I have heard from the police that the settlement for the police will not be adequate for the increased number of police that has been promised. Can the Minister give any cause for optimism to all those volunteers who work so hard?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says, and I agree with her about the importance of pride in place and the difficulties around vandalism, graffiti, fly-tipping and so on. That is exactly why the pride in place fund was established: to tackle some of those really difficult local issues. When it comes to police funding, the Government increased investment in policing yesterday, and the spending power of our police will increase by 2.3% in every year of this Parliament, which is around £2 billion extra for the police. I hope the noble Baroness can take that back to the people she talks about and give them the optimism and reassurance she asked for.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However, the IFS director, Paul Johnson, said that his think tank was “baffled” by the Chancellor’s spending review. He said that the Chancellor will
“have all her fingers and all her toes crossed”,
but that OBR borrowing and growth forecasts are not downgraded for the autumn, which will
“almost certainly spark more tax rises”.
Can the Minister say whether that will be the case, or will there be more borrowing?
Secondly, supporting my noble friend Lady Altmann’s point about encouraging investment in UK-quoted equities, can the Minister give his views on how insurance companies and pension funds could be encouraged to devote more assets to the quoted areas of these markets?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord started by welcoming nuclear, and then seemed to say that the fiscal position was not what he would like it to be. I feel as if he needs to choose which lane he wants to be in in that respect. Will he support the measures we have taken and support the change to the fiscal rules, or support the spending? I am not sure that he can both oppose the way to raise the money but then support the way we are spending it.
On the second part of his question, we have set out very clear pension reform. We may not agree on that specific point, but I hope we agree on our objective, which is to get more pension fund investment into the UK economy.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable debate on the implications of adding “and others” before section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.
Amendment 77 just asks the question: what is the effect of “and others” at the end of Clause 6(2)? Is it just to enable the insertion of Clause 6(3) or does it have wider implications that I have not noticed?
Amendment 78 is to encourage good and improving practice by making sure that what is being done is published so that it can be assessed and criticised by the local electorate, and there can be a stimulus for doing better. Amendment 81 enables the Secretary of State to enlarge on that by specifying the way in which local authorities should report on the educational achievements of children in need of or in kinship care—again, with the objective of making sure that the information is out there against which the local authority will wish to report improvements. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support strongly this group of amendments.
Does the Minister agree that local authorities would very much welcome the positive effects of these constructive amendments? Thereby, local authority education success stories would become more visible and, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has already implied, that visibility in itself would clearly assist further improvement.
As indicated in Amendments 78, 79 and 80, this would apply to the educational achievements of children in need or in kinship care, as it also should to all previously looked-after children who were adopted.
As correctly advocated in Amendment 80, career and employment opportunities ought to be included as part of educational achievement.
Taking into account the increasing benefits from virtual education, I am sure that the Minister will concur as well that, in these and other respects, and as recommended in Amendment 83, the Secretary of State should equally now review the current and future role and remit of virtual education, so that it can become properly funded.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 80, which
“seeks to include career and employment opportunities as a part of educational achievement”.
I have spoken many times in this Chamber, and will probably do so again, about the need to ensure that we an educational system that prevents young people becoming NEET.
I will share some statistics with noble Lords. There are 354,000 young people who are unemployed and actually seeking work who are NEET, and 569,000 who are economically inactive and not seeking work. According to the Department for Education’s 2025 report, 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. I add to this that I discovered recently that 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution and 25% of the adult prison population had been in care. I have no doubt that these figures will ring alarm bells for all of us, and so they should, so what can we do about them?
The main factors that contribute to these figures—the main reason why these young people are in the position they are and NEET—are educational disruption; poor mental health and emotional well-being; lack of stable housing; limited support networks; stigma and discrimination by employers for those young people who have been in care; and inadequate transition planning when they move from education to employment. It is this last point that I will focus on. I hope that all noble Lords, including the Minister, will agree that we must have a system that prepares all young people, in particular those who have been or continue to be in care, to make an effective transition from education to work.
My first question is: can the Minister tell us what tailored and individual careers advice and coaching the Bill will put in place, working with the DWP and all its great partners, to ensure that young people get the service they need? How will the Bill bring employers into the lives of young people at a much earlier stage and dispel the negative assessment they make which keeps these young people out of the workplace? Will she please ensure that every educational establishment publishes its NEET tables, so that we can see what is working, do more of it and help those who are not doing so well? Prevention is much more effective than cure. It costs less in financial terms and puts young people on the right path. It was explained to me that it is better to be a fence at the top of the cliff than the ambulance at the bottom, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree.
One of the most enjoyable experiences I have had in this House was to be a member of the Public Services Committee, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Before I left that committee, we produced a report entitled Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Employment for Young Disabled People, but its findings, although they concern specific help for disabled people, have resonance with all young people.
The second recommendation in that report says:
“The Government should work with local authorities to improve the availability of ‘ready to work’ programmes such as that provided by ThinkForward”.
Another happy moment in my career was to develop and deliver the prototype for ThinkForward. I can tell noble Lords that it works and it can be done. It can be done in schools, where the coaches are part of the school management team. Young people at risk of becoming NEET are identified very early and get a dedicated coach who is on the journey with them. The results are that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds involved showed significant improvements in attendance; 60% of the school leavers achieved at least five GCSEs at grades A to C; and 96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds were in education, employment or training. I know that ThinkForward and other organisations would be more than happy to work with the Government, and it was a private equity foundation that put the funding model in place to make sure that it worked, so not every penny came from the Government—I hope that that might excite the Minister. So, it can be done, it must be done, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will be done.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 79 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Following the statistical barrage from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I shall give some more. According to the Drive Forward Foundation, children in care on average achieve an Attainment 8 score that is less than half of the overall pupil population. Just 14% of care leavers go on to university, compared with 47% of all young people. Some 22% of care leavers say that they always or often feel lonely, compared with 10% of all young people, and 15% of care leavers report that they do not have a good friend, compared with 5% of all adults. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after they leave care, and 52% of children in care have a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared with 13% of non-care-experienced children. One line in the Bill could achieve so much.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 83 seeks to address what is currently a series of gaps in the information that we have about the effectiveness of the virtual school head role. Clause 6 extends the statutory duties of the VSH role to children with a social worker and children in kinship care. The question is whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing and what resources are necessary to implement it effectively. As I understand it, we do not yet have the evidence that confirms the positive impact of that role, nor the emergence of value for money.
I take your Lordships to the interim evaluation, which was published in 2024. On page 11, it states:
“The evaluation of Phase Two follows a broadly cyclical pattern of data collection and analysis, alongside ongoing analysis of secondary national datasets … We assumed that there would not be only one way of providing effective support and that the aim at this stage was to support shared learning about potentially effective practice, rather than to conduct an effectiveness trial … The final report for this evaluation … will test whether there are any early signs of progress at aggregate level in attendance, persistent absence, suspension and permanent exclusion”.
I suggest to the Minister that the policy document for the Bill seems to overstate the impact. That policy document says:
“The evaluation of the extension shows early signs of improved educational outcomes … with several local authorities reporting improved attendance, reduced exclusions and enhanced collaboration between education and social care services”.
I am concerned that trends in attendance could be influenced by a range of other factors apart from the presence of the VSH. We therefore possibly have correlation rather than causation. I may have misunderstood things, but can the Minister please correct me if I am wrong?
I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at my amendment. It seeks to fill the evidence gap, both in terms of impact and in terms of resources, before extending the role of VSHs still further. Otherwise, the Government are at risk, in my opinion, of expanding and even diluting the impact of a role without the evidence that clearly demonstrates that it really can make a difference. I hope the Minister will look at this amendment sympathetically and in the spirit in which it is drafted.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 82 would provide further opportunities for children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The Government should be applauded for their commitment to raising the profile of kinship care as a vital part of the ecosystem for children from broken families. As we heard earlier in the week from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, there are more than 150,000 children in kinship care in England. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, without whom it would be almost inevitable that the care system would buckle.
For most of Part 1 of the Bill, I have taken a back seat as I do not have direct expertise in the many complex areas that it seeks to tackle. However, for this proposal I was the Minister responsible for boarding schools, both state and private, when at the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task confronts kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. We have heard how the level of support for kinship carers is patchy at best and often almost non-existent. For many potential kinship carers the prospect will simply be too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances.
That is why I am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child—and, of course, this is not always the case—it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are reduced to around 16 weeks a year from 52 when boarding school is providing a home for the balance of the time.
I believe it is a dramatically underutilised resource. There is an unexplained squeamishness across many directors of children’s services to use it more. However, when I was the Minister in the area in 2018, we published a small longitudinal report showing just how impactful it could be. By coincidence, it was work led by Norfolk County Council, where I live, and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published the report—it is no longer available on the DfE website, which is a shame. I urge the Minister to not only read it—I can send her a copy—but ask officials to put it back up again.
In essence, it tracked 52 vulnerable young people for between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. Dr Claire Maxwell, who contributed to the report, then a reader in the sociology of education at UCL, highlighted three specific benefits. First, the setting can provide amelioration from risky emotional and physically stressful situations—for example, a circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, a moment ago about the number of children from care ending up in prison—it is appalling. Secondly, there is improvement of educational outcomes. Thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. Dr Maxwell’s view, and that of charities in the sector, was that successful boarding placements can help strengthen families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and is part of the reason for the improved emotional and educational outcomes.
In this study, the 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision. Some 21% of these children achieved a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English—above grade C, in old money. This compared with a national looked-after children pass rate in that year of 17.5%. These are not dramatic differences, but put alongside the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This study also compared costs against more institutional forms of care beyond kinship. At the time of writing the report, the Norfolk Boarding School Partnership had an average cost between £11,000 and £35,000 a year, compared with £56,000 for a looked-after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years for this group.
Obviously, kinship care is more affordable because carers get less support, but my argument is that if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked-after children costs. Today, the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation offers bursaries for looked-after children attending private boarding schools. We know that the educational outcomes for looked-after children remain way below the national average, and this is not a silver bullet—but, combined with the other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool in the box to support these vulnerable children who never chose this harsh route into life. I hope the Minister will support me by agreeing to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to be asked to speak to Amendment 82 by my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. As well as the evidence I will refer to, I was in your Lordships’ House back in 2014 when my noble friend gave his maiden speech. A Conservative Party treasurer perhaps brings a certain stereotype to mind. However, you could have heard a pin drop, as a globally successful metals trader spoke of being a young teenager in a chaotic home with an alcoholic single mother. But he went to the boarding house at the state-run Wantage Grammar School. It rescued him.
It made me reflect on the role of boarding schools. I was born and bred in Oakham and I have had to deal for many years with the annoyance of, “You’re from Oakham? So you went to Oakham School, then?” “No”, I reply, “there is a state comprehensive as well in the town, called Catmose College”—which was rated “outstanding” in every category in an Ofsted inspection in 2024, if noble Lords will forgive the shoutout for my state school.
This testimony by my noble friend is supported by the 2023 study by the University of Nottingham’s School of Education, commissioned by the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which found that children in or on the edge of care who attend state boarding or independent schools experience significant educational and financial benefits. They are four times more likely to achieve good GCSE passes in English and maths and five times more likely to pursue and succeed in A-levels, leading often to higher education. The study estimates that, for every 100 children attending boarding schools, lower social care costs and increased future earnings mean there is an economic return on investment of approximately £2.75 million. The report stated that, when vulnerable children in boarding schools were interviewed, they said such opportunities were life-changing.
This amendment would also make it significantly easier, as my noble friend Lord Agnew outlined, for kinship carers to step forward to offer a home to a child who might otherwise enter the state care system. Not every family will want or be able to house the child 24/7, 365 days a year. That can be a daunting task. They know of course that their own children will be greatly affected, and their house might not be big enough for that extra child. Kin altruism can be greatly aided and encouraged when a child can be educated in this way in the state boarding sector, giving the carer breathing space to attend to all their other responsibilities, while knowing that the child is safe and cared for in the state boarding sector. I hope the Minister will look at the evidence carefully in relation to this matter.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have no amendments in this group, but we are very sympathetic to them. When you look at all the statistics for children in care, your heart goes out to those young people, and we should do everything humanly possible to help them, develop them, encourage them—and any other adjective you can think of.
I will deal with a few of the amendments. First, I want to deal with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He may not know Liverpool College, but it is a very successful independent school with a dynamic head teacher, a Dutch American who came to England and did two things. First, he made Liverpool College an academy, and then he decided to make a boarding facility available. He came to an agreement with the local authority that he would offer a percentage of the places to children in care. The results have been spectacular. It is a model that should not be shunned for party-political reasons—“We are not in favour of independent schools or boarding schools”—but should be welcomed, embraced and encouraged.
Secondly, I want to make a point about Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Again from personal experience, not only did we create a virtual school in Liverpool, but the then director of education, Colin Hilton, said, “I am going to be the virtual parent of these children”. He set up a steering committee of children in care in the local authority and he met with them once a month to hear their issues and their problems. Some might think this was flag waving, but, by taking on that role, he nailed his colours and the colours of the local authority to the mast, and again the results were amazing.
