House of Lords

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 10 June 2026

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Oaths and Affirmations

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

15:05

Earl Howe and Lord Vaux of Harrowden took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Refugee Move-on Period Pilot Evaluation Report

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the timeline for the publication of the evaluation report of the 56-day move-on period pilot for those granted refugee status.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the 56-day move-on period, which has now been completed, following the pilot concluded earlier this year. The final report, by happy coincidence, was published on 10 June and is available to read online.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the coincidental publication today of the evaluation. The conclusion of the report states that the

“extension of the move on period … to 56 days, improved refugee experience and operational planning”.

The first recommendation is to

“extend the move on period and consider an even longer move on period for single adults”.

Can the Minister say whether we can expect the Government to implement this recommendation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government began with a 28-day period when we inherited office in 2024. Following a pilot and an evaluation, we determined that the optimum period is 42 days. We have put in additional support, and we always keep these matters under review. The Government have given 14 extra days to the move-on period compared with the previous Government, and I think that should be welcomed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, as this is an immigration-related Question, I take the opportunity to say that I am sure the whole House agrees with me in wishing Mr Stephen Ogilvie, the person who suffered the knife attack in Belfast the other day, well in recovery, as he suffered very severe injuries. We also hope that demonstrations, if people wish to have them, are peaceful.

Can the Minister, who has laboured in the vineyard for the past two years on immigration issues, not accept that we have not, as a country, got control of immigration? Even with the reduction in net immigration in the year to March, we still have 16,000 people a week coming into this country. That is not satisfactory. Even if there are 56 days, 42 days or whatever is recommended in the report, which I obviously have not yet read, the numbers are just too much, and we cannot go on ignoring the realities. We see what is happening and the reaction on the ground.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, the incident in Belfast a couple of nights ago was truly horrific, and an individual has now been charged with offences. It is right that he go before the court and that I do not comment on those issues. It is also important, from the Home Office’s perspective, that we work closely with partners, including the police and local safeguarding bodies, to ensure that public protection remains strong. As the noble Lord will know, Northern Ireland has devolved policing; they will examine this issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is there today.

The noble Lord raises a number of issues about immigration. Asylum claims in Northern Ireland are down 7% year on year. The Government have a very strong White Paper and a forthcoming Bill to look at the potential for managing immigration. We have reduced the number of hotels in use from over 400 in 2024 to around 160 now. We will continue to make sure that our borders are secure. It is best that I let the incident in Belfast be seen and determined in the courts, and in due course we will reflect with the Northern Ireland Executive on any lessons learned.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Conservative Benches. Next will be the Lib Dem Benches and then the Labour Benches.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Minister will know that contractors acting for the Home Office—Clearsprings and Serco—are bidding for private rented accommodation as asylum seekers move out of hotels. Local authorities are also looking for private rented accommodation as they move families with children in temporary accommodation into the private rented sector. This is resulting in a local bidding war between two publicly funded authorities, driving up the price of private rented accommodation, which is already suffering from the consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act. Should there not be some memorandum of understanding or concordat to prevent what is happening on the ground in local authority areas?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very sound point. We are trying to consult with local authorities and work with them closely. We have put in place some 59 local authority support areas, where we have placed asylum move-on liaison officers to work with the local authorities to look at what the asylum move-on is and what the pressures are locally. That is an innovation, following on from the previous Government—the 59 officers were not there previously. The noble Lord makes a sensible point. We do not want a bidding war but ultimately, we have to provide accommodation, and in a positive and constructive way.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

I have seen the evaluation of the pilot that was published today. Has the Minister evaluated the impact of giving asylum seekers the right to work, which might make it more likely that they can resolve their own housing situations once they are granted refugee status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There has been lot of discussion around the right to work, and we have taken the view that it is not a route we want to go down at the moment. Ultimately, through the whole of this scheme, I want to speed up the asylum process and get people’s decisions made quickly, so that individuals can know whether or not they have a long-term future in the United Kingdom. The right to work should be at the end of that process, not during it. We need to complete the process as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I cautiously welcomed the increase to 42 days, though those on the ground warn that the 56-day period, which was piloted, is needed to ensure that refugees can move on from Home Office support successfully. If the 42-day period is to work, in order to avoid the confusion reported in the evaluation, it is essential that new refugees receive all the necessary documentation to access accommodation and so on before the clock starts ticking on the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister commit to making sure that it happens, please?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is the intention. Throughout this process, we are trying to ensure that asylum claims are dealt with speedily—as quickly as possible. The points my noble friend has mentioned are relevant, and this goes back to what I said to the noble Lord earlier. We have put asylum move-on liaison officers in place in 59 local authorities across the United Kingdom, and they are working alongside Migrant Help to support individuals who will be leaving asylum accommodation, and to ensure a successful transition. It is in the interests of all parties to ensure that people make the transition and move through the housing procedure as soon and as efficiently as possible.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government talk up, of course, the number of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers they have returned, but the Minister knows that the number of enforced returns—those people the Home Office forcibly deports—was only 9,700, a small number in the grand scheme and scale of the problem. Given the significant number of people who are living in Britain illegally, what actions are the Government taking this year to ramp up deportation of those who have no right to be here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord and his Government had jurisdiction over these matters for 14 years. The number of asylum seekers rose; the processing fell; the number of hotels increased; the number of deportations fell; and the number of criminal justice activities increased. So I say to the noble Lord quite clearly: the position now is better than it was when he left office. There are more deportations than before; there are more hotel closures; there are fewer asylum applications, and they are being dealt with more speedily. I will defend that record in front of this House and in front of him on every day of the week.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Reverting to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, if the person granted asylum has only 42 days to navigate housing, employment and the markets, and to get himself a bank account and registered for universal credit, we need to help him by giving him all the documentation he will need from the start. Eighteen months ago, the Minister told us during a debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that digital status existed from the moment asylum was granted. Can it not be communicated at that moment—straight away, day zero —with all the other necessary documentation, including the national insurance number?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look into the points the noble Lord has mentioned. Most e-visas are accessible within minutes of a grant; in a small number of cases, they will take up to three days, as set out on GOV.UK. We hope to ensure that we speed things up, get the proper documentation and allow people that transitional period when the asylum position is determined. We also need to ensure that the 42 days, as has been said generally, provides for a smooth transition to whatever happens next to the individual.

Best Start Family Hubs

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that Best Start Family Hubs support families with children aged 5–19 years old and up to 25 years old for those with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interest as co-founder of the not-for-profit Family Hubs Network Ltd.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are investing over £900 million in the Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies programmes, with an ambition for 1,000 hubs by 2028. New guidance published on 30 March outlines delivery expectations. While there will be a focus on pregnancy and the early years, hubs will welcome all families with older children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities, providing a universal offer for all.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Family hubs are not Sure Start rebranded. There is a multitude of problems affecting families with older children, yet all that is ever talked about, in my opinion, is the early years. Hubs need to support parents of teenagers to prevent them becoming and staying NEET. Alan Milburn’s report repeatedly highlights, in various paragraphs, why families are not a peripheral influence but central. Josh McAlister’s review found that teenagers are the largest growing cohort in child protection and care. What evidence can the Minister provide of family hubs’ outcomes in supporting parents with teenagers, and which local authorities are doing particularly well?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I recognise the noble Lord’s real commitment in this area and his work over the years. I stress that there are good examples of hubs providing support for families with teenagers, such as in Coventry, where over 400 young people were brought together with 65 partner organisations to facilitate access to services. We are talking about transformation. We are not talking about the older models; we are moving forward. I agree with the noble Lord that evidence of outcomes is important, although that takes time to come through, as the recent IFS report has shown. We are committed to evaluating the programme fully and are procuring for that now.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the family hubs, particularly the support for young people aged five to 19, or up to 25 with special educational needs. One of the issues we always have around these initiatives is the consistency of delivery and what is often referred to as a postcode lottery. Can the Minister assure us that we will get consistency of delivery, so that every young person, no matter where they live in the country, gets the support they need?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. That is why the programme is committed to initially providing a hub within every local authority, expanding over the next two years to 1,000 hubs opening, recognising the diversity of need and that local areas will want to move the programme forward. There is clear guidance and there are clear expectations that every area will report on the outcomes they achieve, making sure that we drive forward the real desire for consistency that the noble Lord outlines.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, when in office, the party opposite oversaw an exponential rise in child poverty. It abolished Sure Start, the most successful programme which improved children’s physical and mental health, boosted their educational attainment and reduced serious youth crime. It imposed a two-child benefit limit, which condemned children to poverty. This Government have abolished the two-child limit and introduced Best Start to build on the Sure Start legacy. Does the Minister agree that this is the right way to reduce child poverty, rather than to ignore it?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am tempted to answer with a simple and straight yes. My noble friend speaks absolute sense on this agenda. I want to highlight the devastation to provision that she outlines: between 2010 and 2022, 1,300 Sure Start centres closed; by 2024, one in three low-income families had no access to children’s centres at all. As she says, poverty soared and school readiness flatlined. I am delighted that this Government are making this one of their top priorities. I look forward to the outcomes and the benefits to families very soon.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister and I both know very well the work of PHAB in Leeds, under the guidance of its wonderful secretary Ann Hart, which has for many years been bringing together able-bodied people with those with disabilities and disadvantages. Will the Minister support me in congratulating Ann and that organisation, which I know she supports as well, on bringing together people who are in good health with those who have disabilities and making them work together for the benefit of both?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am delighted to hear the noble Lord reference Ann and the brilliant work that has been done for many years. The whole principle of Sure Start was the universal approach, bringing together all sorts of people and not focusing on just one sector. Everyone needs support at different stages in their lives and everyone has something to offer. It is the interchange and support that you get through this type of vision that makes a huge difference to people’s lives.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, the Best Start Family Hubs offer an opportunity for positive progress. However, if we are to provide the most assistance to families, particularly those with SEND children, it will require an integrated and holistic approach from the Government. Can the Minister outline how family hubs will integrate with the Government’s proposed reforms to SEND and their response to the Milburn report, so that we have an integrated, joined-up approach to support for families?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I probably do not have enough time in my short answer to go into all the initiatives, but I assure noble Lords that every Best Start Family Hub will have a Best Start inclusion practitioner. An enormous amount of resource is going into making sure that the training is there and the links can be made. The fundamental point that the noble Lord makes, which we absolutely endorse, is that there need to be strong local linkages, bringing together all the different services that work with young people and their families, to make sure we get the very best provision at the earliest possible opportunity to improve their outcomes.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the test of the family hubs is not how many open but whether children are connected to the right opportunities. The Department for Education’s own guidance includes a minimum expectation that families whose young people are not in education, employment or training be connected to targeted support to ensure that parents are part of the solution. To what extent is this happening? Will the Government improve reporting to increase accountability?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Improved reporting is a mission for all of us, but most of all it is important to collect the data, as the noble Baroness suggests, and make sure that we use it. Running alongside the family hub model is the Youth Matters programme. Most important in this agenda is making sure that young people have a say and a voice, and that we design services in their local areas that are fit for purpose—and of course the wider family have a role in this. We are facing 1 million young people who are NEET, and I know that the noble Baroness recognises that policy over the last years of the last Government contributed to that. We are determined to work with those young people to make sure they can take advantage of all the opportunities we are creating.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, it is admirable that the Minister wants to lift children out of poverty. Why then has she not enthusiastically accepted the recommendations of the Public Services Committee about reforming the Child Maintenance Service, which is currently letting hundreds of thousands of fathers get away with paying nothing, hiding their assets and not having their obligations enforced, when they have a legal and moral responsibility to support their children? This has gone on for years. She has the power to move this forward.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness on taking the opportunity to bring one of her passions into this broader debate. We understand the problems, and other departments are picking that up and taking it forward. I would not like to comment further at this stage.

[Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister please explain how the Government will ensure that these brilliant hubs reach and build trust with all women. I am thinking, for example, of women who are the victims of domestic abuse, women who have poor mental health and women who have encountered the criminal justice system. Will she look at how women’s centres might close this gap?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am happy to have a discussion with my noble friend but caution that family hubs will be working with all those who care for children and young people, including fathers. We have to make sure that the environment in those hubs is supportive and picks up on all the issues she has raised. From my own experience of working with Sure Start, I know that one of the most powerful things we saw was women disclosing for the first time to other women within their peer group that they were being subjected to domestic violence—not having to go through any agency or professional but getting support from other women and then being signposted to the support that they needed.

Farming and Food Production

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what their top priorities are for farming and food production in this parliamentary session.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s food security are key priorities. Our reformed SFI offer will open later this month, and our ELM capital grants offer opens next month. We will continue to work with stakeholders through the new Farming and Food Partnership Board, and we will publish our response to the farming profitability review and our 25-year farming road map later this year. That will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, of course, environmental schemes do not put food on the table. Will she take this opportunity to set out how the Government intend to put the focus back on to food production and farming, particularly to boost the productivity of farms in the uplands and tenanted farms? What specific measures is she intending to take to boost the food security and self-sufficiency so desperately needed at home, and the ability of our farmers to compete internationally away from home?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, profitability is really important, which is why the Batters review was so important. As part of increasing profitability, we are already implementing some of the recommendations from that review. As I said, our full response will be arriving later this year, and we will look at what else we can do. It is really important that we work closely with farmers but also processors, other producers and the horticultural sector. It is really important that we look at what we can do to increase profitability in a number of areas, and also at trade and the ability of our farmers to export, because obviously that makes a big difference. Clearly, the SPS agreement that we are looking at negotiating at the moment will also support that.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that true food security cannot exist without climate resilience? Considering the recent severe weather disruptions to UK crop yields, will the Government’s priorities in this parliamentary Session include a legally binding good food Bill to formalise national self-sufficiency targets alongside nature restoration metrics? If not, why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that no good food Bill was announced in the King’s Speech this time, and I cannot presume to guess what is going to be in the next King’s Speech. Clearly, resilience to climate change is absolutely critical. From different perspectives, we know that farmers struggle when we have severe flooding and that drought and wildfire risk is also a real problem, so improving resilience for farming to both very dry and very wet weather is an absolute priority for the Government. We have invested a record £2.65 billion in flood defences, for example, and that will include supporting farmers as well. The environmental land management schemes will also allow for grants to look at some of the impacts of climate change.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government consider extending the SFI payments to cover farmers growing leguminous crops—in other words, beans? This fixes nitrogen in the soil and makes the soil more healthy. They cannot get fertilisers at the moment because of the Strait of Hormuz blockage. Also, this is the way we want our diets to go. At the moment, there is not much money in it for farmers to plant these kinds of crops. This would be a massive step towards both combating climate change and improving health.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Anything that can help us to make our farming sector more secure is welcome, particularly when we have seen the impact of the war in the Middle East on fertiliser, for example. I know that the Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, is looking at ways to continue to improve the SFI offer, and I will take the noble Baroness’s suggestions back to her.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge the very real contribution to the farming industry of the upland farmers, not least cefn gwlad in the lovely land of Wales, the Pennine farmers and the many uplands in Scotland and the Cheviots, for example? This community secures, in many ways, the environment of much of Britain, and they face many challenges now, not least climate change. I know how important my noble friend the Minister sees the environment to be. Does she acknowledge that this community across Britain does a great deal to help and should be acknowledged and rewarded?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can absolutely reassure my noble friend that the uplands are very close to my heart. My mother’s family were upland farmers in Wales and I currently live in Cumbria, so I know the issues around upland farming very well. The SFI offer that is coming forward will include seven moorland actions. I know that not all uplands are moorlands, but it will help and payment rates will be increased. I have had very constructive meetings with Dr Hilary Cottam, who is looking at a new approach working very much from the ground up in upland communities and bringing them together. We are looking at pilots first in Dartmoor and then in Cumbria because we know that it is a challenging landscape to farm in, and we want to support the best we can.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Government announced this 25-year road map for farming in November 2024. That is 18 months ago. The noble Baroness has said it is going to happen this year, so when exactly might we see it in 2026? Will Defra now stand up for British agriculture against Treasury and government attacks when farm closures are at a record level and 51% of our farmers are thinking of simply giving up and leaving? When will the Government realise that supporting farming, our farmers and food is good for Britain? That should be the principal aim of any 25-year farming plan.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Part of the reason we decided to do a 25-year farming plan is to work with farmers and rural communities to ensure that they have some kind of certainty, some sort of security for the future, because there simply has not been enough of that in recent years. We feel that having a long-term approach that is worked up with farmers, the people who are on the ground and who understand that long-term thinking and security, can help to support them as businesses and our food security for the future.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the backbone of food production in rural Wales and in many other areas is small family farms but that one of the banes of their lives is the red tape levels they have to face in undertaking their work? Will the Government please review the red tape pressure that is on such farms in taxation and other matters to lessen this burden and let them get on with what they are best at, which is producing food?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, my mother’s family had a small family farm in Wales. My uncle had to do another job because he could not make sufficient money just from the farm, so I know the tough challenges that hill farms in Wales face. Obviously, it is a devolved matter. I assure the noble Lord that I talked regularly in the past to my colleague and I very much look forward to meeting the new Plaid Cymru Minister. I will continue to work to reduce red tape in whatever way we can for farms.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, bovine TB is one of the most serious challenges facing our cattle farmers in England, so I very much welcome the control strategy announced this morning by the Government, which makes a positive step change in the approach to that control. I have not seen the details yet, but will the Minister confirm that it will enable farmers and vets to use new antibody-based sensitivity tests to indicate which of their animals are infected, no matter what the official TB status is? Will they be able to have easier access to data from Defra and will they have the freedom to manage out infection in their herds? If these changes and others that are mentioned are followed, they should help improve animal health and welfare, reduce the stress on farmers from having to cull their cattle at regular intervals, and provide farmers with some welcome light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks some pertinent questions. I am pleased that earlier today the co-designed Bovine TB Control Strategy for England was published. It has been developed and published through the TB Hub website, which, if noble Lords are interested, I urge them to look at. A steering group of the Bovine TB Partnership has been working on this for some time in order to make sure that we get the next stage of our strategy on tackling bovine TB absolutely right. We are now going to look at the detail of the steering group’s proposals carefully to see where we go next.

The noble Lord asked a number of very specific questions. My understanding is that we are looking at new tests and implementation on working with vets, but, as he asked quite detailed questions about a strategy that has only just been published—I have not yet seen the detail as yet—I will write to him with that information.

Mindanao Earthquake

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:41

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they intend to make available to those affected by the earthquake in Mindanao in the Philippines.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, my work in the Philippines is recorded in the Lords register. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I was deeply saddened to hear about the earthquake in the Philippines on 8 June and I offer my condolences to everyone impacted. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. I praise the strong and rapid response of the Government of the Philippines at a challenging time. Of course, the UK stands ready to provide humanitarian assistance if requested by the Philippines Government. We have a range of mechanisms and capabilities in place to provide that support if called upon.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer on behalf of the Government. The good people of General Santos in South Cotabato, in the Bangsamoro region of the Philippines, have spent the last 12 years rebuilding their economy and their communities after 50 years of civil war. They face these climate shock events on a far too regular basis. Some 32,000 people have been displaced and at least 37 have died. I hope the Government will not only be able to provide humanitarian support for a key partner country in our geopolitical relationships but continue to provide support in the Philippines for action against climate change and in support of peace-building efforts, following the conflict and the civil war that affected that region in particular for so long.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he has done in the Philippines over many years, particularly in the Bangsamoro region. He has been involved for more than a decade, I think, and that has been a remarkable commitment where he has achieved and contributed to real change.

The UK has provided humanitarian assistance in recent years to support the Philippines Government’s response to the major natural disasters that have impacted the country. My noble friend is right to say that these are often climate-related. The Philippines is one of the countries that are most vulnerable to climate-related disasters, and we have been strong supporters of it. We also have a modern development partnership with the Philippines.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, are the Government having discussions about deploying emergency response teams to assist on the ground, such as the excellent Hazardous Area Response Team or UK-Med, which have been trained in providing life-saving assistance in these cases?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

As I say, we have not as yet been asked to provide support, and we are strong supporters of the response of the Philippines Government. I make that it clear that we are close partners of the Government of the Philippines and we would mobilise the resources that the noble Baroness mentioned if they were felt to be necessary. There is no resistance at all at our end.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I was also involved in a small way in the Bangsamoro project; I have not visited the region, but I have engaged with parliamentarians. This earthquake is a major setback for the region on its recovery. Why is it that in the past, before our aid cuts, when there was a major earthquake or a major disaster, we had an immediate response from an operation in Victoria Street to send out a response within hours, rather than waiting for a call from the Government? Has that capacity been abolished? At the moment, with all our engagement in in the area, do we not need to offer a bit more than the ambassador’s sympathy?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

With respect, I do not think we are just offering the ambassador’s sympathy. We stand ready to help and have ensured that our commitments to humanitarian assistance have been protected, so I am afraid that I do not quite accept the characterisation the noble Lord puts forward. On the Bangsamoro peace process, it is an important commitment that the UK has been heavily involved in, supported by my noble friend Lord McConnell, and we will continue to be actively engaged in that.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the British people can be proud of the part we have played over the years in bringing relative peace to that part of the world. Can the Minister, though, reassure us that we will do everything we can to preserve the peace in that area in case it is knocked a bit by the recent humanitarian problems we have seen resulting from this earthquake?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we are not receiving any reports—I checked this specifically—of problems with aid from the Philippines Government reaching the affected communities in the Bangsamoro area. We are committed to supporting the peace process in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and will continue to do that even once this disaster is behind us.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister what the closest Royal Navy ship was to the Philippines when this accident happened—because historically the Navy has been very involved in these things—and was its tasking changed at all as a result of this?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I suppose I should have been prepared for that question. My noble friend will also be prepared for me to say I do not know the answer, but I will check. As I have said, if the Government of the Philippines asked for our help, we would provide it, but there is no suggestion that they have asked for help from the Royal Navy at the moment.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the safety and well-being of those living in and around General Santos City is the only thing that matters right now. But, following on from my noble friend Lady Sugg, on a practical level, we have some brilliant UK-based firms with international operations that specialise in structural integrity assessment and crisis communications. Apparently, the wounded are being treated in tents because they are afraid of the hospitals collapsing. Will the FCDO engage with both our experts and the Philippines authorities so we can try to make a real difference? Surely, we do not need to be asked; we should be on the front foot.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Of course we will. We will not just wait to be asked. The Philippines Government, as I have said, have made a strong response and we will respond to requests for help. Of course we prepare, plan and monitor the situation. The noble Lord knows that.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I am chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, and the Minister will be aware that the Philippines is currently the president of ASEAN and, indeed, the whole region works very closely with the UK on climate change and green technologies. Could the Minister update the House on the engagement the UK is currently undertaking with the Philippines during its presidency of ASEAN?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, I am happy to do that. I am happy to talk and happy to write with more detail, if that will be helpful. On the specific question that the noble Lord asked about climate resilience, agriculture and solar energy, particularly in the blue economy we have a very active programme and have committed up to £20 million to various kinds of technical assistance. My briefers in the FCDO told me that, even if they do not ask for a letter, I should offer to send one, because we have a lot of good things to say—so I will.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is my recollection that we used to be rather speedier in response when we had a separate Department for International Development, which was unfortunately abolished by the Government of the party opposite. Would the Minister, however tentatively, give some indication that, when circumstances permit, we will consider reinstating a separate Department for International Development?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am afraid that I do not feel empowered to propose machinery of government changes, tentatively or otherwise. It is important to us that our international development effort, particularly—and the whole House knows this—in tough fiscal circumstances, comes together with our diplomatic and defence efforts in a co-ordinated way. Of course, the Government will consider the right machinery of government to achieve that.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

May I try and come to the aid of the Minister? When I was a Defence Minister and visited the Philippines, I was the first Defence Minister to go there for 40 years, and it was my pleasure to board HMS “Tamar”. “Tamar” and HMS “Spey” are two offshore protection vessels retained out in that region to provide humanitarian and general help, if required. Is the Minister aware of, or will he consult with the MoD on, whether these two ships are in a position to offer any form of support?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I will be happy to do that. The noble Baroness may have been the first Defence Minister to visit the Philippines, but she was not the last. My noble friend Lord Coaker was there very recently, talking to the Government of the Philippines about increased defence co-operation, and I will be happy to come back to the noble Baroness on the specific question about the ships. It is a strengthening relationship, but I will not steal my noble friend’s thunder.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Effingham, it is not just a question of residents not wanting to go to hospitals because of fear of them collapsing. Many hospitals have been badly damaged, so people are being treated, as my noble friend said, in makeshift facilities. Can I push the Minister a bit further? We have a lot of expertise in this area, so what specific medical aid are HMG looking at and thinking of?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am very happy to look specifically at what is being prepared, as it follows up on the question of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. I reiterate, and I do want to emphasise, that there is no resistance on the part of His Majesty’s Government to supporting the Government of the Philippines in disaster relief on this disaster, and no doubt on ones in the future. I really want to stress that.

Concealed Surveillance Equipment in Government Offices and Vehicles

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:52

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the reported discoveries of concealed surveillance equipment in Government offices and vehicles, what assessment they have made of the implications of this for (1) national security, and (2) public policy.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

In line with the practice of successive Administrations, this Government do not comment on the detail of internal security matters, but I can confirm that an electronic device was found in a communal area of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government during a routine security check. The device was not in or near ministerial offices, and it is currently being investigated by the appropriate agencies. The Government have also looked into the Daily Mail report and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. This is based on inquiries made at the time, and more recently.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and to the Minister for that reply.

That disclosure was made yesterday to a Select Committee in another place—that a Chinese cellular module was discovered in the then Prime Minister’s car—and on the previous day, there was a report of secret cameras being discovered in government offices. Surely that raises serious questions about the security of government departments, and the systematic use of both surveillance and indeed transnational repression by hostile states, including those states described by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as being part of a “deadly quartet” of our country’s enemies.

Is it true that the location of the cameras was where consideration of the proposed embassy of the People’s Republic of China was taking place? Will the Minister make an assessment of whether there has been undue influence as a result? When will the Government give effect to the unanimous call from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, that the People’s Republic of China should be listed with Russia and Iran in the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the latter point, the Government keep all matters, such as registration under the FIRS, under review at all times. Again, it is not appropriate to comment on any consideration of that at this time. I also say to the noble Lord that it is not appropriate for me to comment on what is a live investigation into the circumstances that I have already admitted have happened in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I strongly caution against any speculation at this time, because the Government will need to investigate that matter in due course.

On the Chinese embassy decision, I say to the noble Lord that intelligence agencies were involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures were developed to manage any risks. The planning decision was taken independently by the MHCLG Secretary of State and his conclusion is the result of a process that began in 2018. If I may, I return to my initial comments: the Government cannot comment on the detail of internal security matters, but those are being investigated by the appropriate agencies. I think it is best that we leave it at that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, with apologies for jumping the gun in my enthusiasm, perhaps the Government could comment on this. It is bad enough, although perhaps all too predictable, that there is illicit surveillance by way of, for example, hidden cameras. But what about when public money is actively used to procure cameras that originate, for example, in the People’s Republic of China? I know that the previous Government banned the new installation of Hikvision cameras in sensitive government buildings. Have they all been dismantled? What about banning them from the public estate more generally?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is pressing me to comment on these matters. I cannot comment on security issues—nor would the House, I suspect, wish me to do so—except to say that the Government will ensure that all matters in government activity are secure. The Government take every step they possibly can to make sure that the types of incidents my noble friend refers to do not happen and are prevented.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that this is a highly disturbing and troubling discovery, which demonstrates the severity of the espionage threat that we face today. To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, given that the camera was found in the offices where Ministers approved the application for the new Chinese mega-embassy, it seems highly likely that China or a person linked to China is behind this. Surely this has to serve as a wake-up call for the Government, so how can they still go ahead with allowing China to build a massive spy hub in the middle of London after this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I would caution the noble Lord about jumping to conclusions as to who, what, where or when was behind the device that was found. I genuinely caution him on that but, with regard to the Chinese embassy, I can say that the planning decision was taken independently; the intelligence services have been involved throughout; there have been extensive negotiations; and the Chinese Government themselves have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one, which brings clear security advantages for the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has made interesting points and we will examine, and determine, the facts in due course.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister and the Government have emphasised, understandably, that the camera was not in a location used by Ministers. However, with due respect to Ministers, civil servants can be pretty important as well. Is the Minister able to give us any information about exactly where the camera was located and who uses that area? Can he reassure us that just because the camera was not in a place that Ministers use, that is no reason to downplay the importance of this issue or of an appropriate response by the Government in due course?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. They have and will investigate what has happened. I hope he can understand that I do not wish to comment on where and how the information came to light. But I have confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that the facts of the case as reported are correct. It would be best for us to investigate this through the appropriate agencies and, in due course, come to conclusions in government to understand what has happened and how.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister give some indication of when Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is likely to commence? I understand that the Government are keeping it under review. This is the section that requires English universities to include in their annual reports to the Office for Students the funding they receive from foreign states. This is so that the OfS can monitor whether those foreign states are trying to interfere in freedom of speech or academic freedom on those university campuses.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he will allow me, I will write to him on that point—for the simple reason that universities fall within a different department from the one that I have responsibility for. But I will examine that and report back to him as soon as possible.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear that my noble friend the Minister will probably repeat an answer that he has already given about five times; in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Precisely where within the department this camera was found makes a world of difference. The Minister used a very careful form of words: he talked about common areas, and an area that was not close to Ministers’ offices. By “common areas”, did he mean those in which the public or visitors were quite frequently present, or does “common areas” mean that it was concealed within a toilet area? If it was a toilet area, I suspect we would be having a very different conversation as that would imply that it may be an internal matter with an internal member of staff, rather than anything else. Without prejudicing any of the other things my noble friend has said, is he able to enlighten us?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In short, no. I am trying to be helpful, as is my nature, but there are certain things I cannot be helpful with. One of them is anything that may give further information about or prejudice investigations into the important matter of the location of any device found. As I have said to the House, it was not in or near a ministerial office, but we are investigating and there will be an examination of what happened. I would hesitate to speculate as to who, what, where, why or when until such time as the investigation has occurred.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is always helpful in the replies that he gives to the House, but I press him further on the second limb of the question I put to him about the discovery of cellular modules in a former Prime Minister’s car. This was not something just reported in a newspaper, as he said to the House. This was mentioned yesterday at the Business Select Committee in another place by Mr Charles Parton, who served as one of our senior diplomats and is one of this country’s leading experts on China—and also on cellular modules. At a meeting that I chaired last night in your Lordships’ House, Mr Charles Parton said it again. Will the Minister at least look at the record of the Select Committee, and undertake to have a conversation with Mr Parton?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will repeat my answer in the interests of clarity for the noble Lord. We have looked into the reports and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. That is based on inquiries made at the time and again more recently. I cannot be clearer than that. An investigation has taken place and no evidence has been provided. I saw the individual make these allegations on television last night, but I can only repeat my understanding of the security services’ follow-up of those investigations. What I have said to the House today is my current understanding of the position.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

The Minister said that the camera was found in a routine inspection. Have the Government instigated more frequent inspections as a result of this discovery?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, with due respect to this Chamber, this Chamber is not the place for me to outline how often, when, where and how the Government undertake security checks on buildings or vehicles. I hope that the noble Lord, who I know takes an interest in these matters, will understand that it is the Government’s first priority to keep our workings internally secure, and it is important that we do that. I assure him that that is what the Government are doing.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To return to an element of the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does the Minister agree with the director-general of MI5 that China is seeking to influence our political system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

China influences our political system in many ways, and the Government will not tolerate any foreign interference from any state actor targeting the UK. We have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the UK. We have to do business with China still and recognise China, and we have to work with China on a number of areas of common interest—but, self-evidently, there are a number of significant threats that China poses. We keep those under review and, in all our dealings with the nation of China, we bear those aspects of work in mind.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

Have parliamentary Members’ offices been checked for any of these devices, in the other place and in this place? I imagine that foreign powers could be quite interested in the conversations going on in the offices of certain Members of Parliament. Is there is a usual check of our offices?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an interesting and potentially helpful question. I do not have jurisdiction over this building, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons—that is a matter for the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, and the chief officers of both Houses. I think that they will have heard that response, and it may be possible for me to facilitate a reply on that to the noble Lord via those officers, but it is not a matter for me.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill [HL]

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

First Reading

16:07

A Bill to restore the powers and responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Oates, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL]

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

First Reading

16:08

A Bill to require manufacturers to fit microplastic-catching filters to new domestic and commercial washing machines; to make provision about the promotion of the use of microplastic-catching filters in washing machines and raising awareness about the consequences of microplastics from washing machines for pollution in rivers and seas; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Randall of Uxbridge, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

First Reading

16:09

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

16:09

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 9 June.

