Lords Chamber

Thursday 3rd September 2026

(began 15 hours, 30 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood and Lord Sarwar
-

Charles Charles II, Charles II, by Charles II, by the Charles II, by the grace Charles II, by the grace of Charles II, by the grace of God, Charles II, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects, whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Ruth Mackenzie, commander of our most excellent order of the British Empire, to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Mackenzie, of Sherwood.

Of Sherwood, in our city of Nottingham, and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood. To have and to hold unto her for her life willing. And by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

Witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 24th day of August. In the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I, Ruth Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood, do solemnly, sincerely, Sherwood, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Anas Sarwar to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Harman of Maxwell Park in our city of Glasgow and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Sarwar, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

Witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 24th day of August, in the fourth year of our sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Anas, Lord Sarwar do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and successors according to heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Mr. Oral Mr. Oral Question Mr. Oral Question Lord Mr. Oral Question Lord Carlile of Berriew. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare the interest of having some professional involvement in
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
compared to just 86% in the UK. The government's impact assessment government's impact assessment suggests that the moves towards automatic voter registration will increase voter registration rates increase voter registration rates by less than 0.8% in two years, perhaps in time for the next perhaps in time for the next election. So does the government accept that low turnouts and there accept that low turnouts and there being perhaps 8 million people missing from our electoral registers, severely weakens the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health of our democracy? And what more will it do to address these issues? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, I would stress to the noble Lord that what I said is that it's taken a long time for it's taken a long time for Australia to get to where they've got to. They started off with got to. They started off with compulsory voting in 1924. The 1922 election saw less than 60% turnout. election saw less than 60% turnout. And that's arisen to, as the noble Lord said, to 91% in the 25 election. But that is as a result of a number of steps they've taken, including the registration steps that we're looking at now.

So it's an iterative process. We need to move carefully ahead with it. We make different choices in different countries about the way we move this forward. And at the moment, the government believes that we've got to focus on taking down barriers to participation. And that's why we're taking the steps in the representation of the people bill, which will be debating shortly to make voting easier and more accessible. Before we go forward with any further steps.
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Summer drought and minimising disruption to water company supplies
-

Oral Question Lord John of Southwark. Paper. >> My Lords. >> This year's drought follows
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:02
Baroness Morgan of Huyton Portrait Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move the >> My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as set out in the register. There've been so many reports about the importance of vocational education, and about our inability as a country to deliver. Many of us in this House have been part of these arguments for years. It's very good to see the noble Lord Lord Baker here in this place. There's real expertise and experience here.

And my Lords, this issue is too important for point scoring or positioning from any of us. The change needed demands detailed work, and we need to thrash this through together, not to seek fuzzy consensus, but to get solutions that survive more than a parliament. So I hope we can start by agreeing four principles. First, the importance of aspiration for all students. Second, the importance of literacy and numeracy for all. Third, the need to avoid completely separate vocational or academic pathways. Fourth, that we recognise that a significant group of young people are failed by the current system.

I declare a particular interest, as a member of the independent inquiry into white working class educational outcomes, co-chaired by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley and Hamid Patel. Its findings run through what I want to say. I'll also draw on the Milburn review and a range of other evidence for which I'm grateful. The facts are stark. There are about 1.25 million white British pupils eligible for free school meals, of whom only just over a third achieve a grade four or above in English and Maths GCSEs.

Of course, that reflects a gap that starts pre-school, is picked up at phonics and at the end of primary its inquiry members. We didn't find a lack of aspiration. Rather there was pride, resilience and solidarity and young people who want good lives in the places they come from. But we did hear a structural barriers and a slow erosion of trust, a growing sense that the system is not designed for people like them. That said, we found great schools and colleges achieving strong outcomes for exactly these children, so none of this is inevitable.

That brings me to the second principle. And I want to be blunt no vocational offer can compensate for weak literacy and numeracy. Allen Frances, chair of the Social Mobility Commission, makes the point sharply. FE colleges already have many young people whose general education has been poor, large numbers of resitting, English and maths, and a quarter of 19 year olds still have limited literacy and numeracy. For most of that group, a technical course will not solve the problem. Endless resitting for those with very low grades doesn't help either with motivation or prospects.

The government is right to identify that those with very low grades need another way to develop literacy and numeracy. Those who have a good chance of getting the grades should try again. Mr. Milburn's review identifies English and maths at grade four as one of the best defences a young person has against becoming Neet. The answer at Key Stage four isn't straightforward and needs work. We need sustained investment in subject expertise, curriculum, leadership, instruction and coaching in English and maths in particular.

The full range of GCSEs should remain in my view, but not be the only option for all students. There needs to be a new focus on word work readiness skills and that means accountability measures will need to change. Third, and most important for this debate today, we must not build two separate systems. The idea that we should sort children at 14 or 16 into academic and practical is recurring, simplistic and wrong. Academic and technical learning are not alternatives. They're complementary. And increasingly, people need both.

Technical jobs require cognitive as well as practical skills. We all begin with a general education, and many then move into vocational training. What differs is the stage at which the transition happens a solicitor after a degree, a construction craft apprentice at 16, a higher apprentice in cybersecurity at 18 and so on. The danger comes when we conflate technical learning with a solution for disengaged pupils. Britain has done this repeatedly, and each time we've reduced the cognitive content and lowered the bar.

Gnvqs separated competence from knowledge and flattered league tables. And too often the 16 year olds who took them weren't ready for work and couldn't progress. It wasn't fair on the students. So let's remember that lesson. There's also a delivery question we tend to duck. We know that health and social care can't really be taught out of a textbook by a biology teacher. Serious technical learning needs, teachers with industry expertise, employers involved in curriculum design and delivery, and environments that simulate, stimulate, simulate workplace.

The Wolf Review's answer that colleges should deliver 14 to 16 year old options alongside GCSEs probably remains the right one, and strategic authorities or mayors now could broker it across groups of schools. But the offer must be high quality, delivered by specialists and targeted at those who want it not aimed primarily at disengaged pupils and not there to replace academic progress. Fourth, the scale of the failure teach first, define persistently disadvantaged pupils as those on free school meals for at least 80% of their education.

Their research shows that these students are three times more likely to disappear than better off peers. They suggest the government should define persistent disadvantage, formally track these pupils destinations and name them in the risk of Neet guidance. These are modest asks and I hope the Minister will look at them. This matters because where these where these young people end up. Alan Milburn interim review found over 1,000,016 to 24 year olds not in education, employment or training at an annual cost of the country of £125 billion more than we spend on education.

How crazy is that? Further education colleges, my Lord, should be the local engines of progression, and they need serious investment in staff, facilities and long term employer partnerships to become that. Their funding was decimated post 2010 and the 16 to 19 review for schools and colleges. That will happen in the next couple of years on funding is really important. 16 to 19 is the poor relation in the system. FE colleges enjoy popular support in many communities more than other parts of the Post-16 system, so there's much to build on.

But they do need to change to too much. Provision is still shaped by what colleges have historically taught and by what recruit student numbers rather than what local employers actually need. I have found alternatives. I want to talk briefly about Wigan. The college there has aligned itself deliberately with the local care sector, one of the borough's largest employers and one facing chronic recruitment pressure. Working hand in hand with the local authority, it's built a specialist centre for health and social care.

It runs a traineeship developed with the council that takes local 16 to 24 year olds, and combines work experience on the job training and recognised qualifications. A direct pipeline into care careers on campus. It's created a simulated home environment where students train on the care, technology and adaptations they'll actually use at work. Practitioners from the sector teach along alongside college staff. Young people leave with a job to go to. Employers get the workforce they can't otherwise find, and the public purse spends less on vacancies, agency staff and unemployment.

Now imagine that repeated properly colleges in coastal towns, building provision around ports, energy and engineering colleges, colleges in manufacturing areas, co-designing courses with the firms on their doorstep, colleges everywhere, working with the NHS, councils and care providers. So often the largest employers in exactly the towns we're talking about. That's the bargain. Employers, public and private shape what colleges teach. Colleges give employers a reason to invest, to offer placements and to hire locally on apprenticeships. Let's be straightforward here.

The system's not working. We need a massive expansion of opportunity in poorer communities. There's been a repeated systemic failure to deliver the scale. Successive governments have promised indeed apprenticeships apprenticeship starts for 16 year olds have actually fallen by 40%. Apprenticeships are skewed to older people and affluent areas in areas dominated by smaller employers. There's simply fewer overall to be had, and the levy bureaucracy favours large organisations in urban economies, so make it far easier for small and medium sized employers to take on apprentices.

Simplify levy transfers, cut the admin burden, provide funding certainty and give combined authorities the money and the responsibility to broker locally and deal with the mundane barriers that decide real lives. Don't let a bus fare be the reason a young person turns down a college place. The government's rightly made economic growth their central mission. But we can't complain of labour shortages, low growth and rising welfare bills. While the talent of over a million young people goes to waste, as our population ages will depend ever more heavily on this generation to work, pay taxes and sustain our public services.

And perhaps for the first time in two centuries, ill health amongst the young is now actually shrinking the labour supply. What I've described described isn't a welfare program, it's supply side economics for the place. Growth has forgotten Wigan's answer to its workforce shortage costs far less than the price of continuing to fail, and there's a version of it waiting to be built around the country. Let me be clear this is not an argument against university. Higher education remains and must remain an important destination for academically able young people.

Whatever their background, the scandal is that too few from poorer communities get there. Some are deterred not not by lack of ability, but by fear of debt. This means looking again at maintenance and living cost support alongside bursaries, scholarships and employer co-investment. So the failure is twofold. There are too few young people from these communities who could thrive at university, are getting there, and too few of those for whom university is not the right route have a high quality alternative worth choosing.

Higher education needs to change too much more modular, computer based and work integrated study, stronger level four and five pathways and employer backed degrees tied to local industries. Young people should not feel that accessing high quality higher education is only possible by leaving home or taking on excessive financial burdens. So in particular, can I ask the Minister, will the government respond to the inquiry's report and to the Milburn review together, because they are essentially two halves of one problem.

Will they act on the specific proposals to open apprenticeships to smaller employers and to reform accountability, so that sustained progression into apprenticeships and skilled work counts equally, alongside progression to university? Will they back further education with both the investment and the expectation of appropriate delivery? It has to be a deal so that more colleges are tied into the needs of the local economies. And, crucially, will the government commit to the long haul? Because closing this gap is the work of a decade, not a Parliament.

My Lords, I end these comments not in despair but with ambition. I think we know what is needed. We also know it needs real rigour to get the right policies and the delivery. What is needed now is the collective will to do it. My Lords, I beg to move again.
12:13
Lord Baker of Dorking Portrait Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this motion be agreed to. >> May I congratulate the noble Baroness for initiating this debate? We haven't debated practical and technical education in this House technical education in this House since 2010. So the first time in 16 years. And we've got three minutes. It's absurd. This House is not holding the government to account in education. We should have an education select committee. Could I also congratulate the Minister, Jacqui Smith, for holding a position in government? There was no chance of her being dropped.

She's far too talented, but I thought she might be promoted. So I'm glad you haven't been promoted for the time being because your knowledge is very profound in education. What's more, your real virtue is you support the colleges I've been promoting for 15 years. University technical colleges. These are colleges that provide education for 14 to 18 year olds. And we now have 44 colleges and 21,000 students. And the thing which I'm most proud is that they have the lowest level of youth unemployment of any schools in the country.

If you leave a bog standard comprehensive, there's an unemployment rate of 16.4%. Leaving a UTC, it's less than 5%. And last year 22 of our colleges provided no one who was a neat. And that is completely unique. And so we do need technical and practical education in our schools. They're very popular. We have 45, but we have to turn 5 or 6000 children away each year. And so we need to expand. But we cannot expand by having new schools, because no new schools are going to be built in Britain for 5 or 7 years because of high school falling school rolls.

And so we have devised a way in which you can improve technical fundamentally by inserting into a bog standard, comprehensive, a sleeve of practical and technical education. From 14 to 18, the UTC sleeve, it is called. Now, I'm glad to say one of these is going to open next week in Barrow in Furness in. British Aerospace has its factories there and they cannot recruit students from the schools in Cumbria suitable for what they want to do.