I am in favour of all sorts of information being made available, because it is only by getting information that you know what you have to do and how you can achieve it. Surprisingly, I am the chair of Liverpool’s education, employment and training scrutiny committee; the Labour authority has made a Lib Dem the chair of two of its select committees. The local authority sets a series of targets, and for education those are obviously training, employment and so on. In each quarter, we look at the results next to the targets we hoped to achieve, and I was surprised that children in care were not separated in those figures. I asked for the figures to be separated and that has now happened, so you can track the progress that those children in care are making.
So all these amendments, in one way or another, can only help to further the support that we as a nation want to give to those children in care. On the question of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, again, why not? All these issues are important, so I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 79, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and Amendment 80, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. While we are of course positive towards efforts that support children with a social worker, those currently and previously looked after and those in kinship care, we question why adopted children are excluded from His Majesty’s Government’s plans to strengthen the role of the virtual school head.
Our Amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual school head to ensure that those children in the care of the local authority who are then adopted receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to
“make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area”.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a duty on a local authority to take
“such steps as it considers appropriate”,
which is a much broader role but one that currently does not appear to include adopted children.
As the helpful briefing from Adoption UK sets out, almost half of adoptive parents surveyed for its 2024 Adoption Barometer had sought advice from their local virtual school in the preceding year. The report highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value they placed on the advocacy that a virtual school head could provide with their child’s school. Their exclusion from the Bill appears inconsistent, and we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or, if they will not be, why not.
Amendment 80 seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. The ONS estimates that 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24—12.5%—were not in education, employment or training in the period January to March 2025. Although that is down on the previous quarter, I think all noble Lords would agree that the number is way too high and we must act to reduce it.
Amendments 78 and 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken that has resulted in the educational achievement of the children in need or in kinship care, and that the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported. It is important for successful practices to be shared, and the amendment would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured.
Amendment 82, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Farmer, seeks to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. The noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly worked very well for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Where it works for a child—and that is obviously critically important—it can be a hugely positive experience. That child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts or drama, away from the distractions or dangers that they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It would lessen the time pressures on kinship carers, who we know do an amazing job but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Council, the issues it encountered and how it addressed them. We look forward to discussing this further, and hope the Minister will do so also.
Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, seeks to review virtual school heads and their role in improving educational outcomes for previously looked-after children. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads. As such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads have had before full implementation. We very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.
In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these all seem entirely sensible and well thought out amendments.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important area of the Bill. I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship care experience significant difficulties. Many of them have poorer educational outcomes than their peers as a result, across all key stages. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right that it is important that everyone shares their experience. In Leeds, we always made sure that the scrutiny of children’s services was held by an opposition member; that seems to make absolute sense. We all want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised.
Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of such children, increasing their visibility, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and ensuring that they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes. In practice, these duties will be discharged by the virtual school head, who will have strategic oversight of the outcomes of these children, raising awareness and improving visibility of their needs—for example, through the delivery of training to schools in effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have just received more information about why this information is so important. For example, it will mean having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, placement instability or social work instability—all of which contribute to their experience in learning and their ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, upon request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangements orders, regardless of whether their child spent time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a non-statutory basis, and we recognise the need for a much stronger basis. I echo the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully.
As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled, which would ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children, while ensuring that local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties. They would also ensure that previously looked-after children adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result—I will come back to say more on that later. We are confident that the measures in this clause meet these aims and that, as a result, these amendments are not necessary. I will go into more detail later.
Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to enable discussion on which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school heads will promote their educational outcomes. Providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school head role is extended is important. New Section 23ZZZA(2), to be inserted by Clause 6, provides a clear definition of these children. Specifically, they are children for whom the local authority is
“providing or has provided services”
under Section 17(10)(a) or (b) of the Children Act 1989, as well as children
“in the authority’s area who live in kinship care”.
Amendments 78 and 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they perform in promoting the educational outcomes of these children, and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency in local authority support are essential for driving improvements, and for ensuring that decisions are made in the child’s best interests and that every child receives support, wherever they live or are educated.
Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report summarising strategies for supporting children in their care, while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children’s services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for, and that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to include reporting on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of children in need and children in kinship care. This will ensure greater consistency across all local authorities, enabling continuous improvement in the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government are committed to ensuring that previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption are supported to succeed in education.
Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to children in need and children in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his statistics; it is always useful to have that level of granularity in our discussions.
To repeat, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 to promote the educational achievements of all previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or child arrangements orders. I hope that satisfies the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. In addition, subsection (3) of Section 23ZZA allows the local authority to
“do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”.
I would suggest that that level of flexibility adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child.
The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children’s educational needs. However, we are committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked-after children in statutory guidance for virtual school heads. There is no room for complacency here; we have to keep revisiting, refreshing and relooking on behalf of all the children we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen sections on support for adopted children, and we will work with the adoption sector on this, including by clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and incorporating examples of good practice.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am very grateful for the comprehensive and courteous way that the Minister has responded to the amendments. Can she comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
With all this work, I believe it is important that we focus on the job in hand through the route of accountability and the local authorities, and do not give virtual school heads yet another onerous task to do. I believe that enough safeguards are in place and enough ways that the outcomes can be reviewed, so I do not believe that this is necessary at this time.
I was going to say that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments, based on the fact that this is work in progress. We all know the significance of this area and the contribution that so many people make to it. We are opening up an exciting new chapter to make sure that the work that happens is accountable and transparent, and that more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young people can be helped going forward.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I thought was a really satisfactory set of responses to these amendments, and I thank her for that. Will she commit, when the evaluation and the statutory guidance are published, to giving a heads-up to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this area during this debate?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have a feeling that I would not have any other option, given the comments I have received to date.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I shall be very grateful for that. I hope the Minister will also have a quiet word in the ear of her colleagues responsible for the Employment Rights Bill, referring to the speech of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in particular. When an employer wants to take on someone who has a history in care, they know that this may be a difficult experience for them. As it is at the moment, the Employment Rights Bill makes that much more dangerous and difficult. It is a matter of casting the rules right, but the Government have not got there yet. This is really important in making sure that children from a care background can find their way into employment, that an employer can take on someone they know is going to be difficult and have time to bring them through, and that the regulations are set right to make that happen.
I encourage the Government to encourage local authorities to use boarding schools where this is appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Agnew said, this is something that can save money and make for a better outcome for the right children. I ask that, where this is done, we track performance. We ought to build up, not just as one experiment but as a routine, a history of how these children have done with that experience, so that we can all learn who it works for and how it works best, and the schools concerned can learn from each other how to do better. There is a real wish in the independent sector to be part of this, and I very much hope it will be included.
I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before I go on to them, I will say a word about yesterday’s spending review. I apologise that I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore’s session, just before we started the Bill.
There was significant spend announced yesterday on wider children’s social care. The review stated:
“This settlement will improve support for England’s most vulnerable children and young people by setting aside £555 million over the SR period from the Transformation Fund for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government … and DfE, as well as total capital investment of over £560 million to reform the children’s social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s homes estate. This will help more children and families stay safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market”.
It obviously remains to be seen how that will shake down, but I think it is a very promising start and a real indication of how seriously the Government view the current situation as far as the children’s social care sector is concerned.
In its present form, the Bill extends Staying Close support only to young people up to the age of 25—that is for any relevant child in residential care—but not Staying Put support for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. The increased support that the Bill provides for care leavers is welcome, but it risks creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their foster family beyond the age of 21. The amendments in my name in this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding. I suggest that the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source for at least part of that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, having attached my name to all the amendments in this group that include extending Staying Put support for young people up to the age of 25. The noble Lord has already made the case very well, so I will not repeat all the stats and the recommendations that we had from the MacAlister report et cetera, but it is worth reflecting on how hard it is today for young people to be independent at the age of 21. The Office for National Statistics report last year showed that, across our society, the average age at which a child moves out of their family home is 24. Surely the state should also be providing the kind of care that children are getting in families.
I also have a genuine question that I have not been able to establish the answer to. These amendments and the Government’s plans cover both children in foster care and those in institutional arrangements. My understanding is that about 40% of 17 year-olds are staying in unregulated or independent accommodation, and it would appear that at the moment they are falling through the cracks and not being covered by either these amendments or what is happening here, so I would like to ask the Minister whether that is indeed the case and whether the Government have plans to act on that.
It is perhaps worth setting out the kind of story of what is happening now, which I doubt anyone in this Chamber would disagree is unacceptable. Last year the Big Issue reported on the case of a young man called Duncan, who was in care with a foster family that he had been with since age 11. He came home from college one day and found that all his bags had been packed up. It was a week after he turned 18. The foster carers were happy for him to stay, but social services simply said that was not an option and could not happen, and packed his bags up. Think about how utterly damaging that would be. Duncan was then put into supported accommodation. At 3 am the next morning, someone was knocking on his door looking for somebody else. There was drug dealing happening all around him. He had a bottle flung in his face by someone who was trying to throw it to someone else in that supported accommodation. That is what the state, as a corporate parent, is doing to a child at the age of 18. There are some places where some people are able to stay, but surely that should be the absolute standard provision. We need the parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, which is what these amendments would achieve.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to lend my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, regarding extending the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25. My Amendment 130 does exactly the same thing but for some reason is in the next group. I will say a few words about it when we get to the next group, but I just want to underline my support. I think it is a very important issue.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164 to introduce a national offer for child care leavers. This is strongly recommended by Barnardo’s because this amendment would end the postcode lottery of support for care leavers and help remove barriers to opportunity. Each year around 13,000 young people leave care without the support they need, and the outcomes of these young people remain much lower than those of their peers. That is why we at Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—believe that there should be a new minimum standard of support for care leavers: a national offer regardless of where they live. It should include measures recommended by Barnardo’s, which I hope the Government and the Minister will agree to.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97 and 99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. His support for Amendment 99, and mine, is grounded in—
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and Amendment 164 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I am a retread, a hereditary Peer who originally came here not very long ago, in 1981, left in 1999 and was recycled, like an old tyre, in 2014. I made my first maiden speech in 1982 and my second in 2015, on the subject of Staying Put. At that time the Minister for Children was the rather wonderful Edward Timpson, the younger brother of the Department of Justice Minister here. He had grown up in an extraordinary family. Apart from having full-blood siblings, while he was growing up his amazing parents fostered more than 90 children. So Staying Put was put in place by an individual who had a deep understanding of the issues faced by young people unfortunate enough not to be able to live with their natural or even unnatural parents. Staying Put was a result of that. The debate in 2015 was to welcome the fact that it had been extended, having been deemed such a success.
It is very fitting that now we have another Timpson in government, albeit in a different department, we again look at this and recognise how successful it has been. What we are asking for in this amendment will not involve a vast number of children or a vast amount of money. It will, however, be transformative for that small number of children. In economic terms, the benefits of giving them support up to the age of 25, if they need it, will be more than repaid by some of the problems that might cost rather more if they have to leave earlier. For all those reasons, I request that the Government look at this sympathetically and see how it can be fitted in.
On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in so many parts of our society there is a postcode lottery. That is not surprising given how the highly centralised country of England, with all roads leading to London, coexists with a piebald mosaic of different local authorities and different organisations of all kinds, which to some extent relish the English creative impulse to reinvent the wheel in your own image. As a result, there is considerable variation. If you asked a variety of organisations providing support for those in care or coming out of care to define succinctly, in two or three minutes, exactly what their care offer was, you would get rather different answers.
For those reasons, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, it would be very beneficial to have clarity about the core elements of the offer and to do everything one can to make sure it is understood and, as far as possible, complied with across the country.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 164 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. I omitted to declare my interests as a teacher and a kinship carer, but your Lordships probably know of those by now.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 94 in this group. It is very much the same as my amendments in the last group. If we can get local authorities to say clearly what they are doing and what they have achieved in a year, then they will wish to do better next year.
Lord Storey (LD)
I just want to say a few words, especially in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I remember that 14 years ago this issue was discussed during consideration of the Children and Families Bill. We all sort of huffed and puffed and said, yes, this is really important, but nothing came of it. I just wish we had seized that opportunity then. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly said, we do not want to make this a missed opportunity. Some young people are ready to leave, but many are not. If you look at the figures for young people who are not in care and not fostered—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned 24 year-olds—sometimes we see people in their 30s still living at their parents’ home. What happens in those families should be reflected right throughout our society. Sometimes young people are not emotionally ready. We heard of “pack the bag and go”, but I can tell of the opposite: foster parents, at their own cost and in their own time, being prepared to keep on their foster children for several years afterwards. That is amazing.
I turn to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Having each local authority publish what its national care offer should be seems such an obvious thing to do. I just hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and do that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for local authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need Staying Close support; and when such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. This provision builds on the Staying Close pilot scheme, which gives care leavers safe and secure accommodation along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support. I am very grateful to the charity Become for sharing its expertise in this area with me. As the Minister knows, each year thousands of young people face what we might describe as a care cliff edge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, vividly described, when they leave the system, they are expected to leave home at around 18—often abruptly but, I hope, not always as abruptly as in the case she described—losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood.
Research by Become shows that
“the transition from care to ‘independent living’ is often poorly planned and managed, and many young people feel unsupported”.