“I am grateful to the right honourable gentleman for his Question. Shortly after 10.30 pm last night, a man in his 40s was subjected to a horrific, sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast. He is in hospital in a serious condition, having suffered very severe injuries. I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his loved ones at what must be a time of unimaginable distress. The response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland was immediate. A man in his 30s was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. He remains in police custody, and the PSNI is continuing to investigate. It has declared this a critical incident.

Amid the horror of what happened, we also saw something extraordinary. When confronted with scenes of terrifying violence, members of the public did not walk on by. Instead, a number of them stepped forward and, at immense risk to their own safety, intervened to pull the assailant away and protect the victim until the police arrived. To those individuals, I would like to say this: you showed the very best of humanity, and you have the profound gratitude of this entire House.

This was a horrific and brutal attack, and the PSNI is seeking to provide support and reassurance to the local community. The chief constable, to whom I have spoken twice this morning, and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their inquiries. I would also like to repeat their appeal not to share or repost footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family.

I echo the words of the Prime Minister this morning that there is no place for such violence on our streets. All of us have a responsibility now to urge calm and let the police do their job”.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, the barbaric attack in north Belfast on Monday evening was truly sickening and our thoughts are with the victim. Will the Minister join me in commending the bravery of the public who intervened and the swift response of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Does she agree that nothing justifies the violence we saw overnight? We are all angry. The right response, however, is not uncontrolled rage but to allow the law to take its proper course. In early 2024, the Irish Government were quick to raise concerns over migrants entering their jurisdiction through Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us what conversations are taking place to prevent migrants coming into Ireland from other safe EU countries that are in the Schengen area and then exploiting the common travel area to claim asylum here in the United Kingdom?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments with regard to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I think that anyone who has watched the news in the last 36 hours can only be in awe of and very grateful to the chief constable, Jon Boutcher, and the brave men and women who are serving in all our emergency services, but especially the PSNI. I put on record the thanks of the whole House to those extraordinarily brave bystanders who chose not to look the other way but intervened very bravely to save a member of their community.

With regard to the specific question that the noble Lord raises on common travel area, he will be as aware as I am that the common travel area has been in operation for a century and is regularly a matter of conversation for both the British and Irish Governments; that continues to be the case and has been so this week. I think it is helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House to know that, in the last 12 months, 1,500 enforcement operations took place in relation to illegal immigration in Northern Ireland, with more than 1,200 arrests. This is something that this Government take very seriously.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too deeply deplore Monday’s violent attack and condemn in the strongest possible terms those who seek to weaponise pain and suffering. In particular, I condemn those inciting violence from abroad, including Tommy Robinson from Moscow yesterday evening. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the bystanders and emergency services, whose bravery was truly outstanding. Does the Minister agree that the priority must be to help the community recover from this appalling violence, and will she say what the Government are doing to support the people of Belfast and bring communities back together through the difficult weeks ahead?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the tone that she has taken. I agree with every word that she said, not least about the appalling comments of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—someone who I, in a previous incarnation, campaigned against for decades. For all of us, Stephen Ogilvie should be in our prayers, and we hope and wish for him to have as speedy a recovery as possible. In terms of working with the community, after the disorder in Ballymena last year, I went there and met the community leaders, the extraordinary women who stood in between those violent perpetrators and the community, and I am very grateful for them. It will take months for the community to heal from what is happening. I reiterate what the leader of the DUP has said in recent hours: protests and politics are British values; that is the way we engage; violence is not.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, scenes of appalling violence that we have seen in Belfast and in north Belfast, which I used to have the honour to represent in the other place, have been rightly condemned by everybody. Such violence serves absolutely no purpose except to hurt communities and innocent people and should not be happening. Can the Minister, in relation to the horrific event on Monday night that sparked all this, give an assurance that there will be speedy justice for the victim, as we have seen in other cases, and that there will be no undue delay?

In terms of protecting and defending the people of Northern Ireland—and the open border has been mentioned—will she urgently review the operation of the common travel area and talk to the Irish authorities about what they are doing? Will she look at the draw factors which enable people to go through two, three or four safe countries before they claim asylum in the UK? Will she also look at a particular problem we have in Northern Ireland which has been subject to proposed legislation, so far unsuccessfully: outlawing the glorification of violence? This is happening at the very top of the Northern Ireland Government and is done by the First Minister, and it is encouraging young people to say, “Well, if it was okay for them; it is okay for us”. This culture of resorting to violence on the streets must end.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for both his service in this House and his decades of service in Northern Ireland. What we have seen reminds all of us quite how challenging it has always been to be a representative in Northern Ireland, and we are so grateful for the work that he has done.

It is important that we call for calm in Northern Ireland and across the country in the coming hours and days. I am pleased to see that has been the case across the political spectrum. In terms of the glorification of terrorism, there is no excuse for glorifying a proscribed organisation. It is illegal, as it should be.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally condemn the brutal and barbaric attack on Stephen Ogilvie, and I wish him a full and speedy recovery. I commend the first responders, the PSNI, and members of the community who apprehended the assailant. We then witnessed in the aftermath the uncontrollable violence that spilled on to the streets of Belfast. Does my noble friend agree that such violence seemed to concentrate, like a pogrom, on people of colour, and that it is important to adhere to the principle of diversity, which is the very essence of humanity?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

What we saw overnight is violence and disorder of the most shocking kind, using one of the most horrendous attempted murders, which we all unfortunately saw because it was spread across social media. We need to remember and contextualise what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what it led to. Some 27 people were made homeless last night because people went door to door to target foreign nationals and burn them out of their homes. I can only imagine their terror. The youngest victim to be moved from her home was two years old. I do not think any of us will ever be able to forget the image of a nine year-old child and their family being put in the back of a Land Rover as they were rescued from violent, racist thugs who sought to undermine their sense of belonging in a country that many have lived in for decades. It is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated. As I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, these people, the original perpetrator and those who have acted with such dishonour over the last 24 hours, will face the full strength of the law.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, like everyone here, I offer my sincere sympathy to Mr Ogilvie and welcome the support for those who came to his aid, as well as the local people, the security services, police and ambulance service.

Like everyone, I totally condemn the violence of last night. Those who are living properly in that part of the United Kingdom have a right to live there. However, will the Minister give us some idea as to how she and the Government are going to stop the great number of illegal immigrants coming in their boatloads into the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point. Nearly 70,000 people were deported between the general election and March 2026—a 41% increase on the 21 months before that. It is important for us to remember that we are a welcoming, open country; I am here only because of previous immigration policies that allowed my family to come. However, this is about making sure that, if you are lucky enough to live in the UK, you abide by British values, and if you do not, you will leave.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, people are conflating those who come here illegally with those who are here legally. Among the people who were firebombed out of their homes last night was an African family who have been here for 20 years. We also saw pictures of a business, potentially started by an Indian family, that had been firebombed. There is no excuse for those people who are inciting hatred and racism. Just as South Yorkshire Police took action when the Holiday Inn in Rotherham was attacked, I really hope the Northern Ireland police service has the same vigour to take action against those who put life in danger over the last couple of days.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We have seen people who have been too scared to go to work in the last 24 hours—people who serve in our NHS and in lots of different public services, as well as those who have built lives here, and we are grateful to them for doing so.

I would like to finish my contributions today not with my words but with the words of the Ogilvie family, because they reflect where most of us would want to be.

“We want to make it absolutely clear that overnight unrest is not welcome, and peaceful protest is the only way forward. We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility”.

Middle East

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:21

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 9 June.

“With permission, I will make a Statement on the Middle East—first on the Iran conflict and Lebanon, and secondly on the situation in Palestine. May I apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to you and to the House for the delay in sending across a copy of the Statement?

This weekend, we saw worrying and dangerous escalation, with Lebanese Hezbollah continuing to fire into northern Israel, Israeli strikes against southern areas of Beirut, and the direct exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel, presenting one of the most dangerous moments since the fragile ceasefire was agreed. Over the last 48 hours, we have made clear the need for urgent de-escalation, because a resumption of conflict is in no one’s interest. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister on Sunday evening to convey that point directly.

Both Israel and Iran have indicated that they have ended their strikes, which is welcome, but there was some reporting, just before I entered the Chamber, of strikes again this morning. It is vital that we have a diplomatic way forward to end the conflict in Lebanon, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restore regional stability and prevent Iran from ever developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon.

As we have previously made clear in the House, Israel’s recent escalation in Lebanon was reckless and disproportionate, and it deepened the humanitarian crisis that has already seen more than a million Lebanese people driven from their homes and thousands killed. We strongly condemn Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel, including its northern communities. At Iran’s instigation, Hezbollah—a proscribed organisation—is dragging Lebanon into a war that is against the interests of its people and its Government. It must end these dangerous attacks and disarm. The US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon must be properly observed by all parties.

We want to see a swift and successful conclusion to the ongoing talks between the US and Iran. We need an agreement that gets the strait fully open with no tolls or charges. Last week, I discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in China and Foreign Minister Jaishankar in India. Every country has a stake in freedom of navigation, and the UK will continue to speak up for that across the world. In partnership with France and other countries, we stand ready to play our part once agreement is reached to support de-mining and provide reassurance to shipping through a multilateral maritime mission. With cost of living pressures at home, we need a lasting settlement that delivers peace and stability in the region and the full restoration of global trade.

Let me turn to Palestine. Nine months ago, at the UN General Assembly, I confirmed the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. We did so, alongside partners, in recognition of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and to defend the viability of the two-state solution. We did so as part of a wave of international diplomatic energy in support of peace in the Middle East. It was a crucial moment of hope that we could end the violence and suffering and begin to build a better future of lasting peace and security for Palestine, Israel and the wider region, but today the situation is bleak and the viability of the two-state solution remains in grave peril.

Let me turn to Gaza. The ceasefire remains formally in place, but it is being regularly violated. Since October, more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Some 1.9 million Palestinians remain displaced and dependent on humanitarian aid, and aid is down this year, not up. Some 90% of water and sanitation infra- structure has been destroyed and not rebuilt. There are families without shelter and a public health crisis, with rodent infestations and communicable disease, and we are currently at barely half the level of the 4,200 trucks a week promised in the 20-point plan.

Israel’s registration law continues to severely restrict the operations of international non-governmental organisations, while key crossings remain closed. It is a total moral outrage that children are still going hungry while food that they need rots on shelves because aid agencies cannot get it in. Meanwhile, Hamas decommissioning has not yet started, and they retain a tight hold on areas of Gaza. Instead of the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, Gazans are restricted to just 40% of the territory and are unable to access their land beyond the yellow line.

We urgently need new international energy, new pressure and new action to resuscitate the 20-point plan. For the UK, that means pressure in three priority areas. First, increased aid is urgent and must be unconditional. Despite all the challenges, UK aid is making a difference on the ground. Last year, we provided more than £80 million of humanitarian and early recovery funding, with funding protected again this year, enabling 650,000 people to receive food and improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene for 300,000 people.

UK support for mine clearance has enabled 45 acres of land to be made safe for community use and helped to clear 24 key sites, including medical facilities. Today, I can announce a further £1 million to support mine-clearance efforts, but some UK aid is still stuck in warehouses, including in Jordan and Egypt. Humanitarian support is a fundamental right—it cannot be bartered against other aspects of the peace plan. The Netanyahu Government must recognise their urgent humanitarian responsibility to open crossings and end the arbitrary restrictions so that the UN, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and international non-governmental organisations can fulfil their lifesaving mandates.

Secondly, we continue to press for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons to get under way. Hamas must destroy their terrorist infrastructure and weapons production sites as a first step towards full demilitarisation, and we have offered UK technical expertise to support this. Meanwhile, Israel must deliver on its commitments to withdraw.

Thirdly, we need practical support and the access that was promised for the transitional Palestinian National Committee. There are still too many obstacles in its path, and it is still not operating within Gaza itself, which makes it easier for Hamas to retain their hold. We have offered practical support to the committee as it endeavours to fulfil its mandate, and we will lead international calls to support it in co-ordination with the Palestinian Authority, because Palestine should be run by Palestinians.

That brings me to the West Bank. Following the ceasefire agreement, I warned that sustained peace would not be possible without a comparable effort to protect the viability of Palestinian statehood and rights in the West Bank. Instead, we have seen the opposite. Last week, a seven-month-old baby—his name was Sam Abu Haikal—was killed in his mother’s arms after the Israel defence forces opened fire on a family car in south Hebron. The UK supports the calls for an immediate and transparent investigation and robust accountability. Over the weekend, a gunman in Israel opened fire, with one killed and five injured—an attack that, shockingly, was applauded by Hamas.

We have also seen rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence, with Palestinian families and communities driven from their homes, brutally beaten while farming their own land. There have already been 950 violent incidents this year; in April, settlers shot dead two Palestinians while attacking a school, one of whom was a boy of 14. The UK condemns this shocking violence that terrorises Palestinians, and many Israelis are horrified by what they are seeing from settler extremists. The Netanyahu Government have condemned some settler violence, but that rings hollow when there is scant accountability and when the agenda of the hard-line settlers has now become intertwined with the approach of this Israeli Cabinet.

As such, let me set out what new action this Government will take. First, I am announcing a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence—organisations including the Farms Association, which fundraises for illegal outposts that act as strongholds for settler aggression; Ahavat Gilad, which serves as the Farms Association’s financial conduit; and Artzenu, which has fundraised for military equipment for armed settler squads. This is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Labour Government. We have targeted some of the most notorious individuals, the most significant settler entities, and the extremist figures in the Israeli Cabinet who are inciting these acts. Today’s measures mean that the UK is second to none among international partners in targeting those who are facilitating and inciting settler violence.

We are also going further. On 22 May, the Prime Minister led a group of other world leaders in warning businesses not to bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments. However, this is not just about construction contracts, so today, alongside the Department for Business and Trade, I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous that British citizens and businesses should not conduct any economic or financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements. Alongside my right honourable friend the Culture Secretary, I have also written today to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, requesting that it open an investigation into evidence of UK charities having links to illegal settlements. The Minister for the Middle East, my honourable friend the Member for Lincoln, Mr Falconer, will meet the commission’s chief executive officer tomorrow, because no UK charity should be supporting or enabling these breaches of international law.

The principles we are acting on are, I believe, widely supported across this House. We believe that settlements are a fundamental barrier to peace and a flagrant breach of international law, and that violent settler groups should not be profiting from the land they have seized from Palestinians. We also believe that we must continue to distinguish and protect trade with people and businesses across the state of Israel, trade that reflects long-standing and important ties between our countries and communities. We will continue to co-ordinate our approach with close allies and look at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and promote peace and security.

Finally, let me address our support for Palestinian governance. We are keeping up the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to deliver their vital reform commitments on education, welfare payments and elections. We are expanding direct practical help to the PA to reform and deliver effective government for their people, drawing on the deep expertise of the UK envoy for PA governance, Lord Michael Barber.

However, the PA face an enormous fiscal and healthcare crisis because the Israeli Government have a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy, including by withholding $5 billion of Palestinian tax revenue. That means that schools and health facilities struggle to stay open for more than one or two days a week. An effective PA is directly in Israel’s interest, so it is both utterly wrong and incredibly short-sighted for the Netanyahu Government to seek to undermine them at every turn. The UK has stepped up our efforts in support, alongside our support for reforms. This year, we provided the PA with funding that helped 5,300 health workers to sustain front-line services. Today, I can announce that we will provide at least £10 million further to support the Palestinian Authority to pay salaries over 2026, bolstering their ability to function and helping dedicated health professionals to do their essential work across hospitals, clinics and maternity services. Our focus will be to build more effective, more democratic and more accountable governance, and to reinforce the unity of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine.

International pressure and partnership on the ground have been vital over the past 12 months, so later this week, I will travel to Paris along with other Foreign Ministers in advance of the peacebuilding conference. That conference will bring together Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups alongside international partners dedicated to advancing the two-state solution, because the momentum of last year must be reinvigorated for the sake of peace and security for all.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this important Statement.

The situation in the Middle East continues to cause global instability, and families here in the UK are feeling the impact at the petrol pump and in the shops. We all have an interest in securing stability in the region, and we should all hope that ceasefires eventually lead to lasting peace.

In recent days, we have seen a significant increase in tensions following the Iranian regime’s use of ballistic missiles in an attack on Israel. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her confirmation that Israel has the right to defend itself. When Israel faces terrorist attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, when the Iranian regime fires ballistic missiles at Israel, we must all, in my view, be united on Israel’s right to self-defence.

We must all recognise that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, both internationally and, sadly, here in the UK. This House voted three times in the last Session to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and Ministers now tell us that this is something the Government are committed to and that it will happen as soon as Ministers can. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s planned timescale for proscription?

Iran also continues to obstruct shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and the regime has murdered its own citizens in droves and refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to reassure the House that urgent work is ongoing with our US and EU partners to secure the safe passage of shipping through the strait, and can he say what work is being done to ensure that Iran eventually ends its nuclear programme? Noble Lords across the House, including on the Government Benches, will agree with us when we say that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.

Turning to Gaza and the West Bank, my right honourable friend Dame Priti Patel was right when she said in the other place:

“We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the West Bank and in Gaza”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/26; col. 164.]


There remain concerns about the delivery of aid which urgently need to be resolved, and we support all efforts to secure peace.

In that context, we know that Hamas must be disarmed and it must have no role in the future Government of Gaza or in the West Bank. Concerningly, however, Hamas is still a threat, and it is still powerful in Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the House a sense of the Government’s reaction to the news yesterday that the United States Agency for International Development has referred 101 current or former UNRWA staff members to the US State Department over their affiliation with Hamas, and in some cases, their involvement in the 7 October attacks themselves.

We believe that it would of course be preferable for the Lebanese Government to disarm Hezbollah. The questions my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked in the other place about the support the Government are giving to Lebanon went unanswered. Can the Minister say whether the Government have plans to go beyond the support we are already giving to the Lebanese armed forces, and to help them contribute to the disarmament and disbandment of Hezbollah?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, given that we had the opportunity yesterday to discuss Lebanon, I will focus today on Iran, Palestine and Sudan. I agree with the noble Lord that we are feeling the impact of the US-Iranian war here in the UK. Some 102 days ago, we were called on by the Conservative Opposition to be “all in” with the Trump Administration on the Iran war. I warned that that would be a mistake, as the case had not been made and there was no clear means by which it would be ended. Now, we have ceasefires in which the firing has not ceased. There is no end to the war, and civilians are still paying the price.

The convulsion in the global trade and energy markets continues and there seems to be no immediate or medium-term respite for the communities affected by it, especially those with humanitarian needs. Yesterday I was at a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan, where we were told in very clear terms that ships with food supplies—vital nutritional supplies—for Afghan children had been held up because they were waiting to exit the Strait of Hormuz. Both the United States and Iran have not offered any respite to allow humanitarian relief through the Strait of Hormuz, so I would be grateful if the Minister made strong representations that there are humanitarian consequences to the closure of the strait.

President Trump seems to have crippled the civilian economy in Iran, actively harming the very people he said the US was on its way to help, and, at the same time, has given the homicidal regime in Tehran astonishing strategic advantage. Its proxies have noticed, and it is why people are still under the thumb of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists after all this violence. Yesterday we heard from some in this House that there needs to be more violence to solve the situation, but as the former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid has said, “For the thousandth time”, violence without diplomacy is not sustainable, and I agree with him.

On the ongoing situation and tragedy in Gaza and Palestine, can the Minister confirm our Government’s assessment of the actions of the Board of Peace and any of the technical elements within it? We read reports that the Board of Peace currently has zero authorised funds available to it. Is that the Government’s assessment? Given the stasis and confusion of the Trump Administration regarding their intent for the Board of Peace, I remind the House that the Conservative Opposition said that we should be part of that too.

What is the current means by which humanitarian assistance is being provided within Gaza? I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s Statement: there is a considerable lack of action to deliver sufficient levels of humanitarian aid—it is not even anywhere close to where the 20-point plan said it would be. What is the Government’s assessment of the scale of the assistance being provided?

On the continuing violence in the West Bank, it is regrettable that there is still too high a level of impunity for those perpetuating violence there. I agree with the putting in place of additional sanctions, but there is too much impunity for not only settlers but those in the outposts. The outposts are prohibited under Israeli law, and there is lack of policing of the activity there. Will the Government ensure that anyone facilitating those who are sanctioned, either through financial or political support, will be brought within the sanctions regime and that that will apply to people in this country too?

Finally, there is far too little scrutiny of the Sudan conflict in this House, this Parliament and the UK, but it is incredibly linked with what is happening in the Middle East. Does the Minister agree with two of the key principles in the 12 September statement released last year by the Quad countries that Sudan’s future governance should be through an inclusive and transparent process, where civilians lead and are not controlled by any warring party, including those of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Sudan, as well as other civilians across the region, can have more sustainable peace?

We all need to focus our minds on community cohesion now, and this links with the Urgent Question which we have just heard. There have been repugnant Islamophobic statements from the far right and repulsive antisemitic statements and actions from groups including the far left in this country. I reiterate my call for high-level, cross-party talks to lead to a consensus that antisemitism has no place on the streets of our country and is not British and that no single person in this country should be held to account for the actions of foreign Governments. It is not in the spirit of our country and it is repulsive.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement made by my right honourable friend. I will try to deal with some of the questions that they raised; if I am not able to, I will follow up in writing.

Let me start with Iran. We are obviously concerned by the recent escalation and rise in tension. We absolutely encourage the US and Iran to continue with talks and to focus on de-escalation. I think that everyone in the House would agree with that.

I note the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about humanitarian aid not getting through the Strait of Hormuz. I am concerned about that and I promise to look into it further. The Strait of Hormuz must be reopened for trade, and indeed for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and elsewhere. The UK is working with the French on the multinational military mission to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but we cannot do that—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about this—until there is a sustainable ceasefire and we know exactly what is required. We are at the forefront of bringing together international co-operation to ensure that, once there is a ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened, it stays open, with our support.

The noble Lord asked about proscription and so on. We are following the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC. The noble Lord will know that the National Security (State Threats) Bill has been introduced in the other place. We are determined to address state threats from proxies; it is absolutely essential for our national security and the safety of our communities. This House will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill very soon with my noble friend Lord Hanson. We hope, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, that it will be brought to the statute books shortly. It will give the Government powers similar to terrorism powers to act against state threats from proxies. We take that very seriously indeed.

The Government entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. We do not think that this war is the way to deliver that outcome, but we will continue to work with our allies and partners to focus on that. We do not want to see proliferation under any circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to reaffirm the UK’s long-standing support for the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces. I am happy to do that. We will look specifically at what more help we can give them. I do not have time to talk at great length about Lebanon, but the situation in Lebanon is terrible. I answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, not so long ago about this. We regard Israeli strikes as reckless and disproportionate. The Lebanese Government are the legitimate authority in Lebanon and we will continue to support them and their armed forces. Hezbollah attacks on Israel must stop and Hezbollah must demilitarise. We are committed to that.

Turning now to Gaza, words almost fail me, frankly, to describe how extreme and serious the humanitarian crisis is there, and words rarely fail me. There are 1.9 million people displaced; there is a water and sanitation crisis; there is a public health crisis; there are families without shelter; and there are children without food. I know noble Lords know these things, but it is really important for us to understand what is going on. I do not have time to go through a long list of what is needed, but it is essential that food, medicine and fuel get through to Gaza as soon as possible. The problem is not that aid is not available—we have food rotting in warehouses. The problem is not that funding is not available. The problem is access. These crossings must reopen, they must stay open and the aid must get through.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about UNRWA. As the noble Lord knows, there have been a lot of concerns about UNRWA, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has raised them with me in the past. UNRWA now has Christian Saunders in charge and it has a reform programme, which we want to see taken forward. The reality—I am sorry, as I know this is a difficult dilemma—is that UNRWA is providing life-saving basic services on the ground. In order to get those services delivered, we have to continue to work with UNRWA.

On Palestinian governance, Hamas decommissioning has not started, and we want to see that happen as soon as possible. I am happy to say more about the support that we are giving to the Palestinian Authority following our historic recognition of the Palestine state and the two-state solution, but Hamas decommissioning is essential for making progress with Palestinian recognition.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about sanctions in relation to settlements on the West Bank. We have just announced a fourth round of sanctions, as my right honourable friend said in the other place. Our sanctions regime on West Bank settlers is stronger than that of any other country. He knows I am not going to give a running commentary on future sanctions, but we will use our sanction powers. As he knows, we have used them extensively in relation to the West Bank, including on members of the Israeli Cabinet in a personal capacity.

I want to say one other important thing which has been mentioned about the West Bank: the Government do not want to see UK companies involved in work in the West Bank. My right honourable friend has tightened the guidance and we shall keep that under review. We do not, under any circumstances, want UK companies involved in settlement building in the West Bank. The Prime Minister issued a joint statement on 22 May, specifically on E1, saying that we do not want UK companies involved in that. Further, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about charities that purport to support West Bank settlers and, in relation to my earlier comments, those that are involved with the Iranian regime. We want to see the Charity Commission doing more in relation to those purported charities, and we are working with it on that.

I am happy to repeat what my noble friend Lady Chapman said in relation to Israel’s right to self-defence—of course we understand and support that. We have not forgotten what happened on 7 October, and we have made it clear that attacks on Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran or any proxies should stop. We are friends and allies of Israel and we will continue to be so. We do not support movements for disinvestment and all the rest of it.

We are concerned about antisemitism, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned. We have provided £80 million to the Community Security Trust, but I am not complacent, and I do not think anyone in the Government or your Lordships’ House is complacent, about this. We have to do more. We have to bring different bits of the Government together to work more closely on antisemitism. We are not where we want to be. That is partly to do with what is going on in the international arena, but we must address these issues domestically as well. In that context, I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about community cohesion.

On Sudan—very briefly, because I am now nearly out of time—we indeed endorse the Quad process and, as the noble Lord knows, we are part of that process and want to see the kind of government that he recommended and talked about.

16:40

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, if I may, it is completely naive of the Government to expect the Lebanese Government and armed forces to deal with Hezbollah. They are completely incapable of doing that and have been for years. The only people capable of dealing with Hezbollah are the IDF. If Israel does have the right to defend itself, and if we want to see peace, we should be supporting the Israelis in dealing with Hezbollah.

On this question of antisemitism, singling out Israel and holding it to standards not applied to other countries are clear examples of antisemitism under the official IHRA definition. This is already the second debate this week on Israel. Over the last few years, Parliament has discussed Israel more than any other issue—not just more than any international issue but more than any domestic issue, including the economy, unemployment, crime or the NHS. The public out there look at Parliament and think this is utterly mad. Do the Government and Parliament not understand that singling out the world’s only Jewish state, holding it to standards not applied to anywhere else, and falsely accusing Israel of committing these terrible crimes is bound to drive hostility towards people who are identified with Israel, which is the vast majority of the Jewish community? This is why I believe Parliament is playing a large role in driving the explosion of antisemitism that we have seen on the streets of Britain.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can answer the question first. The noble Lord raised two issues in relation to Hezbollah; let me try to deal with those. We have made our position clear on Hezbollah. He takes the view that the only people who can deal with Hezbollah are Israel, but we do need to see progress on its actions in Lebanon and we will continue to support the Lebanese Government. We think that is the right thing to do. I am sorry if the noble Lord does not agree with that, but we do think it is the right thing to do.