And so next week this school will operate. There'll be 120 students starting, and they will decide themselves whether they want to do the technical route or the academic route. And 90 so far have selected to do the technical route and 30 the academic under the same roof. And that is a triumph. Quite apart from that, Andy Burnham, I'm glad to say, is very keen on utcs and sleeves because he asked us what 2 or 3 years ago to deliver them back.

And next year a sleeve will start in a Manchester school providing practical and technical education at the age of 14 to 18. And so we do have the support of rather a key figure in all of this area. But we need many more. The thing about schools is that good technical education needs workshops as well as classrooms. Some have to be converted. It needs machines like milling machines, lathes, laser cutters, metrology mechanics and software, CAD and Cam. It also needs teachers capable of teaching those subjects to the children, i.e.

people who've had experience in business. And it also needs the active support of local companies so that they can take their youngsters into their workshops, into their factories for practical experience. And so I hope very much that when we hear the government's policy, I suppose they're going to wait for Mr. Milburn on technical education, that they will recognise that they have a model for expansion, which is the UTC sleeve. That is the real heart of it. And before I sit down, could I just give one small piece of advice to the Minister, if I may? I hope that when Mr.

Milburn has replied and they develop the policy and announce it, they will not just start technical education at the age of 16. It's too late. It should start at 14. We are the only country in Europe that does not teach its children below 16. Practical and technical education. The only country. And that is one of the reasons why youth unemployment in Germany is exactly half of ours. So I think this is an important debate. I thank again the Minister for doing it.

It's excellent because I hope the government will then come forward with proposals as soon as possible to introduce. The thing about the sleeve, I would say to the Minister is that it can be done instantly and quickly, and I would say one last piece of advice. I say this to her. It shouldn't. Whatever she comes up with, with the policy, it shouldn't start at 16. You have to start at 14. We are the only country in Europe doesn't teach the children below 16 technical education.

So I think we're on the cusp of something very important and very exciting. And it will actually help the government because it will stimulate economic growth.
12:19
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This. >> I'm listening to. >> The first two speeches. The Baroness Morgan, I think. >> Hit something. >> Towards the end of her speech,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Towards the end of her speech, which I don't think anybody's going to disagree with, knows anything about the subject. It is the work of a decade to actually correct the problems here. You've got to get into a system, you've got to change it. You've got to change the cultures, you've got to change the training. You've really got to make people think. In a slightly new way. Now, the neat problem, which is one which has been growing according to, well, according to everything anybody's been here has been listening to and indeed from the briefing from the library has been growing for over a decade.

It is the fact that we have actually got a group of of children, now young adults and now established adults who have gone through a system for education that doesn't seem to have touched them or brought them in in any way or form. Many of them have left the education process way before the. They've reached their. The ends of compulsory education and people have been happy about it. I say that because the first report onto off rolling in the schools system I've seen was was came out in 2020 from the House of Commons.

There is something about our current structure of education that means anybody who isn't a benefit to your school, i.e. in terms of examination grades, is a real problem not only to the school but to the professional and personal development of those running it. If we can do something here that starts to address that, we will do something that is very positive. Noble Baroness did say quite a lot and referred back again to basic skills, i.e. English and Maths.

My Lords noble Baroness will probably have written this into her response to me. If she's going to make. That is the. The Minister. I'm dyslexic and president of the British Dyslexia Association. I was never I would still wouldn't pass a written exam in English. You struggle with maths because that's simply a different language from language processing. Bits in your brain don't work. They don't pick it up as fast. The papering over the cracks of short term memory are still there. You're always going to have these problems, and that's just one group.

Anybody who struggles, struggles here with a special educational needs, or somebody who comes from a home that simply doesn't take it seriously, is always going to struggle with these skills. We have got to find better ways forward, and I will congratulate the government and indeed the previous government for bringing out an emphasis on the level two lower levels entrance requirements to go on and train. If we are going to do this, we must stop people being isolated and branded failures so early.

The new SEN paper may well start to address this, but once again, it's the work of a decade. I see the clock is against me, my Lord. Sir. Openers used to get a wee bit longer, but there we are. I would hope when the Minister comes to respond, she will give some emphasis about how we are stopping people being branded failures and being and making sure that schools and the education sector is given a reward for keeping these people in school and not punished.

When it comes to league tables.
12:23
Lord Bishop of Leicester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
Here, here. Baroness Altmann for securing this debate, and I also want to express my gratitude to Alan Milburn and his team for firmly putting the number of young people out of education, employment and training on the political agenda. I think there is real cross-party consensus on the need to address what Alan Milburn was right to call a moral crisis facing our young people today, and I sincerely hope that when the second part of his review is published, his recommendations will be taken seriously.

Mr. Milburn referred to the drivers behind rising Neet rates as a whole system crisis. My Lords, I would go further and characterise it as a whole society crisis, and I think that there is an important role for community organisations to play, whether that's faith groups, uniformed groups, sports clubs, youth clubs indeed for all of us as neighbours, as friends, as mentors to young people. And in my time today, I want to focus on one area specifically, which is volunteering opportunities, which provide the intermediate layer between individual and labour markets, and which can help build young people's skills and confidence to equip them for the world of work.

So many of us will be familiar with the experienced trap. When you're first trying to get a foot on the career ladder to get a job, you need so many years of experience. But a job is the only way to get that experience. This is where I think community groups can make a real difference in these settings. Young people can learn, practice and develop new skills and ideally have their first leadership opportunities. Because developing skills is not simply a matter of absorbing knowledge, which is where the classroom environment is at its strongest.

It is about having one's gifts and talents recognised, put into practice and stretched. In the most recent Government Youth Social Action Survey, which noble Lords might be disappointed to hear, has not been run since 2019. But in the last survey, over half of 16 to 20 year olds said that social action had improved their self-confidence and their communication skills. Significant numbers also reported improvements to their ability to work as a team to motivate others and their social skills more generally.

So I'd like to urge the government to think holistically about skills development, to think about the foundations for learning. And here there are ambitions for reducing child poverty are especially important, and the many contexts in which all of this can take place, which include, but are not limited to, colleges and universities. So I'm impressed by the government's ambition in introducing work experience placements for young people long out of work. But as it stands, these placements will reach fewer than 1 in 10 of the roughly 948,000 young people not in education, employment or training.

So can I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, if the government will will consider adding a supported volunteering strand delivered through the volunteering community and faith sector to its skills, vocational training, FE and HE strategy. In so doing, I believe the government could help thousands more escape the experience trap and so realise their potential and help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society benefit from their gifts. Thank you. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. It's an honour. To follow the. Right reverend Prelate and. I strongly. Support the sentiments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support the sentiments. He described. I also want to thank the Baroness Morgan for putting this on the agenda in the way that Lord Baker welcomed, way that Lord Baker welcomed, because it is such a fundamental subject and theme for us and for her excellent speech, which I
12:27
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Portrait Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Labour)
-
-
her excellent speech, which I agreed with every word. Next month will be the 50th anniversary of James Callaghan's famous speech at Ruskin College, in which he drew attention to the need to focus on standards and employability. And we're still working on the legacy of that. But the other person I want to draw attention to is Lord Baker himself. I'm honoured and privileged to follow him in this debate. In this debate, we are all in his debt, not just for the Amazing Education Reform Act of 1988, but for his continuing 40 years of work to drive higher education standards.

He's an exemplar to all of us. Over the decades since that 1988 legislation, the school system has become globally admired in this country. And the reason is that not the debates we've had, of course, have been disagreements, but because under underlying that, there have been some fundamental principles that all governments have stuck to over that time. Education is a priority. We need to set standards. We need to devolve budgets and responsibility to schools. You need to hold them to account. You need to intervene decisively if they're underperforming, and you need to focus all the time on the quality of teaching.

Those principles have been adhered to for the last 30 or 40 years. Conceptually, it's not difficult. The difficulty is ensuring that consistent adherence over time, and this has never been the case with vocational skills and FE. There's there's been too much chopping and changing, not enough focus on the quality of teaching. We might have led the world in this field too, but so far we've chosen not to. And now is the time we should choose to do so.

Taking the new Prime Minister's lead, we're now in a position to do exactly that. We can develop the kind of agenda that Baroness Morgan laid out. I would say these are the principles, four principles that she outlined are excellent. I want to add we need better articulation between schools, colleges and universities. We need to build further and faster on the welcome recent progress in careers guidance. We need to. We need thriving apprenticeships which build a ladder all the way up to degree apprenticeships.

We need a demand led system, as she advocated, and employers who encourage work placements and spell out in detail at a level of specificity, specificity, what they want and above all, we'll across parties to give this consistent priority to lead the world in skills, employability and vocational education. That's the road to 21st century prosperity. It will take a decade, but we can start today.
12:29
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Portrait Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Very good. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Very good. >> I add my thanks to Baroness Mone for securing today's debate, and I want to focus on an area too often treated as niche, but which I believe tests our whole approach to skills vocational training, further and higher education. And I'm talking of the training pipeline for professional dance. My researcher, Amelia Braddon, as part of the King's College Parliamentary Internship Programme, helped produce our report, Creating the Next Billy Elliot.

It found specialist dance training, though this is an area that is internationally renowned, is under real threat from funding pressures, policy blind spots and declining access. Dance and the performing arts contribute over £11 billion in gross value added to our economy. And yet the pipeline behind that contribution, the music and dance scheme and the centres for advanced training face rising costs. No real terms funding increase one year cycles that leave families unable to plan and lost outreach grants that once found the talent in the very deprived and disadvantaged communities that we are focussed on in today's debate.

My Lords, talent is. Talent is sadly not enough. Geography matters. A child in Wakefield or Bradford can reach training in Leeds, a child of equal talent in Bournemouth without the means to travel to London, often cannot. And nor is this an England only regional issue. The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland offers training of genuine international standing, but a child in the Highlands faces the same barriers as one in Cumbria. And because skills policy is devolved, our funding schemes are data on where the gaps lie.

Stop dead at the border. So I would therefore advocate a pan UK mapping exercise and far greater cross administration cooperation. Underpinning everything, my Lords, is funding stability. It is disappointing the government has yet to confirm funding beyond the current 2627 cycle, when MDS schools are auditioning for 2728 right now and funding for outreach must be treated as infrastructure, not as an optional extra, or the pipeline will never reach the children who need it most. Finally, my Lords, strengthening regional growth in all postcodes across the UK does require genuine four nations cooperation.

Westminster, Holyrood, the Senate and Stormont need to share data, best practice and where it makes sense. Co-funding routes. My Lords, none of this is about one art form, one sector, region or nation. It is about whether a talented child, wherever born, has a fair and funded and stable route to vocational success.
12:33
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch Portrait Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Labour)
-
-
Here. My Lords. >> Here. My Lords. >> I thank my noble friend Baroness Morgan, a good friend, for introducing this debate and the noble Lord Lord Baker, also a good friend for his customary eloquent insights. My Lords, the Milburn review is a shocking read. If the million NEETs were to form a city, it would be the third largest in the UK, larger than Leeds, Glasgow or Cardiff, costing the taxpayers an economy. As already has been mentioned, £125 billion a year.

Yet Milburn found that 84% of NEETs want to be in a job, education or training held back by low expectations and confusing routes into the adult world. I spoke recently at a school in Kent about the amazing opportunities available to people with Stem qualifications. Two girls came up to me and asked, do you really think we could be engineers? Yes, of course, I said, why not? Because my dad says it's a boy's job. He says I should do hairdressing, came the reply.

I wish to advocate for girls like her who are disadvantaged just by being female. Their aspirations are not being guided towards the Stem. Skills critically needed a million more workers by 2030 in AI, robotics, cyber, energy, engineering, health and more. The Royal Academy of Engineering and I declare an interest as a former director report. Only 17% of the Stem task force are female. Women and girls make up half of apprenticeships, but only 14% complete them. 78% of girls aged 11 to 17 express an interest in tech, but only half pursue it.