Evidence from the Staying Close pilots demonstrates
“improved outcomes for care-experienced young people … including better ‘independent living’ skills, increased happiness, better stability, increased participation in … education and employment; and a reduced risk of homelessness”,
and that extending Staying Close support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care. We warmly welcome that.
However, we have concerns about the drafting of Clause 7, which could limit its impact. First, Clause 7(2) requires local authorities to assess whether Staying Close support serves the young person’s welfare, but without providing specified assessment criteria. We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our Amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors the local authority must have due regard to, including the
“wishes and preferences … accommodation requirements … emotional and practical support needs … and existing support network”
of the young person. Our ever-optimistic Amendment 92 would give the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where it is judged to be appropriate.
The current wording defines Staying Close support merely as providing advice and information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The Minister will know that “making representations” does not always translate into a service. That narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots, so our worry is that it will not achieve the same positive outcomes that the pilot did.
Our Amendment 89 aims to strengthen the voice of young people and ensure that a record of their wishes is kept. The Bill does not reference young people’s wishes and preferences. We believe, and I know that the Minister agrees and has been a great leader in this, that young people’s input is vital when determining support.
Lastly, our Amendment 93 gives a strong legal entitlement to an opt-out for all care leavers, ensuring young people’s preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I very much hope the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the Government could turn into their own.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, very generously pointed out the response of the previous Government and put the case for extended Staying Put support extremely ably. I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments; indeed, he or another noble Lord mentioned that, when asked, 75% of children said that they would like to go on living with their foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 94. Having clarity and good performance-management data should always lead to better outcomes.
I feel rather mealy-mouthed not to be more enthusiastic about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164. I absolutely do not want to sound preachy, but I worry. Of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but, as we often discuss in your Lordships’ House, some of that comes from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them. I suppose my only hesitation is that information without relationships does not get us much further, but I know that all noble Lords know that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I start by re-emphasising that we all know that care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society and that many have not received the care and support that we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong, loving relationships, and are engaged in education, employment and training. The ongoing work and the measures in Clause 7 are geared to improving outcomes for those eligible and will help address any cliff edge of support they may face when leaving care.
On Amendments 84, 86 to 88, 90 and 91 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I thank him for highlighting the issues and for going through the background so thoroughly, but also for highlighting the very positive measures that were announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail on how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
These amendments together would require local authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with Staying Put support where their welfare requires it. They seek to probe why the Bill makes provision for Staying Close support to be offered to eligible care leavers up to the age of 25 when the Children Act 1989 puts duties on local authorities to support former relevant children and their former foster parents to maintain a Staying Put arrangement until the former relevant child reaches the age of 21.
I acknowledge the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I am sure that many of us in this Chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and difficult examples that are based on the real experience of some young people. That is exactly why we have the Bill before us and what we are trying to achieve with it.
We fully recognise the importance of these duties and remain strongly committed to the Staying Put arrangements. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend Lord Watson, we believe at this moment that it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support, in particular for young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. It is difficult to have to prioritise and focus, but this is the place we are in at the moment.
We are doing this very positive work through the introduction of Clause 7, where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in or who have left a Staying Put arrangement, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. Staying Close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation, and support to access wraparound services.
On Amendments 85, 92 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I start by reassuring her that we agree with the sentiment of the amendments and that Clause 7 is already very much in that spirit. We are very keen, of course, to make sure that everything we do links and aligns with the different opportunities: for example, how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that there is a seamless direction of travel. There will be more to discuss on this as we go forward, as I understand she acknowledges.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the fact that, apparently, 40% of 17-year-olds turning 18 are in unregulated or independent accommodation. Could the noble Baroness perhaps write to me about that?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I apologise: I knew that I had missed the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, of course I will write on that important point.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments—which may not be surprising, since they added their names to them, for which I also thank them. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the point she raised about 16 and 17 year-olds living in unregistered accommodation, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in group 8 today, if we get that far.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, although, of course, it is disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response—if she will forgive me, it could probably be described in three words, “We’re staying put”, which is effectively what she said—whereas her opposite number in the other place said that the Government were not in favour of extending Staying Put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, who, she said, had the most complex needs. My noble friend today said that the Government want to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision. Neither is unimportant, but I think that, where there are gaps in current provision, yes, they can be filled, but that does not mean that there are no gaps in the provision beyond the age of 21 for young people Staying Put.
My noble friend said that, when people in foster care reach the age of 21 and leave for whatever reason, they will have Staying Close to fall back on in certain situations, and of course that is right. But, overall, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay on in foster care beyond the age of 21. We are not talking about thousands and thousands, so the cost in additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. I have to come back to the point that I started off with, which is that there was a very positive statement yesterday in the spending review, which may offer the opportunity to deal with this as well, although of course there will be many competing demands.
As I said, it is disappointing. I request the opportunity of discussing this issue a little further with my ministerial colleagues before Report, but I again thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy and financial support.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a requirement on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop financial literacy and to better understand their financial entitlements as part of their Local Offer for Care Leavers.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 95 and 130 in my name, and in doing so I draw attention to my interest in the register as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. I think the amendments in this group are very important. They look in broad terms at the support that is available to care leavers—an issue which we all understand is incredibly important. I am supportive of pretty much all the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is about a national offer to care leavers and how that relates to local offers. No doubt we will come back to that.
I had the privilege of attending an all-party group meeting recently where we spoke to a large number of care leavers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was there as well. I was very impressed with the presentations that these care leavers gave. One of them made the key point that they would like to see a national offer for all care leavers to ensure consistency. I asked them to send me some more details about what exactly it would entail, because this is a critical issue.
My Amendment 95 is a bit more specific. It would require local authorities to provide more clarity on the services they provide to care leavers to help them develop their financial literacy and thus access their financial entitlements. As we have heard, young people leaving care are much more likely to leave home at an earlier age than other young people and be forced to live independently, often before they are ready. That means managing bills, a tenancy and other financial responsibilities, and juggling that with education or starting employment, often without having any financial safety net to fall back on, which so many parents provide for their children. I know it is stating the obvious, but there is no bank of mum and dad for this group of youngsters to fall back on.
Too often, care leavers are not aware of the financial entitlements and supports available to them from the local authority, such as council tax discounts, higher education bursaries or, more broadly, welfare benefits. This lack of information can lead to them facing unnecessary financial hardship or falling into rent arrears or debt. We all know that, once you start falling into debt, it is a vicious cycle and so hard to get out. All of this has a huge impact on their well-being and security. Care-experienced young people often report that they feel unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come from living independently from such a young age, primarily owing to the lack of support or opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge they need on such basic things as budgeting, money management and broader financial understanding.
That is why the amendment, which would introduce a requirement on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop their financial literacy as part of their local offer for care leavers—we can come back later to whether that should be part of a national offer—is vital and could make such a difference to their life chances. Such a change would create more transparency for care-experienced young people about the financial support available to them and would help to address one of the main challenges they face when moving into independent living.
Amendment 130, as I said in the previous group, is basically about extending Staying Put to the age of 25. We have already had that discussion; I never quite understand some of the mysteries of grouping, so quite why we are having it in a separate group as well I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, set out the case very well. I shall just add that, as we heard in some of our earlier debates, young people leaving care often face a disproportionate risk of experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity. Care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people, and statutory homelessness rates for care leavers have increased by over 50% in the past five years, which underlines why I think extending Staying Put to the age of 25 is so important. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the previous group, it involves a pretty small number of care leavers. The costs of doing this would be fairly modest and I hope, from what we have heard in the spending review yesterday and today, that some space is opening up. So, really, I am asking Ministers whether they will think again.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my earlier early intervention. Noble Lords know how passionate I am about early intervention and it got the better of me.
Amendments 97 and 99 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. My support for my noble friend in his amendments is grounded in a desire, which I am sure all noble Lords share, to see high national standards of support, not just pockets of excellent practice in some local authorities. Having said that, the requirement in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 for local authorities to publish their own offer for care leavers, which this would amend, is an important one. But it needs to be built on. A higher standard at a national level would not prevent innovative and exemplary councils doing even better, but it would force any that were lagging behind to improve. I suspect that those who are dedicated to their local care leavers’ cause and are working hard on the ground would welcome high national standards, as those would help them argue successfully for the enhanced leadership and financial support required to lift their offering.
Another reason why the local offer is an important part of primary legislation is that it includes services relating to relationships—a primary need for children coming into care, while they are in care and when they exit. My noble friend Lord Farmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and Lord Mackay, now sadly retired, tabled an amendment to the Children and Social Work Act 2017 that was eventually accepted by the Government, which included the important word “relationships”.
On Amendment 97, the Bill presents an important and timely opportunity to embed relationships more deeply into councils’ arrangements to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living. We should do all we can to enable care leavers to maintain, strengthen and build family and social relationships. Family group decision-making provisions in the Bill need to be built on. Having gone to all the effort to bring together families and friends who are committed to a child potentially leaving their parents’ care, we cannot allow those relationships to fall through the cracks in their care pathway.
The Family Rights Group, which forged Māori-born family group conferencing into a British model over many years by working with families and children with relevant experience, has similarly refined the lifelong links model, which started as the family finding model in Orange County, California. Lifelong links ensure that children in care have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them. A trained co-ordinator works with the child or young person to identify and safely reconnect with important people in their lives, such as relatives they may have lost contact with, former foster carers, teachers or sports coaches. With family group decision-making becoming standard practice, many such people will, or should, have been involved in that process. Keeping these contacts going is a sensible and straightforward next step. The lifelong links approach has demonstrated significant benefits, including more positive and healthy connections in the child’s life and better mental health, instead of isolation and depression, or worse.
Knowing that they matter as an individual to people who are not the professionals paid to look after them gives a child a much better sense of identity. The practical wisdom and guidance that family and friends give often makes the care leaver far more emotionally stable, with a knock-on effect on their ability to hold down accommodation and training or education courses. This reduces the risk of homelessness and of a child trying to make their way without a goal or purpose. Without the motivation that positive relationships provide, it can be very hard to persevere. If you do not matter to anyone, it is easy to wonder what the point of bothering is.
The lifelong links model is currently available in over 40 local authorities across the UK, with 22 receiving Department for Education funding. Lifelong links is not named in this amendment, but, given all of the investment the Government have already made in evidence-building, it should be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care and care leavers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am going to be slightly unconventional and start with the last amendment in this group, Amendment 183A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I think it is so important that it does not get buried in this rather large and diverse group. This amendment seeks to deliver what was, in essence, in the right reverend Prelate’s Private Member’s Bill, which we debated a few months ago, and which I spoke in favour of. It sought to ensure that the universal credit regulations are amended so that care leavers turning 18 receive the same level of universal credit as anyone receives at the age of 25.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who said that these are young people who have no access to the bank of mum and dad and no cushion. We are expecting them to live on a level of universal credit that is not reflective of what other people who have more support—not necessarily, but probably—live on. This is a modest measure. As I said at Second Reading, it is a humane, constructive and practical step. Although this should not be the reason for it, it is very clear that it would end up saving the state money by ensuring people have a little more support and do not fall a very long way through the cracks, as the statistics show they very often do.
At the Second Reading of that Bill, I spoke about the wonderful scheme in Wales that has been trialling universal basic income for care leaves, set at a quite decent level. One of the interesting things was that the only condition put on those care leavers was that they had to take one session of financial education. This is where I come back to Amendment 95, from the noble Baroness Tyler, to which I have attached my name. I have heard anecdotal reports—we have not had the written reports from the UBI trials yet—that one of the offers was that care leavers could take more financial education sessions, in acknowledgement that they had a significant amount of money available to them. Virtually every person in the scheme took the extra financial education. It might seem a bit specialised to have this in an amendment, but it is such an important factor.
I point to the fact that this is a broader issue. Care leavers are obviously people who particularly need financial education, but I note that, last year, the Financial Times Christmas appeal was to raise money to give British young people financial education. That is an indictment of the failure across the whole system to educate young people. It is very clear that care leavers are people who particularly need it, deserve to get it and can hugely benefit from it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the excellent and compelling amendments in this group. In particular, I support Amendments 96 and 107A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, will remember that I spoke at Second Reading of her commendable Private Member’s Bill on mental health professionals, which I think was about 18 months ago. I raised the particular issue of children with complex needs—specifically children mainly in mainstream schooling who are diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. For a number of years in the other place, I supported Tourettes Action in its research, profile-raising and fundraising. For full transparency, my brother is a professor of cognitive neuropsychology, specialising in human movement studies, which includes Tourette’s.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships’ House in discussing Tourette’s, but I want to make the point that one of the key issues that affects children who have Tourette’s is a lack of collaboration and consistency across schooling, primary care and hospital settings. In other words, often children behave badly in school and are excluded because they are not diagnosed with Tourette’s and do not get the clinical care that they need. That work between the two parts of the state is not happening, and there is a similar issue for children with complex needs in the care system.
Again, all these amendments are excellent, but the specific advantage of my noble friend’s amendments is that they would impose an imperative on the education sector, and specifically the health sector—primary care, hospitals and other clinical settings—to focus on those children leaving care with specific and very important pressing needs.