With regard to Israel, I hope—I was going to say my noble friend, and I think he is my noble friend in some ways—my noble friend Lord Austin would not include me or any of my remarks in what he said about Parliament and Israel, and I do not entirely concur, frankly. I do think, though—and, to this extent, I agree with him very strongly—that we should watch our language and mind our words. People do watch out for and listen to what we say, both here and in the other place, and I would not want to endorse the view that Israel should be held to higher standards than other countries. But it is a very concerning situation and, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we are supporters of Israel.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register on the Middle East and conflict resolution. Perhaps I could push the Minister further on the issue of Lebanon raised by my noble friend Lord Callanan. The United Kingdom, as he rightly acknowledged, has a long-standing support for Lebanon and the Lebanese armed forces. During the last visit I made with the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Cameron, to Lebanon, President Aoun—who was then General Aoun of the Lebanese armed forces—requested uniforms and training. These things are required now; they should not be requiring consideration. I press the Minister: what specific support are we giving in support of Resolution 1701 of the UN Security Council, with Britain playing its part and exercising its levers? I am also a bit concerned by the fact that there has been no high-level engagement—visits to Israel and to the Occupied Palestinian Territories— since 2024. We must engage with the Government of Israel to ensure that we see long-term peace and stability in the region. At the moment, I cannot see that happening.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his experience and track record in this area. On the question of the practical help that we should be offering to Lebanon and the Lebanese army, I am very happy to accept his challenge. If there are practical things we can do, we should be doing them. That is absolutely right. I will take that back to the department and find out exactly what the situation is. That does not seem to me at all inconsistent with where the Government stand on this.

On the question of discussions with Israel, the noble Lord will know that in the current situation these things are extremely difficult. But we will keep talking to all the parties involved. We have a significant role in the various groups that have been set up around all these conflicts and we will continue to be part of that, including talking to Israel.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that no minority has contributed more positively to this country, in the past and now, than the Jewish community in our midst?

The Statement is one that I generally recognise and applaud, and it appears to have all-party support. But are we not in danger of ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is so intertwined within the communities in Lebanon that it is very difficult indeed to expect the Lebanese Government to launch a campaign against it? Should we not also recognise that there is no real prospect of Hamas decommissioning its weapons? That would be the end of Hamas. It is also unrealistic to expect the Israeli Cabinet, as currently constituted, to exert any real pressure on settler violence. These assumptions are all somewhat unrealistic.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Let me try to deal with some of the points my noble friend has raised. Frankly, I would not want to single out a particular community as having made a greater contribution to this country than any other. But I absolutely recognise the contribution the Jewish community has made to this nation’s life, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances for that community. I stand absolutely four-square behind my own admiration for the Jewish community in Britain.

On Hezbollah and demilitarising, let me be absolutely clear. The Government do not think Hezbollah has any place in the future of Lebanon. That is our view. On decommissioning Hamas, our view is that we want to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian governance. That is why we have taken the steps we have to support the Palestinian Authority. We have given it £10 million this year. We want to deliver some basic services. We are funding 5,300 health professionals in Palestine. My noble friend Lord Barber—Michael Barber—is working there too.

The thing I really want to stress, in relation to what my noble friend Lord Anderson said, is the importance of civil society. When I travel in that region, many people in Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, and so on, do not share the views of their Governments and the various actors in the areas. Tomorrow, I am happy to say, the Foreign Secretary, along with Canada and Australia, will launch a peacebuilding fund that seeks to work specifically with civil society in Israeli and Palestinian communities. I greatly welcome that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the £10 million extra funding that will go to the Palestinian Authority. Can he explain why this Government are making that payment without first requiring the Palestinian Authority to comply with the demands of this country, the EU and the United States to address governance concerns so as to remove not just inefficiency but corruption, and why we are paying that money when the Palestinian Authority refuses to abandon its outrageous policy of paying the families of convicted murderers?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Government do not support the prisoner payments, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, and we have addressed that issue directly with the Palestinian Authority, so we hope that that is not going to continue. On the wider point, though, I sense that what the noble Lord is really asking me is whether we should require more of the Palestinian Authority before we part with large sums of money, and so on. To be direct about that, my answer is that we are committed to the two-state solution. The Palestinian Authority needs our support. Without that, there is no prospect for the two-state solution, including change in the approach to settlements on the West Bank. I know it is not comfortable; I am not pretending it is. I am not suggesting that this is all straightforward, and he knows I am not, but we feel that we should get behind the Palestinian Authority, within reasonable bounds.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to these questions. I will focus on Lebanon. There is talk about how the Lebanese army and the Lebanese Government should do this and do that, but can the Minister tell us how the Governments of the UK have reduced aid to Lebanon? It is all right talking about what they should do, but the Lebanese army has had its aid reduced. The problem with Lebanon in a nutshell is that Hezbollah is very active in the south of Lebanon and the north of Israel, and no one is talking about the Israeli villages and kibbutzim in northern Israel, which are evacuated and under attack. What Israel is doing, rightly or wrongly, is defending the people of northern Israel. What is needed is that Hezbollah should do what was agreed originally: it should stay on the Beirut side of the Litani River. If it stayed on the Beirut side of the Litani River, there would be less contact and less reason for Israel to attack. Can the Minister please help us by telling us how we can resolve this?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

On the question about Hezbollah, I think I have made the Government’s view clear. On the question about our support for Lebanon, we have provided, as I think the noble Lord knows, a great deal of financial assistance over many years to the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese army, and we are still committed to supporting them. He knows, as we all know, what the pressures are in terms of development aid and the decisions the Government have taken; but I do not think it would be fair to say that the Government have not supported the Lebanese Government. On the question about northern Israel, of course we want to see territorial integrity in those communities, and we understand the pressures they are under, but we want to see territorial integrity in the whole neighbourhood.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the Government said that the two-state solution was still the only way forward, and that is certainly my belief. Does the Minister not concede that, if the building in the E1 area—3,000 new houses—goes ahead, that will build out, in effect, any chance of a two-state solution ever? Given that, I think, that is a fact, does he not think that yesterday, in the Statement, the Foreign Secretary could have gone a bit further, and rather than advising British companies and British citizens not to take part in the construction or the purchase of any property in the illegal E1 area, that should have been made illegal?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not want to take a doom-laden view on this, but the Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries have made very clear what the consequences of E1 going ahead will be. That is why we are against it, and that is why we have set our position out clearly. I would not want to go quite as far as the noble Lord does in saying that it ruins all hope of the two-state solution, but it is very serious. On the other point he made—this point was made extensively in the other place—about why we do not ban this altogether, the Government’s view, and I want to be completely straightforward about this, is that there is legitimate trade with Israel and legitimate activities with Israel and civil society and we do not want to compromise them. If this advice is insufficient, if I can put it like that, we will review it and keep it under review. We are completely clear, as I have already said, and I am very happy to reinforce it, that we do not want British companies involved in E1 or any of the other settlements on the West Bank, and we will do what is necessary.

I shall come back very quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have the official answer to his question on prisoner payments, so I had better read it out for the record to prevent myself getting into trouble. We welcome the important commitments made by the Palestinian Authority to reform prisoner payments so that welfare payments are needs-based and delinked from violent actions. I hope I have made that clear, and I will not have to correct myself.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, at the start of the American operation against Iran, His Majesty’s Government refused the use of some bases, including RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. Since then, permission has been granted to the Americans. Does that permission still stand, and will it stand until operations against Iran are complete?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is not our war and that we will permit the use of our bases for defensive reasons only. That remains the position of the Government, and it has not changed.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

Let me help the Minister. In a previous answer, he said that it is difficult to go to Israel. El Al flies twice a day from Heathrow, and I am sure any Government Minister who wishes to can go to Israel. In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the Minister for the Middle East was due to go to a meeting, I think today, with the Charity Commission’s chief executive specifically to discuss UK charities having links in disputed areas. Will the Minister explain whether the said Minister raised the issue of charities in the UK supporting the IRGC, the Muslim Brotherhood or Palestinian rejectionists or—dare I say it—is it just Jewish charities that are concerning the Government?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am sure I did not mean to say that it is difficult to go to Israel, but even if I did say it, I am grateful for the helpful advice on that. I think the noble Lord knows what I meant, which is that this is a complex dynamic and who we talk to when is not straightforward. On the Charity Commission, the meeting took place this morning. I can confirm that it was not confined to charities that support West Bank settlements. I am very happy to ask the department to write to the noble Lord about the others, but I know it involved some of the places, charities and activities that he is talking about. I was not there, obviously.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the pointless recognition of Palestine, which ran counter to international law, has made no difference at all. I note that in the Statement it is taken for granted that east Jerusalem will be part of Palestine. I remind the Government that when Arabs were in control of east Jerusalem—indeed, the whole of Jerusalem—between 1948 and 1967, they wrecked it. There was no Jewish access to holy places. They were deliberately desecrated. The thought of that happening again is really too dreadful. It is about time that the Government came to terms with the possibility of a two-state solution. If 2 million Arabs can live in Israel peacefully, why cannot some Israeli settlers, as they are called, live in Palestine, if it is ever created, without any trouble?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Government’s view, as I think the noble Baroness knows, is that we support the two- state solution. That is why we recognise Palestine. I know she is a long-standing critic of that position and I understand her scepticism, but that is the Government’s view, and we want to try to make that work. On Jerusalem, that is the most important city for many people of many faiths around the world, and of course we shall want to see it protected.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

We want to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dems.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place—

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, we have just had a Conservative contributor. We will now listen to the Lib Democrats.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, there have been plenty of Conservative contributions. I want to press the Minister. He said the Government would regularly review potential action against those involved in illegal settlement activities. Will they commit to reviewing that on a monthly basis, as asked by my colleague Calum Miller in the other place?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not think I quite have the authority to give that commitment on behalf of the Government today. As the noble Lord knows, and as I said in my opening response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I am not going to give a running commentary on future arrangements about sanctions. That is not the Government’s view. However, as I have said, we are at the forefront in relation to West Bank settlements, and we will continue to review that as necessary.

New Autism Strategy (Autism Act 2009 Committee Report)

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

17:03

Moved by

[Baroness Rock]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Autism Act 2009 Committee Time to deliver: The Autism Act 2009 and the new autism strategy (HL Paper 205, Session 2024–26).

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this important and timely debate. I thank the members of the committee for their hard work, dedication and thoughtfulness. I thank our specialist adviser, Professor Laura Crane, professor of autism studies at the School of Education at the University of Birmingham, for her expert guidance. I also thank our outstanding staff team—Stuart Stoner, Lucy Valsamidis, Abdullah Ahmad, Clayton Gurney and Aneela Mahmood —for their incredible support.

Most of all, I thank everyone who engaged with our inquiry. We were constantly struck by the moving and powerful testimonies. Without all those who engaged, our report would just not have been possible.

The Autism Act 2009 is a landmark law for and about autistic people. The Act began as a Private Member’s Bill but won government support thanks to the tireless efforts of its sponsor, the late right honourable Cheryl Gillan MP, and we pay enormous tribute to her today. The Act requires the Government to produce an autism strategy for England, backed up by statutory guidance. Our committee’s task was to examine how well the Act has been implemented and to inform the development of a new autism strategy ahead of the expiry of the current strategy, which is this July—next month. A key priority for us was to carry out our inquiry in partnership with autistic people and those who support them.

We took oral evidence from, incredibly, nearly 70 witnesses and received written evidence from almost 400 individuals and organisations. Several thousand people also contributed through surveys and consultation exercises. I think that speaks volumes for the engagement and importance of the topic. We also spoke in private to dozens of autistic people and those who support them, including invaluable visits to CareTrade’s employment scheme at St Thomas’ Hospital, just over the river, and Phoenix School in Tower Hamlets.

When the Autism Act was passed, autistic people were often invisible. The Act really helped change that, making government recognise and respond to their needs. When the Act was passed, about one in 100 people were estimated to be autistic—diagnosis rates are now higher than that among younger people but still far lower among older people. That rise is in part because of our understanding of autism, and it has evolved. But there are also worrying signs that more autistic people are struggling. The inequalities are unacceptable and, in many cases, widening. More than 270,000 people are now waiting for an autism assessment, only about three in 10 autistic people are in work and, on average, autistic people live shorter lives.

The Government’s autism strategy for 2021-26 set out laudable ambitions decided in consultation with autistic people and their families but, after the first year, successive Governments produced no plan to deliver or fund the strategy. It is now time to change that. Our central recommendation is that the Government must deliver a new autism strategy, taking effect when the current strategy expires next month. The Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock MP, assured us that the Government are

“absolutely committed … to there being a strategy … and to there being an implementation plan”.

He said

“the strategy that we will bring forward is being shaped as we speak”,

and the Government will be

“developing the strategy in 2026”

and

“the input from this Committee will help us shape that strategy”.

But—and I am sad that I have to say “but”—the Government’s response to our report was markedly vaguer, saying:

“We recognise that meaningful engagement will take time, so a balance will need to be struck as to what level of further engagement is required, and the current strategy will remain in force while we do this”.


This is simply just not good enough. The strategy’s expiry date is now weeks away and we seem no closer to delivering for autistic people. Can the Minister tell the House what will happen when the current strategy expires? When will the new strategy come into effect? How are the Government ensuring that the new strategy reflects the findings of our report? How will the Government meaningfully involve autistic people and those who support them in the development of the new strategy? Most importantly, how will they ensure accountability for delivering the change autistic people need?

Our report examined progress against the ambitions in the 2021 autism strategy, and I will address these in turn. First, we considered how to improve public understanding. Awareness of autism has rapidly grown in recent years, but public understanding has not kept pace. The 2021 autism strategy promised a

“public understanding and acceptance initiative”,

but that never materialised. Sadly, many told us that stigma has since increased. We called on the Government to run a public understanding campaign and to commission and evaluate mandatory training for public-facing staff. The Government told us they would “consider” this recommendation. Further inaction is inexcusable, so will the Minister clarify what concrete action the Government will now take to deliver a public understanding campaign and ensure effective training for public-facing staff?

Secondly, we examined systems for identification, assessment and support. Time and again, we heard from our witnesses the powerful evidence of how autism diagnosis changes lives. However, the autism assessment system can also be a bottleneck, giving overstretched services a means to ration access to support. The assessment system is now unfit for purpose. Thousands wait years for a diagnosis and receive little to no support, even when it comes. We called for the Government to move towards a stepped, lifelong model of support, but many fear that moving away from a diagnosis-led model will become an excuse to withhold what little support now exists. The Government’s independent review into mental health, ADHD and autism could offer a real opportunity for a new approach. I would welcome the Minister explaining how the Government will reform and rebuild our broken systems for autism identification, assessment and support, in partnership with autistic people and those who support them.

Thirdly, we considered how to reduce health inequalities and the life expectancy gap. We were truly honoured to take evidence from Paula McGowan OBE, who campaigned successfully for the introduction of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for health and care staff after her son’s tragic death. We pay tribute to Paula and to Oliver’s memory. We must build on this progress, so will the Minister now commit to setting out a plan to enable autistic people to live healthier, longer lives? Many autistic people still fall into the cracks between mental health and social care services, and too often this leads to crisis. We heard truly courageous testimony from many young autistic people who had been detained for years in mental health hospitals. We called for a national framework for low-level support to prevent care needs developing, and a plan to build strong community services, including appropriate housing, for people at risk of in-patient admission. The Government’s response promised only an annual statement on implementation of the Mental Health Act, and in the longer term a national care service, but neither of those is a plan. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will stop unnecessary detention in mental health units once and for all?

Next, we examined how to secure equal access to education and employment. We are setting up a new generation of young autistic people to struggle. Thousands are unhappy at school or are out of school altogether. The right honourable Alan Milburn’s recent review starkly showed how we are failing the million young people who are not in employment, education or training. A disproportionate number of them are autistic. We recommended that the Government build up capability for educating autistic children and young people in all settings, supporting the best special schools to become centres of excellence. The Government’s planned reforms to the SEND system offer a real opportunity to make schools more inclusive, but we also know how worried many are about changes to their rights to specialist support. It is vital that reforms are taken forward in partnership with young autistic people and their families. Young autistic people consistently told us how they face what they describe as a cliff edge in access to support when they become adults and enter the world of work. We called on the Government to develop integrated services to help them through this critical transition. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that every young autistic person has the support they need to give them the very best start in adult life, including implementing the recommendations of the Keep Britain Working review?

Finally, we looked at improving support in the criminal justice system. Like anyone else, autistic people can come into contact with the criminal justice system as victims, witnesses or offenders. But autistic people’s needs are often unmet, leaving them at risk of disproportionate disadvantage. I welcome efforts to deliver the cross-government neurodiversity action plan for adults in the criminal justice system, but the reality is that support remains patchy. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that the criminal justice system treats every autistic person fairly?

The 2021 government autism strategy set a goal that every autistic person should have the support they need to live a full and happy life. Together we can make that a reality, but to do that we need a new strategy, a credible plan to deliver it and clear accountability for change. It is time to deliver the change that autistic people in this country need to see. I beg to move.

17:15

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, an honour I share with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. More than that, I thank the noble Baroness for her work in persuading the Liaison Committee to agree to set up this committee of inquiry in the first place. She and I started out working together on that, but when I was appointed leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, did the heavy lifting alone and I thank her for that. I also thank the chair of the committee, and the committee itself, for coming forward with a report that is imaginative and shows us a way forward.

“Autistic young people can thrive in the right environment and collapse in the wrong one”.


Those were the words of Alan Milburn in his interim report Young People and Work. The report revealed that among young people who are not in employment, education or training, 22% cited autism as their main limiting condition. Milburn went on to say that benefits assessments

“lend themselves to a binary judgement”

of whether a person is able or unable to work, but this approach does not match the reality of many young people’s life-changing conditions. Autism is a life-changing condition. Seven out of every 10 autistic people want to be in work, but only three out of 10 are actually in work.

Like many, I want to see autistic people in a job, building up their confidence and giving them the opportunity to enjoy the quality of life that we all expect. The recommendations in this report offer us hope of progress, and I certainly hope—Hope with a big H—to see a more positive response from the Government than we have seen so far.

The Autism Act was a critical step forward in the recognition of autistic people, yet successive Governments have failed to deliver the change. With the greatest respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord who will be responding for the Opposition, I can tell them that Dame Cheryl Gillan—who took the Autism Bill through Parliament and with whom I served on the Council of Europe, where we produced a major report on the problems that autistic people are facing across Europe—would certainly have plenty to say about the failures of Governments of all parties if she were with us today. She would be telling Ministers to take this report’s recommendations seriously and to engage with the charitable and voluntary sector to embrace the reforms it proposes.

My most immediate concern is the next autism strategy. It is the key to deciding priorities and making sure those priorities are delivered. The Act placed a strict legal duty on the Government to prepare and regularly review a national strategy to meet the needs of autistic people by improving local services. Is it not alarming to realise that after the first year of the 2021-26 strategy, there was no plan to deliver or fund it? That is a scandal. That strategy will end soon, and the Government say it will remain in place until a new strategy is agreed. Of that new strategy, the Government say that meaningful engagement will take place, but how long will that take? How long will we have to wait?

In response to the report, the Government praise the committee for the large amount of evidence it gathered. In view of that, I ask my noble friend to use that evidence, much of it given to the committee by autism charities and experts in caring and supporting people with autism and their families. Use it in working up the new strategy; I can tell her that it will save countless hours of research by her civil servants. The committee has done the work for you, so use the work that it has done.

The report points to a way we should all embrace and welcome. It calls for the new strategy to identify priority outcomes and produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve those outcomes. The strategy should make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery. To me that is common sense; having said that, I remember that when I was growing up, my mother would say to me, “Son, in life, sense is not that common”. Despite that, I plead with my noble friend to take the common-sense approach. Use the findings of this report to build on the new strategy, and do it right away.

17:19

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on this committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. It was a privilege not only because of the outstanding way in which our work was guided by her and supported by our clerk, our policy analyst, and our specialist adviser, but because that team brought us into contact with so many autistic people, and others with lived experience. This, of course, was what our committee was all about.

The initiatives that were taken by our team went far beyond what normally happens in committee work. This is an important point that must be made. There will be other cases where the lived experience of those whose issues a committee is considering will matter very much, hence our invitation to the relevant committees to consider ways in which such meaningful involvement can be achieved in the future, if necessary by making changes to the current rules.

It is impossible in the few minutes I have to go over every issue that is discussed in this report. As I look back over our work, however, there are one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. The first relates to the importance of diagnosis: the benefits it may bring and the harm that may be done by a failure to diagnose before other interventions are resorted to that may be wholly unsuitable. One of our autistic witnesses spent four years in a mental hospital before a diagnosis revealed what their condition really was. For obvious reasons, we did not explore the reasons for the mistaken placement in that hospital, which was such an unsuitable place for an autistic person to be. The dramatic change that enabled them to lead as normal a life as possible following release from hospital was deeply moving. The new autism strategy to be developed by the Government must ensure that mistakes of that kind do not occur again.

The other side of the coin was revealed during a visit to a special school for children and young people. All the pupils have a diagnosis of autism, or are waiting for one, and all have complex needs and are disadvantaged academically. We met a group of parents who told us of the effect that early diagnosis had had on them and their children. As one parent put it, “Before the diagnosis, I was just talking to my son. After diagnosis, I am talking with him”. An unreachable child had become reachable once the reason for the condition was explained and understood. The new autism strategy needs to address the problem that, far too often, access to a diagnosis is not available. Early diagnosis can make all the difference, not only to the child but to their family.

I turn to the matter of employment. The Government’s new autism strategy should make it a priority objective to increase the employment rate for autistic people. Some of our witnesses drew attention to the risks that taking on an autistic person would involve: there were fears that they would be unlikely to fit in, and of the disadvantages they face in the recruitment process. There is a really positive case to be made here, however, that should point the way forward. One witness—speaking as the neurodiversity and social mobility manager at Babcock International, a major employer—told us that around 20% to 30% of its employees are neurodivergent. That is a remarkable number and includes some brilliantly talented people who, as he told us, challenge the stereotypes of autism and have been able to solve problems that no other engineer could. This positive message needs to be broadcast and built on by the Government. With the right support and in the right place, autistic people have so much good to give to this country. They are valued members of the community.

I have time to mention one other matter which relates to the understanding of autism and the fact that, of course, every autistic person is different. There is no one size that fits all. This matters very much in education, especially for those who are teaching autistic children in mainstream schools. These people may struggle if their needs and fears are not appreciated and addressed. As each case is different, the teacher must be given time to assess the child, to win their confidence and to find out what is wrong. The pressures on the curriculum too often mean that this much-needed time is simply not available. That needs to be changed and the Government need to address it in the proper way, so that teachers can give these people what they need to develop their education and move forward to employment.

17:24

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak in this short debate, as I was to serve on the Select Committee, although I did experience certain frustrations. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her huge commitment to autism and the balanced way in which she chaired the committee. I also thank the clerk, advisers, researchers and staff, who had to cope with a huge volume of evidence and of witnesses who appeared before us. I thank the numerous organisations that gave evidence, in person or in written form. I also acknowledge our debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has campaigned on these issues for several decades, and who was instrumental in getting the 2009 Act on to the statute book.

I mentioned frustration, This arose from having been involved for several years in Autism Cymru and being a Member of this House not domiciled in England. In my 27 years in the Commons, I was heavily involved in disability campaigning and, on returning to the Chamber in 2011, I looked forward to resuming such campaigning work, not least in association with the much-loved late Lord Rix at Mencap. But, on returning, I found myself in no man’s land, because many aspects of disability politics had been devolved.

As stated in paragraph 31 of the report, the UK Government’s autism strategy applies “to England only”. As noble Lords may appreciate, my role in the committee was at times limited and sometimes a cause of personal frustration. I put this on the record as it might be relevant to the authorities of the House when they select Members to serve on “England only” committees in future. The committee invited and received evidence from the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which was appreciated but could be only tangential to this inquiry.

I regret the very limited consideration given by our committee to international practices, which I raised at an early stage because of the huge benefits I had experienced as a member of the Brussels-based Autism Europe. In representing Autism Cymru on that committee, I learned a huge amount relating to good practice in European countries, including many outside the EU. It is my feeling that we could have benefited by considering what lessons we could learn from such European countries.

As soon as it was public, I passed a copy of our report to a senior member of Autism Europe, Mrs Liga Berzina of Latvia, which stated that there are certainly aspects of autism policies in England which rightly get international praise, such as the Autism Act, the ongoing development of a national autism strategy and the SEND framework of educational, health and care plans. From her experience, a key dimension is that every school should have an additional learning needs co-ordinator, with support delivered through individual development plans. Just as other countries benefit from studying experience in England, surely we at Westminster can benefit from considering successful initiatives in other countries.

With regard to the welter of evidence submitted to us, I had three abiding thoughts. First, of all the challenges and experiences we were trying to encapsulate in an integrated approach, there needs to be a flexibility to cope with the huge diversity of challenges and opportunities facing those on the spectrum; such policy applications must therefore be local, as they relate to individual needs. Secondly, we must always see the abilities and potential of those who experience such challenges. It was quite stimulating to receive evidence from such witnesses, and that underscores our responsibility to secure from government a fitting response. Thirdly, our aspirations cannot be secured without additional resources. The magnitude of the cohort crudely described as being “on the spectrum” has grown hugely as our understanding of individual needs has matured. As these individuals get the opportunity to blossom, such policies in due course bear fruit. If the Government merely respond that “There is no more available cash”, they simply have their priorities wrong.

Despite my doubts about serving on this committee, for the reasons outlined, I support the recommendations and hope that the Government will give them an urgent and positive response.

17:29

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, when we speak about autism and—to expand the debate today—neurodivergence, we are speaking about people with their own strengths, challenges, perspectives and ways of experiencing the world. One point that has stayed with me came from a teacher who described the autistic spectrum as being like a unique combination of different balloons carried by each individual person. Some balloons may represent communication, sensory processing, anxiety, social interaction, confidence or learning styles; the combination is different for every person.

The report rightly highlights that many neurodivergent people continue to experience inequalities across healthcare, education, employment and wider society. Too often, support remains inconsistent and fragmented. We know that, with the right support at an early age and throughout education, neurodivergent children and young people can flourish and reach their fullest potential. Early identification, informed teaching and appropriate support matter, alongside ensuring that families and carers have access to clear guidance and support. Those with lived experience, together with their families and carers, should help shape the support and services available.

Importantly, autism and neurodivergence do not disappear in adulthood. Too often, support falls away once a young person leaves school or transitions into adult services. Many neurodivergent adults continue to face barriers in employment, healthcare and mental health support. That is why I strongly support an all-age approach, something that the committee recognises clearly in its report.

As someone from local government, I emphasise the critical role that councils and local partnerships play in delivering meaningful change. Local authorities are often the front door to support for families through schools, SEND services, housing, adult social care, public health and community services. In Lewisham, our all-age autism strategy brings together education, health, social care, employers and community partners to create a more autism-inclusive borough. A central principle of that strategy is “nothing about us without us”, ensuring that people with lived experience, families and carers help to shape services and decisions.

We should work closely with local authorities across all regions and nations of the United Kingdom to ensure greater consistency in support and opportunity. Local government understands its communities, but councils cannot deliver transformational change alone. It requires partnership and shared responsibility across the whole system. The standard of support available to neurodivergent people should not depend on where someone happens to live.

Autism and neurodivergence should be a golden thread running through government departments, public services, employers and the legislation that we bring forward in this House. Greater understanding of autism and neurodivergence within the justice system is also extremely important. Differences in communication, comprehension and body language can sometimes lead neurodivergent people to be misunderstood, particularly in stressful situations. That is why training and awareness across the criminal justice system are so important.

We also need greater training, awareness and support for employers. Neurodivergent people have enormous strengths, talents and potential, yet too many still face unnecessary barriers to employment, support in the workplace and progression. We must create workplace cultures where neurodivergent applicants and employees feel safe to disclose their neurodivergence and needs without fear of stigma.

Neurodivergent people should feel understood, respected and supported throughout every stage of life. Now is the time for joined-up action and delivery across all levels of government, in partnership with public services, employers, families and carers, and especially those with lived experience.

17:34

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president, along with my noble friend Lord Touhig, of the National Autistic Society, and I hold lasting power of attorney for autistic adults. I thank the excellent chair of our committee—I genuinely think we would not have got here without her.

When the right honourable Dame Cheryl Gillan MP chose to introduce what is now the Autism Act 2009 in the House of Commons, she did so because she believed that autism is different and that the transition from childhood to adulthood was a cliff face, and that failure to understand and support autistic adults deserved its own Act of Parliament. I can confirm this with certainty, as Cheryl was a friend, and I was privileged to serve on the autism Public Bill Committee with her.

The report before us today is titled Time to Deliver: the Autism Act 2009 and the New Autism Strategy. The Government’s response to the report is described by the autism charity sector as unacceptable—that is putting it mildly. The new strategy, due next month, has been kicked into the long grass, with no attempt to set out a timetable to plan the new one and no discussion with the autism charities to agree priorities. A request I made to the Minister to discuss this was passed many weeks ago to the Commons Minister, and I have heard nothing since.

I turn to the reason for this small but important Act of Parliament, and to the report, which identifies why autism is different. Autism is a spectrum of degrees. Some will travel through life with minimal need for support and, at the other end, the need will be for 24-hour specialist support. In the middle will be so many for whom this Act of Parliament and its strategy are the blueprint for a place in society that is safe, meaningful and fulfils each individual’s potential. Many will be of average or even higher intelligence, but all people born autistic will die autistic. There is no medication, although there may be additional conditions as well as autism.

Nearly 20 years on from the Act, we still see autistic people with shorter life spans and the highest suicide rate of all neurodiverse conditions. Autistic people are detained in mental institutions and there is a 60% unemployment rate, often for life. I say to the Government that it is really time to deliver. Do not delay the new strategy because other things are going on. If the new proposed SEND policy is not going to be delivered until 2030, that is no reason to halt work on an Act that is already on the statute book. If services to support changes to the Mental Health Act, which has already been passed, will not be in place for some time, that is no reason to delay the strategy.

The 2009 Act states that the Secretary of State for Health must

“prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for meeting the needs of adults in England with autistic spectrum conditions by improving the provision of relevant services to such adults by local authorities”

and “NHS bodies”.

The committee’s report is a year’s work by this House, which, together with discussion with autism charities and those with lived experience, would provide the Government with a new strategy that would make such a difference. It is, after all, the law of the land already. I expect the Government to abide by the law of the land and, when the Minister winds up, to explain how and when they will deliver it.

17:39

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to commend this report, in particular its emphasis on the importance of the principle of “nothing about us without us”, as referenced by my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham, encouraging the involvement of autistic people, as well as those who support them, in making decisions that affect them and their daily lives.