The newly introduced T levels have only a 12% female take up, yet without welcoming more girls, there is no hope of creating the workforce of the future. Their potential has barely been tapped. The Royal Academy has called for engagement from primary school on, with Stem related activities featuring female role models, a modernised curriculum, early high quality careers advice and clearer routes into work. Girls need to know about someone like Claire Grey developing advanced batteries on the ox cam growth corridor, itself one of the world's leading science and innovation clusters, generating 143 billion for the economy every year.

I welcome the Prime Minister's recent announcement on tailored access for children age 14 to technical skills in every postcode, building on local opportunities, mobilising mayors, local leaders, employers and educators. Young people have not given up on work and we must not give up on them. I know all noble Lords will do our work to support them.
12:36
Baroness Morris of Yardley Portrait Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
Yes my Lord, I'm very grateful to Baroness Moyo for introducing this debate and the way in which she presented it at the start. I sense, as Lord Barber said, that this might be a time when we might make the changes that we failed to make over the last half a century or more, because despite our pride in what I think is a good school system in this country and an improving school system, we do have a record of relative failure as far as vocational studies.

It, as vocational routes is concerned. Baroness Mone referred to the white Working Class Education Outcome report on which we both served. And to be honest, for all my years in education, I was genuinely surprised and frightened by the level of disengagement that there is between people living in these communities and what the education school system is delivering for them at the moment. And when you look at vocational education, which is a type of a route to to a better life, that these communities particularly value, it delivers poorer outcomes and poorer opportunities for people from these communities than it does for many people from more affluent communities.

I think instinctively, we all know that if you begin to look at the good apprenticeships that we've got now in our country, they're not being accessed by people from white working class communities. If you look at the degree apprenticeship route, there are fewer people from deprived backgrounds taking that route than there are attending Russell Group universities or the university sector in general. So this isn't about saying that's a route that serves people from this community, but it is about offering real choice.

And while the curriculum is less rigorous, while the qualifications are less coherent, and while the routes to employment are less clear, this route won't serve either the people in deprived communities or the nation and the economy in the way that we need to. We need the way we need it to be. I welcome the government's announcement so far in this field, but I don't think that adding technical education to one basket in 14 to 16 education is going to cut it.

And I do worry that our thinking is limited by worry of our past failures. And very often when I start a conversation on vocational routes, the first thing anyone says is we can't go back to splitting people into sheeps and goats. Of course we can't. No one wants to. Now, a knowledge based curriculum is there for everyone, but we shouldn't let our past failures blind us to the need to get this right. And we should believe in our own ability to do so.

I've never quite bought into this phrase that you can't be what you can't see. I never use it. I don't like it because I think it underestimates the vision and imagination and determination of young people to be what they want to be. But what I am sure is that those young people can't achieve what they believe and dream they can if they can't see a clear route as to how to get there. And I think that is the challenge that we face now.

I very much hope that the Minister will build on the work she's already done in delivering it.
12:39
Lord Lingfield Portrait Lord Lingfield (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I remind your Lordships of my interests as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education and of the Cadet Vocational College, and it's about that FE College. I want to speak briefly this morning as community cadets are growing and vital part of our education service in many areas of disadvantage. These are, of course, the Army Cadet Force, the Royal Air Force Cadets and the Sea and Royal Marine Cadets, and the boys and girls that take part in them are often those that.

Conventional training providers find it difficult to reach. We tend to think of cadet activities as being simply a recreational benefit, but it is clear that the experience provides crucial vocational skills as well. The recent four year review, commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and carried out by a team from the University of Northampton, concluded that participation in the cadet forces has significant positive impacts on career and employment prospects. These are, and I quote, particularly strong for those young people who suffer economic and other disadvantages.

This, they concluded, is because cadet activities develop self-sufficiency, self-control, confidence, communication and resilience, all of which are closely correlated with employability. In addition, however, for some time the Cadet Vocational College has made it possible for these young people to undertake vocational programs through the medium of their cadet forces. Some 4 or 5000 learners each year take advantage of these courses, which support progression into further education, into higher education and to apprenticeships. Amongst them are many who are not thriving in traditional school environments, but outside the conventional classroom setting.

Get a second chance and qualification completion via the college is regularly around 85%. The reach of the college's work is UK wide and represents a very successful partnership between government and the voluntary sector, and I sincerely pay tribute to Ministers and officials at the Ministry of Defence and the Department for education, who underpin the college's work by their encouragement, their support and grant funding, which enables many disadvantaged young people to begin their paths to employability at no cost to themselves.

Next week, the Cadet Vocational Colleges dozen most successful cadets in the country will come with their parents and with their cadet leaders here, to the Chumbley room and to the terrace to celebrate their success. My Lords cadet based vocational education reaches young people through organisations which they trust and through experiences which they value. And I do commend the work of the Cadet Vocational College to your Lordships House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this debate. Her presentation was a tour de force, and having spent much of my career in higher education, I want to make three points specifically about that. First, this is one system, not two. The government's ambition not two. The government's ambition that two thirds of young people reach higher level learning by 25 is the right one. Today, the figure is the right one. Today, the figure is around half.

That gap won't be closed by either colleges or universities alone. We often frame the choice as universities or skills academic or vocational.
12:42
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
That's a false choice, Dearing said. So in 1997, August said so 20 years later. Baroness Thornton said it today, and I'm happy to repeat it. Universities should be progression Universities should be progression partners for FE and apprenticeships. The sector itself has taken action. Last autumn, universities UK and Last autumn, universities UK and the Association of Colleges published a joint strategy for colleges and universities to collaborate rather than compete. London South Bank group structure carries learners from entry level technical training and T levels through to degree level.

In Greater Manchester, universities and colleges align provision, avoid duplication and plan against regional need. This matters most for young people at risk of becoming Neet, who face several barriers at once and for whom no institution can help alone. Second, funding should follow the student and it should not fall in real terms. I welcome fee caps rising with inflation and I hope automatic indexation is honoured in legislation. It is not a subsidy to institutions. It is a guarantee that a student starting in 2030 is not taught on less than a student.

Starting today. My Lords, this is the hardest graduate market in over a decade. Yet the most recent graduate outcomes data show 88% of graduates are in work or further study. 15 months on, and around three quarters of those working in high skill jobs are nurses, teachers, engineers, paramedics and social workers all hold degrees. Thirdly, universities make a substantial contribution to local communities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, which deserves to be recognised. Across the UK. They generate £265 billion in economic impact annually, support around 760 000 jobs and play a central role in attracting investment, fostering innovation and helping businesses grow.

The Atom Valley Innovation District in Rochdale has established the centre of expertise in advanced materials and sustainability, shortened to themes jointly delivered by Rochdale Development Agency and the University of Manchester, it's ensuring that businesses with strong potential can access the tools and support needed to grow. Universities should connect skills to employers and regional economies. My Lords, we need strong colleges, strong universities and strong partnerships between them. This is an ambition worthy of our support. As the Prime Minister writes his ten year plan.

Will the Minister ensure higher education is treated as part of the answer and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity, and not as a competitor? My Lords, I welcome this debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I welcome this debate. I have only one regret about it. It is half the length needed to allow over 30 speakers properly to address the important and complex questions it raises, so I intend to questions it raises, so I intend to focus on just one issue the need to avoid reinventing the wheel and
12:45
Baroness Blackstone Portrait Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
avoid reinventing the wheel and instead return to the Tomlinson Report of 2004, which provides a brilliant approach for curriculum and exam reforms to attacking educational disadvantage amongst pupils aged 14 and over. Alan Milburn reminds us in his interim report on 16 to 24 year old NEETs that they now constitute 1 in 8 young people and he he he makes clear that it is not a new problem, but it is getting worse with growing numbers, demotivated from learning, absent from school and without a job later.

This is a drag on economic growth and a huge loss of individual individual potential. The Prime Minister recognises the need to address it far. Vast improvements in technical and vocational education from the age of 14 to encourage those turned off by the current school curriculum and to improve their chances of employment. This is welcome, but there is a danger that his proposals will divide pupils permanently at the early age of 14, without the flexibility to move later from one to the other.

We ditched the 11 plus. We must not introduce a 14 plus. Enter the Tomlinson report. It strove to integrate academic and vocational education, recognising that those opting for an academic route need skills to. And they also need to acquire. An ability to apply their knowledge. All young people need academic and vocational education at school after the age of 14, and those underachieving all need not just vocational study but literacy, functional mass communication ICASC ICT.

As Tomlinson proposed, he recommended the rationalisation of qualifications into a new diploma framework, dropping both GCSEs, which scandalously at present nearly one third of pupils fail and and a narrow and overspecialised A-level system. His report was backed by education Ministers at the time but rejected by Tony Blair, who feared a fight about A-levels. Failing to take it forward was a wasted opportunity and, I believe, led to magnifying the Neet problem we now face after ten years.

If it had been implemented then we would have had a totally different and far better system. I think it was Blair's greatest mistake in domestic policy. So will the Minister and her senior colleagues, including the Prime Minister, return to the Tomlinson report and consult its author and Peter Hyman, a former special adviser under Blair, who advocates it and has thought about a few ways that are needed to update it.
12:48
Lord Bishop of Coventry Portrait The Lord Bishop of Coventry (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I welcome the. >> My Lords, I welcome the. Government's renewed focus on technical education, youth employment and regional growth. employment and regional growth. Vocational and technical education can be one of the strongest levers for social mobility, but only where for social mobility, but only where it's genuinely accessible to those who face the greatest barriers. On numerous occasions over the past 30 years of ministry, I have seen young people thrive and flourish into work. Due to the investment of colleges and businesses working together to enable this to happen.

Though there have been many reasons to be encouraged during my tenure so far in Coventry, it was deeply discouraging to learn of the 9% GCSE attainment gap between London and my region, the West Midlands, this year. If we're serious about opportunity in our nation, we must ensure that high quality technical pathways are available to all young people wherever they live, not only in areas that already benefit from stronger educational outcomes. I believe that we cannot develop high level apprenticeships at the expense of levels 2 to 4.

These entry level routes are often the vital first step towards skilled employment and further progression. Apprenticeships must be accessible to the third of over 16 seconds without a grade four in English and maths. Too often these young people become stuck in a repeating cycle of resets without means of professional development. Apprenticeships must both remain open to those without GCSE qualifications and provide flexible opportunities to develop literacy and numeracy while employed. This is particularly important for Send learners, as we've heard from whom repeated GCSE resets can become a source of frustration and disengagement.

Despite strong vocational talents. Actually, fewer than 27% of adults with learning disabilities are in paid employment. But Mencap's research shows that 86% of unemployment people unemployed people with learning disability desperately want to work with all the rights, responsibilities and dignity that this brings. Apprenticeships can also provide an invaluable route into work for those for whom English is not their first language, and whose education may have been disrupted by migration or displacement or family trauma. We must recognise potential wherever it is found, rather than excluding people, because they did not reach a particular academic threshold at 16.

Without flexible vocational pathways, capable young people, as we've heard, risk leaving education altogether and becoming Neet. The economic costs of this are significant, but so too are the social and personal consequences, noting especially the mental ill health crisis prevalent in this generation. I've been encouraged locally by the work of Morton Morel College in Warwickshire, for example. Their levels 2 to 4 floristry course provides a valuable vocational pathway for young people, and I've seen the way that their work has enriched churches and communities in my diocese.

They also, importantly, provide pathways into careers in farming and agriculture, a vital component of the rural economy. People flourish best when they can develop their skills holistically while contributing to the common life. This is a vital, dignifying, individual social good.
12:52
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
Thank you Lord. >> Thank you Lord. >> It's a. Pleasure to follow the inclusive approach of the right wing Bishop of Coventry. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan on instigating a vital debate, and I also congratulate my noble friend, the Minister, on policies that widen access to skills and training. But some won't reach these opportunities. Alan Milburn searing diagnosis notes 50.8% of females and 41.3% of males characterised as white, gypsy or Irish traveller are Neet, he says.