There are a wide variety of issues that affect young people in that situation, including housing—the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham have focused on those issues—but the advantage of these two amendments is that they would put a focus on primary care in the Bill. Yes, young people are worried about education, skills, training and housing, but probably the most important thing is their health.
On that basis, putting this in the Bill would be a positive move that would encourage different social care agencies and the people who write the statements for those children and young people, such as teachers and so on, to start thinking about what their healthcare pathway will be in addition to other pathways, such as housing, education and skills. For that reason, I support these amendments. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon all the amendments, but those two in particular.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 100 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which would insert a new clause aimed at giving all care leavers up to the age of 25 priority status in homelessness legislation. To that extent, it is a subsection of the much broader debate about how we look after care leavers.
The amendment would end a current anomaly in the law, whereby care leavers up to the age of 21 are entitled to priority under the homelessness legislation, if they present as homeless to their local authority, but not those between the age of 21 and 25. It is supported by a range of charities, not least Barnardo’s.
All young people need a safe and stable home in which to start their adult life—and, if you do not have that, it is difficult to access education, employment and health services. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, care leavers are more likely to be homeless than non-care leavers. Research by the charity Become shows that they are nine times more likely to become homeless, and that threat does not stop at the age of 21. Again as we heard from the noble Baroness, the numbers of young care leavers presenting as homeless has gone up by 50%.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, earlier that non-care leavers are staying at home much longer; the average age at which they leave is now 24, up from 21 a decade ago. Over the years, the legislation has been gradually catching up with that trend, beginning I think with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which recognised that the state or local authorities need to support children beyond the age of 18. Again as we heard earlier, care leavers do not have the same safety net of family to fall back on.
There is a lot in the Bill which I welcome to support care leavers, in particular a recent amendment disapplying intentionality for care leavers, meaning that local authorities, when they have a corporate parenting duty, no longer view care-experienced people under 25 as being intentionally homeless. But the Bill needs to go a little bit further. Under the current legislation, all young care leavers under the age of 21 who present as homeless are deemed to be in priority need, which means that local authorities have an obligation to accommodate them. However, there is no such automatic protection for care leavers between the ages of 21 and 25. Under the current homelessness legislation, they are required to prove that they are vulnerable—something that is not defined in legislation. This means that they have go around getting letters from their GP, for which they may have to pay, and getting other letters from psychiatric services, to prove that they are vulnerable and their corporate parent is under an obligation to support them.
There is also a problem with children who are placed out of area. They are not apparently automatically eligible for the usual care support in the local authority in which they are now living, even if they have been living there for many years, whereas local care leavers have that entitlement. That seems to be an anomaly that the Minister might like to comment on.
Finally, the amendment would bring the homelessness legislation into line with the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which obliges local authorities to continue to provide support up to the age of 25. It will not be a panacea for all the problems facing care leavers, but it will be an important step towards ensuring that, when the worst happens, help is available for a young person who may have few other places they can turn to for help. So I encourage the Government to accept the amendment.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support two amendments in this group, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Amendment 99, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendment 100, both of which I have put my name to.
With more than 80,000 children in care, the highest figure on record, this Bill represents an opportunity to strengthen support for all care leavers. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after leaving care. Many become drug users and end up with a criminal record.
Some of the most affected care-experienced children are those from diverse backgrounds, who suffer double discrimination. Research by Barnardo’s found that nearly one in 10 black children in care has received a custodial sentence by the time they turn 18. When many finally leave care, they find themselves in prison or with a criminal record, which makes it difficult to find a home or employment, or develop a secure, happy life and any hope of a prosperous existence. They find themselves being part of a gang, which becomes a family substitute but leads to even more disaster.
As the Minister said in reference to the earlier group of amendments, there is an urgent need to improve understanding across agencies and departments of the needs of children in care and care-experienced young people, as well as providing training on how to better address these needs. For example, the Department for Education could extend corporate parenting principles to all bodies involved with care-experienced young people.
As we have heard, many young people can depend on their parents to support them long after they leave school or university, both financially and with a roof over their head. But support for care leavers across the country is piecemeal—a postcode lottery. Ashley John-Baptiste’s book, Looked After: A Childhood in Care, which I highly recommend, illustrates graphically just how difficult it is for young people to navigate their life after leaving care without support, especially if they want to go to university. It is potluck and almost an impossible task. Therefore, we should be doing more to ensure that care leavers are supported into adulthood, which I why I support Amendment 99 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Through Amendment 100, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to increase protection for care leavers facing homelessness. I welcome this amendment and fully support it. We need to support care leavers and give them the opportunity to forge a happy, secure and hopeful life. It is our duty to do this and I hope that the Minister will agree with me and other Peers, and support these amendments.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, on Amendment 100, from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I will offer a bit of Big Issue news. We did a survey in the early part of this century in which we surveyed 150 to 200 Big Issue vendors. Some 80% of them had been through the care system; most of them had been in care for a period of at least 10 years. I wrote an article about this which upset a lot of people, because I said that, in order to produce a Big Issue vendor, you had to spend over £1 million. To me, that is one of most frightening things: how expensive it is to keep people poor.
It costs £70,000 to keep somebody in foster care, but it costs almost £200,000 to keep somebody in care. We need to look at this problem. In spite of all the moral outrage, we need to look at this as a bit of fiscal bad news. We have to start shifting our resources towards moving children into foster care as much as possible. I am going to talk about this later, but I wanted to give noble Lords the news that Big Issue vendors are very, very expensive.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 98 in this group asks the same question I asked in the two previous groups: can we get local authorities to publicise what they are doing each year, to give them a benchmark to improve on each year?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this group ranges quite widely but there is a common theme: the things that are going wrong which ideally should not be. The question is, how do you get a handle on all of this?
There is a certain symmetry with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, asking for a review into the disparities that care leavers are facing, which is fairly all-embracing. I suspect that quite a lot of that information is already available thanks to the MacAlister review. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment suggests that it could take up to two years—I would hope and expect it to be done a great deal quicker.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, and to Amendment 130. We have heard that 67% of care leavers are anxious about money, according to the study by the charity Money Ready. Given that the second Oral Question today was on financial education post-16, it seems appropriate to talk about this in considering this amendment.
Some 80% of care leavers want more help managing their finances. Rent eviction and homelessness are the consequences of poor financial literacy. In 2024, a report from the Become charity revealed that 4,300 young care leavers aged between 18 and 20 end up homeless. This represents an increase of 54% in the last five years. The Staying Put charity has helped, but most still leave care on or before their 18th birthday.
In contrast, 55% of female and 59% of male 20 year-olds still live at home, and 47% of men and 29% of women still live at home at the age of 25. Most young people move out when they feel ready, when they have the financial capacity and literacy to live away from home. In contrast, care leavers need to be ready to leave home at a much younger age and do so usually with very tight financial budgets. There is no home to go back to if the money runs out.
It is easy for care leavers to miss out on financial education to help prevent issues that come up with independent living for the first time. Not only is there little information about financial management; the avenues available for reaching support to apply for grants and loans mean that many struggle to access these resources.
Because of the nature of the job market and house prices, 47% of men and 29% of women still live at home at the age of 25. The cost of living is keeping people at home; care leavers should have this support too. The expansion of the Staying Put scheme is supported by charities, and evidence from the charity Become shows that this would be a core way of mitigating against homelessness among care leavers.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that this was a wide-ranging group. As I was thinking about it, I thought that what pulls it together is that it is a kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. A lot of the amendments in it are the basic planks at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid; one of those planks is of course healthcare.
My Amendments 96 and 107A try to address some of the evidence, which noble Lords will be well aware of, that shows that care leavers face much more negative physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. These disparities stem from the trauma they have suffered, adverse childhood experiences and, sadly, in some cases, the inability of their carers to meet their healthcare needs.
In the general population, children and young people visit specialist clinics more frequently than adults, if they need them, and their growth and development necessitate regular adjustments to medication and treatments. In young adulthood, health needs typically stabilise. We expect adults to manage their own healthcare, work with GPs and other medical systems, and self-manage long-term health conditions. Parents in supportive family settings will guide their children, and maybe even grandchildren, through this transition, but care leavers do not have that support. They often struggle to recognise that they need help, they do not know how to seek it, and it can often be very difficult to navigate complex healthcare systems. As a result, care-experienced people have a very poor uptake of physical and mental health support but very great physical and mental health needs. These clear and practical points were raised with me by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, to which I am extremely grateful for its briefing and advice, and for the time it has taken talking me through these issues.
My Amendment 96 would require local areas to set out clearly the transition arrangements for health and primary care for care leavers. It does not feel like it should be too much to expect this to be available. As importantly, my Amendment 107A would automatically schedule an extended GP appointment for care leavers who wish to use it; that is the simplest way to bridge this gap and empower them to talk about their health needs, and understand what local services are available to them and how to access them easily. Through this, they would receive support in navigating health systems—from booking appointments and requesting repeat prescriptions, to recognising when they need help. It seems a very small ask, and I hope the Minister will say yes.
There is a coherence to the other amendments in this group. They are the planks that all of us all too easily take for granted, such as having confidence in and transparency about how money works, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, so ably argued. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, cited the interesting example of the appetite for financial education of care leavers who are part of the universal basic income pilot.
I put the case for health and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put the case for Staying Put—it was such a good idea that we have had it twice—and possibly the national offer. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted very simple human requests about how the housing system works for care leavers. The idea that a young person aged between 21 and 25 who has been through the care system has to yet again prove they are vulnerable is frankly shocking. I hope the Minister can say something encouraging about that.
We have a combination of the specific elements that would make a difference to care leavers’ lives: the reporting data that my noble friend Lord Lucas raised; the financial aspects highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bird; and, crucially, as I mentioned on an earlier group, the importance of relationships, ably explained by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer. I remember listening to the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington talking about this issue, and I think he said that every child is one or two relationships away from success or failure. Actually, in the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of children going into gangs, they are seeking relationships. We would all do the same if we had no choice, but we want strong, positive relationships such as lifelong links has been proven to create, so I very much hope that, when the noble Baroness comes to sum up, she will come with good news.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I like the description of the hierarchy of needs and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I jump around a bit as well in my summing up. It has been a very rich set of contributions to an incredibly important part of the work that has been undertaken in bringing the Bill before your Lordships.
The first four amendments in this group seek to amend Clause 8, which will require local authorities to publish information on the support available to care leavers as they transition to independent living as part of their local offer for care leavers, set out in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The remaining amendments seek to extend support for care leavers to address the poor outcomes they experience across so many aspects of their lives. Improving support for care leavers is something the Government are committed to doing through the measures in this Bill on Staying Close, local offer, corporate parenting and other programmes such as the care leaver covenant, and also by other initiatives that seek to work across government.
The fact that the Government have set up the care leaver ministerial board, chaired by Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson and for MHCLG Angela Rayner, shows absolutely top-level commitment to bringing all the relevant departments together so that they can most properly address the issues that have been raised here. It is probably beyond our ability through this Bill to address all the very important issues that have been raised and spoken to so eloquently from across the Committee.
Of course, the basic principle is that we want to ensure that young people are leaving care with stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in education, employment and training. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that is exactly the reason this board has been set up: to bring everything together to address the complex needs of the young people we are addressing.
I assure noble Lords that we are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships. The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme. From personal experience, the school that two of my grandchildren go to works on the restorative practice model. If noble Lords have not come across it before, I suggest having a look at how it works and how young people can learn at the youngest age how to form relationships and how to express their needs in a coherent and structured way, which can then inform all the complex issues that they will reach going through their lives.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the noble Baroness moves on, I am not clear about something. The specific recommendation from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals is to have this extended GP appointment. The noble Baroness has now amended my amendment to make sure that it is at a convenient time. I just was not clear whether she said it would take time to produce the statutory guidance that will underpin all the corporate parenting responsibilities. However, as regards putting something—I am going to get the terminology wrong, so forgive me—into the kind of agreement with general practitioners, so that part of their contract is to offer this extended appointment as children young people leave local authority care, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness thought that was a realistic option, with the tweak of it being at a convenient time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for picking me up on that commitment. This is quite a detailed ask, but it is absolutely realistic that this is a new departure going forward and there will need to be consultation and everyone coming together to make sure that the statutory guidance is deliverable and works. However, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with more specific detail on that area as we move forward.
Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to extend the provision of Staying Put to age 25. We have discussed this at great length and I am no clearer as to why this is in this group of amendments rather than one of the others. So, without repeating the arguments, I will just say that the rationale is that we cannot commit off the top of our heads to effecting fostering arrangements without recognising that there will be a knock-on impact of change on the whole area of the foster care market, as it were. Any changes in this area are sensitive and have to be taken in the round.
However, the most important thing that we have to address is that too many young people who have come through the route into independent living from residential care, for example—who often, as I said earlier, have the most complex needs—will be a priority area in terms of addressing the support that they do not have because they have not entered the foster care route. So, we are keeping an eye on all of this through the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties, making sure that all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who are still in a Staying Put arrangement, as well as those who have left it, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it.