I want to talk specifically to the part of the report about relationships, sex and health education, RSE, for autistic children—or, in fact, the lack of it. As Dr Felicity Sedgewick said in her evidence, young autistic people are not typically offered RSE that meets their needs. She recommended that adapted, accessible RSE should be developed. The report then refers to the need for RSE to be tailored to the needs of all children with SEND; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I understand why RSE was mentioned fairly briefly in such a comprehensive report, and I believe that this important topic deserves ongoing attention. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that RSE for SEND children should be reviewed as a matter of urgency?

I come at this not as an expert, unlike so many of my fellow noble Lords, but with a stepdaughter who wrote her MA dissertation on the subject, in fact supervised by the committee’s specialist adviser, Professor Laura Crane. She is about to embark on a PhD on RSE for SEND children, given that there is so little research in this area. Before and during her undergraduate degree, she worked as a teaching assistant in a SEND school and experienced at first hand the consequences of a paucity of direction, guidance or policy in this area.

As the Government’s response to the report said,

“reforms should be grounded in evidence”.

This is important to parents, teachers and other caregivers, but most of all to young autistic people themselves.

17:41

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, on the truly impressive way in which she chaired our committee and got this group of very knowledgeable people to produce a really tight and very good report. I also add my congratulations to Stuart Stoner and his team and to Professor Laura Crane. We had the wonderful opportunity to meet so many witnesses and organisations as part of this; I learned a lot during this process.

The central issue is about this new strategy. We really have to press government that, this time, it must have a good implementation plan. It was spelled out in the recommendation that detail matters; we are looking for a plan about what, who, when and how, as well as the resourcing and better accountability. There is nothing in the response that says that. In trying to think of a suitable word for the response to the first recommendation, I got as far as “bland”—it did not really say anything, as far as I could see, of any substance. That implementation plan and strategy are vital. Will there be an implementation plan with the strategy? Will it address all these features in the committee’s recommendation about what, who, when, how and resourcing?

Much has already been said about some of the detail, which I will not repeat. I just want to make two big points, the first of which is the human one. Throughout this, I was very struck by the pain and the love, and the private anxieties we heard about, as well as the difficulties of trying to understand and navigate the system and search for solutions, and the emotional toll on individuals and families. I was very impressed by the visit we made under the leadership of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope to the Phoenix School, which is a specialist school. There we met parents who suddenly, having come away from a position of bewilderment, were then seeing possibilities in this safe haven for what their children could be. Obviously, that is very relevant to the wider debate about specialist schools and the support for autistic people and their families.

From that visit, I also commend one thing we noticed: the Phoenix School provided an outreach service to other schools, and indeed ran classrooms in some other schools. That model is something the Government should well look at as part of their looking at specialist schools, because it looked as if it was working—although we obviously did not see it.

The other thing that came out of that visit was the importance of communications, technology and speech therapists, whom I have to confess I had not really thought about in quite this detail before. One father there, in a really emotional moment, talked about how he found out how he could communicate with his child, and his child could communicate with him. That, to me, was very impressive.

That is one big point—the human bit that we must not lose—and the second bit is about the system and the culture, a lot of which is, frankly, incoherent. Members of the committee will remember one of our witnesses saying that too often it is

“the state fighting the state”.

One set of policies does not match the other, or they are going in opposite directions, and that is a serious issue. Another issue here is the danger that we will just produce another set of rules, sent out by the centre, which people will have to train on but which are not really owned, as people are just paying lip service to them.

There are examples in other areas where people, despite having appropriate adjustments and their notes and passports written up and so on, were just ignored—with fatal consequences in the case I am thinking of. I know that in Parliament we can rely only on the tools we have of legislation, regulations and guidance—trying to get people to do what we want, if you like—but that is why accountability is so vital and why it runs through this like a thread. But it is not just about accountability: we will know we have succeeded when it is not just accountability hanging over people’s head but a feeling of responsibility. People must feel responsible to do something about the people in front of them.

My question to the Minister is an impossible one: how will the Government address the incoherence in policy and these cultural issues when taking this forward? I am conscious—I have finished my time—that I am in danger of widening this out too far, but let me just leave these points: strategy and implementation, and making sure it is owned. Both parts are vital.

17:46

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a privilege for me to sit on the Autism Act 2009 Committee. I am very glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the report today. I thank all my colleagues across the House, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who gave me great encouragement when I decided to join the committee. I also thank the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, who was so inclusive towards us and was available for all sorts of extras when we wanted to do things. I thank the clerk Stuart Stoner for all the support he gave us throughout the making of this report. I think I have thanked everybody. Above all, I thank all the families and carers, as well as professionals and organisations, who gave evidence to us; without that evidence, we would not be here today, and we could not have done that report. It was difficult for them to give evidence to us, and it was difficult for us to take the evidence, but it was so rewarding.

The Autism Act was a landmark piece of legislation, and our committee’s report, Time to Deliver, is rooted in the same ambition that autistic people should not be an afterthought in public policy. Time to Deliver acknowledges the progress that has been made, but through the evidence presented to us by people living with autism, or through their experience of working with them or being part of their family or support network, we know that the system in this country is far too slow, systemically fragmented, and difficult and time-intensive to navigate. Families need support at every moment from the time they have a diagnosis or think there is a diagnosis to be made.

I welcome the Government’s response to the report, and I know that Ministers are considering these matters seriously. I hope that over the coming months the Government will work on the United Kingdom’s next autism strategy, to build on that response. To be successful, the next autism strategy must have a clear delivery plan, accountability measures, measurable outcomes and sufficient funding. Autistic people need to be able to feel a difference in their daily lives as a result of any work undertaken.

I will highlight the key findings of Time to Deliver to reaffirm how important this work is. One of the most pressing issues we were presented with was diagnosis, and we learned that nearly 90% of those waiting for an autism assessment had been waiting longer than the NICE recommendation of 13 weeks, and the average is more than 17 months. For a child out of school, as quite often happens, every day without educational support is a waste of their life and future. Every person has to work and has the right to work. We must ensure that everybody is trained. During and after diagnosis, it is a central priority that this is followed up and not left for months before the next appointment.

I will speak particularly about women and girls. The committee found that the diagnosis rate for women and girls was 0.82%, less than half the rate for men and boys, which is 1.84%. Yet waiting list data showed a much more even split between males and females waiting for an assessment. This points to what many women and girls have described for years: being missed, misunderstood or recognised only after years of masking and distress. For girls in school, we know that this exacerbates mental health conditions, while students’ educational needs are not met—as I said earlier, leading to days out of school, truancy, and so on. This has a cascading effect of late diagnosis, poor mental health, difficulties accessing work and struggling with services that do not understand the varying presentations of autism. We met a witness who had been sent to a mental home because people did not understand that she was autistic. Thank goodness, she got through that, but it was awful to hear what had happened to her. I hope that the Government will ensure that the next strategy has a specific focus on autistic women and girls.

In 2024-25, one-third of all pupils with an education, health and care plan had autism recorded as their primary need. These children deserve ambition as well as better support so that they can continue in society.

17:51

[Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Rock for her superb chairmanship of the Autism Act 2009 Committee; my fellow committee members; the diligent committee staff; and, above all, the nearly 400 individuals and organisations that submitted written evidence to us.

There is a key figure that we should all remember: 30%. That is the employment rate for autistic adults in this country, against a general working-age employment rate of around 75%. That 45% gap represents the ambitions of tens of thousands of people being unfulfilled. Sir Alan Milburn’s interim NEETs review showed that autistic young people are disproportionately more likely to have been excluded from school and locked out of the labour market. The Government’s mission to get Britain working will not succeed if we continue to overlook one of the most significant untapped pools of talent available to the country.

Sir Charlie Mayfield rightly made the point to our committee that the business case for inclusive hiring is a matter not of corporate social responsibility but of competitive advantage. Autistic employees frequently bring precisely the kind of focused, analytical thinking increasingly valued and required in a complex economy.

In my role as president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register, I have seen some of these case studies at first hand. Greene King has a supported internship programme, which recruits neurodiverse employees. It finds that with simple adjustments, often, autistic employees thrive and bring real value to the company and its customers. It is not just large corporates. EdCortex, a specialist SME in Guildford, has a recruitment model built around harnessing the skills of neurodivergent workers for data and analytical tasks. I was glad that our committee’s report acknowledged that the right tax incentives are essential to help businesses hire more people facing barriers to employment.

I will touch on the issue of public awareness and acceptance of autism and autistic people. It was notable that, despite receiving a record number of public responses to our consultation, our final report received almost no media coverage and minimal social media interest. Public appetite to give evidence to the committee was inversely proportional to the media’s interest in reporting what the evidence produced. This is not a criticism of any individual journalist, but one of the key planks of the original 2009 autism strategy was raising awareness. Some 17 years on, this lack of interest illustrates the challenges in achieving that goal.

In our evidence session with Ministers, they acknowledged that there is no meaningful or regular analysis of public opinion to measure how awareness and public attitudes towards autism are changing. There is good intent—I can see that—but not the kind of structured, ministerially led initiative that our report and the strategy call for.

There is one small but telling illustration. On World Autism Awareness Day last year, there were no social media posts from No. 10, and there was none this year. What message does this send to the 700,000 autistic adults and children in the UK, and their families?

I will make one final point. It is important that people with autism, who feel comfortable doing so, are open about their diagnosis. In May, I listened to the moving maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, who was sitting over there at the time and who, sadly, is not in her place. She touched on her children and their neurodiversity, I found myself thinking that perhaps I, too, should have declared a relevant personal interest during my work on the committee. I was formally diagnosed as being autistic in my early 40s, but the signs were there from an early age. To mention just one aspect, as a child, I needed extensive sessions with a speech therapist—who is over there—to coax me into speaking. At school, on bad days, I would freeze entirely when asked to read aloud—I feel like that now. But I am lucky: hyperfocus, pattern recognition and pursuit of special interests—without this wiring, I doubt that I would have had the drive to push through setbacks and methodically build seven campaign groups. I am acutely aware that this is not everyone’s story, and that is precisely why updating the autism strategy matters so much.

Too many autistic adults are not given employment opportunities, too many autistic children are being failed by the current SEND system, and too many people have to wait far too long for a diagnosis that might finally explain why the world has always felt slightly harder than it should. I was fortunate in my path. The purpose of the report and the strategy is to make sure that luck has less to do with it.

17:57

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I was delighted to be a member of the autism committee, under the very clear direction of our chairperson, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I was very grateful for the direction and guidance from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lord Touhig, who have a particular interest and expertise in this area. I pay tribute to our clerks and special adviser in relation to the topic. I thank the Government for their response, which, I say to my noble friend the Minister, could have been stronger and have indicated a desire to produce an immediate strategy, as much analysis and evidence is already there, particularly from the report that we published last November.

I declare that my cousin’s son is autistic. He displays or exhibits certain characteristics and special interests, on which there is a fixation. But all in all, he is an exceptionally bright child and will do well in spite of his disability.

Far-reaching legislation for autism was enacted in 2009, followed by various strategies. The last strategy was published in 2021 and is due to expire in a month’s time. The Government have stated that it will continue until a new one is in place. I suggest that work on the new strategy should already be under way and publication should take place early in the second half of this year.

Our report called for the Government to develop such a strategy, tackling persistent inequalities experienced by autistic people in education, health, work, criminal justice and the community. Since our report was published, I note that the Government have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, autism and ADHD, launched a call for evidence to inform a mental health strategy and announced a special educational needs reform Bill. Although welcome, I believe this only accentuates the delay in bringing forward the strategy. Maybe my noble friend the Minister could suggest why the Government are proceeding down this course of action, rather than immediately publishing such a strategy. Will those various elements of the Government’s suggested course of action contain the elements of such a strategy?

I am not criticising the Government, but as a member of the committee that published the report, I would have expected the publication of a new updated strategy to be based on much of the evidence that already exists and on the work that has already taken place, because we had extensive interviews with many autistic people, as well as professionals in the field. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: why was this the case? Why have a further review, which involves much work and delay, when much work has already been undertaken? Why not publish an immediate strategy?

Our recommendations included the launch of a new initiative to improve understanding and acceptance of autism and expanding mandatory training on autism for public-facing staff; investment in driving down autism assessment waiting times while developing and scaling up an effective model for identification, assessment and lifelong support; and setting a clear timeline and road map for the development of strong community services so that provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025 to end the unnecessary detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be commenced. Those are some of our recommendations; there are many more. I encourage my noble friend the Minister to have a look at all those recommendations and ensure that they can be placed in a strategy.

How will the Government ensure that autistic people and those who support them are fully involved in any reform of systems for identification, assessment and support? How will they set and pursue priorities for better health outcomes for autistic people in any future autism strategy? I thank my noble friend the Minister and look forward to her response.

18:02

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I was not a member of the committee but I did give evidence to it, both professionally and as next of kin for two autistic family members. I want to highlight four points relevant to the debate.

First, too many autistic people are still being detained in mental health settings without a mental disorder. Although the new Mental Health Act intends to prevent admissions of autistic people without concurrent mental illness, this provision will not be enacted until there are sufficient community services in place. The Minister knows of my deep concern that without a costed plan, this promise is rather misleading.

The trouble is that, time and again, crisis-driven care is failing people and costing lives, quite apart from being financially very costly. In my government-commissioned report, My Heart Breaks, published in 2023, I reviewed the care of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who were being detained under the Act in long-term segregation. I found no therapeutic benefit at all to this enforced isolation and warned that it causes lasting psychological harm, worsens trauma, damages relationships and can lead to a form of social death.

I am looking forward to the forthcoming annual report from the Care Quality Commission, which now manages the independent care, education and treatment review programme, and to learning about its successes in discharging people, but of course the difficulty is that as people are discharged, new people are still being admitted. In my committee we were unable to identify how many people died unexpectedly during admission, but we know that autistic people, and especially autistic women, are at a higher risk of suicide than non-autistic people. Substantial numbers think about suicide during their lifetime, and up to a third actually plan or attempt suicide.

Many autistic women end up with inappropriate diagnoses, such as personality disorder, that stay with them and delay or prevent access to much-needed care and support. We know that people are being failed long before hospital admission, and we need early trauma-informed community support to prevent crisis-driven care.

This brings me to my third point. No anticipatory care planning is required under the Care Act, despite an obvious risk when there is care breakdown, most notably parental carer death. Does the Minister agree that an effective and simple change to the Care Act would be to require an anticipatory care plan for all family carers of autistic people, perhaps carers over the age of 70? The Minister will be aware of the tragic death of David Lodge beside his elderly father who had died suddenly at home. Ensuring that anticipatory care needs are regularly discussed and reviewed would prevent many inappropriate hospital admissions for autistic people.

I want to end my remarks by reflecting on the gap in life expectancy for autistic people highlighted every year by LeDeR’s Learning from Lives and Deaths: People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People, with death occurring six to 15 years earlier. Currently, not all the LeDeR recommendations are actually implemented, and I ask the Minister to confirm unequivocally that the LeDeR programme will be both strengthened and made mandatory. The Government’s response to Time to Deliver said:

“The government remains committed to reviewing every death of a person with a learning disability or an autistic person that is notified to LeDeR and ensuring that learning from these reviews is shared”.


Is that commitment still true?

18:06

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak in the gap; it is much appreciated. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for the opening address. I have two autistic grandchildren, and that is one of the things that has occupied a lot of my life during the time we have had them—they are wonderful. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who have given me so much help over time.

I know the Minister cares about people. Care is a good word. It is not just about having a reason or a responsibility. Many things happen. I was very taken with the observation at the very beginning about people. Somebody who has played a very major part in what we are about is Professor Vivian Hill, whom many of your Lordships may know as one of the leading educational psychologists in the country. I have said many times—it is happening and the department is doing it—that we need hundreds of them to get on top of all the delays that your Lordships have talked about today.

I said several times, many years ago, that where SEND is concerned, every single head teacher must have a full SEND programme. It makes all the difference. The heads of all schools must have that. I have also suggested that it is very important indeed that everybody who is becoming a teacher should understand SEND—otherwise, nobody understands what a meltdown is all about.

I know I do not have enough time for this, but the people who suffer most, as I have seen, are the mothers. The mothers suffer hugely without very much help at all. I want to finish off by saying that, like those here, I have been to many schools, and we must do what we said we would do, care to do it and get on to do it. Over the generations, people who are autistic have been the best for music, science and all the other things that have helped the world for many centuries.

18:10

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is one of those debates where I am not sure whether I can add anything, but I can certainly join in by saying that I agree with what has been said in front of me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, led the committee, which I served on, and I have nothing to disagree with in her summing up of what the committee did. I should let the House know that I got the best-timed rap on the knuckles from her: I said autism was primarily a communication difficulty, and then, with a look that cut to the core of my being, she said, “It’s more than that”, and I went, “Yup, you’re right”.

Autism is a neurodiverse condition that probably has the greatest reach and the greatest divergence—though all of them diverge, as they are all spectrums. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, say that he got through; he is either lucky or brilliant, and I suggest it is the second category, or at least good enough and bright enough to cash in on his luck. If people are “getting through” in that way, we have a fundamental problem. They are dependent on having a tiger-warrior parent—somebody shoving themselves forward to make sure they get through—or else they have to get lucky, with somebody saying that they think they might be in this category. That is why the strategy in front of us is a good idea.

It cuts across everything. We will never get everybody at school, even with the best training in the world, and we will see these traits later on—especially in those people who are struggling through and have done well but have certain behavioural tics, traits or unusual qualities. We must have a more wholly embracing system.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—who we so often go to when we discuss autism—said: it is the law, so do it. Has anybody suggested that we roll back the law? We have the law, so do it. That means we have about two or three weeks before we can ask what the strategy will be and suggest that we get something going.

What is in it for the rest of the community? We might get a few more people employed and paying taxes—that is a good thing for a start, is it not? I declare an interest: I am chairman of Microlink, which provides support packages for people with disability who are in employment. From doing that, I know that such changes are sometimes small. If people had a little understanding—as was talked about here—along with those small changes, many of them could function perfectly well in many parts of the workplace. We should take that on board.

The whole of the Government have to do this—it is not just education but employment services. It is the fact that somebody will function slightly differently in the office and so there must be an understanding and a duty to say, “Yes, they will function and they can do it. They will not hold us back”.

When dealing with autism, the thing is the meltdown—rather badly named, I think, because it suggests that somebody is going to explode, not that they will have a small moment of crisis. I know from talking to one or two people that sometimes they need to go away and be quiet, but if somebody just puts a hand on their shoulder then they are fine. It is the child totally melting down in the classroom. What about the fact that girls do not do this, as was pointed out in this debate, and so do not get discovered? The more we know about this, and the more information we have, the easier a strategy will be to implement. People have to understand the condition a little more and not be quite so frightened of it.

We are informed that we will have a special educational needs Bill and a whole new strategy. I hope that identification and diagnosis—an easier way of making sure people know that someone has a particular set of problems—is something that can be carried through. Autism is definitely something for which that would really be helpful. I hope the Minister will be able to say that, if you are diagnosed in the education system, that will be carried through into the rest of your life. As was pointed out here, you are at school and then you are not, and everything changes. That is a disaster in the making for virtually anybody who has a disability—not just autism but all of them. It will be interesting to see what information can be carried forward—that could be in the strategy or somewhere else. To come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we have the strategy so why are we not using it? It is good practice: we are going through so we can carry on.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. When we come to the criminal justice system, are we going to make sure that we have better in-house support for individuals who are caught up in the system? Will we make sure that they are given better protection within it? When you have been in the House for as long as I have, you will know that there are numerous occasions when the police do not understand who they are dealing with and make the situation worse. Will the Government say to the police that this is their job as well? Because people might not quite understand what they are doing, there can be conflict with neighbours, misunderstandings and being led, and conflict with the police. Where is the training? We have a group of people who are used to being trained and going on courses, so what are we doing there?

When it comes to health, any group that has problems with communication—here I risk the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, again—will have poor health outcomes. It is not just autism; those who use sign language have similar problems. What are we going to do in the Department of Health to make sure that there is an understanding—this will be made much easier with some form of diagnosis—that there must be new processes to get the information out of the patient? Our health system is still based fundamentally on the doctor’s appointment and an exchange of information on what the person thinks is the matter with them and then an interaction. If we can get guidance about what we are going to do there, it would once again help us. If that is not in this strategy, where is it? Presumably, we do not want people being ill; that is the whole idea.

As we go through the process of looking at an Act that we have passed and that we all say we want, something we can refer back to is this: why is it not happening? If the Minister can tell us that it is going to happen, that would be great. If she is going to tell us that the Government are going to do something else, let us hear it. At the moment, we seem to be saying that, yes, it is an awfully good idea and we like it, but it is too difficult and it will inconvenience somebody. If that is the situation, the Government should say so and give us something else. At the moment, we have a nice idea that is not being implemented, and we are all waiting on it.

18:19

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Rock for opening this debate, for her work as chair of the Autism Act 2009 Committee, and for her wonderfully concise and coherent summary of the report’s findings. It comes as no surprise to me to hear about her chairing skills and the way she was able to convene people of vastly different views together—and to put noble Lords such as noble Lord, Lord Addington, in order, as it were.

I thank all noble Lords who served on the committee—including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who, despite his understandable frustration, managed to persist and contribute in a meaningful way—and the individuals and organisations who gave evidence to the committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, without them there would be no report.

The Autism Act 2009 was a landmark piece of legislation introduced by the late Conservative MP, Dame Cheryl Gillan, and passed with cross-party support. I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to her friend, my noble friend Lady Browning, for championing this issue for so many years. I learned much from her contributions on the Mental Health Bill and from one-to-one conversations about autism.

The Act was the first disability-specific Act of its kind anywhere in the world and established the important principle that people with autism—or autistic people—should not be overlooked by government or public services and should receive the support they need to live independent and fulfilling lives. The committee’s report provides a stark assessment of what more must be done for that ambition to be realised. As others have said, why is it not being done?

Across healthcare, education, employment, housing, and the criminal justice system, autistic people continue to face barriers that limit their opportunity and diminish their quality of life. As your Lordships have heard, the committee’s central recommendations were straight- forward and unambiguous. It urged the Government to begin work immediately on a new cross-government autism strategy to come into effect when the current strategy expires in 2026.

However, the Government’s response has been commented on as notably cautious. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said it could have been stronger. While Ministers agreed to consider the committee’s recommendations, they declined to commit to many of the report’s specific proposals. Since then, unfortunately, we have had little clarity about what will replace the current strategy or, indeed, whether there will be a new strategy and, if so, when it will be published. That uncertainty is clearly of concern to noble Lords on all Benches and those who work or live with autistic patients or family members.

I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, for sharing her experience from local government. When we are talking about national strategies, we often ignore the local elements. The current national strategy, published by the last Conservative Government in 2021, established six priority areas: understanding, support, employment, health inequality, community support, and justice. While there has been some progress, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, progress has been insufficient under Governments of all colours. That means that those priorities remain highly relevant today. Regrettably, the evidence presented to the committee suggests that many of these challenges remain unresolved.

One area of particular concern is diagnosis and assessment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out. The number of people seeking autism and ADHD assessments has increased dramatically in recent years. The Government recognised the scale of this challenge by commissioning the independent review into autism and ADHD diagnosis. I saw that the interim report was updated today, in advance of the final report that is expected this summer. There are legitimate questions about how services should respond to the growing demand but, whatever conclusions the review reaches, one fact is beyond dispute: rising demand makes effective planning more important, not less.

The committee rightly emphasised that support should not be delayed any longer than necessary. It asked the Government to outline what steps they are taking to ensure that support is based on genuine need and is sustainable. So, in seeking answers from the Government, I repeat the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Rock. Do the Government expect to publish a new autism strategy before the current one expires? If not, when will they publish it? Will it be accompanied by updated statutory guidance under the Autism Act, as recommended by the committee? How will the findings of the independent review be incorporated into that work?

On employment, the previous Conservative Government took important steps to support disabled people into work, including through the national disability strategy and the local supported employment programme. Yet too many autistic people remain excluded from the labour market despite possessing valuable skills and talents, as my noble friend Lord Elliott pointed out when he very movingly shared his own experience. Indeed, I remember speaking to a Transport Minister, who shall remain nameless, who told me that when it comes to the timetabling for railway services, quite often the very best people in timetabling are those who are somewhere on the spectrum. That just shows that we are not taking advantage of those very specific skills that would contribute to the economy and the growth that this Government want to see.

The noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, spoke about the importance of relationship and sex education. It is an important point, which she was right to emphasise, because it is one of the ways in which we can raise awareness and make people who are autistic—or autistic people—feel more included in our communities.

We welcome the Government’s stated ambition to reduce economic inactivity and narrow the disability employment gap, but ambitions alone are not enough—the detail and delivery matter. My noble friend Lord Sterling spoke very movingly about wanting a better future for his autistic grandchildren.

On healthcare and community support, the committee heard compelling evidence about health inequalities and the continuing challenges faced by autistic people in in-patient settings. During the passage of the Mental Health Bill, MPs and Peers on all Benches were repeatedly pressed for robust plans to ensure adequate community support. The lack of sufficient support has been made clear in the report. I thank and pay tribute to the autism charities and advocacy organisations that have continued to hold Governments of all political affiliations to account. Their message has been consistent: autistic people and their families must be at the heart of policy development.

The committee has provided the Government with a clear road map. The challenge now is not in identifying the problems but in delivering the solutions. Those of us, from all parties, who have been in government know that good intentions often come up against the Treasury’s financial discipline. That is no bad thing, since we expect the Treasury to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. But this is where fine aspirations often meet financial prudence. So I ask the Minister: has there been any assessment of the cost of delivering the strategy? The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, alluded to the cost. If there is an estimated cost, and if it has met resistance from competing priorities within the relevant government departments, or from other government departments, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke about—the state fighting the state—or even from the Treasury, has the Minister’s department looked at which of the recommendations could be delivered by better deploying existing spending?

Which recommendations might actually save the Government money? As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, many of these people will become taxpayers, save the Government money and contribute more positively. Which of the recommendations may have to wait for future spending rounds? I hope the Minister will accept that I ask those questions in a spirit of pragmatism and trying to be constructive.

The Autism Act was a pioneering piece of legislation. Seventeen years later, the report from the committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Rock makes it clear that autistic people deserve clear leadership and a credible strategy for the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the work that is under way and how, when and with whom it will be delivered. I hope she is able to provide reassurance to noble Lords across the House who have raised many concerns and want to work constructively with the Government to deliver for autistic people.

18:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for leading this important debate and, as many noble Lords have said, for chairing a committee that was very thorough and gathered powerful evidence, including from autistic people, families, carers and professionals. I too extend my gratitude to all members of the committee. It is a very strong piece of work, which I believe will take us forward.

We welcome the final report and the recommendations and have set out our initial response. Straight away, I should say that I have heard the various views across the Chamber about the quality of the response and I have also heard very clearly the frustration that there is not an immediate strategy to replace this current one. I say that in all seriousness, not least because I will be sharing those views with the Minister now responsible for this very important area, Preet Gill MP. On that point, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for not having had a response to a request for a meeting with the appropriate Minister. I will indeed pursue this.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we turned to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, as we so often do; I also often turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and very wise we all are in doing so. The work of the committee is indeed helping us to better understand the challenges, the opportunities and the changes that are needed. Yes, I say to my noble friend Lord Touhig that the work of the committee will absolutely inform development of the revised autism strategy, as indeed it should.

I am very grateful to noble Lords for bringing their personal experience to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, was most open about his personal experience and we heard from parents, loved ones and, indeed, grandparents in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. This brings the subject about which we are speaking very much to life. I do agree that too many autistic people face significant challenges in education, employment, health and wider participation in society. That has lasting impacts on independence and well-being. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who observed early on in the debate that autistic people are individuals. Again, I very much take that point.

The response to that will be rooted not only in the new strategy but throughout the 10-year health plan and in—as we will see when it comes to this House—the Health Bill, particularly the moves to establish a single patient record, which will overcome a number of the points that noble Lords rightly raised. It is the case that, too often, people are expected to navigate very complex systems rather than simply secure the care and support they need and which would respond to their individual needs. I do not think that is so much to ask, and I am sure the committee would agree, and that does have to change. We are moving towards a needs-based approach, focused on early intervention and joined-up support around individual needs. That is central to our wider reforms, including changes to the SEND system.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke about the model of Phoenix schools. I would certainly welcome, as would officials, more information about that. It is good to see good practice in action. I want to acknowledge the important local work that is under way. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke to this point. All of this is about building more inclusive communities where autistic people can thrive. The work that my noble friend Lady Dacres described in making Lewisham an autism-inclusive borough through its all-age autism strategy, was commendable and echoes with me. “Nothing about us without us” is, I think, good guidance.

The Autism Act was enacted in 2009 and I pay tribute to all those who went before us to make that happen. There have been subsequent autism strategies, but the reality is, as has been observed, that progress has been inconsistent and outcomes have not improved as they should have. We are very well aware—and I certainly am more so today—of the concerns raised about the importance of having an effective national strategy in place. I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the current strategy does remain in place until it is replaced.

Noble Lords recognise, as I do, that the landscape has changed significantly since the current strategy was published in 2021. The challenges that face the health system now are much more acute. Services are seeing more patients with more complexity, and demand continues to outstrip supply. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and other noble Lords said, some 270,000 people are waiting for an autism assessment, and around 90% of them are waiting at least 13 weeks. That is why it is so important that we focus on earlier intervention and help people to get the support they need without necessarily needing a diagnosis as we expect now.

My noble friend Lady Goudie spoke about girls and women facing particular struggles. Data does show that we are seeing an increase in referrals for female diagnosis. There is, perhaps, a suggestion there that increasing awareness of this issue is supporting improvements in this area. I am very much looking forward in particular—but not exclusively—to the recommendations of the independent review on the prevalence of, and support for, mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, chaired by Professor Fonagy. It is expected this summer and will speak to the very point about how we can respond to increasing demand more effectively. It will look at drivers for that demand, about which, we must be honest, there is often not clarity, and I hope that this will greatly assist.