I quote black, African and Caribbean people have the highest proportion of Neet. According to large scale surveys. But Gypsy, Roma and Irish travellers are in the National Institute of Economic and Social Research report 2.5 to 3 times more likely to be Neet than average. Their increasing Neet status is 210% Irish travellers and 155% for Roma. But the population context at 0.6% of 18 to 24 year olds, is too small for large scale surveys. My first plea to the noble due to my noble friend the Minister, is include in government analyses, specific research into this neglected minority and disaggregated, Irish travellers and Roma students, so that the experience of these very different communities is clearly seen.

Alan Milburn omits race prejudice, the cause of negative assumptions about motivation and ability. The report that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families experienced the highest level of prejudice of any minority ethnic group. Those who succeed in work often hide their heritage, thus also hiding useful role models. He is surely right that alienation from past to qualifications and employment begins in school. Gypsy, Irish traveller and Roma children again because their actual experience tends not to be identified, suffer different but widespread bullying and have a far higher drop out rate in all schools from that and other causes than any other minority ethnic group.

Often it is the provoked victim who is excluded, not the perpetrator. But there is no proper research. NGOs point to lack of valuing of their cultures and history. The Council of Europe ranks the UK lowest in coverage of Roma experience in history textbooks. Lack of positive contact with parents, digital exclusion, especially during the Covid lockdown and lack of support to get such children up to entry and skills training. I recommend this month's friends, Families and Travellers Report on educational inequalities for useful proposals.

I ought to declare an interest, as their president has pledged to get schools to report on progress to welcome their gypsy traveller. Roma students works, as does a successful initiative for higher education institutions, which I was proud to launch in your Lordships' House. Will my noble friend the Minister, affirm her support? The gap now is in further education institutions of particular importance for the acquisition of skills. How can my noble friend help here without more practical attention? Some marginalised families will continue to behave in a marginalised way and very many others will never get a chance.

They and we all could use well. Should we really allow this injustice to continue?
12:56
Baroness Garden of Frognal Portrait Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Let's move on to the next speaker. Can I just say that it's a very important debate, and I'm you know, I'm really enjoying it to listening to it, but we need to stick to the three minute limit. We won't be going over by several seconds, but those seconds are up. And we do need to hear from the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. To thank Baroness Maclean for this debate and for her masterly opening remarks. It is most welcome that this government has realised how harmful has been the purely academic emphasis of the previous government, which alienated the government, which alienated the many young people whose skills and interests lie in practical vocational subjects. It generated a vocational subjects. It generated a harmful waste of potential in the skill areas which the country desperately needs in engineering, construction, hospitality as well construction, hospitality as well as the arts, music and dance, which Baroness Fraser spoke about art and craft skills.

Some of those historic crafts have become endangered, as detailed by the Heritage Crafts Association, of which I have the privilege of being a vice patron. Many of these crafts have regional associations and generate jobs and pride in their localities, as well as producing practical and beautiful artefacts, which can be life enhancing for those who have been marginalised by their formal schooling. Can I ask the Minister what measures are being taken to ensure that there are trained teachers in vocational areas to ensure that all children find something at school to enthuse them? We should also be mindful, as speakers of other languages where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

English. For speakers of other languages, Esol provision has become fragmented for over 5 million people in England and Wales who do people in England and Wales who do not have English as a first language. Time was when such classes were free and opened classes were free and opened opportunities to many people to use their skills and talents in this country. Those days, sadly, have country. Those days, sadly, have gone. But community cohesion is increasingly important as see divisions in race and religion becoming violent in some of our communities.

Surely, ensuring that we all have a common language should be given a high priority. Can the Minister say what provision is made available for Esol classes to enable better integration of our citizens who struggle to speak good English? And as a former chair of the health check team, can I strongly support the words of Lord Lingfield in. In pointing out the values of the cadet forces which give life changing opportunities for so many young people. I work for City and Guilds for some 20 years on vocational qualifications, which opened my eyes to the amazing work of further education colleges too often overlooked.

One problem is that nearly all politicians and civil servants have gone the university route, and are reluctant to give due attention and funding to a sector where they have had no connections and see as not so worthy. Yet FE carries the hopes and aspirations of millions of young people, and indeed of adults seeking to improve or change their qualifications and chances in life. For many disadvantaged young people and those with learning disabilities, the prospect of going away to university is daunting and financially unrealistic, whereas their local college is accessible.

Colleges offer such a wide range of programmes of learning, from basic skills to occupational competence and indeed apprenticeships and degrees. Yet their staff are still underpaid and the colleges are underfunded. What does the government propose to do to support and enhance the vital work of further education colleges, which would also be a key factor in solving the problem?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Morgan for her excellent speech and this important excellent speech and this important debate which is ever more critical as we live in and look to a future revolutionised by digital revolutionised by digital automation. And the evidence is unequivocal. Creativity is becoming one of the most critical human capabilities. Deloitte warns of an imagination deficit in imagination deficit in organisations where curiosity, empathy and creative problem solving are now the essential skills that enable people to thrive alongside artificial intelligence.

The World Economic Forum identifies creative thinking as a top workforce skill for 2025, and LinkedIn's Global Workforce survey shows that senior leaders rank creativity above analytical reasoning as the most important soft skill for the modern workplace. Creativity is not a luxury. It is the engine of innovation, adaptability and resilience. If we are serious about preparing young people for the future, then it needs to be recognised as a core capability. Not peripheral, not optional, but central to the skills and education agenda at all levels, including high level skills and higher education.

If we lag behind the realities of technological change, automation will not liberate opportunity. It will deepen exclusion, creating new barriers for those who already face the greatest challenges. Creative and digital industries are two of the biggest growth sectors in our modern industrial strategy. They overlap and so increasingly do their skill sets. A substantial proportion of England's local authorities, including 11 of the 19 mayoral combined authorities, identify them as priorities for growth and for their skills policies.

I wholeheartedly believe that enabling devolution, collaboration and flexibilities to
13:01
13:02
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I also thank Baroness Morgan for raising this very important debate at this time, and I'm proud to follow Baroness Caine and indeed echo much of what she said about the importance of the creative industries, and I declare an interest. I am a board member of the BPI, which represents the recorded music sector and as we all know, the music sector brings in a huge amount of prosperity to the United Kingdom. It brings us a lot of joy, and it also puts so many amazing British artists on the map.

And we know that arts and culture has been a great British success story. And I actually think the music industry provides a good model for how we could do skills in the future, where you have industry coming together with government at a national and regional level to create brilliant institutions where young people can get world class training in skills. Just look at the Brit School in Croydon, look at Ilam, which is the East London arts and music schools.

Now. These schools are amazing. They are vibrant, they are excited. You go there, you feel the energy. They are like something out of the TV show fame. I wanted to join, but sadly they weren't taking mature students. And when I went along and we know so many amazing artists Adele, Olivia, Dean, Ray, Lola, Young these people sell millions of albums. They bring in so much money to the Exchequer and they provide so much joy. And I am delighted that the music industry is working with the government to establish a new centre of excellence in Bradford, West Yorkshire, with Brit North.

That is going to be a brand new college that's going to offer 500 precious places. And I think the thing that is brilliant about these kinds of collaborations is not only are you talking about the front of house stars, you are talking about hundreds and hundreds of young people getting trained up with those amazing backroom jobs, production, set design, all of that kind of thing, which can provide people with so many rich, interesting, varied career. I also just want to make the point about qualifications.

We've got to make sure we don't kill off the pipeline of creative talent. Last year, A-level music fell to just over 4500 pupils. That's a great worry. The choirmaster, Gareth Malone, has flagged that we could be facing a cultural crisis in terms of killing off this pipeline. The number of children taking arts at GCSE level in state schools has fallen by 41% since 2010. I do not think that is a great statistic. So we mustn't kill the goose which lays the golden eggs.

And the final thing I would say is we talk a lot about the technical skills we need to instil confidence in young people as well, not just what you can do in a computer or on a screen, but verbal communication, making eye contact, being able to sort of hold conversations with people. But this is a great debate and very timely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. Can I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Begin by adding my thanks to my noble friend Baroness Morgan for this timely debate? I do not have this timely debate? I do not have time to discuss our school system and its relentless focus on A-levels, whose only purpose is to A-levels, whose only purpose is to act as a kind of sorting hat for which university a pupil will attend, or why, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, many white working class pupils and their families do Not believe that doing well at school reliably leads to opportunity, financial security, and a good life, or to discuss the related need for parity of esteem between further education, apprenticeships and higher education.

The Prime Minister is right to call for this. My Lords, I would like instead to focus on the headwinds facing adult education, which is used by adults for whom school did not work out or who wished to retrain, and from 2010, funding for adult education was slashed. The number of adult learners fell from over 3 million to around half that number. Yet we are in the foothills of an economic revolution driven by AI of a scale not seen, perhaps since the first Industrial Revolution.

No one, including those developing AI, can be entirely sure where it is going to take us. Now, the impact of new technologies in the short term is often exaggerated, but history shows. If anything, that impact over the longer term is underestimated. So it is universally acknowledged that the impact of AI on employment and the jobs available for people to do will be unprecedented. The nearest comparison in my lifetime was perhaps the retreat in the early 1980s from heavy extractive industries in the UK, and there are some lessons to be learned.

We had
13:08
Lord Docherty of Milngavie Portrait Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-affiliated)
-
-
long known that change in the UK was coming. In Germany they knew that too. But in Germany they that too. But in Germany they prepared from the late 1960s. They planned for the transformation of the Ruhr Valley with significant the Ruhr Valley with significant investment in further education, in adult education and community engagement, and in infrastructure engagement, and in infrastructure to ensure the change was managed and no one was left behind. In the and no one was left behind. In the UK, we just let the market rip and we are still living with the consequences of that.

The scale of change needed is immense. We will need new levels of innovation and investment and perhaps, as I think Baroness Morris hinted, at the abandonment of conventional thinking, if we are to effectively support people. My Lords, are we up to the challenge of reimagining the role of adult education, rethinking its purpose and scale in a changing jobs market the likes of which we have not seen before? My Lords, to embrace the spirit of the age, we have to be optimistic.

We have to navigate this change. We have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plan. My Lord, I also. Thank Baroness Merron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when I arrived in your Lordships House 18 months ago, I had just become the chair of the had just become the chair of the body that certifies every electrician, 170,000 of them across the country. And I immediately encountered amongst employers deep concern about the fate of concern about the fate of apprenticeships, the bureaucracy, the cost of training, the support needs of young apprentices, and this malaise deeply pained employers who invariably had come up the apprenticeship route themselves.

So, as many Lords have mentioned, what's happened in the last 18 months, the Milburn report in May has been seminal, uncompromising. As others have said about the moral scandal of a million, it's clear that young people desperately want to work and candid about the multidimensional roots of this crisis. And as so often in politics, timing matters because there is not a member among us who did not have conversations during the recess about the future of the jobs market.

And yet the public fear that politicians, in the parlance of today, craft the
13:10
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden Portrait Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
-
-
narrative or tell the story, but too rarely stick around to solve the problem. And so in my remaining time, I want to talk about the momentum since the Milburn report, momentum since the Milburn report, not on the supply side, that has dominated our discussion today about what is happening in the about what is happening in the education system, but about stimulating employer demand. Because in June, £3,000 for employers taking on an eligible young person in July 20th 2000 defence apprenticeships announced in August £10 billion for new affordable housing, fuelling new construction contracts.

This month, the first of 22,000 extra college places, including free apprenticeship training for eligible under 25 seconds from next month. 2000 pegged to small employers for each new apprenticeship under 25 in November. The nationwide rollout of the government's backed placement Scheme, the job Guarantee scheme for long term unemployed young people. All together, all of this ramps up into translates into half a million opportunities to earn or learn over the next three years. It is not the full answer, but it's getting closer to the scale of the challenge.

But success, my Lords, will come not just from investment, but from effectiveness. And we need to strip back the misplaced red tape, and we need to substitute it with a single minded focus on skills. And so I am delighted that the government is now scrapping the laundry list of social value demands from contractors bidding for public work. The complexity was crowding out common sense. So from January, job creation and skills development will be the only social value requirements on businesses competing for public contracts.