Amendment 153, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, would require public bodies, when carrying out equality assessments, to consider the needs of people who are or have been in local authority care. We know that looked-after children and care leavers face stigma and discrimination and we are determined to tackle this. There has been effective and passionate campaigning, with many local authorities taking positive action as a result.
Amendment 183A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to enable care leavers to claim the higher over-25 rate of universal credit. Although he is not in his place, his amendment is an opportunity to revisit this: I was at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading of his PMB on this subject. Just to emphasise what we have already said, the Government recognise the considerable challenges that care leavers face and remain committed to supporting them. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
The Government have recently announced the first sustained increase to the universal credit standard allowance, and, while under-25s receive a slightly lower rate, additional elements are available, including for housing costs, to help them to live independently, and towards their living costs. They may also be eligible for universal credit elements, including for children, childcare costs and disability. Under-35s who are single and renting in the private rented sector and claim either housing benefit or universal credit can receive help towards their rental costs via the shared accommodation rate of the local housing allowance. Single care leavers under 25 may qualify for the one-bedroom local housing allowance. Discretionary housing payments administered by local authorities can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.
The Government have extended the household support fund by a further year, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. I would emphasise the work that the DWP is doing in this area: its objective to help care leavers into long-term employment is the key to supporting their independent living. This is why we are focusing on providing access to the right skills and opportunities for sustained employment and career progression. Therefore, with all of those considerations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a really disappointing response to Amendment 98. We started with a response to Amendment 78 which was excellent, a continuing annual dialogue by someone who was really involved in what is going on. When we get to this amendment, I am not offered a review at all, it is just the menu: no content of what has been done, how it has been done and what the excitements and disappointments of the year have been. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, when she reviews this day and looks in general, will say, “Actually, my first answer was the better one”, and that that sort of relationship between a local authority and its duties and the public produces a much better response than just a local authority setting out what its offer is and making no comment whatever on how its performance has been, and offering no interaction to the public in general as to how that is going on. I will talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench about coming back to this on Report. It was a more general look at how local authorities should relate to their public about what has happened this year and what they hope to do next year.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. She used a word that I also thought of: it has been a very rich debate; it has been very wide ranging, with real passion, expertise and knowledge of the subject matter.
We all agree there is a strong moral imperative that we do all we possibly can to support care leavers as they make their transition into independent lives. I welcome and recognise the number of measures in the Bill that do that, but the whole tenor of this debate is that there is scope for strengthening. So many specific planks have been identified: health, housing, financial education, family relationships, et cetera. There is much to reflect on.
I was encouraged to hear that there is such a top-level, cross-government board looking at this, including Cabinet Ministers. That is really positive. Could this debate be drawn to its attention, so that it can see what we have said and the suggestions we have made? On the offer that should be available to all care leavers, it was helpful to have the distinction between some sort of national offer that is, essentially, the minimum standard that should be available everywhere and the local offer, where it is actually delivered. That will vary, but there is a set of standards below which it really should not fall. That is something we could think about further.
Rather than getting back into other issues or any disappointment about responses, I have a suggestion: would it be possible for interested Lords who have spoken in this debate to have a meeting with the Minister before Report, so that we could look together at where it is realistic to do the strengthening, which came across very strongly in this debate? On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Promoting relationships for looked after childrenIn section 22(3A) of the Children Act 1989, at end insert “and a duty to promote the child’s family and social relationships in ways which are consistent with the child’s welfare.””
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I am afraid it is me again. I will speak to Amendments 101 and 102. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for adding his name to Amendment 101 and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Storey. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, cannot be in his place, because these amendments are both about relationships, which I know he feels passionately about.
In short, Amendment 101 is about promoting relationships with children in care. That is central to their well-being and therefore at the heart of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the duty on local authorities to support the well-being of children in the care system by promoting the child’s family and social relationships alongside their educational achievement. Both are critical and interlinked.
We all need people to turn to in our lives for support, encouragement and love, particularly when times get tough. Research for the care inquiry by voluntary organisations concluded that the greatest failure of the care and child welfare system is that it too often breaks, rather than builds, relationships with children in and leaving care. Children often have to move to live far away from home, which means they have to change schools, leave behind family members, friends, neighbours and other important relationships. This is also relevant to Clause 11, which we will come to later, about children who have been deprived of their liberty. I will come back to that in a later grouping.
The absence of positive relationships in children’s lives increases the likelihood that they experience longer-term difficulties such as poor mental health—we have already heard about that—a tougher time at school, unemployment and homelessness. When young people leave care, their professional support network too often just disappears, and they do not have family or friends to turn to.
Charities such as the Family Rights Group have developed programmes of support to address this, such as lifelong links. I was going to talk about that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, did so in an earlier group, so I am pleased to say I do not need to. The crucial point I want to make is that these relationships should not be broken in the first place and that local authorities should be supporting children in care to maintain positive relationships with those who are most important to them.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall speak to my noble friend Lady Tyler’s Amendments 101 and 102. Without embarrassing my noble friend, I thought that was a very powerful and emotional speech. For all of us in this Chamber, one of the most important things in our lives is the love of our family, our friends and relationships with other people. Those are the very things that children in care are often missing, so we should do all we can to ensure that they have the relevant relationships that they want. My noble friend Lady Tyler rightly said that we all need people in our lives to give us love, support and positive relationships—hear, hear.
Children and young people in care indicate that it is relationships not just with professionals such as teachers and health professionals but with a range of other people who provide an important support network that they need. The quality of the relationships is much more important than the quantity. Research suggests that the presence of one stable and significant adult in the life of a young person is more important than multiple relationships.
Social care cases across the UK reference the benefits of promoting the relationships of looked-after children. Those benefits will include: contributing to children’s resilience; promoting physical and mental well-being; minimising the likelihood of forming alternative, potentially dangerous relationships; helping with therapeutic work; and enhancing the stability of placements. But there are many barriers to ensuring such stable relationships.
As a teacher, in case conferences I found time after time that—through no one’s fault but perhaps the fault of the system—one of the problems was that the social worker had moved on to another area of work. The child or young person had built up a relationship with the social worker, and the social worker, through no fault of their own, had to move on to another job, perhaps because of a shortage of social workers. That created real pressures. Changing social workers and professionals means that there is not the time to build the trust with young people that is so essential. Where young people are excluded from shaping contact plans, or where previous secure attachments have been broken through experience in care, children often struggle with trust issues with adults—something that is exacerbated by the constant changing of social workers, as I have said.
On Amendment 102, an estimated 37% of looked-after children are separated from their siblings when they are placed into care. That is 20,000 children, as referenced by the Children’s Commissioner. For older children placed into semi-independent accommodation, 93% are separated from their siblings. Once separated, very little support to maintain relationships is provided.
Lots of research by social workers and charities emphasises the importance of sibling relationships for looked-after children. Siblings provide the longest-lasting relationships, often extending through their lifetime. Contact with siblings can foster positive identity development, provide emotional support through feelings of connectivity through shared experiences, give priority to existing functional relationships and help support the emotional needs of looked-after children.
When children are going through court cases to be removed from their parents, relations of direct contact are often prohibited between certain family members. This means that siblings cannot continue their relationship. Children are rarely consulted about such decisions.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:
“No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation”.
In talking to children in care, they express that their relationship with their siblings is essential. The weight of responsibility for maintaining relationships with siblings is often placed on the looked-after person. That should not be the case.
Lord Meston (CB)
I speak in support of both amendments but particularly Amendment 102 for the strong arguments which have been advanced.
At every stage of a family’s involvement with a local authority, efforts should be made to enable siblings to maintain contact with each other and not to overlook the importance of the sibling relationship. It is now much better understood that, when parents can no longer care for a child, the most important and significant relationship that child may have is with his or her siblings—a relationship which, as the noble Lord has just said, can last a lifetime.
Although local authorities and courts strive to keep siblings together, that is not always possible and they may have to be placed separately. They may have different and sometimes conflicting needs. At a practical level, larger sibling groups can be more difficult to place together. If, for whatever reason, they cannot be placed together, meaningful and workable contact arrangements are essential.
There is a report, which I think is correct, of two sisters who were placed separately five minutes apart but were not allowed to see each other. One sister had to see her sister at a distance in the same school playground playing with a foster-sister. It is a desperately sad story. I recall having to deal with a case in which the siblings were a short distance apart from each other but in different local authority areas, and considerable efforts were required to get the two local authorities to co-operate. It is for that reason that I support the amendment. Judicial encouragement is usually enough but not always, and therefore court orders may be appropriate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has highlighted the problem of large sibling groups. I want to draw attention to a very specific group, which is bereaved children. Sometimes there are several children in a single-parent family and, when that one parent dies, often the children left behind are half-siblings—sometimes several of them. The amendment is incredibly important because those children are grieving for the parent who has died and then for the sibling or half-sibling that they are separated from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has reminded me of a family that I was involved with where the mum died and the father had been abusive so had no contact at all with the children, and the oldest child was a few months away from being 16. We managed, with the help of a schoolteacher and various other people, to keep those children together. Many years later, I still have some contact with them, and all the children have done well. I am convinced that, if we had not struggled to keep them housed together, then one of them in particular would probably have gone off the rails, yet they have all pursued good careers and have all done well.
As an investment for the long term in the lives of all these children, the amendment is important. I hope the Government will adopt it. I cannot see that it would cost anything in financial terms, but not adopting it probably would, because of the emotional trauma to the children who are separated from the people with whom they cannot share memories and remembrances about whomever it is they are separated from.
Another issue regarding that group of children is that sometimes there is a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle or someone who can provide them with some stability but is not in a position to provide kinship care. Keeping all those links going, and enabling them to link to cousins as well, can really support them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 101 and 102 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seek to promote familial relationships for looked-after children.
Amendment 101 seeks to include a duty to promote a child’s familial and social relationships alongside the existing duties for local authorities to promote the child’s welfare and educational achievement. This amendment emphasises the importance of maintaining relationships for children in care, which would have a positive contribution to their health and well-being. It is vital that the success of children in care is both child-led and child-centric and, as such, ensures that local authorities promote familial and social relationships.
Amendment 102 focuses on the relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. Currently, the relationship with parents is emphasised, and the relationship with siblings does not receive the same focus. As was highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Meston, establishing a bond between siblings, which can be lifelong, should be a top priority for looked-after children so that, whatever challenges they may or hopefully may not be facing, they have someone to turn to whom they can trust and confide in.
These appear to be sensible amendments, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important points.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I recognise that there is an enormous consensus in this debate about the significance of family and social relationships for looked-after children, for children in care and for all of us. This is why we feel so strongly that these are relationships we need to protect as far as possible for the children who are looked after by the state. It must be key, as several noble Lords have said, that we are able to maintain those strong relationships.
Perhaps at this point I should give a shout-out to my two sisters, who, after my mum, are the longest relationships by far that I have had in my life. As other noble Lords have said, when the going gets tough, it is your siblings who provide you with the support necessary—if you are as lucky as I am with mine—to get through those times.
We have a responsibility to help those children whose lives have been even more difficult to be able, wherever possible, to maintain those relationships. When a child is in care, as other noble Lords have said, the local authority must allow reasonable contact with the child’s parents, if it is consistent with the child’s welfare. These amendments seek to place equal duties on local authorities to allow reasonable contact with siblings of children in care. They also seek to strengthen wider family and social relationships for looked-after children.
We very much agree that it is important for a looked-after child’s welfare to, wherever possible, have and maintain positive relationships with their parents, siblings, wider family and friends. The importance placed on these relationships is echoed at all levels of a child’s care journey and is supported through current arrangements and statutory processes. We have heard in more than one debate today about the excellent work that has been done, for example, by lifelong links, which is supported in 22 local authorities by funding from the Government, and which is operating more widely than that. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right that, when it comes to relationships, we need to focus on quality as much as quantity and on the sustainability of those relationships.
For local authorities, there are existing duties in the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked-after children and their relatives. This includes siblings, friends and other connected people, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with their welfare—the Children Act is clear about that. Good social work practice would ensure that there was a strong understanding of the people who are important in a child’s life, the nature of the relationships and an ability to be able to plan for how those relationships can be sustained.
Equally, when determining an appropriate placement for a child, local authorities must, as far as reasonably practical, ensure that the child can live with their sibling, if that sibling is also looked after. The importance of this is laid out in the care planning regulations. For those involved in care planning, regulations already make it clear that arrangements to promote and maintain contact with siblings must be included in a child’s care plan. This prioritises consistency, stability and lifelong loving relationships with those who are important to children and young people.
If a child is concerned about the level of contact that they have with their sibling or other family members, they should be encouraged to speak to a trusted person about this, be that their social worker, their independent reviewing officer—who has a responsibility to ensure that the plans being made for the child or young person are appropriate, including those that involve maintaining relationships—or an advocate. Under current legislation, in extreme circumstances children in care can apply to the court for contact with any named person, which could include a sibling, and siblings can seek permission from the court to apply for a contact order. Furthermore, as I think we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the court should consider contact in making a care plan for that child.