Now to the very important points raised with me about the Government’s plans for a future strategy and the timescales by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Touhig, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and other noble Lords. As I said, we remain fully committed to publishing a revised and, I emphasise, cross-government autism strategy—the cross-government point being another aspect that I know the committee was very keen on. I will disappoint noble Lords somewhat, but I hope I can give reassurance that I am not going to disappoint them too much. In my view, it is important that the timetable for establishing the strategy takes proper account of the timelines of relevant cross-government reviews.

I will come back to this very shortly, but developing the revised strategy—the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, pressed this point—has to be grounded in evidence, shaped by engagement, as many noble Lords asked, and be realistic about the pressures facing the system. Therefore, we have to focus on ensuring that people can access support at the right time. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, we need to remove unnecessary barriers in a way that reflects individual needs. That means carefully considering a number of areas, including the recommendations of the committee’s Time to Deliver report, as well as, as I have mentioned, the findings of the independent prevalence and support review, which has not yet been published, and other important cross-government work, again spoken to in this debate, such as the independent Milburn review on the increase in the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and the insights from the consultation on SEND reform. All these will help shape the Government’s response and next steps.

Fortunately, we have these things in train and they are reporting soon, but not in time for the end of the current strategy. Therefore, I am not in favour, and I do not think any noble Lord would want me to be, of publishing a revised strategy to meet a timeline that does not now reflect the timelines that are more current, more evidence and more consideration. I want this to be the best strategy we can get. I want it to be a strategy that can deliver. In that respect, I cannot give a timeline, but I have indicated what is being considered and when those matters will be reported on.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and other noble Lords, that we are absolutely engaging with those with lived experience. That is key to success. We will also consider the need for a new system to bring together information from autistic people. I think that is work we have to do.

To pick up some other points, I recently announced plans for a new cross-government mental health strategy—that will also be very relevant to this area. That will be published later this year. It will explicitly consider the mental health needs of autistic people and people with ADHD. Together with the autism strategy, all these areas of work, which are very practically focused, will support a more joined-up system for those with neurodevelopmental conditions or mental health needs.

Of course, the autism strategy does not sit in isolation, and we work closely with the Department for Education on SEND reforms ensuring that joined-up support is available across education and health and care services, as noble Lords have rightly expressed. It is key that we have the right support available at every stage of the education of children and young people. My noble friend Lady Antrobus referred to the RSE curriculum. The new RSE curriculum and guidance are quite clear that schools should ensure that subjects are accessible for pupils with SEND. It is ultimately the school’s responsibility to ensure that resources and teaching materials—I heard the point about the need for greater teacher time—are accessible for all pupils and are sensitive to pupils’ needs. I emphasise again that, no matter one’s age, we are all individuals. The consultation on SEND reform has just closed. The feedback is being considered before we set out the Government’s response and next steps. We are also taking steps now. On 5 June, we published guidance for the new experts at hand offer, and we have appointed a national panel of experts to develop new national inclusion standards and specialist provision packages.

I want to refer to some other points that were raised. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, with further detail on her assertion that a simple change to the Care Act to require an anticipatory care plan would be one way to manage that.

I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, my noble friend Lady Dacres and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who raised matters relating to the justice system. The final update of the neurodiversity action plan was published in February. It highlights significant progress made across the criminal justice system in supporting autistic people. I should add that to improve prison screening processes and practices, a new additional learning needs tool was introduced in October 2025 as part of the new prisoner education service. The tool identifies adjustments that might support them.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that our reforms to the Mental Health Act will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people so they can be detained for treatment only if they have a co-occurring medical health condition that requires hospital treatment. That is something we correctly spoke about at some length during the passage of the Mental Health Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, pressed home the need for greater training for employers. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber know that employment rates remain significantly lower for autistic people. That is not acceptable. Our £1 billion connect to work programme will support around 300,000 people. This is alongside reforms to Disability Confident. We continue to work with employers to build more inclusive workplaces. Of course, the work of the former Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, through his review will be very helpful in this regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, raised the fact that autistic people, especially women, are at higher risk of suicide. I recognise that. In the suicide prevention strategy, autistic people, children, young people, pregnant women and new mothers are priority groups for the provision of tailored and targeted support. On the matter of training, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, mandatory training on learning disability and autism for health and care staff will support the necessary shift to empowering patients and preventing sickness rather than just treating it. Again, that is key.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that avoidable deaths are unacceptably high. We remain committed to reviewing every death notified to LeDeR and ensuring that learning from reviews is shared. On the point about local services, every integrated care board is expected to have an executive lead on LeDeR and to prioritise LeDeRs.

I am most grateful for the questions and for the way in which noble Lords have pressed the importance of the strategy. I accept that. I want to ensure that we get this right. With the assistance of the committee’s report, I know that we will.

18:48

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all participants in today’s debate. Passion, care, empathy and understanding have really shone through, and I am grateful to Members of this House. It is incredibly important that we support our autistic community.

I know that many people have thanked them, but I think it is worth paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for bringing the committee to life. We would not all be here without the two of them. I pay tribute to all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes in the committee as well.

I want to thank one person above all else: my son, who is 25 and autistic. He has taught me so much about the extraordinary way in which autistic people can contribute to our wider community, as was recognised by many Members today.

We have a unified voice here today. We heard a lot about what we need to do and what needs to be delivered. We need a new strategy and I am grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that there will be one, but we did not hear from her about an implementation plan or accountability: that was another unified message that came through loud and clear from Members today. But we are weeks away. It is reassuring that the strategy will continue, but we really need a sense of urgency from the Government.

It is disappointing—I know the Minister has used the word “disappointing” a number of times in her response—about the timing. Perhaps the Government need to read our report again, because we have done all the heavy lifting and the hard work. This can be delivered and we do not need to wait for other things to go on; in my opinion, they should not be holding up a new strategy. I thank the Minister kindly for her enthusiasm in making sure that we get this right, because we really need to do so, but it is not a surprise that we are meant to be having a new strategy in July: we have known about this for a long time.

I sum up by saying: we need a new strategy, an implementation plan and accountability, and it is up to the Government now to deliver.

Motion agreed.

Working From Home (Home-based Working Committee Report)

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

18:53

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Home-based Working Committee Is working from home working? (HL Paper 196, Session 2024-26).

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, it is now 18 months since the Home-based Working Committee was established to conduct a special inquiry into the effects and future development of home-based working in the UK. At that time, barely a day went by when there was not a media story about working from home, so the time was very definitely right for the sort of evidence-based, in-depth inquiry that this House does so well. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, whose idea it was to have this inquiry and who steered it through the Liaison Committee.

In November 2025 the committee published its report, titled Is Working from Home Working? The Government and the Office for National Statistics both responded in February 2026. It is a pleasure to be able to debate the report this evening and I am pleased to see so many of the committee members here. They were all very committed to the work we were doing and were challenging but constructive throughout the inquiry. Despite coming at the subject from a range of perspectives, we reached a consensus on the report.

I am grateful to the many people and organisations who gave evidence, both written and in person. I put on record my appreciation for the hard work and commitment of our specialist adviser, Dr Cevat Aksoy, and our committee staff Dom Walsh, Robert Wilson, Mark Gladwell and Lara Orija.

It is evident that there has been a rapid growth in remote and hybrid working since 2020. It was of course driven initially by the pandemic, but it now represents a significant change in the way that work is done by many in the UK. Since that time, the UK workforce appears to have settled into what has been described as a new normal, where a large minority work from home at least some of the time. At the time our report was published, ONS data suggested that 13% of working adults in Great Britain worked from home all the time and a further 26% worked from home some of the time. We also found that the UK has one of the highest rates of home-based working globally. As our report makes clear, these major changes in working practices represent both opportunities and risks for the workforce, for employers and for wider society.

The committee found that government policy and data collection regarding remote and hybrid working sit across multiple departments and agencies. The committee recommended that the Government should allocate ministerial responsibility for the co-ordination across departments of data on the prevalence and impacts of remote and hybrid working.

The committee also noted that there are significant limitations with the data collected by the ONS on remote and hybrid working, so we recommend that the ONS should start regularly collecting and publishing additional data on variable levels of hybrid working. For example, when it says that someone is working from home, that could mean one day a month or four days a week. Its data does not split that up.

The Government indicated that they would consider routes to improving evidence sharing and data collection. The Department for Business and Trade specifically says that it will engage across government to shape flexible working policy and evaluate its impact. The ONS said in a separate response to our report that it was engaging with the department, but that any extension to the data collected would require sponsorship from a government department. So the first of what I suspect will be many questions to the Minister tonight is: can the Government confirm that they will support the ONS to gather data on these variable levels of hybrid working? What steps have the Government taken to capture detailed data on how different groups experience home-based working?

The committee found that home-based working has mixed effects on individuals’ physical and mental health and well-being. There was an overall perception that the impact of home-based working is positive, but that is derived mostly from self-reported evidence. There is no doubt that people with disabilities and carers may have an improved experience of work or may be able to work where otherwise they could not. However, others may be disadvantaged: in particular young people who miss an interpersonal connection, or people with unsuitable home working environments. The Government have acknowledged this evidence gap and highlighted plans for a vanguard taskforce and workplace health intelligence unit, to be established as part of their Keep Britain Working programme. These initiatives will examine how flexible work arrangements can support individuals with long-term health conditions to stay in work. Can the Minister give us a timeline for the establishment of that unit?

The committee welcomed findings that the flexibility of home-based working can benefit individuals with disabilities and with parental and caring responsibilities. The Access to Work scheme provides important support to enable people with disabilities to work, including working from home, yet the committee heard that the scheme was facing administrative and financial difficulties. The Government have stated that a consultation to inform the future direction of Access to Work has concluded and plans will be set out in due course, so I wonder whether the Minister is able to update the House on that this evening. Can she also confirm that remote and hybrid working arrangements will continue to form part of any new scheme?

The committee also heard that groups of people can face challenges in accessing and benefiting from remote and hybrid working, and recommended that the Government promote equitable access through awareness campaigns targeted at employers that focus on specific sectors, regions and demographics where prevalence is lower than it could be. The Government have said they will consider how to target communications on flexible working towards worker groups and businesses that are less likely to work flexibly now.

I ought to note at this point that the term “flexible working” can and often does include hybrid and remote working, but it also encompasses a whole range of other practices. That is an important distinction when we think about the question of equity across the workforce for those whose jobs are simply not able to be done from home, so we welcome the inclusion of flexible working opportunities as a sub-criterion in the Government’s Social Value Model procurement tool.

I turn to productivity. The committee was surprised by a lack of data on the impact of remote and hybrid working on productivity. Evidence on personal productivity was self-reported. Many workers tend towards the view that they are more productive at home—that is hardly surprising given the reduction in commuting time and the potential autonomy to manage their own time effectively. Employer views were much more mixed. Around one-third thought their workers were less productive at home, around one-third thought they were more productive, and around one-third thought it did not make much difference—make of that what you will. However, all employers focused instead on intangible but important issues such as collaboration, creativity and workplace culture. Pretty much all of them reported improved recruitment and retention. In its response, the ONS described plans to develop a linked employer-employee data infrastructure, which would include productivity measures. The ONS aims to publish a technical note and a set of exploratory statistics in the second half of this year.

Overall, we concluded that by retaining the flexibility of remote work and the collaborative benefits of in-person work, the hybrid model has the potential to be the best of both worlds, but only if it is co-ordinated and well managed. We heard that there is little value in employers establishing a hybrid working mandate unless they take steps to ensure that collaboration actually happens. We heard lots of stories of people commuting into the office only to spend the whole day on Zoom calls. Employers need to work harder to make sure that teams are attending the office on the same day and that collaboration is enabled.

It was made very clear to us that strong management skills can alleviate the potential downsides of home-based working. Several witnesses, including from professional associations, told the committee that many managers need much more training in how to facilitate effective remote and hybrid working. The committee recommended that the Government publish guidance on managing employees in these circumstances and incentivise investment in management training, such as by reconsidering the proposed cuts to level 7 apprenticeships. In response, the Government suggested that existing support for management training is sufficient. Perhaps I could gently urge the Minister to have a look at our evidence again, because it strongly suggests otherwise.

Employers that the committee spoke to generally agreed that the Government should avoid further regulatory and legislative intervention regarding remote and hybrid working. This was particularly the case with the so-called right to switch off, where there was a widespread sense that a code of conduct is preferable to legislation. Several witnesses suggested that the Government should reconvene the Flexible Working Taskforce, and the committee asked the Government to explain why it had been disbanded. In response, the Government said that they have launched a consultation on flexible working. As part of the plan to make work pay, the Government will look to establish a more structured and official-led stakeholder group. Can the Minister update the House tonight on what progress has been made in setting up this stakeholder group? The make work pay consultation on improving access to flexible working closed in April. Can the Minister provide an update on the initial findings?

We heard that employees tend to be more supportive of home working than employers. There is a preference gap of about one day: most employees would rather be in the office two days and at home three days, while employers prefer it the other way. This emphasises the importance of ongoing dialogue between employers and employees. We spent quite a lot of time discussing the industrial relations aspects of this.

We also spent a lot of time discussing employers’ back-to-office mandates. The evidence we took suggests that, while these were becoming more common, they quite often codified hybrid work rather than mandating full-time office attendance. The Employment Rights Act allows employers to reject a flexible working request if it is deemed reasonable. However, there is a lack of clarity over the definition of “reasonable”—clearly, what is reasonable to an employer is unlikely to be reasonable to an employee. The committee recommended that the Government consider the risk of litigation and its impact on the tribunal system, which is already struggling, if there is no more clarity on the definition of reasonable. I wonder why the Government consider that the tribunal data from the current system preceding the new reasonable test means that the new test will not significantly increase the tribunal system’s workload.

The committee found that remote and hybrid working have the potential to support wider government priorities relating to increasing employment levels, especially for people with disabilities and those with caring responsibilities. The committee recommended that the Government explain whether home-based working will form part of the thinking behind Get Britain Working and the connect to work programme.

The committee recommended that the Government conduct further research into understanding the wider consequences of changing work patterns. This would encompass regional differences, urban-rural policy, transport, and the retail and hospitality sectors. The committee spent some time looking at these, but we were bedevilled by the same lack of data in this area as in a number of others. It is true to say that the broader the scope of the area you are looking at, the harder it is to nail down whether working from home was causing the issue or whether it was other changes in the economy —or, in the case of the retail sector, things such as energy prices and employment costs. It is quite difficult to tease that out.

The committee found that digital technologies are critical to facilitating access to remote and hybrid working. We recommended that the Government increase long-term investment in digital infrastructure, such as by committing to further funding of Project Gigabit. The Government should support the development of digital skills. We were all surprised to hear how many younger people, while clearly having certain digital skills, do not have the right skills to bring into the workplace, even digitally. That came as a surprise to all of us. In response, the Government said that the proposed statement of strategic priorities has established that business connectivity should be treated as a priority by Ofcom. That is not the same as household connectivity, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that. The Government also noted that digital access and the development of digital skills are being supported by the digital inclusion plan.

The committee found that future developments in remote and hybrid working are difficult to predict. Some sectors may see remote jobs supplanted by AI, while others may find that automation increasingly allows work to be completed at home. The committee has recommended that the Government set out their approach to how AI will relate to remote and hybrid working.

The committee concluded that the long-term social and economic effects of remote and hybrid working are still unclear. There are risks in the long term for collaboration, productivity and skills development. The committee recommended that further research be conducted on the long-term effects of home-based working and that the Government should provide funding for academics to complete this work, facilitating access to longitudinal data.

Our report shed light on the opportunities and challenges that remote and hybrid working pose to individuals, employers and society. However, gaps in the available data remain. We still do not have a full understanding of how different groups experience home-based working and what the long-term impact of the growth of this will be. I beg to move.

19:08

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who chaired the proceedings of the committee with considerable skill and good temper, as we were all searching for data which does not exist and may never exist, I suspect, given the Government’s priority list. She gave us a good lead all the way through, and, with the help of the secretariat, a good and practical report has been produced. I much congratulate our chairman.

The sudden expansion of working from home during the recent pandemic was, let us be honest, a huge surprise to all of us. Interestingly, and topically, I note that the BBC is going to cover the World Cup working from home in Salford—I look forward to the efforts to make Salford look like San Francisco. Workplace change is generally very slow, but, as the pandemic raged, the expansion of home working took place in a great rush. It was interesting the way that new technology came along at the same time as the pandemic struck. If you had a laptop, a smartphone or a desktop, you could hold meetings with colleagues and see them almost anywhere in the world. It spread like wildfire. Sales of the appliances soared, some bought by employers for workers and others bought by the workers themselves. No longer was digital technology restricted to people with special skills and special knowledge of technology.

This response was necessary to maintain output and economic growth—and, of course, keep down unemployment—during the pandemic. The combination of the pandemic and technology was remarkable, and we were very lucky that it stopped things from getting considerably worse than they already were. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, the impact was not general. Many jobs—for example, in health, hospitality and factories—could not be executed remotely, and face-to-face contact was still essential. Other areas, especially office-based work, were highly appropriate for remote working, and it spread rapidly in that sector, as well as some others.

From my perspective, the change has been very successful. There is no convincing evidence about productivity—although the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly talked about the range of opinions—but it seemed to me all the way through the proceedings that the quality of management was crucial. If home working was well managed, then companies were pleased with it. If it was not, they were not. The same is probably true of looking at productivity in a fixed workplace of a traditional kind. Major changes in workplace practices are often controversial, with workers sometimes being involved in disputes. Discussions about working time, overtime, and maternity and paternity leave can be contentious in workplaces. But this did not generally occur, as far as we are aware, with the introduction of working from home in the pandemic. There were some problems, certainly, but not anything significant. That was to the credit of British employers and workers, who kept up output in the teeth of a frightening pandemic. It is important to acknowledge just how well we thought they did.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, we seem to have settled into a new normal, where a large minority of workers now work from home, or remotely, at least for some of the time, but that is not the end of the story. Working from home is a phenomenon, but it may be overshadowed by the arrival of another one. Artificial intelligence, which is lurking just around the corner, is likely to be most powerfully felt in those sectors which have introduced working from home the most widely, particularly clerical work and work in offices. It will have a major impact on the future of work; maybe that is a subject for another report by a House of Lords committee.

I finish with one question: do the Government accept that guidance is needed in respect of the proposed code of practice, and what constitutes reasonable, as far as employers dealing with requests from workers for flexible working is concerned? We have started something here, and this will continue on a bigger scale, particularly when we see new technology coming along in the form of AI.

19:13

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I too warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her report: thoughtful, practical, and admirably free from dogma. I think we are all going to ask her to review the report a couple of years’ time, because it is clear that we need more evidence.

As has been well said, the pandemic accelerated what the committee calls a previously “modest and gradual shift”. We have a new reality, with 13% of working adults in Great Britain working from home, 26% in a hybrid way. We do not want to turn back the clock. For carers, disabled people and parents, it has been life- changing and, properly managed, hybrid working can offer the best of both worlds. I can remember going to work and pretending that I had a very important meeting, when actually I was going to see my children’s primary school play. We have all been in situations where we were rigidly supposed to stay at our desks with no flexibility—we might work in the evening, we might do anything, but no, it was the nine-to-five commitment —but the world is very different now. At the same time, what matters is what works for both parties, and I worry that the pendulum may go too far. Employees owe their employer commitments and obligations, as well as the employer owing them to the employee.

Businesses have different requirements. They need people to come in at different times, and many people cannot work from home. If you look at the workers out in Belfast last night—the emergency services—they had to go to work. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, will know that people in the health service have to go to work. People talking about working at home can be a little bit precious about their world. The key is that it requires management, and within management the key person I would like to have seen more reference to in the report is the chief people officer, whose job is to make sure you get 110% value out of people, and not 90%. That is all about motivation, engagement and leadership; it is at the heart of productivity. The CPO’s role is about culture, engagement, and performance management—always incredibly difficult, but how much more difficult is it when people are working from home? Workforce planning is at the heart of deciding how you are going to organise jobs that involve working from home. I was talking to someone at a utility the other day. All the call centres are now organised with people working at home, but there is a requirement to come into work on a regular basis to meet colleagues, have training and raise issues. It can be done, but it requires a great deal more thought and analysis.

For some people and businesses, working from home is essential. The Minister used to work for Standard Chartered bank. If you have to be on the telephone to Hong Kong in the morning and to America in the evening, this is very difficult to do without flexible working. If tech businesses had to be constrained by the talent pool in their local area, that would be extraordinarily limiting. It is a context between the business, activity, individuals and the employers, and we should try to be unprejudiced, objective and, above all, evidence-based as we look for a way forward.

More must be said about young people, because the Milburn report, which we have all found harrowing and deeply alarming, stated that one in eight people is now not in education, employment or training. Without action, that could become one in six. Of all the people who need to go to work—to learn, listen, be exposed to the watercooler moment, and have bossy people such as me wandering around on management walk- abouts, seeing when they look miserable or out of order —young people should be able to go to a work environment whenever possible. That is very easily said.

I also believe that older people should go to work, because they become rather comfortable. They are better off, live further away, like their house, have their dog, and they are in their comfort zone. In fact, they are stuck in a rut and becoming fossilised. They need to go to work to learn about TikTok and the next generation.

Hybrid working needs good management, analysis and thought. It is here to stay. We do not yet have all the answers, but the noble Baroness and her committee have helped us to understand a few more of the answers rather better.

19:18

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for so ably chairing the committee, and for her excellent introductory speech covering the findings that most of us will probably repeat in part.

I intend to concentrate on health and disability issues. I welcome the Government’s response to the potential health benefits and risks associated with remote and hybrid working. For many, working has significant health benefits, particularly at home, but for others—those who live alone—it can induce loneliness and isolation, leading to withdrawal, anxiety and depression. The committee found that some opt to work from home and concurrently manage caring responsibilities at home in the same environment. Although findings were not definitive, this may disproportionately affect women who work from home. Constantly juggling work and caring roles is difficult and may result in stress. However, it may provide significant cost and time savings in terms of travel, thus reducing employees’ resulting financial worry.

Some companies report monitoring people’s activity at home during working hours, which may be entirely reasonable, but some home workers find that intrusive and anxiety-provoking. The Government’s response states that the Health and Safety Executive will promote its home working guidance, which should address such concerns and make recommendations for employment best practice to support people working from home while monitoring work output. Though I know little about cyber security, there are definite risks if people do not stick to the rules of their employer when working from home, which may in turn lead to loss of employment.

How many companies actually visit the working environments of home workers to ensure that their employees have the correct equipment and sufficient physical room to work safely all day? Or is this to be solely the responsibility of the worker to decide? During Covid, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, working from home was a huge bonus, but post pandemic many found that they had to work from home for at least part of their hours of employment, as so many companies reduced the amount of office space they provided. For some, this is an advantage: from evidence given to the committee on health, hybrid working has widely been seen as positive. However, others continue to work with inadequate desk and chair space, and are not provided with suitable ergonomically designed equipment, potentially leading to significant musculoskeletal problems.

I acknowledge that the Keep Britain Working programme is considering how employers and government will build healthier, more inclusive workplaces and refine best practice, with the aim of reducing sickness and absence and promoting employment for disabled people. Workplace adjustments and flexible working may well support those with health conditions to enter and stay in work, which is welcomed.

Conversely, it is possible that employers may encourage disabled employees to work only from home, leading to loneliness and a lack of opportunity for promotion. That may be more cost-effective for employers and reduce the cost of the Access to Work government grant scheme. However, I do not believe that this should lead to a reduction in benefits that fund individual workers’ transport to work, which support disabled people to get to work and stay in work. Can the Minister assure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to fund specialist equipment, through grants for ergonomic furniture, assisted software and other adapted equipment for disabled people working on company premises and at home? Similarly, is it intended to legislate to ensure that everyone working from home should be provided with the right equipment by their employer to conduct their work safely and effectively?

We did not take evidence relating to piecework at home, but we did learn about its history. Are further regulations needed to protect home workers to ensure that output numbers expected for pieceworkers by employers can be produced within the contracted hours that they are paid for at home? How will the Government ensure that all pieceworkers earn at least the minimum wage for the hours they work?

Some employees reported unreasonable expectations by employers who expected availability out of contracted hours, and associated stress as a result. People working from home report less sick leave. Are they working while unwell or are they healthier due to being able to work at home? Many home-based workers reported working much longer hours than those contracted and feeling unable to log off. Do they feel less able or less reluctant to take sick leave? No one wants home working to lead to the equivalent of sweatshop employment, with no boundaries between home and work and a lack of real human interactions. Some workers live alone in small homes, others in shared houses with multiple occupants. What are the long-term health effects associated with these challenges?

It is clear that we need further guidance on home-based working and close monitoring to ensure that the advantages of increased productivity—or decreased productivity—are known. How can the Government ensure that we develop and promote safe, healthy home-based working policies across our community?

19:25

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, in speaking in this important debate. I was appointed Business and Energy Secretary on 13 February 2020, just as the enormity of the Covid crisis was beginning to be understood by the Government. As noble Lords know, just over a month later the UK went into its first national lockdown, with profound impacts on many aspects of our lives, including of course the world of work. My department, together with the Treasury, was of course at the centre of the Government’s economic response to the pandemic, and I have provided both written and oral evidence to the Covid inquiry through its various modules. But, having read this Select Committee report in detail, I think that it provides some really thoughtful and complementary analysis to the work being undertaken by the Covid inquiry.

When we went into the first lockdown, in my department we asked ourselves a number of key questions about the world of work in what has now become the new normal. Would working from home actually work for both employers and employees? What impact would there be on productivity as a result of home-based working, including of course the impact on the well-being of people working at home? Would we see a long-term hollowing out of city-centre businesses, which depended so much on the footfall of people going into work during the week, and what would be the impact on public transport? Would that be financially sustainable with significantly reduced work travel? A particular concern of mine was whether we would see the emergence of what I would describe as a potentially societally destabilising two-tier structure, separating those who were safe and could work at home from those who had to go into a workplace during a very difficult time.

This excellent Select Committee report—I commend and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and all noble Lords who served on the committee—has sought to answer precisely these questions, with the benefit of distance from the time of the pandemic, which of course was a catalyst for the big increase in home working. In the limited time that I have available, I want to pick up on one issue, which is productivity—a number of noble Lords have talked about this—and the impact on productivity of longer-term home or hybrid working.

I recall a conversation that I had, as we went into the first lockdown, with the UK heads of some of the major consulting and accounting firms. At the time, they all expressed real concern about the impact of longer-term home working on their employees’ productivity. I had a similar conversation a few months later with them; it suggested that the same firms were pleasantly surprised that productivity had not dropped and, in some cases, had even increased. But then, towards the end of 2020, the anecdotal view I was getting was that any gains in productivity were starting to tail off, as the benefits and synergies of collaborating in person were no longer readily available to employees.

The conclusion from this Select Committee report—forgive me, I am paraphrasing—is that when it comes to productivity the jury is still out, particularly because of the limited availability of quantitative data. I very much welcome the Government’s agreeing to the Select Committee report’s recommendations to collect data and to monitor the economic consequences of home working, including on the UK’s global competitiveness. However, I suggest that the Government need to go somewhat further in their response than just including some specific questions on home working in their periodic surveys to business.

As the Minister will be aware, the CBI, in collaboration with the London School of Economics, published a report in March this year, Remote Work and Firm Productivity. I would recommend all noble Lords to have a look at the detail of that. There is something to be said for the Government working with the major business representative organisations to periodically produce similar targeted analysis of the impact of continued home and hybrid working on the UK’s productivity levels, and, in the context of global competitiveness, to benchmark those productivity levels against what is happening in other jurisdictions around the world. I know that the Select Committee has examined productivity in the context of G7 countries, and that has been incredibly useful, but if the Government are willing to undertake further analysis in collaboration with business representative organisations, they should look at other economies as well, not just those in the G7, which have a similar structure to ours.

I agree with the Select Committee’s conclusion that we do not need any major legislative or regulatory interventions in this area. However, having the Government use their convening power to help deliver internationally benchmarked analysis on home and hybrid working—basically, which measures help in different jurisdictions and what hinders productivity—will make a real difference to both employers and employees as they navigate what we all understand is an increasingly complex world of work, not least, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, due to the rise in the use of AI in the workplace.

19:30

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank our committee team and specialist adviser for their excellent work on this report, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her leadership of the committee and her introduction to this debate.

As we have heard, digital technology has grown quickly since the pandemic. This has helped organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors to find a mix of home and office working that suits employers and employees alike. It is one of the most profound structural shifts in our labour market in decades. As one witness to our committee put it, the old office is dying and the new one is struggling to be born.

There are three closely connected issues arising from this report: industrial relations, the changing role of management and the implications for productivity. It is clear that we are moving away from the cult of presenteeism and morphing towards one that values what people deliver rather than where they work.

Expectations have also changed. Many employees now see some flexibility not as an optional perk but as a normal part of their job. When that flexibility is properly agreed, it can enhance trust and improve outcomes for both sides, but, where it is imposed or withdrawn unilaterally, it risks creating tension, disengagement and conflict. Indeed, a top-down return-to-office mandate can damage morale and retention when the lived experience of employees is ignored. It was a pity that the committee was unable to hear from businesses adopting a total return-to-office mandate, despite the Herculean efforts by the committee staff to engage with them.

We heard consistently that hybrid working succeeds or fails not because of the policy itself but because of how it is managed. That success relies less on physical supervision and more on greater clarity about objectives and outputs, as well as deliberate efforts to sustain team cohesion and culture. This is a fundamental shift in management practice, and many organisations are still adapting. It is a challenge as well as an opportunity, and there is a clear need for investment in management capability.

We heard that hybrid working should be designed intelligently, so that the time together is meaningful. It should, as one witness said, “earn the commute”. If done well, hybrid working can give people more control over their work, improve job satisfaction and support more effective use of time; if done badly, it can lead to isolation and loneliness, unclear expectations and a reduction in effectiveness. There are particular risks for younger workers, where opportunities to learn informally from colleagues may be diminished.

As has been said, the committee discovered a lack of current data on productivity, but the evidence from Professor Nick Bloom showed that hybrid working has now settled into a new equilibrium—typically two or three days in the office—and was associated with some productivity gains. These gains appear to come less from direct increases in output and more from improved retention, reduced turnover and a more efficient use of time, particularly through reduced commuting. These benefits are real but not a silver bullet. They are indirect and contingent and, again, if effectively managed, they can make a positive contribution to the holy grail of economic growth.