As I will end by simply saying that the Milburn report highlighted that the Netherlands had changed the trajectory and outcomes for young people, giving a generation back their future is a battle to be won in our time. It will be done family by family, firm by firm and postcode. By postcode.
13:12
Lord Nagaraju Portrait Lord Nagaraju (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Yes. Well done. >> I thank. I also thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly my interest as director, adviser and shareholder in AI and tech companies. If we are serious about social mobility, education cannot be a one off event, one off event at the beginning of life. Disadvantage does not end at 18, and technology is now changing faster than any single qualification can.

Keep pace with lifelong learning. Therefore, is not an optional extra. It is economic infrastructure. The challenge is already stark. Young people from lower working class backgrounds are more than twice as likely to be not in education, employment or training as those from professional backgrounds 22%, compared with 9%. At the same time, Skills England says that demand for key occupations in priority sectors is expected to rise by nearly a quarter over the next decade, with particularly strong growth in digital and engineering professions.

Critically, it says that education pipeline pipeline alone will not be enough. Significant reskilling of the existing workforce will be essential. Artificial intelligence brings these two challenges together. The government's AI Labour market research found that 35% of surveyed organisations struggled to fill AI roles. Government commissioned vacancy analysis also found significant advertised salary premiums for AI skills. Yet in 2023, 60% of expert AI vacancies were advertised in London and the South East. If the skills, the opportunities and the higher value jobs remain concentrated in the same places, AI risks widening regional inequality rather than reducing it.

I welcome the government's building blocks. AI skills boost the level four AI and automation practitioner apprenticeship and the lifelong learning entitlement, supporting eligible courses and modular study from January 2027. But flexibility on paper is not necessarily access in practice. A learner in a deployed, deprived community may need a pathway from essential digital skills through applied training to an apprenticeship or modular higher education, alongside meaningful work experience. Careers advice and support with practical barriers. That is where FE colleges, employers and regional leaders can be powerful partners.

I welcome the government's commitment to reach disadvantaged young people through programmes such as Tech First. But will the Minister ensure that this opportunity extends beyond school into lifelong learning, and that local skills improvement plans and devolved skills funding open pathways into AI and emerging technology careers for disadvantaged communities. And will the government publish participation, completion and employment outcomes by deprivation and by region? If we do that, lifelong learning can be both a ladder of opportunity and an engine of regional growth.
13:15
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I to congratulate Baroness Morgan for arranging this debate and I declare an interest as debate and I declare an interest as the author. Eight years ago, as a centre of a centre for Policy Studies paper on technical Studies paper on technical education. I want to acknowledge the work of my noble friend, Lord Baker, who has done so much to set up vocational and technical schools, most of which have been a great success, but not all of which have been an unqualified success.

Of the 58 Utcs that have opened since 2010, 14 have closed studio schools, also vocational and technical schools for 14 to 19 year olds have fared worse. 59 have opened since 2010 and at least 26 have closed. The problem is that some of these schools became dumping grounds for children that neighbouring comprehensives didn't want, because they were expected to do poorly in their GCSEs. How can we stop technical and vocational education being seen as inferior to a more academic pathway? The answer, my Lords, is to grant these schools the ability to select according to aptitude, not ability, but aptitude for the occupations.

They are designed to prepare children for. The most successful occupational schools in the. Sorry. The most successful occupational school in the country that admits under 16 year olds is the Brit School. The performing arts school in Croydon that admits children according to their ability for the performing arts and those. Tom Holland and Adele among its most successful alumni. And that model has been replicated by Birmingham Ormiston Academy and a second Brit school has been approved to open next year in Bradford.

As the noble Lady Baroness Hazarika said overseas, the most successful technical and vocational schools also select for aptitude from South Korea's Meister schools, which placed 93% of graduates directly into employment to the selective vocational academies of new Jersey, which send pupils to Princeton, Yale and MIT. None of these systems treat technical education as a consolation prize for children who struggle with academic subjects. They treat aptitude for trade as no less real and no less worthy of cultivation than aptitude for science or maths.

I recognise that any form of selection is controversial, but I'm not proposing selection by ability, only by aptitude, and academic academies are already permitted to select up to 10% of their pupils for aptitude for particular specialisms, such as music. One final point, my Lords, no primary legislation is required to bring about this change. The Secretary of State already has the power used, in fact, for Birmingham Ormiston Academy itself to grant a derogation allowing an academy, including utcs and studio schools, to select by aptitude where there's a demonstrable local need.

All that's required is the will to use it more widely. And if the noble Baroness, the Minister, when she returns to her place, would like to learn more, I'll happily send her a copy of my paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I'd like to add my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to add my word of thanks to the noble Baroness for introducing this Baroness for introducing this debate. A for introducing it, but B for snatching every single remark for snatching every single remark that I had carefully put together by way of a speech as a contribution to this debate. We'll contribution to this debate. We'll have to sort that out, I think, at dawn with pistols. But it's a great privilege to hear the wisdom that's come from so many quarters in the course of this debate, and to give me an opportunity to offer my thanks and admiration to the noble Lord Harries for all the work that he's done, even with the qualifying remarks that we heard, just heard a moment ago, which has provided a platform now over its longevity upon which to build and to develop some of the ideas that have been in play.

So here I am, likely to finish before three minutes. And
13:19
13:21
Baroness Nargund Portrait Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow. >> My noble friend, Lord Griffiths. I might finish before three minutes as well. I'm not sure. Well, I, I really congratulate my noble friend Baroness Mone for securing this very important debate and also for her excellent opening speech. We have heard from so many noble Lords from across the House, highlighting different sectors and opportunities. My Lords, skills, training, employment, health and regional growth are deeply interconnected. If we want to reduce regional inequalities, we must create opportunities for young people where they live.

Today, nearly 1 million young people are Neet. Behind that statistic is an enormous reservoir of talent and potential that our country cannot afford to lose. My Lords, as a doctor who has served for nearly four decades in the National Health Service, I want to talk about how the National Health Service can help with skills training, apprenticeship and employing young people who are not in education, employment or training. And in doing so, support regional growth. My Lords, we have two challenges young people who need opportunities and a health care system that's desperately in need of sustainable workforce.

So why not bring them together? We often think of our National Health Service simply as a health care provider. We forget it is the largest public sector employer and in fact, one of the largest employers in the country. If we include all legal entities with a distinct presence in virtually every community across our country. This gives our National Health Service a unique opportunity to become an anchor for skills training, apprenticeship, employment and regional growth. This should not be about finding young people in employment or any employment, but it should be about giving them a career, a qualification, security and future.

A young person gaining skills and securing employment improves their income, independence and health. Their salaries are spent locally, growing the local economy and communities retain talent. Local productivity grows. Furthermore, an NHS workforce drawn from local communities it serves will understand the needs of that community and it will create a win win situation for regional growth and wealth. Therefore, can I ask my noble friend Minister, as the government considers the solutions phase of Milburn review, will it explore the NHS as an anchor for skills training, apprenticeships and for regional health and growth? My Lords NHS has the potential to deliver a practical solution for Neet crisis while delivering regional growth.
13:24
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> Like to thank. >> The Baroness, Lady Morgan. >> For securing this important debate. I would like to raise two debate. I would like to raise two points today financial literacy and careers guidance. My Lords, financial literacy and careers financial literacy and careers guidance are part of the same conversation and can transform lives. We want young people to be career ready, but they also need to be financially ready. Young people today are growing up in an increasingly challenging financial world, so more than ever, they need the confidence to make informed decisions.

I welcome the government's direction on travel and strengthening financial education in the national curriculum, as these life skills are important. Although financial education is statutory in primary and secondary education, it is not in not in statutory Post-16 years. Many are urging the government to embed it into the post-16 pathways. This is especially important when young people are facing. Faced with immediate financial decisions like wages and renting for the first time. We need the right resources, more teacher training and curriculum time to ensure that good financial education reaches every child, regardless of where they live and at the right time in their lives.

My second point is careers guidance in schools. My Lords, we are all welcome. We all welcome the focus on the need to get more young people into further education, apprenticeships, training and employment at 16. But there is an immediate need to do more to ensure young people know what those opportunities are, where they can lead and how to get there. Some young people already have networks around them to explain different careers, arrange work experience or introduce them to an employer. But many disadvantaged young people don't.

Good careers guidance in schools can be a great equaliser. Ofsteds 2023 review found that a third of schools reported poor staffing levels and high staff turnover, affecting careers provision, while a quarter identified funding as a barrier. Careers departments need to be better resourced and there must not be a postcode lottery. The library briefing makes an important point here. Employers have highlighted a lack of workplace experience, confidence and work readiness among young people. Good career guidance has the power to address many of these issues.

The government's careers guidance, updated in June 2026, cited evidence that high quality careers provision is associated with around an 8% reduction in the likelihood of young people becoming Neet. The evidence suggests an even greater impact in schools serving the highest proportions of disadvantaged learners. The library briefing also highlights that amongst 18 to 21 year olds, there is a 12.7% gap in participation in education, apprenticeships between disadvantaged young people and their peers. Opportunity only works if young people have the knowledge, understanding and confidence to take it.

If we're serious about social mobility, we must make sure disadvantaged young people are not disadvantaged twice, first by their circumstances, and then again and then again by lacking the support and knowledge to navigate their future. Their future should be determined by their ambition and ability, not by the circumstances into which they are born.
13:28
Lord Liddle Portrait Lord Liddle (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Like my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, I find the quality of this debate has left me with very little fresh or new to with very little fresh or new to say, but I want to emphasise some of the points which I feel came out in the debate, which are very important. And the first is that our basic school system still has a lot of improvement to make. The report that showed, I think it was from Teach First, how, how children from free school meal backgrounds were pretty much doomed to failure in our system.

Something has to be done. And that agenda of reform at schools has still to be pursued. A lot of people have played compliments to the Milburn review, and I think it's one of the best documents of its kind that I've ever seen in my political experience. However, those of you who have the stamina for the debate on an ageing society tomorrow that I'm standing in Italy, we have come to the conclusion on your Lordships Economic Affairs Committee that we can only afford an ageing society if the age, if the.

If the participation rates of people over 50 are radically increased in terms of employment. And that has all sorts of, you know, implications for how people develop their lives in education and how they can continue after the age of 50. The other point I'd like to emphasise is the point that Lord Barber made about the lack of consistency that there has been in Britain in its further education, apprenticeship and skills policies. We desperately need that consistency, the kind of consistency at a personal level that Lord Baker has shown throughout the last 40 years of his life or so, but we need it in our politics and in our in in our structures of how we do this.

Final point. We shouldn't see this debate as a choice. And I think Baroness Mone made this very clear between further and higher education. I actually think the expansion of universities, which Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and Tony Blair both made an enormous contribution, has been one of the drivers of opportunity and social mobility in this country, and we should never forget it. And we should never allow opponents on the right to make the argument that more means worse, because it doesn't.

And what we have to do is develop ladders of opportunity between further and higher education, in which the universities have a key role to play. And as Baroness Morris said, we can't have a situation where degree apprenticeships are kind, are confined to a socially select few.
13:31
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
I to congratulate the noble Baroness for securing this debate and while I didn't agree with everything she said, I thought that everything she said, I thought that she made the most important contribution to this debate in her opening remarks, where she said that it doesn't really matter what kind of education you want to go on, for, what kind of vocation you have. If you don't have numeracy and literacy, you're done for. And given my meagre three minutes, I'm going to just try and stick with that point in particular, because I think apart from the noble Lord Addington, nobody has referred back to that in this entire debate, full of good contributions, but missing this key point, because, my Lords, if if you grow up in numerate illiterate, you can't feel in a bank account, you can't fill in a form you're no longer capable of participating in our society as a fully functioning adult.

And yet 1 in 5 of children in this country leave school functionally illiterate or innumerate or both. And and that number is probably increasing at this time post-COVID, rather than diminishing. And yet we know the solution. We actually have a real life scientific test going on with the Gove reforms in England, but not in Scotland and Wales. And we have seen Scotland, Wales results collapse and the Gove reforms bring us higher and higher in the Pisa tables.