For foster carers and, for example, staff caring for children in children’s homes, there is statutory guidance and regulations to promote positive relationships between a child and their family and friends. More broadly, a very strong theme in the Bill is our working to promote strong family networks in all areas of children’s social care—for example, through the measures on family group decision-making, which we discussed right at the beginning of Committee. That might be an appropriate way to address the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about bereaved children. The noble Baroness is right that, in those cases, it is particularly important that, at the point at which they are bereaved, children would be able to maintain contact with those who they have left in their lives.
I hope I have recognised the important arguments behind both these amendments, and that I have provided some reassurance to noble Lords that existing laws, regulations and guidance already strongly value, and have an expectation around, the importance of sibling relationships and other relationships, while ensuring children’s welfare. I suspect that this is a place where the law, regulations and standards are already in place. What we need to do is focus on the significance of this and on the good practice of social work needed to enable it to happen. Social workers around the country will be focusing on it, and I hope us having had this debate will make it more likely that it will be brought to the fore in people’s thinking. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very empathetic response. Following her example, I guess I ought to give a shout-out to my brother. We have been through some quite difficult times together, and that is what leads to that enduring relationship.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. It has been one of those debates that shows this House at its very best, and that we can deal with issues to do with love and emotions. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. My reaction is as follows: it may well be that this is currently written into existing legislation and guidance, but I know from all the care leavers I used to speak to on a regular basis that, far too often, it simply does not have much impact on the ground—and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of my objectives in putting this amendment forward was to have something in the Bill that makes it absolutely obvious that sibling contact is a right. It would be really encouraging for children in care to know that it was there.
Between now and Report, it would be helpful to have further discussions about the extent to which the problem is that this is just not clear enough in law, and so we need to put something in—which, again, as was said, would not have any cost implications—or whether it is more to do with social work practice on the ground. I am a great believer in both/and, so I think we may well be returning to this on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
“Register of foster carers(1) The Secretary of State must introduce a register of local authority foster parents and independent foster parents who are—(a) currently fostering children, or(b) available to foster children.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a register of foster carers. The intention is that having such a register, as exists for social workers, would improve the safeguarding of children, and matching and sufficiency of placements, and improve the status of foster carers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, introducing a national register for foster carers would produce many benefits. Overall, it would enhance their status. One resulting effect would be to attract more volunteers, thus beginning to reduce the shortage of foster carers across England, which currently stands at around 5,000. That in turn would improve the matching process by which children in care are placed with foster families, and increase the portability of foster carers. All those benefits would raise the level of safeguarding of children in the care system.
Last year the Commons Education Committee inquiry into children’s social care recommended that the creation of a national register of foster carers should be considered by the then Minister for Children. The inquiry was interrupted by the general election, but the new committee has reactivated it and is still considering these issues. It has been reported that the Government are considering the merits of a national register, which would certainly be appropriate because both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are consulting on the creation of such a register. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify the current thinking on this.
A register would safeguard children by keeping a central record of foster carers who have had their approval terminated for safeguarding reasons, ensuring that they are not reapproved by another service and then able to care for another child. Currently, services cannot always know this, particularly if potential foster carers are transferring between independents and local authority services. The introduction of a register would go hand in hand with an accredited pre-approval and post-approval training framework and robust national standards of practice, improving the overall quality of care for children.
The number of children in care in England who are moved outwith their local authority area is an issue that we have heard mentioned by noble Lords in several of the debates today. It increased from 41% in 2020 to 45% last year. A register would allow services to make matches more quickly at a local level, which would ultimately reduce out-of-area placements. That could be done by the new regional care co-operatives, which we are going to debate in the seventh group today and which will lead on regional placement commissioning, for which the Bill already makes provision. With a register in place, local authority fostering services could be given access to information on the number of fostering households with vacancies for children in their local area, including those with independent fostering providers, as well as in neighbouring local authorities.
This amendment would require the Government to establish a national register for foster carers. Linked to the regional care co-operatives, that would help to better safeguard children and, as I have said, improve the status of foster carers through formal recognition of their role, allowing services to match children to foster care placements more quickly at the local level.
I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that the register would bring the beneficial outcomes that I have outlined and overall assist in making a significant dent in that shortfall of foster carers, which results in too many young people being denied the option of improving their life chances by being able to find a loving foster family to embrace and nurture them. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 143 seeks to promote the idea of a national foster care strategy. I declare an interest in that a very long time ago my wife and I were registered as foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth—nothing on the heroic scale of the Timpson family, of whom we heard earlier. It principally involved looking after the children of a single mother while she went into hospital to have her baby; somebody needed to look after her children before she was discharged. The regime in those days was much more relaxed than it is today.
Since then, the relatively informal system has evolved into a much more structured and regulated part of the child welfare system, particularly following the Children Act 1989. There is now a much stronger emphasis on the physical and psychological stability of a child, and more awareness of the risks of inappropriate placements.
I turn to the amendment. Most children grow up in their own home with two parents, one parent, or a parent and a partner, and most of the challenges that confront a family can be met within the normal support mechanism of families, friends, the local authority and heroic voluntary organisations. But at times children have to be taken into care by the local authority. In March 2024 there were 83,630 children in care in England, up from 80,000 in 2020. For those children, there is a range of options: for a very few it will be adoption, but for most it will be kinship care, fostering or children’s homes, and we had a good debate about kinship care and the role of local authorities as a constant theme.
Lord Bird (CB)
I second the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am very interested in foster caring, largely because when I was in care as a young child, it was largely because I did not really have a family. I had a mother and a father, and I had brothers who were taken away in one direction. My parents were not very grown up; they had not really got used to the idea of having six children when they could probably afford only one.
I find this amendment so interesting because it backs up my experience as a young boy. When our family finally reconnected in Fulham in south-west London, the place was littered with foster-children. It was very interesting. I got to know people who went to my school, and they were fostered. They were not blood brothers or sisters or related to their family. I found that so interesting because most of those children, dare I say—I do not want to appear as a classist—ended up being quite middle class. They ended up getting the education of a lot of us who passed through care. It was interesting that, in this area of Fulham, there was this great mixture of very working-class children with a bit of a middle-class aspect, yet the children who really excelled were the ones who had the all-round relationships.
I would love to see a strategy that got behind those circa 130,000 people who want to foster. I would like to see a shrinking of the numbers of local authority homes, having been in a Catholic one, which was not an awful lot different from any other kind. The idea of institutionally raising children is not good news. The idea of raising children who were separated from their loved ones—as I was—is bad news. Therefore, I suggest we follow the example from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and create a proper strategy so that we can share out the loving relationships that we need to to our children, who are in desperate need, especially at the time when their own kith and kin cannot provide them with what they really need.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 134, 143 and 178. Fostering is critical to the provision of good care for all children who need it, and it is a really tough job.
In Committee so far, not very much has been said about the very large proportion of looked-after children who have significant special needs—it is more than 90% of all children in children’s homes, and it is over 70% of all looked-after children. Many of those are problems that have arisen as a result of post-birth experience, but there are quite a lot of instances where these are problems that children were born with and will be with them for life. Some children are in foster care precisely because their birth parents have not been able to cope with their significant needs, so we ask a tremendous amount of foster carers.
The measures in the amendment to improve on the current position are very welcome. But the Government could go further in some very practical ways, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendments. Room sharing is not always appropriate, but for some children it will be suitable. Similarly, foster carers need more authority to make more of the decisions and do more of the often everyday things that parents do.
I support the comments made about the need for streamlined recruitment processes and a foster care strategy that really thinks about the support services, training, respite and wider services that help foster carers to do it well, to feel that they have the capacity and that they can sustain the tremendous effort of foster caring through the whole period that any given child needs it. There is an opportunity here.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I added my name and to which the noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke so powerfully. I thank the Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers for its help on this.
As we have heard, this amendment aims to ensure that the challenges within foster care services are both recognised and addressed. With a well-defined strategy in place to oversee necessary reforms to the system, we can ensure that local authorities are no longer burdened by the unstable expense of children’s social care.
Many foster-children feel that their new home has given them a new chance, and they feel like a genuine part of the family. Foster carers overwhelmingly say that being a foster-parent has had a positive impact on their lives, as they provide love and support to vulnerable children.
Independent fostering agencies—IFAs—play a huge role in providing high-quality care for children: some 96% of IFAs are rated “Good” or “Outstanding” by Ofsted.
While the Government’s commitment to the foster care system since the general election is a positive step, it is vital that any interventions go beyond short-term fixes. This is why we need to see the introduction of a dedicated foster care strategy to provide strategic oversight to the tactical pledges made previously.
There are welcome measures outlined in the Bill to regulate and introduce oversight of independent fostering agencies. However, given that these IFAs make up a significant proportion of the sector, without a dedicated foster care strategy, which provides insight into the Government’s ambitions for the sector, this already precarious sector is unable to plan effectively for the future. Ultimately, without addressing the underlying causes of pressure in children’s social care, such efforts risk falling short of delivering lasting impact.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to Amendment 143, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I have added my name. This amendment, on the need for a foster care strategy, was, if I may say so, powerfully brought to life by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and I thank him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Young, put it very well when he talked about the gap that exists, saying that we had strategies for other aspects of children’s social care but not for fostering. It is a gap that it would be useful to fill, in the same way that the amendment I brought last time suggested a strategy for neglect.
As we have heard, urgent action is needed to address the recruitment and retention crisis in foster care. Nationwide, it has been calculated that we have a shortfall of some 6,000 foster carers across the UK, with 5,000 more needed in England. Certainly, more foster carers are continuing to leave than are joining up. Various surveys have shown that the three key reasons for this have been inadequate financial remuneration, lack of support from their fostering service and a lack of respect for their role. I think that last one is really sad. I did notice in the 2024 State of the Nations’ Foster Care report that the number of foster carers who said they would recommend fostering to others has decreased. Indeed, fewer than half of foster carers said that they would recommend fostering to others who may be considering it. It is for those reasons that we need a national strategy to lay out how fostering will be more sustainable in the long term, not least to meet the needs of some of the children who the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was talking about.
I also support Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which would be an important part of raising the whole status of fostering.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the context for my Amendments 134 and 178 is, as we have heard in this short debate, that we face a very severe shortage of foster carers. As other noble Lords have said, this Bill feels like a huge missed opportunity to try to address this problem. Honestly, I do not really understand why the Government have not chosen to do more to address it—but perhaps the amendments in this group will offer the way.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned that there is currently a shortage of 5,000 foster carers in England; that is 33 foster carers per local authority. It just does not feel like an insuperable problem to find 33 homes across the country in each local authority—though, absolutely rightly, my noble friend Lady Spielman spoke of the very high prevalence of complex needs in children who go into foster care.
This speaks to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others about a strategy, which would also address the recommendation in the MacAlister review that we need more flexible models of fostering. As we have heard, of just over 160,000 families who expressed an interest in becoming foster carers in 2020-21, only just over 2,000 were approved—a conversion rate of 1.3%. I understand that many applicants apply to multiple agencies and so get counted twice. There may be timing issues for potential carers, and there are structural challenges, including pay and the need for training, and difficulties in the application process, as we have heard. This is the most significant area for the roughly 83,000 children in care. Over 56,000 of them are in foster care, half of them with independent agencies and half in local authority foster care. That is a very big and important number, and it feels fundamental to address it.
It sits at the heart of what we might call the children’s homes problem of cost and profits, which we will debate in subsequent groups. If we had more foster carers, the pressure would come off children’s homes, prices would adjust and we would be in a much better situation, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, put so convincingly, because the wraparound of foster care—the fact that there is a family and relationships—leads to vastly better outcomes for the child. For all those reasons, this is an important group, and I hope that Amendment 143 is one that the Minister takes very seriously.
My amendments are much simpler. Amendment 134 would give more flexibility to allow young children over the age of three to share a room. My intention is that this would apply to primary-aged children, although re-reading my amendment I think that my drafting skills have come through yet again. Having talked to directors of children’s services in London and other areas with high housing costs, I know that the number of potential foster carers with several spare rooms is very limited. I am aware that some organisations in the sector see this as a safeguarding risk, but I argue that we are already trusting the foster carer to care for a very vulnerable child. Within that, we should trust their judgment about the sleeping arrangements of the children in their home. Sadly, safeguarding risks are not confined to what happens in a child’s bedroom. This amendment could potentially add several hundred more places, at little or no cost, in areas with the greatest pressure to place children locally, and would avoid children being placed very far from home—as we have heard about several times today—their roots and their communities.
This is not the only way to expand capacity. Another would be to invest in initiatives such as the Greater Manchester Room Makers scheme and roll it out more widely. It provides funding for foster carers to renovate existing rooms or build extensions to allow them to care for more children.
My Amendment 178 seeks to clarify the delegated authority that foster carers have for the children in their care. This was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for North Herefordshire and received a positive response from the Minister. I seek further confirmation from the Minister here that the Government still intend to consult on this point. Perhaps she could update the House on the likely timeline for the consultation and for the secondary legislation to be amended.