Hybrid working can also support wider labour participation, particularly for disabled people, those with caring responsibilities and older workers. However, these opportunities are uneven, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, has said. Many workers, especially on the front line, cannot benefit from location flexibility.

The committee heard about some unintended consequences. A parent working from home is physically at home but psychologically at work. The effects of those blurred boundaries are not yet fully understood.

Hybrid working is not just reshaping our workplaces but affecting our wider economy and society, in areas such as city centres, commuting patterns and transport systems, retail and hospitality, as well as highlighting the importance of good digital access, especially in rural areas.

Hybrid working is neither a cure nor a problem to be reversed. It is a structural change that brings both opportunities and risks. The task for Government is threefold, so I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. How are the Government supporting flexibility, with its benefits for individuals and the economy? How are they addressing inequalities, ensuring that those who cannot work from home are not disadvantaged? How are they supporting improvements in management and organisational practice, particularly in the public sector, because that is where success or failure will undoubtedly be determined?

How the Government answer those questions will affect not just whether hybrid working succeeds today but whether our labour market is ready for the wider changes to come. Although it was beyond the scope of our inquiry, the interaction between hybrid working and the growing use of AI will become increasingly important as we seek to build a modern, fair and productive labour market for the future.

19:35

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, one of the greatest challenges that the committee faced when writing this report was the lack of good data on how we work in the UK. I would like to expand on some of the points made by our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

Without knowing who works from home on how many days, we cannot look for associations between that and various different outcomes and possible effects at the individual, company or national level. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, the Office for National Statistics currently routinely collects data only on answers to the following questions: in the past seven days, have you worked from home, and in the past seven days, have you travelled to work? That means we cannot tell the difference between someone who works at home one day a week, or even less, and someone who works at home most of the time. Without this kind of data, we have to rely on proxy measures, and those suggest that home-based working is important to study.

We have all heard about the dramatic decreases in job opportunities for those early in their careers. They are often touted as a worrying sign of the effects of AI on the workplace, but—this is where I wish I could use graphics, because it is so much easier to illustrate data—the decline in adverts for jobs suitable for those just entering the workplace starts almost immediately post-pandemic, in late 2022, in data taken from job adverts across the UK, the US, Canada and Australia simultaneously. That is well before we could expect to see any effect on job hirings from AI.

In fact, a team from the University of Warwick, the LSE and the Ellison Institute has analysed data on job adverts and hirings and data on working from home and AI adoption. Although working from home and AI tend to affect the same classes of jobs, it looks as though it is working from home that has so far caused the around 5% decline in the share of new jobs going to junior staff. Why? Other research, in line with what we heard as a committee, suggests that managers are less likely to want to risk taking on a less experienced person when they are hiring for a job where there will not be much opportunity for on-the-job, in-person learning or supervision.

Clearly, understanding the effects of different working patterns on different groups of people, and how we can best encourage more of the benefits and mitigate the downsides, is vital. In their response to our report, the Government agreed, and in fact mentioned a broader evaluation of flexible-working policy changes and the effects of the new Employment Rights Act, and said that the Department for Business and Trade will be engaging with departments about data that they held and that they needed. Can the Minister give an update on this engagement and on what data is being used to perform these policy evaluations?

In our report, we pointed out the need for the ONS to collect more granular data on who is working at home and for how many days. In its response, the ONS said that:

“Any continuation or expansion of hybrid working questions on the”


opinions and lifestyle survey

“would require sponsorship from a government department”,

and that it was talking to the Department for Business and Trade about this data. Can the Minister provide any update on this?

One of the other quite dramatic shifts in recent years is the difficulty of getting people to complete surveys, such as those on which the ONS relies for this kind of data. Less than half of people asked to complete them are doing so. This increases the risk of bias in the type of person who does complete them, skewing the results. There are obviously big advantages to using data that we already hold about people, such as administrative data, and in being able to link data about the working patterns of people within an organisation with, say, the organisation’s performance, the promotion prospects and earnings of people with different working patterns, or productivity.

As a committee, we heard how other countries are able to use their linked employer and employee datasets to look at the effects of working from home, not to mention many other vital issues to do with employment, wages and productivity. But the UK, despite its world-leading national statistics and having the highest percentage of hybrid workers, does not yet have that. In response to our report, the ONS said that it was currently working on beginning this task, having already published a road map for its design in mid-2025. This road map suggested starting with the ONS working with HMRC to bring their data together with PAYE datasets. There seem to be lots of proposals and activity in this area from different organisations, and I wonder whether the Minister could confirm how the Government are progressing this.

I finally note that we have not had a National Statistician in post since early May 2025. I very much hope that this is a situation that will soon change, and that the Minister can reassure us all that data collection and analysis in this really important area is improving.

19:40

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her excellent chairing of the committee. Bringing together members with different experiences and perspectives is no small task, yet she guided our deliberations with patience, skill and good humour throughout. I also thank our clerk, Dom Walsh, for his team, whose professionalism enabled us to navigate a substantial body of evidence and research, and those who gave evidence.

Having served on the committee, I can say that one conclusion stands out. The debate about working from home is too often presented as a binary choice: success or failure, productivity or inefficiency, office or home. The evidence that we received pointed to a more nuanced reality: the central issue is not where people work but how work is organised, managed and supported. Remote and hybrid working are no longer temporary responses to an emergency, such as the Covid-19 pandemic; they are now established features of the labour market. The challenge is therefore not whether hybrid working should continue but how it can operate effectively for employees, employers and the wider economy.

One aspect of the evidence that particularly struck me was the unequal distribution of opportunity. The benefits of hybrid working are most available to professional and highly skilled workers, particularly in larger cities such as London. By contrast, many people employed in healthcare, manufacturing, retail and hospitality have little access to such flexibility. We should therefore be cautious about assuming that the experiences of office-based workers reflect those of the wider workforce. Much of the evidence available came from employees rather than large employers. Employees frequently reported positive outcomes, including improved work/life balance, reduced commuting, greater autonomy and enhanced well-being. These benefits were especially cited as important for disabled people, carers and parents, many of whom found that flexible working enabled them to remain economically active.

However, the evidence also highlighted genuine concerns: social isolation, weaker workplace relationships and blurred boundaries between professional and personal life. Questions were also raised about career progression and mentoring opportunities, particularly for younger workers, who benefit from direct interaction with colleagues and managers. Microsoft reported that extensive remote working may weaken collaboration and knowledge- sharing networks.

For me, perhaps the most contested issue is productivity. Yet one of the committee’s strongest conclusions was that there is no convincing evidence that working from home either universally increases or decreases productivity. Overall, the evidence suggested that productivity depends less on location than on leadership, communication, organisational culture and effective management, as so ably highlighted by my noble friend Lady Bottomley.

However, several important questions remain unanswered. We found limited evidence on the impact of home working on consumer service outcomes, regional inequalities and equality and inclusion, and on whether remote working may conceal issues such as domestic abuse or increased caring burdens on women. As we have heard, there are also wider implications for cities, towns, transport systems and hospitality businesses. These gaps demonstrate the need for further research and better data, as articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and others. Can the Minister therefore say what plans the Government have to address these evidence gaps and improve data collection even further?

My conclusion is straightforward: hybrid working in some form is here to stay, but its success is not inevitable. Employers should retain the flexibility to determine arrangements that suit their organisations and workforce, rather than operate under a rigid mandate set out by any Government. Government should support this transition through investment in digital infrastructure, better data collection and the sharing of best practice. Can the Minister say when the Government plan to improve full access to internet connectivity, as well as to digital skills and digital infrastructure, particularly in rural and deprived areas? Indeed, in the area where I live, there is hardly any connectivity.

To conclude, further debate should focus not on where people work but on how we create productive, inclusive and sustainable workplaces, particularly as AI becomes more widespread. Therefore, can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to ensure that flexible and hybrid working do not further entrench inequalities in the workplace?

19:46

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the committee for its work and its recommendations, and in particular very grateful to the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for a very comprehensive introduction.

I have some form on this. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I remember the days back in the 1980s and 1990s, when we were struggling with employers to introduce flexible working patterns. The Government were opposed to changes—they did not like it—yet we managed to persuade them that it was the right way forward. In turn, it was a way that saved the Civil Service; we had so many vacancies that we could not fill, but we retained women who were going to leave because they were offered flexible working hours, and we recruited many more women into the Civil Service because they had the opportunity of working in that way. It spread throughout the public service—and now the NHS would not operate without the kind of flexibility that was then introduced there.

There are big changes now, and it is quite interesting. I was not on the committee. Had I been, I would have raised the issue of looking at what we did here in the House. I find it amazing that we worked so well and transformed ourselves when we were working from home, and I would be interested to know whether we are keeping up to date the evidence that we produced of our working activities. When we are considering the need to decant, I wonder whether we have explored the alternative possibility of working from home and a repeat of what we did during Covid. It worked extraordinarily well indeed. We may have a hybrid variation on that theme, but I am sure it would save an awful lot of money, as is presently being talked about, being spent on restoration and renewal.

I was particularly interested in the committee’s point about productivity, like other noble Lords. We have to look at AI there, and I will be interested to see what work the Government are doing on AI and its link with home working. There are so many areas in which I think we could be using AI to assist with people working from home. There is a whole long list. It can have a role as a coach for home workers. It can be used as a costing and output companion, which is an important change and quite a worrying one. It can record the work completed and objectives achieved, assist in prioritisation of objectives and help overcome obstacles that people face. It can summarise and report, and it can identify training needs and monitor well-being as well as burnout risks. In short—and this has all come from AI—there is a whole range of activities that could be undertaken that would assist in a way that management would have been expected to do in the past.

AI would not need to be used simply as observing hours worked. We need to find mechanisms whereby we can calculate the cost of working in a more up-to-date fashion than we do at present. If you ask AI who is doing this, you will find that McKinsey, Accenture and the major companies of that ilk are doing this kind of work and producing models. They are quite expensive, but they will very much be the way that we will operate in the future. Are the Government doing work in this area and are they starting to run any experimentation to see how we can move it forward?

19:50

[Lord Fink (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on securing this debate and on her exemplary chairmanship of the committee. I also thank our excellent clerk and staff team who supported the members of the committee, on which I served, and those who gave evidence to the inquiry. It was a pleasure to be part of the committee and, above all, I learned a great deal from the witnesses who gave evidence to us. Those insights helped to produce what I believe is a balanced and thoughtful report, and I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the issues more widely today. I refer to my registered interests and note that many of the companies in which I have an interest operate in a variety of styles, from fully office-based to hybrid and home working, so I have no real dog in this fight.

To avoid duplication and to save time, I will focus on just four issues. The first is information. I love getting proper stats for things, especially important areas of policy. I continues to amaze and shock me how much money we sometimes spend on areas where we just do not have the evidence to make the decisions that we make, and when the evidence could be available at relatively modest cost. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the evidence base. Can the Minister say in summing up, or in writing, how they intend to do so? Will they consider enhancing ONS surveys or sponsoring additional ones? If hybrid working is here to stay, surely we need 21st-century statistics to understand it. At present, our data tells us far too little about how people are working, how they are being managed and what impact this is having on productivity and opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned.

The second is lack of training. One of the strongest messages we heard during the inquiry was how many organisations moved to home and hybrid working at extraordinary speed during the pandemic. They did so out of necessity, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, pointed out, and with impressive success given the scale of the challenge. But, understandably, few had the opportunity to retrain managers or redesign systems for supervising, developing and supporting staff working in different ways. In too many cases, more effort went into procuring video conference facilities than training staff, which was ironic. As a consequence, some of the difficulties that have since been attributed to home working may in fact reflect shortcomings in management practices rather than shortcomings in home working itself. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development told the committee that organisations investing in line management training reported much better productivity outcomes, while many business leaders emphasised the importance of effective mentoring and collaboration, particularly for younger workers.

Good management has always mattered, but it matters even more when teams are dispersed. I discovered this myself when in business. If we are serious about improving productivity and increasing labour market participation—for all the inclusivity reasons mentioned of trying to widen out the workforce as much as possible—for home working and hybrid systems to really work, investment in management capability should be seen not as a luxury, but an economic necessity. I therefore hope the Government will consider whether more can be done to encourage and support organisations in developing the skills to make hybrid working a real success. I am not calling for a large new spending programme; rather, I wonder whether existing schemes, such as Help to Grow: Management, could place greater emphasis on leading hybrid teams, looking at best practice that could be shared and bringing together business organisations to develop practical guidance. Such measures need not be expensive, but they could yield significant benefits for productivity, staff retention and economic growth. Will the Minister please consider this? It would take very little cost to do, just organisation.

Thirdly, I have observed that home working was popular with almost all staff, and even many people who worked hybrid wished to go fully remote, but this is an example of being careful what you wish for. Many businesspeople I know would say that any job that can be done totally remotely is more susceptible to being made redundant, either through outsourcing to a cheaper country or using AI. Expecting to be employed in an expensive part of Britian while working totally remotely is probably an unrealistic expectation for the long term.

Fourthly and finally, something that needs to be considered is the impact on young people. For school and university leavers looking for their first employment role, it is in many cases becoming much more difficult for them to integrate into a team where remote working is the norm in terms of training, team working and work ethic. Indeed, as another noble Lord pointed out, the fact that people are hiring fewer young employees as a response to them having to work unsupervised indicates that there is a problem here. Young people learn an amazing amount by mimicry—you have only to go skiing and watch a young ski class all waggling and following the instructor to see that. Without help, they cannot learn. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government will consider how to assist young people who are being disadvantaged by the reduction in office-based working?

19:56

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amazing, herculean efforts to pull together such a difficult subject. I start, however, by offering a data point that I am not sure would have surfaced in the research. I started a small karaoke chain, Lucky Voice, which I may have mentioned to your Lordships before; we have a few venues around London. A very strange thing happened in the resurgence when we came back after Covid. Suddenly, Sunday nights, which had been dead before, became extremely popular and one of our biggest nights in the week. We could only assume that it was because people felt as though it did not matter whether they had a terrible hangover when working at home. I am not sure whether that contributes positively or negatively to productivity, but I offer that small piece of data to noble Lords.

More seriously, I felt that I had to speak in this debate, for two main reasons. First, as a disabled person, working from home and the flexibility that it has given me has transformed my working life and gives me the flex and ability to manage my working in a way that I had never thought possible. I hope that, as the report so clearly lays out, we allow that for as many disabled people as possible.

Secondly, I had a very dear friend, now departed, named Dame Stephanie Shirley, who I do not think was mentioned in report but, as many people will know, really was the godmother of home working. She built a company in the late 1960s—all women, all working from home and doing things in the most extraordinary way. She showed that, with good leadership and good management, as many noble Lords have said, it really is possible to build an extraordinary business entirely with remote workers. The women working with her, the software engineers, were not doing easy-peasy software projects; they were building things such as the black box for Concorde or the Polaris submarine missile control panels. I was lucky enough to know her in her later life—she died two years ago—and she always said the same thing: “Why have we been so unimaginative in moving this on? How can it be that, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we had these new models of working that enabled new categories of people to work, and yet we have not moved it on?”

Far be it from me to go against my great heroine, but I find that somewhat challenging. Despite being disabled and having had so many improvements in my own life from working, I wish to raise two concerns. They are in the report, but I would like to double down on them. The first is the anxiety I have about creating a separate class of working citizens, particularly among the disabled population. While it is miraculous to be able to be offered the opportunity to work, we all know that your career paths are formed by taps on the shoulder, someone seeing you in a meeting or someone actively being your mentor and being able to show you the opportunities that might arise. We also know that that is far harder if you are a disabled person full stop, let alone if you are a disabled person working from home. That can also be true for many other vulnerable categories.

In this new world of data that we are going to track, I really hope that we can track the impact on disabled people of working from home particularly, to see whether there are the same career progressions and promotions and the same economic uplift as for everybody else, as they deserve.

The second area has already been mentioned, but I want to make it explicit. This is London Tech Week; the reason I am wearing this ridiculous pink suit is that I am at so many events this week—it is completely manic. The buzz and the excitement, and of course the inevitable interest in AI, are just extraordinary. The Minister was there on Monday doing a splendid job of bigging up UK tech. However, the world that is described in the report looks back at the reflections that came out of Covid and designing the world of home working from that period. We should be thinking about the world as we approach the era of AI. I do not have the answers to that, but I think it is partly what the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, was talking about on connectivity.

To me, the biggest shift is going from a world where you have a set of skills in your job to one where you are going to be expected to constantly learn, and if you are not constantly learning you will be at a disadvantage. What does that look like in a world of flexible work, and how can we encourage companies to continue to help people learn to see the opportunities around them, especially if they are not in the office? That presents a whole new set of challenges, and in my opinion there has to be a rebasing: it cannot be just about your location. It has to be about where your learning is.

20:00

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the members of the committee for this timely report. As noble Lords have said, it comes at a very prescient time, not only because of challenges around AI but because employers around the country are grappling with this fundamental question: what is best for their organisations and the people who work for them?

I come to this debate from three perspectives. First, I am an employer and manager as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. Secondly, I am someone who could not easily get through the week without flexible working, balancing as I have to my responsibilities in Glasgow with my duties in your Lordships’ House. Thirdly, I am a parent of those grown-up children whom Alan Milburn has been talking about, facing challenges finding employment.

As the report acknowledges, the world of Teams and Zoom has undoubtedly opened up employment opportunities for many disabled people, but I sometimes wonder whether part of that success stems from the fact that, on a Teams call, we are all simply head and shoulders on a screen. Visible differences are less obvious, and perhaps discrimination becomes less likely when somebody’s wheelchair is not the first thing that you see. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly highlighted the challenges around Access to Work, not only the stresses and strains that the scheme is under but the whole understanding by those who administer the scheme of what is needed to support disabled people to get into and stay in work.

Home working can indeed save significant time, money and stress but, as the report acknowledges, it is not without its challenges. Not everyone has an ideal home environment; people may be sharing limited space or struggling with unreliable broadband. For others, a local coffee shop or a co-working space might seem a practical alternative, but that raises questions around confidentiality and data protection when sensitive information is handled in public spaces. As a manager, I have experienced the issue of sick leave, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, mentioned. When people say to me, “Can I work from home today because I’m not feeling too well?”, I need to know, “Can you work or are you too sick to work?” It is really hard if they are just choosing to work from home, and I struggle with the idea that you can look after small children and work at the same time.

The committee rightly highlighted concerns about isolation and the difficulties of mentoring remote workers. These issues apply to all employees, including disabled people. Disabled employees deserve not only to secure employment but to be fully integrated members of the team, with the same access to mentorship, development and informal learning opportunities as anybody else. Getting the job and proving you can do it is only the beginning. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, described much better than me, all people benefit from social interaction, workplace creativity and a sense of belonging, regardless of whether they are disabled or non-disabled.

My own experience is that people can often be more productive at home, particularly when they are undertaking tasks they understand well: work that is routine, clearly defined or familiar. However, when an organisation is seeking to challenge or change its culture, redesign services or develop new ways of working, those subtleties are much harder to absorb remotely. Some things are simply easier to understand when people are together, and Parliament is a wonderful example of that.

As many noble Lords have acknowledged, some roles cannot be fully home-based. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred to the NHS. I want to give a shout-out for NHS Scotland. In remote areas such as Orkney and Shetland, it trailblazed hybrid working long before the pandemic forced the rest of the NHS to catch up. At Cerebral Palsy Scotland, while our clinical therapists do deliver virtual sessions, in-person, hands-on, multidisciplinary working has a greater clinical impact and, so they tell me, provides greater professional satisfaction.

I have also seen situations where some teams can work flexibly while others, particularly those in customer-facing or manual roles, have no option but to be present every day. If that disparity is not managed carefully and sensitively, resentment can develop. I believe it goes far deeper than just the chief people officer. It can be damaging for morale, well-being and organisational culture.

The report seeks to articulate what the Government should do. Apart from the call for more data, and I would love an answer to what constitutes “reasonable” in some of these things, I am with my noble friend Lady Manzoor: the Government should do very little. Employment law, regulations and policies are already substantial, and a top-down approach is unlikely to succeed. The last thing many businesses need is additional prescription.

The report recognises that one size does not fit all. The key is flexibility. I know how much I value having control over my working time, but employers have to be supported to determine what works best for their organisation, while employees have to understand their organisation’s goals and agree how best they contribute to achieving them. This is a matter for employers and employees together. It is not, in my view, something with which government should overly concern itself. I thank the committee once again for its report and for bringing this important debate to the House.

20:07

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I join the chorus of congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and her committee for the excellent and relevant report. To inject a personal note, I am honoured and excited to be back in your Lordships’ House, this time hopefully for life.

I have had several stints working from home in my life. In the 1980s, I was a freelance photographer. My office was a desk, an electric typewriter and a phone in a bedroom. There was a slight temptation to sleep in the day. If I wanted to communicate with someone, I picked up the phone or went and saw them. There was no diversion from the internet and no email. I lived in a shared house and when work was slow, my housemates, who had jobs in offices, used to describe me as a puppy because when they returned home, I would jump up and yap at them.

This seems to be the group missing from the report: those who are not part of the gig economy, or hybrid working as we now know it, but people such as photographers, TV and production people, event organisers, art restorers, craftspeople and many others who work on projects on location but have an office at home. These are people for whom renting an office is an unnecessary expense and who like the flexibility of working from home. I suspect this is a much larger group of people than we realise, often in the multibillion-pound creative industries we hear so much about.

I also suspect that these people are mainly at the older end of average, and I would be really interested to hear from the Minister whether this discrete group appears as a sector in any research. But, as the report says, for the young, we need to be careful. Working from home is often seen by employers as bunking off. Scott Galloway, the business guru, puts it bluntly:

“It’s difficult to get your butt up every morning, put on a tie, blow dry your hair, put on a pantsuit, look reasonable, get on municipal transportation and get into work. And you know what? It’s worth it, especially for young people. Before you collect dogs and kids, get into the office”.


As a teacher, I say that lockdown was a reminder of how working from home can be a chore. Zoom lessons are grim: you need the reactions and human interactions to make a lesson work.

Jimmy Carr talks about the fact that people are not just working from home, they are living from home and even ordering their food to home. There is a danger of young people at home never leaving work. They miss interactions, such as chats by the kettle. Face-to-face meetings are much more efficient, plus it allows one to read the temperature and mood of a company. Many relationships start at work; we are a tribal species.

I am also sad that Thursday nights are now the new Friday nights, because everyone works from home on a Friday. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, Sundays are now fair game as well.

I leave the last word to Susie McDonald, the CEO of the healthy relationships charity Tender, who said:

“Employers should consider that an offer to all employees to work from home may not mean freedom and flexibility to all. For those experiencing domestic abuse, working from home may mean increased and unrelenting control, violence and monitoring by their abusive partner. The workplace can be a vitally important space to seek specialist support and make decisions about the future. For victims of domestic abuse, working from home may be the very antithesis of freedom”.

20:12

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank our excellent chair and fellow committee members for what I found to be quite a fascinating inquiry.

The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic transformed home-based working from a relatively niche practice into a normal part of working life for millions of people. The question for our committee and the apt title for our report is: is it working? The answer is that it can work very well, but only if we pay attention to how it is managed and to who benefits from it.

One of the strongest messages I took from the evidence was that home-based working has the potential to widen opportunity. As has been said, we heard compelling evidence about the benefits for disabled people, carers and others whose participation in the labour market may previously have been limited by rigid working patterns. That was an important finding. At a time when policymakers are rightly concerned about economic inactivity and labour shortages, greater flexibility can help people remain in or return to work, and it can open doors that might otherwise remain closed.

It can also help to democratise opportunity geographically. Talent is spread across the country far more evenly than jobs have traditionally been. If used well, home-based working can allow people to access opportunities without having to move to where those opportunities are concentrated. That has the potential to benefit individuals, families and communities well beyond our major employment centres.

Having spent much of my political life concerned with equality, I have learned that the biggest barriers are often the ones nobody intended to create. That is why I found myself asking a different question throughout the inquiry, a bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. If some groups make greater use of home-based working than others, what happens to their careers over time? If women continue to carry a greater share of caring responsibilities, and therefore make greater use of flexible working arrangements, are they promoted at the same rate as those who spend more time at the workplace? Are they likely to move into leadership positions? Are they seen in the same way as men by senior managers? We do not actually know.

What surprised me about the whole inquiry was how little we actually know. Again and again during the inquiry, we came up against the same problem: a lack of robust evidence. We heard strong opinions, anecdotes and assumptions. What we do not yet have, as many have said, is enough high-quality data to understand the long-term effects of home-based working on career progression, pay and opportunity.

That matters, as others have said, because careers are not built solely through formal appraisal systems; they are built through relationships, sponsorship and informal advocacy. They are built through being known, being trusted and being remembered when opportunities arise. Many of us will recognise that some of the most important conversations in our careers happened before meetings began, after they ended, in the pub or simply because we happened to be in the room. If visibility becomes opportunity, and opportunity becomes promotion, we need to understand who benefits and who may be left behind. A policy can appear entirely fair on paper and yet produce unequal outcomes in practice.

The report highlights another crucial issue: management. Successful home-based working requires much more than laptops and video calls. It requires managers who focus on outcomes rather than attendance; who set clear expectations; who stay connected with their teams; and who build trust through regular communication, support and accountability. It also requires employers to invest in the management programmes and skills needed to lead effectively in a more flexible working environment. Many witnesses seemed to say it was more ad hoc than actual practice. Good management can make flexible working a success, but poor management will undermine it.

For me, one of the most important conclusions of this inquiry is that the debate should no longer be framed as a choice between home and office because the world has moved on now. The real challenge is to ensure that flexibility expands opportunity rather than narrows it; that it supports participation without creating new barriers to progression; and that it works not just for those fortunate enough to have access to it, but as fairly as possible across our workforce.

Home-based working is going to remain a permanent feature of modern working life for the time being. Our task now is to ensure that it delivers not just flexibility and productivity, but fairness and opportunity too.

20:17

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a partner and practising solicitor with DAC Beachcroft.

What an interesting debate this has been. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I have served with her on committees before. She has great skill, and this report is a testament to her success. It is also a fact that so many of the members of her committee have contributed to the debate, which does not often happen—and it has been of great advantage. It has also been marvellous to hear from my noble friend Lord Sharma about how it all started around the time that he was in the Cabinet. That gave the whole debate a degree of context.

I very much welcome the report and the opportunity it provides to examine, as my noble friend Lord Monks pointed out right at the start of the debate, one of the most important shifts in working practice of the modern era. He is quite right to highlight the fact that we are now facing further shifts through AI, and I found his speech very valuable.

I will begin with what should be the foundational principle underpinning our approach: the Government have to take a step back and allow private sector employers to determine the working practices they believe are best for their businesses and their workforce, whether that is full time, fully remote or some hybrid arrangements in between.

As my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone pointed out, the role of the chief people officer has become so important. It was good to hear a number of views about flexible working, although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe—whom I call my noble friend—that I hope that his idea of Parliament working from home full-time is not to be taken too seriously. I also enjoyed the revelations from the noble Lord, Hampton, on some of his practices in the past.

It has been an entertaining and interesting debate, but I will try to join other speakers in looking at the whole picture. Across the length and breadth of this country, different approaches work for different sectors, firms and communities. Employers have had to adapt, often at pace and at significant cost, particularly since the pandemic turned working life on its head almost overnight. What the report rightly recognises—and what the Government should take to heart—is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Employer flexibility is what matters most, and it should be remembered that businesses operating in a free market have every incentive to create the most productive workforce they can. They do not need the Government to tell them how to arrange their own affairs.

I worry that the Government seemed to have moved in the opposite direction. Through the Employment Rights Act 2025, Ministers have introduced a strengthened right to flexible working, making it considerably more difficult for employers to introduce that concept. This provision is expected to come into force in 2027, subject to consultation, yet the Government have confirmed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, pointed out in her introductory speech—that the legislation does not intend to provide a definition of “reasonableness”. One must ask: what precisely is the point? If the threshold test is “reasonableness” but Parliament declines to define what “reasonable” means, all we have done is transfer the question from the employer’s boardroom to the employment tribunal. We have not resolved it; we have simply moved the uncertainty—and at considerable cost to businesses and to a tribunal system already operating under severe strain, as many have pointed out. The report warns of the prospect of “years of litigation”, if the legislation is not defined clearly and effectively. That is not a fringe concern raised by business lobby groups; it has been raised by the Select Committee itself.

It is worth reminding the Chamber what currently exists in the ACAS code of practice. An employer may reject a flexible working request but only on one of eight specified grounds, including

“the burden of additional costs … an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff … an inability to recruit additional staff … a detrimental impact on quality … a detrimental impact on performance … a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand … insufficient work available for the periods the employee proposes to work … planned structural changes to the employer’s business”.

These are not arbitrary barriers erected to frustrate workers—far from it; they are carefully calibrated, operationally grounded reasons that reflect the genuine commercial judgments an employer must be able to make. Why are the Government seeking to erode that flexibility? What evidence exists that the current framework is insufficient to protect workers who have a legitimate case?

My noble friends Lady Manzoor and Lady Bottomley turned to productivity. Considering what effect any future changes in legislation will have on productivity must surely be a central priority for any Government serious about growth. The picture the report paints is—to put it mildly—inconclusive. Boosting productivity across the labour market is one of the great challenges of our time, but there is insufficient data. As the eminent scientist, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, asked: where is the data? Why do we not have sufficient grounds on which to base our judgments? The ONS already admits that there is insufficient data, so we look to the Minister to make sure that we have the necessary data.

Another element ran through the debate. I had the opportunity to bring forward employment legislation—it was 42 years ago, so I am sorry to raise it. I introduced a scheme called Access to Work, which we have touched on several times in this debate. With that scheme, we sought to make it possible for people with a disability—people from various backgrounds—to have the necessary equipment to enable them to work alongside people who did not have any disability. In many ways, the question that we are now asking and that this report highlights is: what are we going to do to meet the challenges not only of flexible working but of artificial intelligence? How will we make sure that young people today have the opportunities they need?

My noble friend Lord Fink raised the question of young people. Can the Minister think through the need for solutions to be found by the Government? Mr Milburn will produce his report later this year. Now with over 1 million people not in education, employment or training, there are serious problems ahead if we are to give opportunities right across the field, in particular to young people. I hope that the Minister will do more than the Government did in their very brief response to the report. I also hope that she will be able to bring us up to date with what the Government said in paragraph 9 of their response; namely, that they

“will take forward a number of priority actions, including strengthening cross-government research and analysis efforts, and exploring how best to target information and advice to line managers”.