And that is despite the fact that I would estimate that half the schools in this country have adamantly resisted imposing the Gove reforms, which are very straightforward. The imposition of phonics for literacy and of Shanghai maths, or something similar for numeracy. And yet all over we get people saying that those reforms have not worked. And when we see them in their perfected way, that a school like Michaela. Yeah. Where they they have discipline and love and higher expectations and a knowledge rich approach.

Almost no children leave that school in numerate or illiterate. And these are not many schools these are not adopted. Now why is that, my Lords? Why? Why are we allowing that? Whoops. Well, I'll just say it starts here. And then it goes on to the colleges of education, which we've seen an appalling glimpse of in the Jason case, where they're all keen on teaching about racism and white privilege and, and colonialism and so forth. And they never teach about the knowledge of its approach.

They never teach Shanghai, they never teach phonics. My Lords, unless we all get together and face reality, we'll have more children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

innumerate. Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Very good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Very good speech. Mr. Last speaker. And only having. Three minutes. I would dearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three minutes. I would dearly love to contend with what the noble Lord young has just said, but I Lord young has just said, but I won't do so, and I won't comment on that many speeches which have been made, many of which I agree with my made, many of which I agree with my Lord, for far too long. One's educational qualifications at 18, or lack of them, have determined not only what happens to you when you join the workforce, but how your whole career develops.

We need to alter that. I am not going to comment in detail on the various speeches that have been made, and I've dropped my own detailed points and just make this point. And it is a problem for the Prime Minister and for the Treasury as much as it is for education Ministers and those in the education system. Employment is not seen as one of the key strategies for government, either in the Treasury or in Whitehall. We need. We have a Department of Employment which is actually lost to some extent within a Department which is largely concerned with the details and expenditure of welfare.

We need a proper Department of Employment, which covers training skills for the future, as well as the education system, and the focus on further education and the integration of higher education. My Lords, until we get that, we are not going to get delivery of a proper strategy. We will get details we can improve, but the strategy needs to be accepted by the senior Ministers within this government and future governments. For a long time, employment has been not one of the top priorities and has become a poor relation to improve the situation.

And as Milburn Milburn report Alan Milburn report points out, we've not been short of. Interventions by government over the past few years, have been scheme after scheme to improve the situation and we're going to get a few more. What has been lacking is a strategy and a priority. The need for that can only come from the top. The machinery of government needs to reflect that, and only then will we gain the respect for all aspects of employment and training that is needed.

I do not see the signs yet that we, as the present government have fully addressed this. We have the opportunity to do so, and I think the priority is there and has been laid out in many interventions today. It is time that we ensured that the machinery of government reflects the centrality of employment in defining the lives, the quality of our lives and the sense of self which applies to so many people. Until that happens, we are going to have this debate time and again.
13:38
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, could I also join >> My Lords, could I also join noble Lords in thanking Baroness Morgan for initiating this really important debate in all noble Lords important debate in all noble Lords who have taken part? What has come through is very clear that this is not simply a debate around qualifications. Actually, it's been a debate around opportunities, social mobility and economic growth. And the central question for me is this how do we ensure every young person, whatever their background or postcode, has the genuine route to meaningful work? As we heard earlier, further education or a secure future, and not like many noble Lords have mentioned today, in particular Baroness Alexander about them becoming Neet and all the issues that Milburn has identified.

And we look forward to his second report in terms of what can happen, because for too long, the education system has presented universities as a default measure of ambition. While vocational education has too often been treated as second best. University is absolutely right choice for many young people. But it should not be the only route to success. And I think we've heard that clearly today in the debate. A young person who wants to become an engineer, electrician, technician, care professional or builder should be able to pursue that ambition through a high quality technical or vocational route, which the same status and respect as someone pursuing an academic degree.

That is why I remain attracted to the dual system model, combining classroom learning with sustained structural workplace experience. And we can learn from other countries like Germany and Netherlands. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, at the start of the debate, their vocational system demonstrates the value of giving young people both theoretical knowledge and practical competence that additional workplace experience matters. And like we heard from Lord Griffiths about, actually some of us practising what we preach by giving young people the opportunity to come and shadow us.

And I've had one young person today, this week actually. Louise. Louise Ennis is still here watching the debate, who's actually helped formulate not only this speech but my Oral Questions. So therefore, I think it's really important that we also create work experience opportunities for people and then go out and advocate for them within when the very businesses employing them are the ones that don't give them the opportunity to gain that experience. How can we tell a young person that they need experience when we have failed to give them that opportunity? As I mentioned earlier, no vocational system will succeed unless employers are properly incentivised to participate, and I would particularly like to see strong incentives for employers to recruit young people facing greatest barriers, including care leavers.

Young people would send and those who have experienced alternative provision. Young people furthest from the labour market. And in particular, I note the comments by Baroness Morris about white working young people. Working class young people cannot be the young people least likely to receive the first opportunity. We really kind of look into that findings of that report and see how we can help that particular cohort of young people. We also need to move away from a culture of short term recruitment and low retention.

Training should be seen as an investment in people and in their future workforce, rather than a simple cost. That is why I support greater flexibility in growth and skills. Levy. As we heard from Baroness Mone at the beginning of speech, small and medium sized businesses in particular need a system that allows them to use training and support for the skills their workforce and local economy generally require. But if we want vocational education to succeed, we must also properly fund, and we heard it from many noble Lords.

Further education, whether it was from my own colleague Baroness Garden. Further education colleges are often working with young people who have the greatest need, yet they continue to face significant financial pressures. We should extend a pupil premium style support into post-16 education so that it does not stop when a young person leaves school, they still have those needs. We must also ensure that Fe colleges are treated fairly financially, including through the ability to reclaim VAT so that they are not placed at a disadvantage with sixth forms.

We should also encourage partnerships rather than competition between institutions, collaboration between universities. Fe colleges can open opportunities that neither can provide alone. My Lords, we should also recognise that education does not end at 21. People change careers, people lose their jobs. They may become carers, industries may disappear and new industries emerge. That's why lifelong learning matters. The lifelong learning entitlement has the potential to give adult adults greater opportunity to retrain and upskill. But lifelong learning must not mean more than lifelong borrowing.

People from disadvantaged backgrounds must be able to access the opportunity without financial barriers preventing them from participating. We must also seriously address young people being outside education and employment without addressing mental health and other barriers. For some young people, the problem is not the lack of ambition. It may be poor mental health, disability, caring responsibilities, poverty, lack of confidence or simply not having anyone to help them navigate the complicated system. As we heard earlier, when we talked about when we heard about the career services in school, that is why organisations such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award are really valuable.

My Lords, volunteering, physical activity, developing practical skills and working as part of a team can build confidence, resilience, leadership and well-being. Those opportunities are particularly important for young people who may not have the same network or advantages as their peers. Finally, I want to turn to regional growth and evolution, the skills needs of a place like Sheffield, where I'm from is not identical to Manchester, Cornwall or London. In South Yorkshire, we need to think about advanced manufacturing, engineering, construction, clean energy in the future of our steel industry.

Others may have other priorities. The people who understand those needs are best are the ones that are closest. The local employers, the colleges, universities, councils and combined authorities. I therefore welcome the direction of travel towards greater regional decision making that we've heard from the Prime Minister. But devolution must mean real power, real resources and real accountability. We should all. We should not simply devolve responsibility while keeping the important decisions and funding in Whitehall. My Lords, there is a danger that we focus on qualifications, structures and funding mechanism and forget that the individual young person at the centre of them, the young person who leave school without the grades they expected of them, the care leaver, navigating adulthood, adulthood without a stable family network, a young person would send who wants to work but needs the right support.

The adult who needs to retrain because the industry they have worked for for years is changing. They do not simply need more choices on paper. They need a route that actually works. So from these benches I would make five simple demands. First, give vocational education the status it deserves. Secondly, make further education a genuinely pillar of our education system. Thirdly, give employers the incentives and flexibility to create meaningful training and employment opportunities, particularly for those facing disadvantage. Fourthly, integrate skills with mental health, employment and wider support because people people's lives do not fit neatly into department boundaries.

Fifth, and finally, devolve power and funding so that regions can build the skills systems, their economies and communities actually need. Opportunities should not depend on postcodes. As we heard from Baroness Fraser and others, it should. Nor should it be an ambition to define by whether someone chooses a university, lecture, theatre or a workplace workshop floor. A successful education system recognises talent wherever it exists, gives people the skills they need to use their talent and give them a genuine opportunity to succeed.

That is the education and skills system that we should all aspire to build.
13:47
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> My Lord. My congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for securing this excellent debate and my thanks to noble colleagues for their contributions. It strikes me yet again at the level, the level of expertise we have in this House and the the value that brings when we are talking about such important matters. I have also been saved from many of the points I plan to make by hearing from noble Baroness Morgan, from noble, Baroness, Lady Morris, from the noble Lord Lord Baker and many other colleagues, and I think the best use of time, therefore, is to focus instead on two things that I would like to address.

Specifically, a number of people have referred to the fact and indeed the. The review that the noble Baroness have co-authored or overseen talks about the fact that skills don't begin at 14 or 16. These are life skills, and they begin from the very early years. And many of you are aware that that's a passion of mine, and I can't resist the temptation to address it on this occasion. The very first skills anyone learns are motor skills, speech, relational skills, emotional regulation, and the capacity to learn itself.

In this year's survey of over a thousand reception teachers, 1 in 4 children started school not toilet trained. 3 in 10 could not tell a teacher they were hungry or frightened or needed the toilet. A third could not dress themselves. Many can't hold a pencil or sit up on the carpet because they don't have the strength built by running, climbing or play. It is beyond tragic. A third handed, a book swiped the page as if it were a screen.

Reception staff lose 2.5 hours of teaching every day, helping children to catch up. This September. 37% arrived not ready, up from 33% last year. I should say that's for last year, the sharpest declines, and we're talking about regions are in the North East, the West Midlands, the North West and London. When a peer reviewed study was done following 8000 Bradford children for 12 years, those not school ready at four were nearly three times as likely to be out of education, employment and training at 16.

Number of noble peers today have talked about this being a decade long work. It is a lifetime of work and it is urgent. And before we even begin to address the skills and training, the vocational training, the higher and further education issues that so many others have raised today, we need to start urgently, very urgently, to catch these babies, these infants, at the very beginning of their lives, because if we don't, undoing the damage will be too difficult and their chances will already be harmed.

Now there is hope. In the same survey, 94% of parents wanted national guidance on readiness, and 88% of them believe their own child was ready. But the teachers had that number at only 63%. So there is a gap of parenting knowledge that we cannot and should not neglect. Now, the noble Baroness, the Minister I know is looking at all of this, and she she is aware of my support with everything she's doing in this area, and I hope she will forgive me.

However, if I press further and harder on what else we could be doing and what the government in, in my view, must do. In 2004, Stoke on Trent found 64% of its children starting nursery with delayed language. It trained 5000 practitioners and parents in early attachment and language, and delay fell markedly. Parents in the programme that I founded was evaluated by the University of Warwick and it was a. It's a six week parenting course and they found large gains in parents confidence and skills at the end of just six weeks, which delivered outcomes in the primary schools which ran it.

The government's milestone is 75% school ready by 2028, and there's no time to waste because once these years are gone, it can't be undone. The plan where is the plan for how it is to be communicated? The definition of school readiness is to be communicated to every new parent. And where is the system and the measures for assessing that progress and when? I hope the noble Baroness Minister can tell us, are we going to see a national information campaign about what screens are doing to the developing brains of these babies from infancy? They are being set in front of screens, which is impeding their life chances.

The other thing I wanted to talk about very quickly with time running is work readiness, because again, the skills that are needed, the soft skills, the behavioural skills and the experience are so crucial. And many of noble peers today have raised this in their contributions. We have got to be providing the work experience that has gone from young people. The number of teenagers who now work during the time when they are studying has fallen off a cliff. Since the 1990s, this has been happening gradually.