Thinking more broadly, and returning to Amendment 143, it would help the House if the Minister could share other ideas the Government are working on to improve recruitment and retention. I spoke recently to the organisation Now Foster, which is developing “weekenders”—that might not be the right term—which offer regular weekend placements for children who might be either in kinship or foster care, giving much needed rest and space to both parties, and a consistency and stability for the child or young person that can extend beyond the age of 18. Crucially, it also gives foster carers a chance for a more modest but still substantial commitment, rather than taking in a child full time with everything that entails. This idea—again, this came up in the MacAlister review—of having different options and different models of fostering is long overdue for more work.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham talked about the importance of a support network for foster carers. I visited an amazing group of foster carers—some brand new and about to receive their first child, some who had been fostering for over 20 years—who are part of an employee co-operative, Capstone Foster Care, in Peasedown St John in Somerset. Again and again they spoke eloquently about the impact of that network on their ability to foster and to offer love and care to very vulnerable children.
They also talked—this ties in with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson—about the need for a really positive recruitment campaign. Most people hear about fostering only when there is a case of severe neglect or worse. But across the House we have heard examples of many noble Lords who have either been foster carers or who recognise the extraordinary and life-changing work that foster carers do. We need that message to get outside this Chamber and out to people who might consider this and see it as a respected and important profession. We need more innovation in this area to unlock the potential in our communities to provide this kind of support for children who need it, and to improve retention.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a well-informed debate on the amendments in group 5 concerning foster care, particularly informed by those who have had personal experience. The noble Lord, Lord Young, gave his experience of being a foster carer and I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made a very important contribution on what it feels like to be a child in the system and the lifelong impacts that has.
I think there has been a consensus once again that foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. We very much share the concerns raised in this House about the falling numbers of fostering households—a fall of 9% since 2020—and the effect this has on children. Perhaps it was the late night I had had, but I felt marginally grumpy about the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that because there is not more about fostering in this legislation, somehow or another that means that this Government are not committed to righting the decline we have seen over recent years. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to spell out exactly what the Government have been doing. There is a tendency in this House, which is understandable because we are legislators, to think that things happen only if they are put into legislation. I hope I can demonstrate that there is plenty happening on fostering due to the actions of and investment put in by this Government.
Lord Bird (CB)
I just wanted to remind us of a little bit of history. Napoleon said that a battle plan strategy was the most useless thing on earth but that you were lost without it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That is good, because I was about to say—although I think he called it a battle plan, not a battle strategy—that the Government will set out our plans for foster care in due course, bringing together the range of activities that is already happening and taking on board the need to go further in the way that noble Lords have rightly pushed us to today.
Amendment 105, introduced by my noble friend Lord Watson, is on the introduction of a national foster care register. As he outlined, fostering services currently maintain local registers of foster carers alongside records relating to prospective foster carers. A national foster care register would insert central government into the systems and processes of foster care oversight, which are currently deployed locally. But as he said, and as I think my honourable friend in the other place outlined in Committee there, we are considering the possible benefits and costs of a national register of foster carers as part of our wider reforms.
There are a range of proposals for such a register. It will require some careful consideration. Specifically, I am sure we all recognise the need to ensure that a national foster care register would also meet local needs and avoid unforeseen negative consequences, and that it would overcome some of the risks surrounding the security of sensitive data, as well as imposing additional bureaucracy on the sector. But we want to engage with fostering stakeholders on this issue to determine next steps, and we can see some of the advantages of the national register that my noble friend outlined.
Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is on the sharing of bedrooms for foster children to enable foster carers to look after more children in their home. She identified that one of the pushes for this comes back to one of the fundamental issues that we will discuss on upcoming clauses and which lies very much at the heart of the Government’s reforms: the insufficiency of high-quality places, fostering or otherwise, for the children who need them. I completely understand the belief that changing standards in this way might enable us to increase capacity.
I have already identified that the Government will invest money, for example, in allowing extensions and other ways that foster carers might alter their homes to provide more space and capacity for children. But it is also the case that our national minimum standards already allow foster children aged three or over to share a bedroom, subject to conditions being met, which are in place to safeguard and protect children. That means that fostered children, such as siblings, can share a bedroom where it is in the best interests of the child, provided that each child has their own area of the room.
We can update those national minimum standards at any time. We do not require a change to Section 23 of the Care Standards Act, as suggested in this amendment, to do so. The language in this amendment would change the tone of the national minimum standards. I am not averse to the point that is being made here; we just need to be careful about the balance that we are setting. It would shift the default position to present room sharing both as appropriate and, in fact, standard practice, rather than the current tone, where room sharing should be considered where it is not possible for each child to have their own room.
I think we all agree that children in foster care deserve to be treated as a good parent would treat their own children and to have the opportunity for as full an experience of family life and childhood as possible. I know that there are many good parents who will have children who share bedrooms, especially at a younger age, but I also know that for many children, fostered or otherwise, and for many parents, the gold standard would for them to have their own room. If we add to that the fact that children often enter foster care after experiencing neglect or abuse, including sexual abuse, and may have a greater need for their own personal space and for privacy, we can see the need to be careful about shifting the position to promoting sharing.
We recognise that room sharing in foster care may be suitable, as I have said, particularly for siblings, and we think it is right that flexibilities are already in place, but we are reluctant to suggest that room sharing should be promoted as standard practice. Importantly, we have seen no evidence from children and young people themselves to suggest that they want room sharing to become standard practice in foster care.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister mentioned that the Government are putting funding into extensions and so forth. Will she write with details of how many additional places that funding is expected to secure? I do not mean precisely, but just to give a sense.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I am happy to do that. Of course, that is just one part of the sufficiency work that the Government are doing and that other elements of the Bill aim to make progress on, but I will write specifically on that project.
Amendment 178 on delegated authority for foster carers, which is also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Barran, would give foster carers more autonomy and flexibility. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities. That is so that they can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. Under the current system of delegated authority, if something is not listed on the child’s placement plan then the foster carer does not have delegated authority and they must check with their social worker before decisions can be made. Foster carers can only take decisions that are in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. This amendment would change that current system of delegated authority.
I have considerable sympathy with the idea that if we are asking people to take on the crucial role of caring for children on a day-to-day basis and making them part of their families then they also need the authority to be able to do that in the rounded way that any parent would expect to have. That is why we have begun conversations with foster carers and fostering services about proposed changes to ensure that all foster carers should have delegated authority by default in relation to the day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We think that reforming this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties but, following a consultation, we are committed to implementing necessary amendments to secondary legislation. We do not believe that we would need changes to primary legislation in order to do that. Delegated authority is outlined in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baroness that, in that area, we very much see the case being made and want to make progress.
With all the assurances and further information that I provided, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. One thing that has always struck me about your Lordships’ House is the vast experience, on all sides, that often emerges in debates. On this group this evening, we have had two further examples of personal experience from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. Such experience always informs the debate and gives it a depth and breadth that, certainly when I have been in other legislatures, has not always been the case, and it is very valuable.
I heard what my noble friend said in her response about the proposal for a national foster care strategy. One of the strong points of Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Young—which would have had my name attached to it, incidentally, had it not already had three names when I went to add mine—is subsection (2), from memory, which refers to how we can improve the quality of foster care. That seems self-evident and I am sure the Government are doing it anyway, or trying to do it anyway, but it seems to me that it is important that, however well we are doing, we are not doing well enough, given the figures that have been quoted, not least the number of foster carers coming forward and the high rejection rate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred, which is astounding—I had not heard that before. There must be some reason for that, which we could surely turn around to get to the 5,000 shortfall, if that is what we have across the country.
On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about what Napoleon said about the need for a strategy, whatever the Government are doing on this and in the broader children’s social care field, it is important that there is a strategy, whether or not it is written down. I do not know whether Napoleon had strategies throughout his lengthy career—which mostly went pretty well until it ended at what I might say is a London mainline railway station—but I still think it is important to have a strategy underpinning what we are doing.
I have gone on long enough. On my amendment proposing a register of foster carers, I was very encouraged by what my noble friend said—although she did chuck a couple of pebbles into the pond by saying there could be an increase in bureaucracy. There has to be an effective bureaucracy, because we are not bringing enough foster carers into the system; I do not necessarily think that is bureaucracy, because there has to be whatever it takes to ensure that we enrol more people.
As far as national versus local is concerned, I think that the two sit very neatly together: we would have a national strategy, and locally you would make sure that you draw in the people in the areas where they are most needed. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. I am encouraged by what my noble friend said, and I look forward to developments in the near future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Storey
“Adoption and special guardianship support fund review(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the level of funding available per child from the adoption and special guardianship support fund.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per child.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, as a local councillor in Liverpool, once a week I do what I call my “Keeping in touch”, where I go to each resident with a little form and ask them to fill out any particular concerns they have in the area: “Leave it outside your letterbox, and I’ll be back in an hour to pull it out”. I did the final household and thought, “I will finish now and go home”. The lady opened the door and said, “Everything is fine. We didn’t need to fill it out”. I said, “Oh, that’s good news. Goodbye”.
As I was walking down the path, the lady said, “Actually, there is something you could help me with.” I said, “What is it?” She said “No, I don’t think you can help me.” I said “Well, what is it?” She said, “I and my husband adopted two children when they were two-and-a-half years old. One is now 11 and the other is 12. The boy was severely traumatised as a two-and-a-half year old, so much so that he has to have regular therapy sessions. The problem is that the grant we got has been cut by nearly £2,000, and we now cannot afford the therapy sessions.” I said, “Okay, leave it with me and let me think this through.” I thought, “Well, I will put down a Written Question to the Minister.” We know how Written Questions work, do we not? Those who have been Ministers will know that, often, they try not to reveal all the facts as they happen to be.
Lord Storey (LD)
Oh, goodness, I would not suggest that for one moment of the current Minister—or the previous Minister.
My Written Question was:
“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the adoption and special guardianship support fund.”
The Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, was:
“This government fully recognises the importance of support for adoptive and kinship children and families. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund … has been a valuable part of the support landscape for ten years. This is why we have provided £50 million of funding for the ASGSF for 2025/26, alongside £8.8 million for Adoption England, to complement the range of support available in local areas.”
I did a little further research, because that seemed to tell me that everything was okay and that this family need not worry: they were not getting any cuts. Almost half the ASGSF awards last year exceeded the new £3,000 allowance, so some children will receive cuts of almost 40%. Data shows that thousands of children will now go without the therapy they need as a result of this cut. Alongside this cut has gone a separate allocation of up to £2,500 per child per year for special assessments. This has been completely removed. Match-funding support for children with an exceptional level of need has also been removed. Previously, the ASGSF provided up to 50% of the funding for up to £30,000 per child, with the rest provided by the local authority. The consequences of these changes are that any new specialist assessment must now be paid for from the £3,000. Therapy care or support must also come within this budget, regardless of need. Support that was given may no longer be given.
Change can exacerbate issues for children with attachment and trauma-related needs, who require sustained, regular support. Building trust with a therapist takes time, but continuity of care will now be harder. Children with the most complex needs now face a highly uncertain future, which may may lead to increased exclusions, due to behavioural issues that were traditionally tackled with therapy. An increase in issues such as child-to-parent violence threatens family placements further.
This family just cannot cope any more because the funding, as we have heard, has been cut. Whether that is the element from the local authority or from the Government, I do not know, and I have been unable to look into that any further. The language we sometimes use in such cases is interesting. Need for funding is now framed as demand. Such language is insensitive to children who need the funding—SEND children as well as children who have experienced significant trauma.
I do not want to talk any longer on this. Given that we had the Statement yesterday from the Chancellor and there is a bit of extra money for education, maybe a small amount of it can be used in these cases. We all know the figures on fostering and adoption. Anybody who adopts a child—never mind two children—into their family, brings them up and supports them needs all the help we can give them. I feel lucky that, because I am in your Lordships’ House, I can use the opportunity to try to help this particular family. I hope the Minister will look sympathetically on my amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will also speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. As far as this fund is concerned, I have been involved in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence as an officer and occasional co-chair for the past seven or eight years. I do it with somebody the Minister will know: Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central. I was just scrolling back on the group’s website to see how many times we have had to launch a mini-inquiry into this fund and go through a process of appealing yet again to successive Governments to keep it going. In doing that, we have amassed each time a large amount of evidence to show just how much good this fund has done and how transformative it is for families who have adopted children, many of whom are expressing the medium- and long-term effects of the trauma they received in early life. This fund is a genuine lifesaver for those children.
I have kept in touch with a parliamentary assistant who works for an MP and is an adoptive parent. She has told me over the past few years about the intense challenges she and her husband have had with one of their adopted children and how, frankly, without the support of this fund, they were getting near crisis point and would have had to give up the adoption, so the child would have lost their adoptive family. It was the fund that enabled them to keep going. I stress to the Minister the disproportionate good that is done for these families by the expenditure of relatively small amounts of money, in the great scheme of things. The quality support and counselling that is required to help children with this level of trauma is not cheap. It requires extremely dedicated professionals who are very focused in this area. Working with children who have experienced trauma is as challenging for the practitioners as it is for the parents and the children.
I would hate to think that, over the next four years of this Government, we will have a repeat of what the all-party group experienced under previous Governments, of having to go through this cycle every two or three years of the Government threatening to reduce the fund and us having to go out and get evidence to explain just how important and life-changing it is—along with other groups, of course. In the end, the Government typically listen to the argument, but in each case it has been a challenge to get them to listen, so this group is an opportunity to remind the Minister just how transformative this fund is for the parents of children who have experienced trauma, as many adopted children have.