What does all that mean? That was several weeks ago, so what has happened since? It also states that they will

“establish a more structured, official-led stakeholder group”.

Has that group now been established? If so, can the Minister give us a full report on what has been achieved so far? This report requires a much more detailed response.

If there is a case for this Select Committee to continue, it has been made. I am sorry to say this to all its members present, but I think that this work is so valuable that it needs to continue. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing from the Minister.

20:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government, and I will address the key themes that have emerged through this thoughtful debate. I, too, start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, not only for securing the debate but for her skilful chairing of the Home-based Working Select Committee and for its report. I am also very grateful to the noble Lords on the committee who led the inquiry, many of whom are here today. It has made a valuable and timely intervention. It has improved our evidence base on this emerging area. I agree with every previous speaker that the richness of the debate today has been exemplary.

We heard compelling arguments that flexibility around when or where someone works can open up opportunities for people who may otherwise face difficulty securing a job, staying in work or progressing through their career. It can be particularly helpful for people navigating responsibilities in their home lives, whether that is caring for others or managing health conditions.

The Government recognise that the benefits of flexibility extend beyond surmounting those particular barriers at work. When implemented well, flexible working can support improved well-being, strengthen the work/life balance and enable people across the labour market to remain productive and engaged in their roles. It is also associated with tangible benefits for employers, including higher levels of staff motivation, stronger loyalty and improved retention.

That is why the Government are changing legislation to improve access to flexibility. The reforms we have introduced through the Employment Rights Act will make it more likely that flexible working requests are considered and are accepted where they are reasonable. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, the reasonable tests have been in place for over 20 years. We will ensure that when the flexible working reforms are finalised, there will be guidance specifically for employers on the reasonable test, and that will be subject to a further public consultation before the reforms take effect.

However, it is important to distinguish between flexibility as a broader concept and the specific question of home working, where the evidence landscape is more nuanced, as many noble Lords have mentioned today. For many, the pandemic necessitated a rapid shift to remote working, and we heard the various perspectives from the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, and my noble friend Lord Monks. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, put the consequences of the changes that it has made so poetically. Pre pandemic, around 12% of workers reported working from home some or all of the time, compared with around 39% today. The scale and pace of change have inevitably constrained the depth and consistency of the evidence base, and the longer-term impacts are still being understood.

The committee’s report, and many noble Lords today, underlined the gaps in evidence on home-based working. We are committed to improving the UK’s evidence base, in partnership with other government departments and business. We agree that it is important to monitor the effects of the changing ways of working over the years ahead, through both research and data collection.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharma, stressed the importance of working with business representative organisations and other economies. We already take it into account where it is comparable. As we discussed, there are already issues with data clarity, even within the UK. That is an important point and, where it is comparable, we will look to take that forward.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Fink, highlighted the importance of closer collaboration with the Office for National Statistics. We are engaging with the ONS to strengthen the evidence base, including collaboration on future data collection and research. This includes working through a cross-governmental analytical network to identify evidence gaps and develop more robust and comprehensive data over time.

The department is engaged with academics at the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence who are looking at developing linked employer/employee data in the UK. We will continue to explore opportunities to feed into this and benefit from that work. Many noble Lords mentioned the importance of that link.

While the ONS is operationally independent of the Government, the work is progressing on the linked employee/employer dataset, which links workers to their employers using pay-as-you-earn real-time information to track employers and employees over time. The ONS anticipates that a technical note and a set of exploratory statistics will be published later this year.

Many noble Lords talked about the balance that needs to be struck in making sure there is increased flexibility, including home-working arrangements, and that it works for employers as well as employees. The noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Baroness Manzoor, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, set out why decisions about working arrangements should ultimately sit with employers and employees. I agree that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate. That is why the Government are focused on expanding access to flexibility where it is feasible, encouraging dialogue between employees and employers, while making sure that businesses do not have to accept requests that are not reasonable or will not work in practice.

I listened carefully to noble Lords who rightly drew attention to the potential risks of home working. Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor, Lady Scott and Lady Watkins, highlighted the potential impacts of home and hybrid working on productivity, well-being and business performance. The evidence on these factors is complex and still evolving.

We recognise that the evidence on home working and productivity remains mixed and difficult to measure, with impacts varying by role and working arrangements. As many have underlined today, there is a very important nexus with good management, and it is important to support that. As the noble Lord, Lord Fink, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, rightly emphasised, the Government have a role. We already provide some support and training in this area, such as the Help to Grow management programme, and we will consider whether further support is needed as reforms take effect.

My noble friends Lady Nye and Lord Brooke also noted the importance of public sector practice. The line manager capability programme was developed to improve the quality of line management across the Civil Service, including managing dispersed teams. Some noble Lords highlighted the importance of health and safety. Noble Lords are aware that through the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers have the same health and safety responsibilities for people working at home as they do for other workplaces. To improve understanding, the HSE recently promoted its home worker guidance through a multichannel communications campaign, which ran for eight weeks, from February to April this year. These efforts saw a doubling in visits to the web pages based on the previous eight weeks.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Fink and Lord Hampton, highlighted the experience of young people. We know that face-to-face time can be vital for training and career progression. The changes we are making will not stop employers determining that some work needs to be done in person.

I also want to acknowledge the important contributions that highlight the distinct value, opportunities and challenges of home working for disabled people and those managing health conditions. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and others, drew attention to the Access to Work scheme. The Access to Work scheme can help disabled people and people with physical or mental health conditions start or stay in work. We have said that it requires some improvements to ensure that it can deliver a timely, efficient and value-for-money service. Reform in this area is complex. We are taking the time needed to consult widely, collaborate and gather evidence from disabled people, employers and representative organisations, and we are continuing to refine policy options. Ministers will announce next steps when they are fully developed in that area.

Many others have also highlighted the importance of the Keep Britain Working Vanguard phase. That is currently considering how employers and government can work together to reduce health-related economic inactivity and build healthier and more inclusive workplaces. That phase is well under way. We are working with 150 employers in 11 regions, and we have begun our work to get the Workplace Health Intelligence Unit up and running to support the outcomes of that Vanguard scheme.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Scott, highlighted the importance of digital connectivity and skills, and indeed skills in AI. The Government recognise the importance of access to a fast and reliable broadband connection and are committed to ensuring that 99% of premises receive gigabit coverage by 2032. At the end of 2025, over 1.3 million premises in rural and hard-to-reach communities had been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through government-funded programmes over years. The UK is now one of the fastest builders of gigabit-capable broadband networks in Europe.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Freeman, and my noble friends Lord Monks and Lord Brooke, highlighted the uncertain nexus with the development of AI and how the home-based and flexible working we have seen develop post Covid will interact with that. These are very important questions, and I will make sure that I raise the point about flexible working and home working with the AI and the Future of Work Unit, so that when it continues its research it can make sure that the committee’s report and the points made today are considered in future deliberations.

Noble Lords highlighted the importance of delivery of these reforms. We are continuing to work across government to make the dispute resolution system more resilient, ensuring that the measures in the Employment Rights Act can be effectively enforced. This includes a mix of measures and longer-term reform, so the system is fit for purpose for the current landscape of employment rights and equipped to respond to future changes.

A number of important questions have been raised on how the increase in home working is supported in practice, including through workplace support and guidance. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, is right to underline the importance of chief people officers, other HR professionals, and the role of line managers in considering how there might be scope for flexible working, given the organisation’s way of working, and how that is communicated with employees. We have listened to calls to engage with external stakeholders as we develop and iterate new guidance about the upcoming flexible working reforms. We have already been working to deliver this with a series of questions in our recent flexible working consultation, looking at the types of guidance line managers, employees and employers will need as these changes take effect. In parallel, officials have held 10 round-table discussions during the consultation to learn more about the guidance and resources that could be most helpful.

We will continue to build on this work, and we will establish a more structured, official-led stakeholder group. This will bring together stakeholders and business leaders to advise and support implementation while helping the Government drive culture change and shift narratives around flexible working. Once again, I would like to thank the noble Baroness and her committee for their report, and I would like to thank noble Lords for all their contributions today.

20:43

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for engaging so comprehensively with the committee’s report and for some useful updates, and I am sure the committee would join me in that.

We have had an excellent debate, and not just because noble Lords all said nice things about me —although I am not complaining about that. Every contribution has been thoughtful and insightful and has added something to the work of the committee, which, as I think noble Lords can all see, worked very hard over a long period of time to produce this.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, started by reminding us of the pandemic and the incredible pivot that the workforce in this country made—indeed, it happened in this House. It is worth reflecting that that was only six years ago. In the sweep of history and the way that labour markets change, that is a very short spell of time.

What we were trying to do in this report was, in a way, to provide a comprehensive snapshot—but it is an entire album, is it not?—of where we are now. We think it will be useful to policymakers now and, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in looking not just backwards but forwards. To make a cliché, you cannot look forward unless you know where you have come from, and I think we have done a good job in saying that. I thank everyone who has taken part and I commend the report to the House.

Motion agreed.

New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

20:45

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee New Towns: Laying the Foundations (2nd Report, HL Paper 183, Session 2024–26).

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin, I say some words of thanks. First, I thank the 88 organisations and individuals who submitted written evidence, alongside the witnesses who appeared before the committee over 11 sessions. Secondly, I thank the team backstage: our excellent specialist adviser, Kelvin MacDonald; and the committee staff, comprising Dervish Mertcan, Emily Macpherson-Smith, Charlie Warner and Nick Boorer, who all kept the show on the road with exemplary calm. My thanks also go to our embassy staff and all those who hosted us in Copenhagen. I express my genuine and personal thanks to the Minister, her team and those in the department, who have shown deep respect to not only me but the committee and helped us on this issue and others.

Finally, and not least, I thank my colleagues on the committee, some of whom are here, not only for the invaluable support they have given me and the committee but for the fact that they have tolerated me throughout that period. They have steered us to what is, I think, a brilliant final report. I thank, if I may, Viscounts Hanworth and Younger. Their voices are missed in the committee and in this debate—particularly, for me, Viscount Younger, who was always incredibly supportive.

This is the committee’s first report of three—everyone will be delighted to know that—on new towns. Given the scale and ambition required to deliver new towns, we chose to split the inquiry into a series of modules. This has enabled us to take a more targeted and granular look at discrete elements of the overall programme, rather than trying to cram everything into a single tome. Since this first report was published in October last year, we have published our second report, on creating communities. Today, I will focus my remarks on the first report, but, worry not, at a future date we will talk about creating thriving communities. It is worth noting that our committee chose not to look at or comment on specific locations which the Government were already doing when we started our inquiry.

The report was produced by Members who looked carefully at the evidence and arrived at the same broad conclusion: this programme has huge potential but only if it is done properly. We approached the inquiry as a critical friend of the Government’s programme. We want it to succeed; indeed, that is precisely why we think it is our duty to say plainly where it is not yet on track. We would be failing in our duty to the Government and our fellow citizens if we did not hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

This is, after all, not the first time this country has set out to build new communities at scale. It is the latest chapter in a story that stretches back more than a century. The post-war new towns were, by any sensible measure, a considerable success, as the Minister can testify. They housed millions, opened up opportunity and showed what the Government could do when they combined ambition with organisation. But a good many attempts since then have been less glorious. Some never got properly off the drawing board, some delivered housing but not places, and some lacked warmth and coherence. This really is an opportunity to get it right this time.

The test of the Government on this agenda will be the towns they actually build and whether these are places in which people can live well, get around easily, find work, raise families and feel they belong. That is why the first report is about the foundations. Foundations are not the most glamorous, but they are crucial. I will start with the positives, as there are things that the Government have done in getting the ball rolling that deserve real credit.

The first is development corporations. We recommended that they should be the default delivery mechanism for new towns and large-scale settlements, and the Government have broadly agreed. They matter because they work. They are tried, tested and credible. They can assemble land, plan at scale and keep a steady hand on the tiller.

Secondly, some of the necessary legislative plumbing is now in place. The Government have moved beyond aspiration and into action. Crucially, compulsory purchase reform now includes the ability to remove hope value in the right circumstances. I know that this can be controversial, but it matters because if land values rise steeply on the expectation of future development, it becomes much harder to fund affordable housing, infrastructure and community benefit.

Thirdly, the wider devolution framework is moving towards powers for mayors and more tools to support infrastructure and regeneration. If these new towns are to succeed, they need to be tied into transport, economic strategy and local leadership. New towns simply cannot be dropped from the great administrative height of Whitehall and expected to land elegantly.

Fourthly, there has been welcome movement on patient capital. The National Housing Bank is a serious development. If this programme is to work, it needs long-term money that understands long-term returns.

Fifthly, the Government have established a new towns unit—a single front door to government—moving from broad intent to an actual process of consultation, assessment and site development.

So let me be clear: this is not a picture of total inertia. Quite a lot has happened and the Government should take credit for it. However, despite that progress there are still some serious gaps. We are two years on and the clock is ticking.

The first area is vision. We said in our report that the Government needed to retake control of the narrative. At the moment, I am not persuaded that the Government have yet supplied that vision in their own voice. Too much of the story still seems to be borrowed from the taskforce. People need to hear clearly and repeatedly what this is for. Is it about giving young families a realistic chance of a home? Is it about healthier places? Is it about joining up housing, growth and infrastructure? Is it about building communities that are greener, better connected and more affordable? Is it about creating and supporting tech centres?

Whatever the goal, whatever the mission, the Government should say so plainly, confidently and often. This should and can be a great national endeavour. It should be exciting, positive and upbeat and should be something we are proud of doing and talking about.

The second area is governance—or, as I say, “grip”. This is the gap that worries me the most, because until the Government get a real grip of the programme and own it, we are not convinced that it will ever happen. These are not five-year projects. They are not even 10-year projects. They are multi-decade undertakings.

We recommend two things: a genuinely independent central body to oversee the programme and proper cross-government leadership of sufficient seniority to hold it together over time. What we have instead is a unit within one department. I am sure that unit is useful, but a unit is not a commission, and it is certainly not a substitute for Cabinet-level leadership.

These are 60-year projects, yet at present they seem to rest heavily on the energy and commitment of a single Minister who has new towns listed as one of his 12 ministerial responsibilities. Admirable though that may be, and even with the support, dedication and passion of our own Minister, and others, to me it just does not feel enough. The vast scale of the task at hand means that it needs to be driven day in, day out, so that someone can bang the table—ideally, the Cabinet table.

Ultimately, this scheme requires the Treasury to play ball. It needs round-the-clock grip, not just to handle Whitehall but to engage local authorities and encourage the private sector and investment to help unblock issues that may arise. Our conclusion on this was blunt—because the evidence justified that bluntness —that without sustained government management and support, there is a strong likelihood of failure.

Thirdly, there is a question of the government ownership stake. We recommend that the Government should retain a small but effective ownership stake in each development corporation, because the evidence suggested that even a modest state stake could improve investor confidence and unlock cheaper longer-term borrowing. We saw this in Copenhagen—its model is not transferable in every detail, of course, but the principle was clear enough: a small public stake can create a great deal of confidence. So we appeal again, because it seems to be one of those rare policy levers that costs relatively little and achieves rather a lot in return.

The fourth is skills. We recommended that the abolition of level 7 apprenticeships for those over 21 be reversed, at least for the professions in the built and natural environment. It makes no sense to announce an ambitious programme such as this—not to mention the 1.5 million target—while quietly narrowing one of the routes into the professions needed to deliver it. Planners, surveyors, urban designers, environmental specialists and the many others on whom good development depends—we cannot just magic these people up overnight. They need training, routes in, and institutional support. The professional concern here is serious. Just when everyone agrees that the system needs more capacity, we are making it even harder for people to enter some of the very professions on which success depends.

Fifthly, there is money. Our committee asked for clarity on the financing mechanism. The Government have pointed to existing programmes, and those are welcome as far as they go; but existing programmes are not the same thing as a transparent, dedicated funding model designed around the realities of new towns: high up-front infrastructure costs, long time horizons, patient returns, land value capture, and proper stewardship. I am afraid too many of the answers in the government response amounted, in effect, to: “We will say more in the spring”. I think we have passed spring, so here is the chance.

There is one final point I want to make, because it goes to legitimacy. We said that the framework for community engagement should be set before sites were announced. That was not procedural fussiness. It was an acknowledgment of the obvious truth that people are more likely to trust a process if they believe they are part of it before the broad shape of events has already been settled. If people feel that consultation begins only once the machinery is already humming in the background, suspicion will grow; and once suspicion takes root, delivery gets slower, not faster.

I end with four requests of the Minister. First, is the Minister able to give the House a firm date for the full government response now that this consultation is over? Secondly, will the Government commit to leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority? Thirdly, will they reconsider the case for a small government ownership stake in each development corporation? Fourthly, will they, even at this stage, exempt the built and natural environment professions from the changes to level 7 apprenticeship funding?

We remain a critical friend of this programme. Get the vision right, the governance right, the skills right and the money right, and this generation of new towns could stand in comparison with the great achievements of the post-war era. Get them wrong, and we will not have built a new generation of communities at all. We will simply have extended a long and, alas, increasingly British tradition of promising much, consulting often and delivering less. We can do it.

I thank the Minister and all those who will take part in this debate, including my fellow committee members, and I look forward to all their contributions. I beg to move.

20:58

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, this new town agenda is very exciting. It is a chance for us to create new, high-quality communities for the 21st century, where the quality of people’s lives will be boosted by their surroundings: places where people can live, work and play and, above all, be inspired. But this agenda needs to be driven. It needs dedication and a degree of government urgency, which seem to be currently lacking.

I am now convinced that success in politics is not so much about what you believe in and more about whether you are able to get things done. But such is the risk aversion within Whitehall and Westminster, that it is now only by exceptional enthusiasm and drive that you can achieve anything. So a forward-looking agenda such as this new town agenda needs inspirational leadership and the will to drive it forward. It is not a controversial agenda. Who can deny that we need new housing? Who can deny that we need well-built, carbon-neutral communities, surrounded by a renewed and biodiverse environment? Who can deny that we need communities that bring people together, provide a high percentage of affordable housing, and make people proud to live there? We need communities with the best health and education services, sports facilities, and places to meet and chat for all ages.

What do the Government need to do to make this happen? They have to commit leadership and inspiration to overcome local opposition—or, actually, to inspire such opposition to see the very real possibilities for a good life for their children or for themselves in their old age. The message is that high-quality design and well-built buildings with trees and green spaces might even be better than the farmland that they had before—and I speak as a farmer who loves our countryside.

If some of today’s voters do not get it, I point out that our committee recently conducted a school survey on new towns, and 900 children responded; that is the highest response rate the engagement team has ever had. I can report that if today’s voters are less than enthusiastic, tomorrow’s voters are hugely enthusiastic and have loads of ideas about creating communities fit for tomorrow.

Turning to the economics, I am afraid that, even in these stringent times, the Government have to commit money, either through investment or, preferably, by loan guarantees. The land value uplift and the initial sale of houses will not provide enough to get these inspirational schemes off the ground—although, after 20 to 30 years, the development corporation should be able to turn a surplus. I am afraid that the Treasury has to get involved, and, if PPP is the latest answer for translating vision into reality, go for it. It is not like previous PFI hospitals and so on, which were derided for lumbering future generations with debt. These new town projects will turn a profit. It is just the first 30 to 40 years that are difficult; everyone benefits, eventually.

More than the Treasury, the Government need to get all the departments on board. Before the first house can be sold, there have to be good medical services available, so that is the Department of Health; good educational services, schools and perhaps even a training college, so that is the DfE; good local transport that fits into national transport, so that is the DfT; and good police and fire services, so that is the Home Office. There also has to be a commitment from the private sector that it can provide the shops, pubs, cafés and restaurants that will make these places truly vibrant—that is the PPP bid. All this investment commitment has to be spelled out by our political leaders ASAP. It is not complicated; it just needs vision and commitment.

There is nothing in our report to frighten the horses—in fact, quite the opposite. Everything we say looks forward in a positive way, yet, in spite of this agenda being a manifesto commitment, two years after the election the Government’s response to our report was at best lukewarm. However, I am pleased to say that, in recent weeks, there has been a bit more spark coming out of the department, so let us hope that this develops into a veritable blaze of enthusiasm and drive.

21:02

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I pay credit to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the work that they did in this committee and continue to do. It is very helpful. I share the view of my noble friend and regard myself very much as a friend of the New Towns Taskforce and the new towns programme, albeit occasionally a critical one, as the Minister knows well.

I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, particularly over the past decade as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. It is on Cambridgeshire that I want to focus for a couple of minutes. I was the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire for 18 years and for the past decade I have been working in the development forum and continue to live in the area. Thirty years ago, we started building Cambourne on a greenfield site to the west of Cambridge. To put it all in context, in the Cambridge region we are building out Cambourne. If Cambourne North is in the local plan, which I expect it to be eventually, it will be 25,000 homes. We are building out Northstowe, which is anticipated to be 10,000-plus homes. We are building out Waterbeach, north of Cambridge, on the A10 between Cambridge and Ely, which is expected to be 11,000 homes. Last week, the Government, in the shape of Homes England and the Hill Group, secured the project for the build-out of Cambridge East, which people think of as Cambridge airfield, which will be more than 10,000 homes.

So we have our own new towns programme. None of these are in the Government’s new towns programme. Cambridgeshire is planning to deliver 55,000 homes through its own new settlements, without the benefit of the new towns programme in any formal sense. However, the Government are planning a development corporation. I look forward to a debate on the statutory instrument about that, and we will discuss it then.

We have learned a few things. First, in Cambourne, we are 30 years on but only now are we going to get east-west rail with a railway station. Secondly, at Northstowe, we learned the lesson that we needed some of that infrastructure. The Conservative county council built the guided busway and a Conservative Government built the A14 rebuild, but that did not mean that Northstowe happened when we expected it to and to the extent that we thought it would. If I had been standing here in 2007, I would have said, “In 10 years’ time, Northstowe will be established. It will have 2,500 homes and be planning to go to 10,000”. Ten years on from 2007, there were in fact no homes in Northstowe. Why? Because in October 2008 the market collapsed.

It is so important that, as my esteemed friend Oliver Letwin said in his review, we understand the central importance of markets and of ensuring that we respond to them, not least in where we locate new towns and where there is market demand and viability, and in the diversity of tenure in those towns, so that we can see these properties go into the market. It is only those market sales that are fundamentally going to fund the affordable and social housing that we want to be a significant part of this.

We have learned some of those lessons and they are being incorporated into the new towns programme, but we should not imagine that we are operating by looking back to 1945 and then imagining what we are going to do in 2026. No. We can see now in Cambridgeshire what the lessons are. Some of them have been painful ones, but we have none the less come through and are succeeding. I want the Government—we will have this debate another time—to recognise that Cambridgeshire is doing the things that the Government want it to and does not need the new towns programme to make it happen, but that we can learn from it in encouraging other places to do so.

I have two more points. First, yes, there should be development corporations, but in some places they should be mayoral development corporations with tax increment financing, as well as loans from Homes England and the Government. Secondly, when my noble friend’s committee comes to look at the future and community engagement, it should remember that it is the young people today—probably teenagers—who will be moving into many of these homes. Let us engage them too, not just the communities that already live there.

21:08

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Select Committee report, particularly its emphasis on an infrastructure-first approach, mandatory basic design standards and capturing land values. I welcome the overall direction set out in the Government’s consultation on the draft new towns programme and policy, particularly the emphasis on high-quality place-making, environmental sustainability and the integration of green infrastructure. However, I will press the Government to be bolder in three key areas. I apologise to the Minister for repeating points that I made during the Social Housing Bill, but a good story can take repetition. I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission.

The first point on which I encourage the Government is that the scale of the new town programme presents a significant opportunity to embed trees and woods as fundamental components of place from the outset. Trees and woods are just as vital basic infrastructure as road, rail, schools and doctors’ surgeries. Trees reduce heat effect and promote nature-based solutions to flood risk, both within urban developments and surrounding them, by slowing the flow of water. They support biodiversity and measurably promote health and well-being. They fulfil a government commitment that there would be an accessible green space within 15 minutes’ walk for urban dwellers. They improve air quality, sequester carbon and promote community cohesion. If there were no trees, you would have to invent them.

Recent research has shown that where green infrastructure is introduced too late in the development process, opportunities are reduced and outcomes are less effective. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about the Camborne development, and it absolutely embraced the concept of developing green spaces as part of its master plan right from the start. However, it is slightly unfortunate now that East West Rail will go straight through one of the major nature reserves created in that process. That also outlines the need for integrated and comprehensive master planning.

The use of trees and woods to help shape the layout and identity of a development needs to be part of landscape-led master planning and not retrofitted. There are already examples of good practice. The Marston Vale community forest, for example, has agreed with all its surrounding local authorities supplementary planning documents so all substantial developments will have at least the minimum level of tree canopy cover. I encourage the Government to think of that as something that they might make obligatory.

I also urge the Government to use the opportunity of the new towns programme to promote modern construction methods, particularly the Government’s timber and construction road map. The benefits of using wood in construction include replacing carbon-intensive steel and concrete, and locking up carbon for the entire life of the building in addition to the growth period of the tree. Timber is also a natural insulator. However, the Government also need to ensure that long-term and reliable signals are given to the timber growing and processing markets to ensure that as much timber used in construction as possible is produced here in the UK—80% is currently imported. There is a clear policy need there. We want local homes made with local timber providing local jobs.

Will the Minister ensure that recent announcements about fire safety for high-rise buildings do not inadvertently stifle wood-based houses that do not represent a fire risk if they are below three storeys? Some 91% of Scotland’s houses are timber-framed and I have not detected a higher level of house fires in Scotland, despite some of the other habits of the Scots—I can say that because I am one. Here in England, currently only 9% of homes are currently being built with timber.

I have one last point to make, if I may. The Select Committee called for a national spatial strategy and it is good that the land use framework has now been published for England. The approach to new town location needs to use the principles and practice of the land use framework, and the increasing wealth of data that underpins it, to help guide new town locations away from sensitive areas that are inappropriate and towards those most suited, using the whole range of the environmental, social and economic data. That is what a land use framework is for. It would be absolutely first class if the new towns’ planning and policy used that and acted as an exemplar for how a land use framework approach can work.

I know that there will be later comments on particular locations in the programme for the new homes, and I hope that the House will note that the reason for some of the sensitivities about some of the locations is that because a land use framework approach has not been used. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

21:13

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, in 2004 the Labour Government were struggling with a shortage of homes and rising housing costs, so I offered some published advice on how, for example, they could initiate the construction of a new garden city by the Thames. I provisionally called it Thames Reach—it was in the Ebbsfleet area—as an example of how it would be easier to get consent to something bold and visionary which included infrastructure and formed complete communities than to just keep on adding piecemeal to existing communities who often did not like the stresses and strains that could create. It did not appeal to the then Labour Government, but the incoming Conservative Government later took other advice and decided on Ebbsfleet Garden City, and that is now well under way, with a development corporation to do it. I am very pleased they did it, and I think it is an example of what can be achieved.

Like others in this debate, I would like to see more passion, enthusiasm, urgency, force and development. The Government made a mighty promise to our country of 1.5 million houses in five years. The last Government were achieving around a million; they hit their targets. The Labour Opposition were quite right to say that they were not that stretching, and they came up with this stretching target. But I have got news for Ministers: two years in, they are miles off the pace. They will not even hit the pace of the outgoing Conservative Government. They need to make a big shift in what they are trying to achieve.

I would also like to hear more about how it can be based in some fine traditions of British development, and the formation of British communities. Someone I revere as one of our great entrepreneurial designers, Josiah Wedgwood, in some ways started it with above-average housing for the skilled workers that he recruited, trained, and wished to retain, in a village called Etruria. What a good idea to give them an improvement in living standards as part of the package.

That was carried on by other great entrepreneurs and rich families. Go and visit Bournville and Port Sunlight; are Ministers not proud of these? They were great achievements, with wonderful architecture, countryside in the development, people with gardens, sporting facilities that they could use, communal facilities that they could go and enjoy, a community that was built around a place of work that they were proud of, and that paid them decent wages and looked after them. This spread out more widely, as we have heard from others, in post-war developments, when you had the development of garden cities, with Welwyn and so forth taking off. So there is a tradition that we can build on, and the Government could show more passion, and a bit more continuity in British life, drawing on the things we can be proud of: how normal skilled workers got access to much better housing, started to live in communities and then went on to become owners, which is also extremely important for democratising capital and spreading wealth more widely.

The Government should also look at what works to break down resistance, because we have a paradox in public opinion in this country. The public think that we should build more houses, but most of the public do not think any of the houses should be built anywhere near them. I represented a constituency which always had one of the fastest rates of new house building foisted on it by successive Governments: the constituency of Wokingham. So successful was it that they kept having to break bits off from my constituency to form new ones, as we had so many people coming into the patch. I had to be the chief nimby, but you can see that I am not a nimby. We need to build houses. Construction is a great thing. But I did have to represent the perfectly genuine view that, if you took too many of our green fields and green gaps between settlements, you destroyed the community and changed the nature of the fabric of the local area. We were being asked to take too much, too quickly.

I also shared the view that we were not getting access to the funds and projects for the infrastructure. We were inviting people in when there was not electricity, water, enough pipes to take the dirty water away, or enough drained land, so the new houses flooded almost as soon as people moved into them. It was a disgrace that we did not plan it properly.

So I urge the Government to put more emphasis on new cities and towns, to accept the conclusions of the report that you plan them in advance and, above all, that you put the facilities in first.

21:18

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his report. I recognise the need for new homes, and the role that new settlements can play in that provision. The question, of course, is where those new settlements should be located, and on what scale.

I must declare not only the interest which I have placed in the register—that I am chairman and have other positions in the Countryside Alliance—but also that I live near Newmarket, on the edge of a proposed new development on the east Cambridgeshire/west Suffolk border. My views, therefore, may be discounted because I have an obvious interest and concern, but I hope to make a case against this proposed settlement on its merits.