Over time. It's halved self-esteem and confidence built by earning, turning up, getting paid, seeing the result of your efforts has gone. As the mother of a 16 year old. It is has been impossible for her, despite all her best efforts to find any summer jobs over the last couple of years. This country is spending £25 supporting a young person on benefits for every £1, helping them into work. The answer to that arithmetic is not better managed dependency, and it's a good start to seeing the Milburn recommendations, the subsidising of work placements and work experience.

But we need to do more. I'm grateful to a number of noble peers today for raising the AI issue, which really is at the heart of some of the issues around employment and jobs. The change is happening so rapidly. People, young people, need to have soft skills. They need executive functioning skills. As we talk about it now in SEN, knowing how to organise themselves, how to show up punctually. We take these things so for granted. But for the Covid generation, these are missing and we need to be thinking about what we do in this classrooms, whether it's in schools or in further education, to equip young people to be able to go into the workplace and thrive.

I'm very grateful today to so many of you for your contribution, but I just wanted to single out Lord Lingfield for his reference to the cadet program. It is a shame. I always feel that government has to be run by departments simply because it's so vast, but when we think about our defence needs and the changing face of defence, the fact that it's going to become more technical, it's going to become more home based. The fact that we need security in our own borders.

We need to be thinking more strategically about mapping and encouraging the jobs that we need for the future, with young people being encouraged to take up places with the cadets as just one example of what can be done. I'm very grateful also for the reference today to language skills, an increasingly important issue as we become an ever more diverse and inclusive society, and it must be vital for children to be able to participate in their community, to have those language skills.

I just finally wanted to say that I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who said, but also Baroness Morgan in her opening, how important numeracy and literacy are at the foundation stones of all of this. And it is with a little bit of alarm that I hear the Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister, on Monday talking about some of the changes he's proposing, and I just wanted to flag my alarm that he I hope he isn't intending to rip the foundation stones of what has been a significantly improving education system in England through the last 20 years, through both the Labour and Conservative government's work, which was contributed to by the noble Baroness, the Minister herself.

And so there's a lot more to be said. But time is ticking and I'm determined not to get another warning from halfway. Thank you.
13:57
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. Yeah. >> My Lords, can I as as others rightly have done, thank my noble friend Baroness Morgan for securing friend Baroness Morgan for securing this important debate which has raged quite rightly, widely, and I raged quite rightly, widely, and I will do my very best to respond to the range of points that have been raised and to receive written representations from anybody who wants to send them, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord young, promised to do when I took a little comfort break earlier on the breadth of expertise, as others have said, that has been shared today, shows that improving opportunity is not the responsibility of government alone, it is a national endeavour.

And this debate goes to the heart of how we build a fairer and more prosperous country. It is about whether every young person, whatever their background or postcode, can gain the skills, confidence and opportunities they need to succeed. And whether every region has the skilled workforce it needs to grow, attract investment and create good jobs. So the issues before us are clear. Too many young people remain outside education, employment or training. Too many adults lack access to flexible routes to upskill or retrain.

Too many employers report skills shortages, while too many communities still feel cut off from the opportunities that growth should bring. And that is why skills, technical and further education matter so profoundly. They are not peripheral to our economic strategy or our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. They are central to both. The debate is therefore about how government, local leaders, employers, colleges, universities and communities work together to make technical and vocational routes more respected, more responsive and more accessible.

If we are serious about widening opportunity and driving growth in every part of our country, we must also be serious about where power sits and who is trusted to use it. And as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed emphasised, there is an important argument for ensuring that power rests with those closest to making the decisions. That's why I want to begin with devolution, which is a practical answer to a practical challenge. When we're thinking about how we build a skills system that reflects the needs, strengths and ambitions of the places it serves.

Because there are several noble Lords have noted opportunity is not distributed evenly across our country, and employer demand is not identical from one region to to another. A point made by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Coventry, and the barriers facing a young person in one community may look very different from those facing a young person elsewhere. Local leaders know their labour markets, employers, colleges, communities and young people, and this government believes that they should have the powers, funding and accountability to act on that knowledge within a national framework that protects quality, entitlement and access.

So our approach is clear shift power away from Westminster, strengthen strategic authorities and build a skills system that is more responsive to local economic need, while staying aligned with the national priorities that matter to us all. And noble Lords have also been clear about the scale of that challenge. Almost a million young people not in education, employment or training. These figures are not abstract. They represent young lives whose talent we cannot afford to waste. And that is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to produce what is an excellent interim report, and we look forward to receiving his final report with recommendations, which we are already working to ensure that we will be able to effectively respond to and where we believe that we will be building on progress and action already taken.

And I would want to reassure my noble friend Baroness Morgan and my noble friend Baroness Morris, who should be congratulated for the leadership that she showed in the white working class inquiry, that we will want to respond to those issues together, because we must ensure that where a young person grows up does not determine what they can become. It is how we ensure that talented people, wherever they live and whatever their background, can gain the knowledge, confidence and qualifications needed to succeed.

Another theme raised by many noble Lords has been the importance of prevention and early intervention. We know that young people who become detached from education or employment often face multiple and overlapping barriers. Those barriers include disadvantage, low attainment, special educational needs, poor mental health, family circumstances and limited local opportunities. They can affect different groups differently. As with her usual tenacity, my noble friend Baroness Whitaker has identified with respect to Gypsy, Roma and traveller children, and we know that the consequences can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The long lasting. And that's why this government is placing increasing emphasis on prevention, increasing emphasis on prevention, early identification, stronger transitions and more coordinated support. We are improving how support. We are improving how schools, colleges, local authorities and partners identify young people at risk of disengagement with strengthening pathways. We're introducing new technical pathways from age 14, and technical pathways from age 14, and we're investing in better data and support systems so fewer young people fall through the cracks.

And the noble Lady, Baroness Cash Baroness Cash is right. This does start early. And that's why we are improving the quantity and quality of early years provision. It's why we're tackling child poverty, and it's why we are improving for our. Through our. Support for families and better start in life information, better support for and information for parents as well. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued that there should be machinery of government changes to put skills and and training and education at the heart of government.

Well, of course, it is the case that I straddle both the Department for education and the Department of Work and Pensions following the most recent machinery of government change, which does put skills alongside employment support in the Department for work. And I think that was an important change. And it has led us, of course, to the development of the Youth Guarantee, which reflects the principles that we've been talking about, that every young person should have a pathway forward, whether through further learning, training, work experience and apprenticeship or employment support.

And there we're investing an additional £2.5 billion over the next three years into that, and the growth and skills levy to support almost 1 million young people and to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn. And of those in response to the to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, I can say 300 000 work experience places through the Youth Guarantee. Specifically, I want to turn now to the role of further education where where many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the critical role that further education colleges play.

They are anchors within their communities. They support young people, adults, career changers and employers. They drive social mobility and connect education directly to the needs of local economies. My noble friend Baroness Morgan described the excellent work happening in Wigan every time I visit an excellent FE colleges, what I see are staff and leaders engaged with the local economy, building the input into their curriculum and the links for their students back which are at the heart of success there.

But they have been too often left behind. And my noble friend Lord Barber emphasised in particular the need for high quality teaching, which it has been harder for FE to deliver, given their vacancy rates and the lack of investment that they face. But that's why this government is investing in the FE workforce and strengthening the sector's foundation, including with around £120 million to support colleges and other Fe providers to address recruitment and retention needs in 2026, and that rising next year to £365 million.

It's why we've increased the basic funding of Fe, and why we've particularly supported further disadvantaged funding uplifts for T levels and an inclusive mainstream fund to help those settings meet more special educational needs and disabilities needs as well. Many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the need to raise the status of technical and vocational education. For too long, public debate has treated academic and technical routes as though one were superior to the other. We want technical excellence to command the same respect as academic achievement and technical education to be seen not as a second choice, but as an excellent choice.

But I do also support the argument made by my noble friends, particularly the noble Lady, Baroness Morgan, that high quality technical and vocational education is not only about engaging students, it is not only for those who would otherwise be disengaged, it should be for everybody who wants to achieve excellence. But in that technical and vocational route, and it is really important that we keep that at the heart of the ambition and the changes that we're we're making. And that's why the Prime Minister has announced new prestigious technical education routes, giving 14 year olds earlier access to technical skills, work experience and local employers.

And I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lord Baker, noted that emphasis from 14 that the new Prime Minister has brought in and I note his. His. Once again, his strong emphasis on the opportunities that the UTC C sleeve may well provide in delivering this. But rather than relying on a one size fits all approach for delivering. This new approach designed by Whitehall regional mayors, local leaders, schools, colleges and employers will shape pathways around local industries and growth sectors from advanced manufacturing, AI and digital technology to clean energy, life sciences, construction, health and care, and the creative industries.

These changes build on our existing reforms, which demonstrate both the urgency and the ambition. And can I say, with respect to the point about English and maths, I strongly agree that the ability to be able to have the literacy and numeracy skills that you need throughout life represented often by a grade four at GCSE are fundamentally important. And that is why we are determined to ensure that if a young, first of all, with the reforms that we're making post-16 to strengthen the ability of children to get those qualifications, but post-16 to make sure that the system isn't focussed on a churn of resits, but is focussed on the quality of teaching and professional development, the evidence of what works to enable young people to succeed if they haven't up to that point.

And it's why we will also introduce a new level one stepping stone qualification to enable young people to build the foundations that they need in English and maths, if they haven't been successful in doing that previously. Equally, of course, in it's important that we emphasise the specialism and the contribution of FE colleges, which is why we've now developed 29 new technical excellence colleges, 19 that we announced this year, backed by £175 million, giving around 65000 learners access to training for high demand jobs in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence, digital and technologies.

And that builds on the first wave of construction technical excellence colleges, supported by £120 million worth of investment, which will train 40,000 construction learners by 2029. Together, that is a practical example of skills policy being tied directly to the industries and the places where growth will come from, and it's an investment in the capacity and ability of further education colleges to be able to work alongside those industries, to provide the opportunities for young people in the skills the country needs.

So I, as I've already said, I strongly support the points made by my noble friends Baroness Morris and Morgan about the rigour and quality that we need to maintain in technical and vocational education. It should not be seen as a second rate or alternative route for those who don't want to, or aren't able to take an academic route, it must of itself be a prestigious, high quality and rigorous route and access up to that quality must be open as widely as possible.

And I take the points made, for example, about level six apprenticeships, which are offering brilliant opportunities for students, but which are not at the moment widely enough accessible to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It's also the case, though, that young people need a broader range of enrichment and experience. As several noble Lords have identified. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester talking about the need for work experience, as I've said, and also the role of volunteering in contributing to the sorts of experiences that are important for young people.

The noble Lord Lord Lingfield rightly identifying the benefits that cadets can bring and others identifying important ways in which we need to support young people to progress. I notice well the point made by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Coventry, about those young people who might arrive at 16 without having had the opportunity to achieve up to that point. That's one of the reasons why we're changing the the the qualifications and the routes for young people, what we would call level two post-16 to provide new pathways through an occupational route into jobs, through a further study route into the ability to be able to study level three qualifications, because we cannot let young people be lost at that point from the opportunities that that jobs or further study could offer them.

My noble friend Baroness Kane, as she often does, makes a powerful case for creativity across the curriculum, throughout the age ranges. She challenges, as she often does, and I know we'll have an opportunity in a question on Monday to talk about support for higher education in creativity. We hear as well, rightly, from the noble Lady Baroness Fraser, about the need to ensure routes into dance. This government has continued to support the music and dance scheme, and I hear the calls for certainty around that.

My noble friend Baroness Hazarika on the. The enthusiasm, the both the opportunities and the enrichment and joy that the study of music can bring and the need to continue the work that we are doing on financial literacy that the noble Lady Baroness Sater emphasised. Several noble Lords highlighted highlighted apprenticeships and their powerful role in supporting young people into work and on the path to successful careers. That's why we are investing in them and reversing the sharp decline in apprenticeship starts amongst young people, which we've seen over the last decade.