That leads me to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to which I added my name. In terms of numbers, adoption is a relatively small part of looking after children who are unable to be with their birth parents. There are the large numbers in kinship care, which we talked about earlier this week, the large number—we wish it was larger—who are being fostered, and then the extremely large, expensive and distressing number of children who are in residential care.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. I will speak to Amendment 145 in my name. To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted the amendments in this group as being within scope, because the Bill seems to studiously avoid adoption. A search that I carried out revealed that the word “adoption” appears only four times in the Bill’s 137 pages, and three of them are as part of other legislation that is referred to.
That is disappointing because the Bill offers an opportunity to improve outcomes for adopted children, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in society, alongside measures for children in kinship care and foster care and care leavers. That is a package, or a jigsaw, all of whose parts interact, and, frankly, I do not understand why one part is virtually absent. There is overwhelming evidence that adoptees are not currently getting the support they need to provide them with an equal chance to thrive, and that is unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, it is a relatively small number in the greater scheme of things, but I still do not see why adoptive families are not given the credit they deserve for the important job that they do.
The review mentioned in my amendment would consider the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support and highlight current gaps in the system. Every year, around 4,000 children in the UK are placed in adoptive families, and government data shows that around 80% of adopted children in England last year will have suffered abuse, neglect or violence before adoption. Before being adopted, children spend an average of 15 months in care, often moving through several foster families, and many lose everything that is familiar to them along the way because of that process. Meanwhile, adoption gives children a chance to build some stability as part of a loving, safe and nurturing home. Evidence is quite clear that outcomes are better for children who are adopted than for those who grow up in residential care. The early trauma that they suffer may well be with them for the rest of their lives, and they need the support that can be provided via adoptive families.
Currently, there is a duty under the Adoption Support Services Regulations for a local authority to provide adoption services and to provide information. Often, adoptive families point out that there is a failure to provide information about the support that is available. Individual agencies, on behalf of the local authority, typically give information on their websites about the support they offer, but it does not always work out that way in practice. The support and information vary, and it has to be said that cuts to local authority budgets over the years of Tory Governments have resulted in reduced support for adoptive families, because local authorities are simply not able to provide what they want to provide.
The Adoption Support Services Regulations require updating so that they reflect the changes that have taken place in adoption over the last two decades. They have not been updated since 2005. That includes the regionalisation of adoption agencies in England. The charity Adoption UK has produced evidence that out-of-date regulations can, and in many cases do, impact on family court proceedings, and thus potentially on the time it takes for an adoption order to be made.
The agencies themselves are not Ofsted inspected, meaning there is a lack of accountability and consistency in the system. The thematic inspection of a handful of regional adoption agencies carried out by Ofsted in late 2023 highlighted some of the challenges for those agencies and partner local authorities in achieving the services that adoptees and their families require. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, will be aware of that; I do not know whether she wants to contribute to this debate, but she will be aware of the outcome of those inspections.
Adoption UK’s meticulously gathered evidence has consistently shown that there are gaps in support. Its adoption barometer survey, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, reveals that the proportion of adoptive families who said they are facing severe challenges or reaching crisis point is up from 30% in 2020 to 38% in 2023.
I was going to say something about the adoption special guardianship support fund and the other amendments. I am not going to do that now, as other noble Lords have covered that perfectly adequately.
Without effective support services, adopted children are at a higher risk of returning to the care system, with a lack of ongoing support leading to placements too often breaking down. The impact of such breakdowns on the cost to the Treasury is fairly obvious. I do not think it is right that adoption should be pushed to the margins in this way, when adoptive families play such a vital role. I come back to the point I started on: it is a bit of a mystery to me why adoption is not much more prominent in this Bill.
The review that I am advocating in this amendment would consider whether the services provided by the adoption agencies and the existing regulations and guidance covering adoption are fit for purpose. I do not expect this review to be in the Bill, but I would like to think that my noble friend will consider carrying it out as an initiative of the department. As I think everyone accepts, there are gaps in the provision that need to be filled.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Watson, have said, on the basis of my experience as an adoption judge.
First, in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the variability—as it has now emerged—of regional adoption agencies, I suggest that that is something the Government should be reviewing carefully. Secondly, I want to emphasise the point he made about the sheer awfulness of disrupted and failed adoptions, particularly in cases where so many hopes have been pinned on the adoption and so much trouble has apparently been made in preparing the child and the adopters.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to add my name to Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I commend him and his colleagues in the other place, particularly the honourable Member for Twickenham, on their concerted efforts to bring attention to this important fund, which provides support to about 20,000 very vulnerable children who have suffered great trauma. The anecdote that the noble Lord gave of the family he met brought this issue to life very vividly. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, all of whom have brought great experience, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his remarks, his expertise and the work of the APPG that he co-chairs.
I will not go into detail on the rather unusual set of announcements that the Government made about the fund, first on 1 April and then very shortly afterwards on 22 April, when it was announced that the fair access limit, or funding per child, would, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, explained, be cut from £5,000 to £3,000 per child per year, and that the £2,500 limit for specialist assessment—which, as I understand it, was in addition to the £5,000—had been abolished. The remaining fund now has to cover both the assessment, judged by the department, I assume, to cost up to £2,500 per child, and the therapy. If we give the department the benefit of the doubt and say that the assessment cost around £1,500, then, being very generous, that leaves about six sessions of funded therapy per year, which for these children is simply insufficient. I am not suggesting that those are the real numbers; they are just my back-of-the-envelope estimates to give the Committee a sense of what is happening here.
Hence the importance of this amendment, which focuses on the per-child funding level and seeks to bring some clarity to the amounts needed. In her Written Ministerial Statement, the Minister said that the ASGF—that is a new acronym for me—
“will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support, tailored to meet their individual needs”.
Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of what the department considers to be a significant package of therapeutic support that could be funded from £3,000, including the assessments?
The issue of therapeutic support is, of course, broader than just this fund. On my visit to Capstone Foster Care, I learned of the difficulty of receiving funding for therapeutic work and the bureaucracy involved in retaining it. This feels so short-sighted as local authorities search for a sound placement—defined in the sector, as I understand it, as a standard placement that does not have additional therapeutic support funding attached to it—which then, perhaps predictably, breaks down and potentially needs to be substituted with a placement in a children’s home at many times the cost.
This is at a time when we hear that funding from integrated care boards for safeguarding work will be cut by around 50% and that the threshold for health involvement is simply too high to be useful. The cuts to the fund will result in a loss of adopters and special guardians, who find—as we heard very powerfully from noble Lords who spoke earlier—that without this support they simply cannot take on these responsibilities. The very late announcement has led to a backlog and will require almost half of applicants to reapply, as their original application does not meet the new threshold.
I wondered what estimate or cost-benefit analysis—and I appreciate that the human cost is far more important than the financial one—the department has done on the savings from the cuts to the fund set against the cost of potential breakdowns. If the Minister does not have those figures with her, perhaps she could write to me with them. As other noble Lords have said, this decision feels like an error, and I hope that the Minister will urge her ministerial colleagues to accept these amendments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 6. This is the second group of amendments in a row where I think that, quite rightly, we in this Committee will recognise the enormously important contribution made by those people willing to take children into their homes and families as a result of adoption. As other noble Lords have said, and as I know from having spoken to people who have adopted children, it is something that can bring enormous pleasure, satisfaction and completion to some families, and is often very much wished for by families. However, because of the nature of the experiences that children have gone through and the history of some of those children, notwithstanding that a family when adopting a child take on responsibility for that child and they become part of their family, I completely understand the need for there to be ongoing support for children in those circumstances.
Without going too far into history, one of the very first pieces of legislation that I did the last time round when I was a Minister was the Bill that became the Adoption and Children Act 2002. At that point, there was still quite a lot of discussion and debate about whether it was legitimate to provide any support for children in adoptive families. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed as a result of these amendments, it is the case that considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of the challenge and the reward that comes from adoption, the types of experiences that children may well have had before going into adoption, the impact that that has on families, and the requirement to provide support on an ongoing basis for children who are adopted. I recognise that the amendments in this group cover that issue of support for adoptive and kinship children, as well as how we can ensure and review the quality of adoption support that is being provided.
This is a significant area, to which the Government are committed. Although there are some difficult elements in the amendments, I am nevertheless pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled them and enabled us to talk about adoption.
I reiterate the point I previously made about fostering. The fact that something is not covered in this particular piece of legislation should not be taken as some sort of statement about the significance of that issue for this Government, or about its importance for children and families. The point of legislation is to address those areas which have shortcomings in the legislative framework. Our view, certainly at this moment in time, is that the adoption legislation framework is fit for purpose, and our focus needs to be on supporting Adoption England and regional adoption agencies to improve local practice and set national standards so that there are high-quality adoption services across the country. That needs to be the priority, rather than thinking about how and whether we need to change legislation. Adoption is a priority for this Government and will remain so. Of course, most importantly, it is a vital permanence option for some children.
On the points made about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, I note the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the history of adoption—
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
It is actually Lord Russell. I have told this to the House before, but in 1959 my grandfather and Bertrand Russell—the then Earl Russell—jointly wrote a letter to the editor of the Times that said: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am glad to know that I am not the only person who has made that mistake. I apologise to the Chamber and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell.
The noble Lord talked about the important work done by the all-party group and part of the history of ensuring that there is sufficient focus through government activity to provide the necessary support for adoptive families. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has given valuable support to over 53,000 individual children over the 10 years that it has been in place. Many have received support for multiple years, which is a point that I will return to when talking about the criteria.
The Government have continued to support the ASGSF; we provided £50 million for 2025-26. There has been an increase in demand—some noble Lords argued it was an increase in need. Then you face a challenge, regardless of how much money is allocated, as to whether you provide more support for fewer children and families, or ensure a level of support for a larger number of children and families.
The revised funding criteria effective from April 2025 will continue to enable children to receive an excellent level of support, many at similar levels to before, and £3,000-worth of therapy remains a substantial amount of support. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the assessment, children and families receive this support over several years and I think I am right in saying that this £3,000 would include the assessment. Perhaps the next year or the year after that, it would not be necessary to redo the assessment, and £3,000 would fund 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current average costings. As I say, there are many children and families who are receiving similar levels of support as before, although I recognise the case brought to the attention of this Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, where families have seen that as a cut in the provision that they have been able to receive.
Local authorities can continue to supplement available funding locally through the mainstream children’s services budget, if assessments deem this necessary. As I have said, the revised criteria will ensure that all children can continue to receive support. It is important to recognise the significance of the contribution that this support provides, even if in some cases it does not feel as though it is enough support to respond to the considerable challenges that families are facing. For that reason, the Government recognise that recent changes to funding levels came unexpectedly, and therefore local areas had limited time to plan.
I hope I can provide some reassurance that applications under the revised criteria are now being not only received but processed as speedily as possible, so that children can receive the therapy that they need. The Government will continue to assess the implementation of adoption support arrangements, including the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be taking forward discussions on the delivery and management of funds in future years. Across the department, we have heard the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee this evening and, most importantly, that have come from the families affected.
The ASGSF, like other government expenditure, is subject to business planning decisions following the spending review, and these decisions will obviously need to take into account the full range of government priorities. The ASGSF is not a statutory arrangement. We believe that it should remain flexible to provide an effective service, and that it would not be helpful—as proposed in these amendments—for decisions on funding levels to be made in isolation from consideration of other budgets. However, as I say, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I have just checked, and I think the Minister mentioned that, with the £3,000, the average number of sessions that would be allowed is about 12.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The range of applications for the support fund over the last few years has typically been between 20 and 50 sessions per annum, so it is right on the margin.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I did say that it would fund 19 to 20 hours. I also made the point that this is something that does not happen within only one year; it is something that can continue, in order to provide support.
However, I also said that I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament. We will of course take these issues into account when making decisions about how to allocate funding from the DfE budget for future years. I hope this will assure noble Lords that we are considering these issues very carefully.
On Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I agree with my noble friend that adoption support should be high-quality. Of course, Ofsted already reviews how well authorities are delivering adoption services and publishes reports on each authority every three years. The Secretary of State has powers under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to require Ofsted to provide information on or conduct an inspection of any specified function of the local authority that falls within its remit, which may include adoption support services. Ofsted reports regularly on adoption support in local authorities, children’s social care inspection reports and on adoption agencies.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Watson and Lord Meston, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my friend Munira Wilson in the other place for raising this issue.
The Minister is right. My father was adopted: surprisingly, he was adopted by a single woman. In those days, no support at all was given. But now we recognise the contribution that parents who adopt children give. We should be giving them all the support we possibly can, because every failed adoption is a failure for us.
On the particular case that I encountered, there was a two-and-a-half year-old boy who had been seriously traumatised—I will not tell you how he was traumatised, although I know. He had therapy and then that therapy stopped, which just seems unbelievable. He presumably will regress; I just do not know.
However, the Minister has given me some crumbs of comfort, and perhaps we can hope that, as a caring, tolerant society, we can support not just this boy but any child who is adopted and who needs that kind of therapy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.