It is called Forest City, an oxymoron reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “Sweet sorrow” or Milton’s “Darkness visible”. It is a privately promoted scheme which first emerged, to general astonishment, last year. It is not a new town; it is a city which would apparently comprise 400,000 homes across 45,000 acres, and that scale is extraordinary. It is twice the size of Bristol with about the size of Birmingham’s population, itself the second largest city in the country. It is a larger city than Manchester and would be one of the most significant urban developments in modern British history. It is more than three times the size of the largest new town, Milton Keynes; five times the size of the second largest, Telford; and—I am sure of interest to the Minister—10 times bigger than Stevenage and 20 times bigger than Welwyn Garden City.

It is located entirely on beautiful countryside in the Stour valley—countryside which I would argue merits protection in its own right—and is in stark contrast to the kind of lower-grade or degraded countryside, or even areas of green belt that are degraded, which we should not be worried about in protecting beautiful countryside. Significantly, this is also grade 2 farmland. The Government’s own Land Use Framework for England says that its analysis

“aims to reduce trade-offs by avoiding land use change on our best agricultural land”.

That reflects the National Planning Policy Framework, which directs development away from the best and most versatile agricultural land, including grade 2 land.

This proposal sits alongside—directly proximate to—the development which my noble friend Lord Lansley already described: an increase of 50,000 homes in Cambridge that would double its size. On one side of the A11, in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—your Lordships can see the logic in this—there would be a massive new development and then on the east side, in entirely open countryside, not on the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there would be another which would completely dwarf it. The proposal seems confused about whether it is a potentially complementary scheme or one which is an alternative.

This area of the country, Cambridgeshire, is water stressed. It is one of the driest areas of the country. Where would the water come from? The scheme’s promoters say that there would be a cost in providing it of £4.3 billion. Where would the transport infrastructure be funded from? The scheme’s promoters say that roads, railway, et cetera would cost some £16 billion—there is no proper railway connection to this development. The local Member of Parliament, Nick Timothy, estimates the infrastructure costs alone as some £60 billion and the state subsidy required to build this development as between £80 billion and £110 billion, because there is a proposal that the housing would be all affordable and that the plan would eliminate land value receipts, which normally fund roads, schools and hospitals. What that suggests is that this proposal is pie in the sky.

There may be an attractive brochure with pictures of beavers and bison, people swimming in lakes, and gobbledygook such as “symbiotic mobility” and “synchromodality”. There may be doublespeak about villages being integrated in the urban fabric of the city, but the truth is that there will be concrete where there was countryside, highways where there were hedgerows and more housing where there are hamlets. This is a utopian delusion. It is not a serious proposal, but the effect on the local community of promoting it is serious, because it creates anxiety and property blight. Of course, it also has an effect on the existing proposed development nearby in Cambridgeshire.

The Government have said that they will consider any reasonable alternatives to the recommended locations of their new towns. I note from the Financial Times on 29 May that the Government said that they had received the proposal that I am referring to and that they were reviewing it. I would encourage the Government to rule out this absurd proposal as soon as possible to eliminate the tremendous uncertainty that is created by it, to recognise that it is a folly and not a serious or sensible proposal, but one that is creating enormous worry to a huge number of local residents.

21:25

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very welcome debate not only because it is the opportunity to discuss our first report of the Built Environment Committee, but also because it is turning into a very interesting debate in all manner of ways. I pay tribute to our excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is extremely enthusiastic, focused and gets the best out of witnesses. He said, quite rightly, that from the start the committee recognised that we were dealing with a very big idea when we addressed new towns: an idea that needed big presence and big energy but required more than a single report and a deep dive. I will focus on a few key issues that illuminate why we have come to our conclusions. The report was innovative, but it also had quite an unusual context. It was modular but it was also very dynamic, because policy was being made by the taskforce while we were doing our work. When the list of sites was revealed, it was good to see that the committee and the taskforce shared so many assumptions about the power of place-making.

A second characteristic was that new towns are sui generis. They take decades to deliver. Ministers are very lucky to see spades in the ground, but they depend on the keenest foresight, whether about energy or food or nature security or extreme weather. The watchword that runs through this is “stewardship”, and therefore development corporations are the right vehicles. Mayoral development corporations will be tremendously useful and have great potential, and they have the capacity to be responsive and flexible and far-sighted as the realities change.

Finally, it was good to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said: this is indeed policy embedded in living history, because the reality of the post-war vision is ever before us. People are still living in those settings. There was a certain wistfulness in our committee that we did not have the heroic vision and the post-war imperatives of rehousing, which were profoundly necessary but also popular. They came with the patient capital investment that paid off, and we make the same case under different conditions, because our housing emergency cannot be encapsulated easily in a single vision, although that is what we called for. It has a dual purpose: addressing our structural housing shortage and unlocking growth. Both are essential, but how do they relate to each other? Where is the novelty? Where is the innovation going to come from?

The challenge is even greater because we are in the foothills of our own industrial revolution, more unpredictable than those that have shaped our world. The uncertainty is compounded by very different financial conditions, labour markets, skill needs and changes in demography. All of that affects housing aspiration and provision. The new towns sit alongside massive new investment in social housing and are faced with all the familiar problems that frustrate every development in the country.

I have two questions for the Minister. Can she say something this evening on the contribution that new towns will make to the overall housing targets? There is still a bit of confusion about that. Can she bring us up to speed with the work of Homes England and the National Housing Bank, because they are so critical to getting things done?

On changes about national mood, people rightly expect to be involved in decisions about their future; they were not in that frame of mind in 1947. It makes a single conversation about new towns and their purpose more difficult and more contentious. Seeing is believing, but the work of the taskforce has been under the radar, and it means the field is wide open to vocal opposition—hence our insistence that there must be a bigger voice and greater visibility to bring the credibility and energy that they demand.

We can do it, because there are new tools and new opportunities. Place-making can bring consciously together landscape, character, sustainability, infrastructure and quality of life. Many of our recommendations audit the unique opportunities that new towns present to think creatively, with private and communal space, conservation, connectivity, integrated services, community ownership, design codes and innovative funding. Those factors will create the new models for the future.

In evidence to the committee, the Minister was a formidable advocate for new towns, and every Minister who came before us was very focused—and the taskforce is extremely impressive. But our final, substantive conclusion is that something above and beyond is needed if the programme is to achieve momentum and public confidence. In short, we think there needs to be a bigger, bolder, simpler story told about the new towns. I am afraid that I am going to use the word “vision”. It is easy to be sceptical, but we need something that captures desire as well as imagination. It does nothing less than shine a clear light on the nation’s hopes for the next generation, giving security and opportunity in housing and jobs. It requires commanding leadership, which is why we suggest a single, powerful voice, a Cabinet Minister with this as their sole priority, and not an internal unit but a cross-government agency with power to advise and pull heads together and deliver. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

21:31

[Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Andrews and so many other noble Lords in this debate. I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and the Built Environment Committee for making today’s debate possible. Its report is essential reading for all of us who want to see the Government’s promise of a new generation of new towns delivered, because that commitment to housebuilding in general, and new towns in particular, is both urgent and essential.

I will use my time today to focus on one of the new proposed town locations, that of Tempsford. It is in a part of Bedfordshire that I know well, having been born just down the road in Great Barford. Noble Lords will be forgiven if they are not immediately able to find Tempsford on a map, but its role in the Second World War, revealed in the recent opening of the archives, means that it certainly deserves to be better known. Indeed, the noted local historian Bernard O’Connor has described RAF Tempsford as “Churchill’s most secret airfield”. Between 1942 and 1945, the Special Operations Executive, along with RAF’s 138 and 161 special duties squadrons, operated from Tempsford. It was the primary departure point for hundreds of secret agents and for supplies for resistance movements across occupied Europe. It is particularly notable how many of those agents were women who, like those at nearby Bletchley Park, were unable to tell their own stories, so we should do so now.

Today, Tempsford finds itself at a crucial intersection of future road and rail development to support the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, making it the flagship growth corridor site. It would be a town of around 100,000 people, anchored in a new railway station connected to all points of the compass. As the New Towns Task Force said, it is “unique opportunity” and a

“standalone new town in Tempsford provides an opportunity for exemplar development that could provide excellent housing and employment opportunities for people in the region”.

The Government have said that they want to have at least three of these new towns under way by the time of the next election. Meeting that target, as has already been said, will require a level of co-ordination that, frankly, government is not always used to across so many different disciplines: rail, flood mitigation, utilities, land assembly and master planning. There is a traditional government approach that seems to insist on doing everything sequentially rather than simultaneously. I am afraid that I do not believe that we have time for such an approach. To that end, could the Minister please update the House on what progress has been made on land assembly for this project?

As mentioned, it is right that the new rail station is the anchor to this new town. It is in a unique position, connecting the millions of people who live along the east coast main line to new, exciting opportunities provided by the east-west rail line. It is where scientists from Cambridge will train change trains to meet investors in Leeds, or where families travelling from Edinburgh can connect to visit Universal’s United Kingdom Resort just down the road. Last week, the Government announced very welcome investment for the Wixams railway station to support Universal’s project. Can the Minister update the House on when we might be able to get a similar announcement for Tempsford railway station? There has been some suggestion that, on current plans, work would not start until 2030.

For Tempsford and other 21st-century new towns to be delivered, this Government need to be as bold and decisive as their post-war 1945 predecessor. I have no doubt that Ministers embrace that challenge. I simply urge the Government to hear that the clock is ticking, move at speed and learn the lessons of past Governments’ successes and failures, from London 2012 to HS2. We know what works: publish a single delivery plan, with one named senior responsible owner; align every workstream on one timetable; and confirm the delivery vehicle and early funding. A new town cannot be built by rail planners, flood engineers and landowners all working to different speeds, plans and managers. New towns such as Tempsford need one delivery body, one timetable and one accountable Minister to grip it.

In conclusion, the committee describes itself as a “critical friend” to the new towns programme. I look forward to following its ongoing work and to more debates such as this, because we need this work to succeed. The potential is huge and exciting. Let us get going with this most strategically important site and, in doing so, we can honour the legacy of legendary female secret agents, such as Vera Leigh, Violette Szabo and Noor Inayat Khan, in the names of the glorious parks and boulevards of the new Tempsford. This project can be so much more than simply new homes; Tempsford new town can be at the frontier of an ambitious, better-connected, future-facing Britain.

21:36

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which is the location of two of the new towns: Tempsford and a large chunk of the extension to Milton Keynes. Following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I must also declare it is the location of the Forest of Marston Vale. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the committee for an excellent—and very much a foundation—report. I am aware that some of the comments made today will probably be covered in future reports.

I have some experience of new towns, not only Milton Keynes but Washington, where my father was from. When I first used to visit it as a child to see my grandmother, it was a small pit village. Now that village and several of the other small pit villages are transformed into a new town of 70,000 people, which I saw grow up through my childhood. The Government are proposing several new towns; I do not intend to comment on the ones in central Bedfordshire, although I would describe many as urban extensions rather than new towns, but I want to reflect on the principles of good urban planning. As the report makes clear, we need a compelling vision. We need to define a clear purpose and we need infrastructure first—not just roads, but utilities and soft water—and that means getting a whole group of different entities to work together.

That is very important, but I want to raise a couple of things that are also important. First, new towns should have a heart, a soul and a purpose. In our ancient cities, you can often think of that as a cathedral, so what will be the centre of a new town? What will give it its purpose? A town centre that works is not just about shopping; it is about community and where people come together. That gives it its identity. Secondly, the new towns should not just be urban commuter dormitories. They need to be living places where people can sleep, but where they also have the opportunity for work and for leisure—I recognise that there will still be commuting.

These days, we talk often about these wonderful towns. Milton Keynes is on my doorstep, but we are not going to be able to build new towns with that low a density in the south-east because there physically is not the space. We need to think about the density of new towns. That means a different sort of new town, not one based on road and car, but based much more on public transport, walking and cycling. That requires much higher densities. When I go to Europe, I see towns that are successful because the coffee shop has 12 apartments above it and the shop has apartments above it. People do not need to get into the car to go to the town centre. I have a curious question that I keep asking people: why is it not economic to build underground car parks in town centres in the UK whereas it seems to work pretty much everywhere else in Europe?

The Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned Cambourne, where I did a fair amount of door knocking in the recent elections. It is a wonderful housing estate, but I would not class it as a town. It did not have a proper town centre; it is something that evolved—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me on that. We need to, and can do, better.

Several noble Lords mentioned design. I raise the fact that our population is changing. When we designed new towns in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it was for a much younger, much more family-orientated population. We have shifted. We have a much older population, and we will need to deal with many more singles and couples, not large families, and that is a different sort of town.

A number of noble Lords mentioned funding. If we are going to deliver infrastructure up front, we need to do that, but it is not just about cash flow. Realising the land value will not be as simple as it used to be in the past because many of these areas already have embedded value that we need to think about.

We talked about development corporations in the report, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords raised whether we can have mayoral or council-led development corporations, because if it is just in one area, that is a potential other avenue that we should look at.

A number of noble Lords raised leadership and speed. Clearly, many of us fear that this will spend more time in the planning than in getting bricks on the ground. If we are going to do this, we need real leadership and we need to get on with it. Again, I refer to Central Bedfordshire: Wixams station is going to be delivered 20 years after it was originally envisaged. That is not good enough for these new towns.

Finally, we need to consider the wider area. New towns can have a major impact on the other settlements nearby and could denude them, their town centres and so forth. We need to reflect on that as well. With that, I welcome my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley to the Front Bench.

21:42

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this very helpful debate and to the Built Environment Committee for its extensive work behind this second report on new towns. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his chairmanship of the committee and the insights he has provided, and all the speakers in the debate.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course support the delivery of new homes, especially for young people, and we recognise the Government’s manifesto commitment to build new towns. In 2019, we promised to build 1 million new homes, and we did, on time and as promised by 2024, and there was a little thing called a pandemic in the middle. However, we want to ensure new homes are built in the right places and that housing delivery is, first and foremost, driven by a genuine “brownfield first” approach, as we have emphasised time and time again in your Lordships’ House.

The second and latest report highlights the need for long-term, compelling vision from central government both to inspire the design and place-making of these new towns and to manage their operational delivery, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to when he said that we needed drive, leadership and inspiration. However, “vision” is not a word that is frequently associated with the current, caretaker Prime Minister, let alone “long-term”—I think the noble Baroness should perhaps have a word with him and pass on some of her enthusiasm and energy. Indeed, the Government have already cut five of their 12 proposed new towns, with just seven remaining, and with the withdrawal of proposals for Adlington in Cheshire, all the proposed new towns are really urban extensions rather than stand-alone towns.

We cannot think about new towns in the abstract. Our islands have a long history and every corner has its own local identity, heritage and traditions that should not be steamrollered over by Whitehall. People do not want greenwashed housing estates concreting over their countryside, as my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs articulated clearly earlier.

The second report recommends that these new towns should not repeat past mistakes. We particularly welcome the recommendation for design standards to be supplemented by locally sensitive design standards for each individual new town. We must follow the evidence collected by those such as Create Streets of what ordinary passers-by and residents like to see, and to empower small and medium-sized builders.

As the Government’s former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, said during the last general election:

“We’re always hearing that people want tree-lined streets of townhouses, so that’s what we’ll build”.


I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, could give some advice there around the trees. What has changed? The previous Government started this work to overcome the design disconnect, yet the Labour Government began by deleting references to aesthetics and beauty in the National Planning Policy Framework, despite the hard work undertaken by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.

We began the work for Greater Cambridge, too, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referenced, as a potential urban extension. I remember some of the early work through Homes England. The current Conservative Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is committed to growth and to tackling long-standing infrastructure challenges, yet Greater Cambridge seems absent from the Government’s latest plans. Local planning authorities and developers benefit from certainty and long-term consistency from central government. Can the Minister update the House on what plans the Government now have for Greater Cambridge specifically?

The committee’s latest report recommends that the Government move beyond short-term metrics to measure the cost-effectiveness of individual new towns, and the second report makes clear the need for government to bring in private investors from the start. Good design with inclusive infrastructure built in from the start saves money in the long term, and this needs to be measured effectively, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson reminded us. What steps are the Government taking to cut the public costs of design and delivery phases?

Making the design and delivery more straightforward for planning authorities and developers requires leadership from the Government, rather than letting public money be used to pay for external consultants with no clear outcome or action in sight, or for endless public consultations, which, in reality, do not take people’s views on design seriously.

As the Social Housing Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House, I would be interested to hear from the Minister how social housing will form part of their seven remaining new towns. How will new social homes be allocated and how will new tenants be prioritised?

We are seeing the consequences of a Government who came to power without a plan and a party which campaigned on the promise of attractive homes only to backtrack a few weeks in, which pledged 1.5 million new homes that may take more than five and a half more years to deliver, and which promised a new generation of new towns only to cut five of the 12 proposed, with Tempsford being the only genuinely new town. The Government did not, and still do not, have a long-term vision, let alone one backed by a thought-through plan for delivery.

I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister and, looking ahead—if indeed housing delivery remains a priority for this Government—when this House can expect the Government’s full response to the committee’s latest report on creating communities.

21:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her place and congratulate her on her elevation to the Front Bench. I very much look forward to working with her.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this important debate and for the Built Environment Committee’s extensive work. With 88 witnesses, and overseas visits to make sure that they were looking at what was happening overseas, it went above and beyond—well done. Its inquiry looked at the opportunities and challenges of delivering a whole new generation of new towns.

The Government are absolutely committed to building the next generation of new towns, using all the powers at their disposal, to make sure that we hand the keys of not just home ownership but new communities to thousands of families. The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. Starting with the first designated new town of Stevenage in 1946—a place very close to my own heart, as all noble Lords know—it transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned surroundings. I take this opportunity, as it is probably the only discussion we will have about new towns before its birthday, to wish my town a very happy 80th birthday, which falls in November.

The 32 communities that the post-war new towns programme created are now home to millions of people, including some of the Members who have spoken in today’s debate. The Government will continue to invest in the regeneration of the existing new towns and to learn from them. My clear view is that we need to inspire a new generation with the excitement and energy that the previous generation of new town pioneers, such as my parents, had when they came to live in those places. The words from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about young people’s engagement very much hit home with me—they are music to my ears, as we have to inspire young people.

Let us not forget about the nimbys that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, spoke about. When my town was proposed, a meeting was held at the town hall. It was then a town of 6,000 people, and it was proposed to grow to 60,000 people. When Lord Silkin turned up to talk to Stevenage people about it, they took the name off the station and put “Silkingrad” there instead—so distressed were they at the thought of this expansion.

It is important to learn the lessons from previous large-scale expansions as we embark on the newest chapter. The Government are committed to building on that legacy. The Government agree with the committee that it is important that new towns are grounded in a clear and ambitious vision. As emphasised in the Government’s recently published consultation, new towns represent a bold and nationally significant response to address the range of challenges caused by housing constraints and the need to power up our economy and to build the foundations of strong communities: health, education and family formation. We want to make sure that we are building not only new homes but new communities that can support people throughout their lives.

Building at scale is central to this strategy. Each new town will deliver at least 10,000 homes, with many expected to exceed this number, including all seven priority areas being assessed. This scale enables efficient land use, supports supply chain growth and innovation, and creates the conditions for integrated infrastructure and high-quality place-making. It provides the opportunity to deliver affordable housing and social infrastructure in a way that smaller sites cannot, ensuring that new towns provide homes for everyone to live in.

As emphasised by both the committee and the New Towns Taskforce, success will ultimately depend on strong and co-ordinated government intervention. The Government have been clear that delivery must be infrastructure-first and design-led—including through master planning—and enabled by effective delivery vehicles such as development corporations where appropriate. Clear expectations and support will be set to achieve high quality place-making with long-term stewardship, to ensure that new towns are built to last.

The Government recently carried out a public consultation on the proposed new towns programme, which built on the findings of the taskforce report in September 2025. It invited views on how the new towns programme will operate, how new towns could be delivered and planned, and the proposed approach to design and planning policy. I really appreciated the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about design.

Of course, new towns present a great opportunity to have innovative design both in town planning and housing design. The consultation sought views on the Government’s offer to locations, including a strategic environmental assessment which assesses the impacts of the programme in proposed broad locations, the cumulative effects of the development of new towns and practical methods of mitigation and monitoring. As part of that consultation, we set out our plan to take seven locations forward through the proposed programme. These represent the strongest proposals, which are capable of collectively unlocking hundreds of thousands of new homes and improving people’s quality of life in communities across the country. This includes Tempsford, Leeds South Bank, Chase Park and Crews Hill in Enfield, Thamesmead, Manchester Victoria North, Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc in south Gloucestershire, and Milton Keynes. These proposals are at different stages of maturity and require different types of intervention and support, including blends of public and private capital, to achieve their potential.

The Government therefore intend to tailor their approach to each new town, with a view to making as much progress as possible, as fast as possible. They identified a number of locations that were also found to meet the objectives and are propositions that represent credible development opportunities. However, we have decided to prioritise places initially where a new town’s intervention can have the most transformative impact.

None the less, there is strong potential to deliver housing in places that have not been included in the proposed programme. I will come to Cambridge in a minute, but this is particularly true of Plymouth, which presents a unique opportunity to bolster the UK’s defence and security sector. Plymouth will require special consideration and its own bespoke financial support package to unlock its potential as a centre of excellence in naval technology. Plymouth council is already making huge strides in the regeneration of the town centre, and its MPs have worked with Government to secure defence spending for British technology. So, we must ensure that housing does not act as a barrier to growth. The Government have pledged to do whatever it takes to get spades in the ground in at least three of the new towns by the end of this Parliament and to progress many more, if possible.

As part of our offer to new towns locations, we will ensure that we work across government to deliver this vision, including through the industrial strategy; invest millions of pounds of public and private sector funding into excellent local facilities, including GP surgeries, schools, libraries, transport and the environment; work with world-class architects, planners and urban designers to plan each town with its own character and distinct, unique identity; and ensure that the state’s full planning powers are available to rapidly build new homes and all the necessary supporting infrastructure, including clean energy and digital infrastructure. I very much agree with the strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on infrastructure and housing being developed together.

New towns are just part of a wider effort from government to get Britain building again. Over the last two years, the Government have delivered fundamental reform to the planning system. Last December, we saw the culmination of this, with the Planning and Infrastructure Act and a definitive overhaul of the National Planning Policy Framework, which will boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These strong foundations will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of housebuilding in the years ahead.

Let me be clear: we must get Britain building again. To respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing is the most that has ever been invested. Our new towns programme will benefit through that as well. We want a huge percentage of that to be social housing, so we will support social housing in our new towns as well. We must crack on with this, and our new towns programme will be a step change in the delivery of the new homes our country so desperately needs.

I turn to some of the very specific points that were made during the debate. As he was the chair of the committee, I will pick up the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, first. He asked me about a firm date for the delivery of the government response. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the recent consultation. It is very important that we fully understand the range of views on the programme, including its environmental impacts. We will publish a full response to the recommendations later this year, once the necessary environmental assessments are completed and final decisions have been made on locations, which are still to come.

The noble Lord asked me about leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority, and that was a point echoed by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Doyle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning are key sponsors of the programme and have the power of Cabinet committee structures behind them to co-ordinate requirements for new towns across Whitehall. Delivering the next generation will be a cross-government effort and central to the Government’s agenda not just in terms of building homes but to drive economic growth and spread economic opportunity across the country. We will work closely with other departments and regulators to ensure that new towns are factored into their future spending plans, ensuring that they have the utilities, transport and social infrastructure needed for those communities to survive.

The third question from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, was about a small government ownership stake in each development corporation, and our ambition is that the new towns model will transform the way that large settlements are delivered, providing long-term certainty to attract sustained investment. We are assessing delivery vehicle models for each place, and the proposed government offer in the consultation sets out that, subject to the needs of each location, locations taken forward as new towns will benefit from resource and capital funding. That could include a mixture of grant and financial instruments, including equity investment, loans and guarantees to develop town-wide master plans, comprehensive infrastructure, and the establishment and maintenance of governance structures. I will make some further points about funding, but that is key to where we are.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked me about level 7 apprenticeship funding, and I absolutely take the point. We recognise that level 7 apprenticeships have been a valuable route into professions, but we are reforming funding to prioritise young people entering the labour market and targeting support where it has the greatest long-term impact. We are investing £48 million to strengthen planning capacity and expand alternative routes into planning through pathways to planning, public practice and the new planning careers hub. That will all be valuable in terms of the issues that the noble Lord raised.

I think place-making was raised by almost all noble Lords who spoke but particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lady Andrews, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Redwood, and Lord Jamieson. We have been very clear: we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns have to be well-connected, well-designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset.

Subject to the outcomes of the consultation, we intend to incorporate the proposed place-making principles in the draft new towns planning policy, and the place-making principles should be reflected in town-wide master plans and design codes. As part of the government offer, we are proposing to establish a new town place review panel, which will provide impartial advice to delivery bodies and planning authorities, as well as practical design and place-making guidance for new town delivery.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned community engagement, and this is a very important part of the work that we have been undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, in particular, mentioned it, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, both referred to consultation with young people. They are going to be the people living in these towns, so that is vital. We are very clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development and effective community engagement is key to creating connections between existing and new residents and helping to build successful places. That does not avoid all the nimby-type approaches, but it will help to engage people in making sure that they have a say in how these places are designed.

The Government will continue to engage with communities, local authorities, delivery bodies and investors to make sure that the new towns are planned and delivered to the highest standards. The recent consultation was the first of many opportunities for people to shape the design and creation of this new generation of new towns.

The points that were made around development corporations are really important, because the governance of how these new developments are taken forward is critical. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised issues around this. We are assessing delivery vehicle options for each proposed location to make sure that they are best placed to drive forward each of those places. That includes development corporations where appropriate, but our consultation was clear that different propositions will require different types of intervention. Delivery vehicles beyond development corporations could include, for example, legal partnerships that pool land and delivery expertise between public and private bodies.

The points about mayoral development corporations are well made. The visionary devolution framework we are delivering now will, I hope, deliver at the pace that I know noble Lords are keen to see. I was grateful for the support for mayoral development corporations when we took the devolution Bill through.

On wider issues around funding for new towns, the funding required in this spending review period will vary according to the needs of the locations chosen. The precise funding offer will be confirmed once final decisions on the programme have been taken. That will be when the new towns draft programme consultation is closed and all strategic environmental assessments are complete.

Delivery will be backed by funding across the landmark housing programmes, such as the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme, hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of grant from the national housing delivery fund, and additional capital funding managed by the National Housing Bank. We will continue to consider the ways in which private finance can support delivery, alongside government funding and intervention. We will be working with other departments and regulators to ensure that they are factoring new towns into their spending plans for the future to make sure that that comes forward from all departments across government.

We have heard much about the lessons to be learned from previous generations of new towns from the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and others. In establishing this programme, we are inspired by the proud legacy of the 1945 Labour Government, who kick-started the ambitious programme for building new towns in the years and decades following the Second World War, as well as subsequent waves of new towns. However, we recognise that we must learn the lessons.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as he went through his committee meetings on this, was keen to make sure that we understand the lessons from previous generations. These often emphasised car-based commuting and did not always embed long-term stewardship, which is vital, into their development. We have seen huge success in places such as Milton Keynes, which has demonstrated the potential of well-planned developments to create thriving communities and act as a catalyst for economic growth, which is certainly what we want to see. A long-term stewardship model for new towns must be in place from the outset, including clear governance and funding structures to manage and maintain communal assets over the long term.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised Cambridge. I was grateful to him when I carried out a visit, on which we went to Waterbeach, Cambourne and Northstowe. It was great to visit that area and see how lessons have been learned. The Government published a response to the consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation on 3 June. Cambridge is not part of the new towns programme and the development corporation will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, including for the new towns programme. Unlocking barriers to growth in Greater Cambridge was an immediate priority of this Government. The Housing Minister wrote to local leaders in August 2024, setting out the Government’s early approach to working with local partners to support the sustainable growth of Cambridge. I look forward to working further on this. I know that the noble Lord will be keeping a careful eye on what we are doing in Cambridge.

My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about housing targets. The Government consider that the delivery of housing in new town proposals should contribute towards meeting the identified housing need of relevant strategic and local planning authorities in all instances. We are clear that that is the way we are approaching the housing that will be included in new town developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about land value capture. The lessons we learned from previous new towns suggest that the long-term increase in the value of land can be successfully captured and reinvested as the town continues to grow. We will be taking that into account as we work through the governance and funding structures for our new towns.

Before I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on Forest City. We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, but this is not part of our new towns programme or proposal.

In closing, I say that our vision is certainly to create the towns of the future with place-making at their heart, shaped by what worked in the past, informed by what did not work in the past, and inspired by a bright future for those who will live in, work in and visit this new generation of new towns for a new age. I am grateful for the thoughtful scrutiny and contributions in this debate. I assure all those who have participated that the concerns they have raised will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to progress our work on new towns, turning the taskforce vision into delivery on the ground.

22:10

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I know the hour is late, so I will not respond to all the points that have been made, but it has been a fascinating and energising discussion from across the political divide. I am grateful to the Minister for some of the additional information that the Government have given us. We are not quite there yet, but let us see what later in the year delivers us.

The Minister knows all too well that I am a fan of hers—I genuinely am—but in this debate, I feel that we are missing an opportunity. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who used the words “commanding leadership”. We all know that life is short and political life is even shorter—my own experience in No. 10 can testify to that. Governing is not easy. Even things that should be simple and quick are not. I feel that we are slightly taking our foot off the pedal here. For example, we keep hearing—the Minister said it again—references to the Cabinet committee. My own experience of Cabinet committees, great as they are, is that they are slightly reactive and not proactive. That is a slight concern that we have.

We have used the language of being a “critical friend”, and we remain so. In today’s debate we have heard about energy, keenness, leadership, passion, urgency, boldness, decisiveness, passion and urgency from my noble friend Lord Redwood in a brilliant speech. The clock is ticking but, as I said, we can do it.

In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, the Minister said that something was music to her ears. I want to give her an example. This morning, I dropped my kids off and it was a bit fraught, we were all running behind, my wife was at work, and I was thinking, “I’ve got this debate”. I dropped the kids off, jumped in the car and the music blasting out was from that well-known architect and urban planner, Elvis Presley. The lyrics of the song—and I end with this—were:

“A little less conversation, a little more action, please”.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 10.12 pm.