An additional billion pound investment to support 5000 more young people into apprenticeships over the next three years. My noble friend Baroness Alexander noted the ambitious plans that the government has, and also rightly identified our need to make it as simple and easy and straightforward as possible for employers to be able to take on apprentices. We have made progress in that area already and we will keep pushing in order to make sure that that is the case and also to support employers.

We will develop, as my noble friend Baroness Moyo suggested, and we're we're already piloting brokerage opportunities locally to bring together employers and apprentices. An important point, I think, made about the role of higher education. I do see not just simply because of my job, but I see the system as a tertiary system where opportunities need to work through further education and higher education. And of course, it is the case that very many of the skills that our economy needs will be provided through higher education, not just through a earlier route.

That's why we need higher education to be providing more opportunities for apprenticeships, to be working effectively with further education to develop the level four and five qualifications that we need in this country in which the government has set out in our target to increase the numbers of young people getting level four and above qualifications to achieve that. My noble friend Lord Docherty raised the issue of adult education, and several noble Lords talked about the need for education to be lifelong.

I strongly support that our adult skills fund. Of course, the funding for adult skills. My noble friend is right has fallen since 2010. In particular, we will, within the constraints that we face, try to maintain, at the very least, the support that is there because it is so important both for reskilling people, but also for getting people back close to the labour market, for helping people who haven't got any English and maths to take up their entitlements to that.

And of course, to support English for speakers of other languages, which is one of the things that the Adult Skills Fund does support. And it is devolved in order to make sure that it will be as effective as possible. My noble friend Lord Nagaraju quite rightly talked about the need for reskilling and the emphasis on AI, and made the point that that needs to be open and to encourage the widest possible participation. So can I, in closing, thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

The points raised today will inform our work to build a skills system that is ambitious, inclusive and responsive, one that empowers local leaders, supports disadvantaged communities, strengthens regional growth and ensures talent, determination and hard work are rewarded wherever they are found, and I commend the government's approach to the House.
14:16
Baroness Morgan of Huyton Portrait Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Labour)
-
-
I just very briefly thank everybody who has taken part in the debate today. I said at the beginning that I hoped we wouldn't beginning that I hoped we wouldn't have a sort of fuzzy conversation. We very clearly did not do that today, but I think what the Minister heard was a lot of commitment and enthusiasm around the House, and I think we heard that from from from her too, for which I thank her very much indeed. And the detail with which she. She she answered the points made.

I was very struck by Lord Baker 16 years since we talked about this properly. I suspect it won't be that long till it. We won't. It won't be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

another 16 years till we do this again. Thank you very much. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content. The contrary not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. From the Commons that they have passed the representation of the passed the representation of the people Bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the agreement of your Lordships. My Lords. Representation of the people. Bill. I beg to move that this Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a first time. The question is that this Bill be. Now read a first time, as many be. Now read a first time, as many of that opinion will say content. Content, contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, this might be a suitable moment for might be a suitable moment for noble Lords who wish to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This. Question for short debate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question for short debate the quality and reliability of parcel delivery services. Lord Pack.
14:18
None Portrait Short debate: Quality and reliability of parcel delivery services
-

I beg leave to ask the question.
14:19
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
welcome the noble Lord Lord Sarwar, whose maiden speech I look forward to hearing in this debate. I hope that a short lived demonstrated that a short lived demonstrated debate about parcels, if not, perhaps, the realisation of a long standing dream item on the noble standing dream item on the noble Lords bucket list will at least provide a congenial forum for his debut, and I am sure he will rise debut, and I am sure he will rise admirably to the challenge of the very rapid turnaround between his introduction and his maiden speech.

introduction and his maiden speech. Now, parcel delivery services are a central part of modern life. They can bring fun and joy to our lives, such as with the well-timed gift, but they're also essential for our economy, both for sales and for supply chains. They're essential for health, too, with many dependent on parcel deliveries to receive medicines and health assistance, they give a vital lifeline to the wider world for those who are greatly restricted in their mobility. And yet the state of the parcel delivery sector is in some key respects, far from happy.

Citizens Advice estimate that 15 million people suffered a problem with their most recent parcel delivery. The 2025 Parcel Theft report estimates that nearly 5 million homes were affected in a year by parcel theft, with over £650 million worth of goods being stolen. I recently found one such stolen package dumped near my own home, presumably because the thieves had discovered that it contained a large, very large bottle of vinegar and nothing else. I was able to reunite the vinegar with its owner.

But of course, most victims of theft are not nearly so lucky. What's more, these problems impact all the greater, have all the greater impact on those who are less mobile, who are therefore all the more dependent on parcels arriving on time and in the right place. So up against all this. What is Ofcom, the regulator, doing? Well, I think, my Lords, not enough, not enough. And what has the government done in its recently signed off statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom? Again, not enough, my Lords.

Not enough now. Unfortunately, prior to the summer the government didn't find time to debate my regret motion on that Ofcom strategy. So I hope today's debate will refocus attention on it, particularly as Ofcom's own data shows that of those who contacted a delivery company about an issue, only 45%, so less than half were satisfied with the outcome. Now, of course, not everyone will be happy in such circumstances, but the Institute of Customer Service finds an average 63% satisfaction with complaint handling.

So, with all due caution about the exact definitions not being exactly the same in each case, it's fair to say that not only do you have a less than 5050 chance of coming out satisfied if you raise an issue with a delivery firm, but the sector's overall performance is well below that of other sectors. Now, Ofcom's data does show that 45% figure is up one percentage point on the previous year. But that's a pace of improvement, which means it would take 18 years for the sector merely to get to average.

And despite us being 18 years off the sector, merely getting to average. Ofcom's own commentary, published alongside this data in part no real sense of concern or urgency, and the government strategy statement merely has a quote welcome for Ofcom's approach, along with the suggestion that Ofcom quotes should take enforcement action where it considers appropriate. Well, given we're never going to call for inappropriate enforcement action, that is about as tepid a form of words as we can get. And there's a further reason why Ofcom's approach is problematic.

That's because their requirements for complaints processes are poorly specified, and judging by people's experiences, also not properly followed by parcel delivery firms themselves. The specification problem is this Ofcom requires complaints processes for the sender and the addressee. Yet you are neither. If you have someone else's parcel dumped on you, you are neither. If you see bad driving, you are neither. If you see atrocious parking from one of the parcel delivery firms and in fact, these problems will get worse because the government's strategy for Ofcom rightly encourages experiments with drones and robot delivery of parcels.

But what if a robot heading to someone else's home crashes into you on the pavement? What if a drone flying to deliver a parcel somewhere else crashes into your garden? Well, you're neither the sender nor the addressee. And so Ofcom says there's no need for an adequate complaints process that you can have recourse to. Now, you might think that perhaps delivery firms, anyway, will be happy to accept and are happy to accept complaints in such circumstances. But outside of Royal Mail, with their own different regulatory structure, that is both not my own experience and that nor that of many other people whose experiences I've heard.

And worse than that, there's also the widespread experience that even if you are the addressee, but you have, say, bought something from an online shop and therefore not the parcel delivery firm's customer because the online shop is their customer, parcel delivery firms will say to you, no, you can't complain to us. Even though Ofcom's rules say you should be able to. Perhaps most strikingly, as an example, InPost, one of the largest delivery firms. Their website, which I checked again last night, explicitly says where you have ordered our services through a retailer or other third party.

All queries and complaints should be raised with them directly. Their complaints process will apply. But that's not what Ofcom's rules say they're allowed to do. So the complaints process is broken, the regulator's rules are too narrow, and they do not appear to be being properly enforced. And when the government admittedly before the noble Lord, the Minister took up post, signed off the strategy for Ofcom, it didn't say this needs to get better, nor are market forces the remedy here. Unfortunately, because the market, the operation of market forces is hindered by obscurity.

You may have a delivery firm you particularly wish to avoid. I certainly have my own shortlist. You may have one that you're particularly keen to reward with your business. Perhaps you are a great fan of Royal Mail, for example, but there are no transparency requirements, no transparency, good practice for a firm you order from to tell you who they're going to use to deliver your goods to you. So the potential of consumer power is deliberately hindered by obscurity. And again, the reaction from both Ofcom and the government in its strategy statement has been to effectively say we are happy with the status quo, rather than to push for transparency and change.

So in conclusion, we have the problems for the victims of widespread crime. We have the problems for businesses having to shoulder the costs of those crime. We have the problems of a complaint system 18 years away from even getting to average. And we have the problems of a complaint system that is flawed by design and implementation. So I think it's fair to say the Ofcom strategy statement was a missed opportunity by the government to be tough on crime, to promote growth, to help people.

But perhaps the cavalry has arrived. A new Minister certainly has arrived. A maiden speech is about to arrive. And of course, I acknowledge that some of the detail I've raised may best be addressed in a follow up meeting or correspondence, but I hope to perhaps, that we will be hearing from the noble Lord the Minister a commitment to have a renewed look at these issues, because they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly do need. Looking at again. Well done. My Lords. I would like to start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord Lord Pack for securing this debate today. And I'd also like to welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, the Minister Lord Sarwar, to being introduced to his Lordship's house today, and obviously making his maiden speech from the despatch box. maiden speech from the despatch box. I know what that feels like. I was given by the Chief Whip at least a week from my introduction to having to make my maiden speech from the despatch box, I noticed that the.

The Government Chief Whip today has just given him a slightly longer lunch break to prepare, but I look forward to hearing his speech today and a long career in government. I was slightly unsure today what I
14:27
Lord Mott Portrait Lord Mott (Conservative)
-
-
what I would talk about in regard to this debate, but I decided to do to this debate, but I decided to do a little bit of research at home in preparation, and I use my wife and my oldest daughter to get a sense of how effective parcel delivery services are in this country. And services are in this country. And I've got to say, in regard to west London, they are incredibly effective. They arrive on time on a effective. They arrive on time on a regular basis.

And I've got to say, we have very, very few problems. I'll come on later in my speech in regard to digital tech and how that interacts with people. But I also want to pay tribute to the passport office, who I recently had to use to renew my passport. And I've got to say, on that occasion, the tech, the parcel delivery, the communication between them and me all the way through that process was really quite extraordinary. I also, at this stage, would just like to declare that I'm a member of the Public Services Select Committee.

Three years ago, we carried out an inquiry into home care medicine. Quite an extraordinary inquiry, which started quite small, but really did start to uncover the real difference across the whole of the United Kingdom in terms of the delivery of medicines. And I do feel that that is why we do need to focus upon this and work incredibly hard. Parcel delivery has become an essential, an essential part of how we live and how business operates. For many small businesses, the parcel is not simply the final step in a transaction, it is the transaction.

So reliable reliability matters enormously, and the evidence suggests there is still considerable room for improvement. Ofcom found that while 78% of consumers were generally satisfied with parcel services, 68% had experienced the delivery problem in the previous six months. And when something does go wrong, resolving it can be almost as frustrating. 47% of those who experienced the delivery problem then encountered further difficulties trying to resolve it. For small businesses, that can mean additional costs, lost time and potentially a lost customer.

For vulnerable customers, that could mean a lost medicine, which could be essential to that individual's health. The evidence shows that people with an impacting or limiting condition are more likely to experience problems with deliveries, and accessibility remains one of the weaker parts of the customer experience. We should be careful about assuming that a more digital service is necessarily a more accessible one. Technology should make services easier to use. In the example that I gave at the beginning of my speech in regard to the passport office, it should not create another barrier when something goes wrong.

So when we assess whether the system is working, we should be looking not only at overall delivery performance but at. But whether it is working for those customers who may have fewer alternatives when it fails. My Lords, I believe in a vibrant private sector, so the government should not be dictating a business's operations for them. But it does have a role in protecting consumers, setting standards and ensuring accountability. We already have substantial data and independent regulator enforcement powers and improvement plans.

As Lord Pack highlighted in his opening remarks, we already have what I'm. What I would like to see is a clearer test of whether those interventions are actually working. I would therefore ask the government to set out a clear timetable for assessing the effectiveness of Ofcom's current approach, including how it will compare performance and customer outcomes across all providers, and a commitment to review the regulatory framework if it is not delivering sustained improvement. Royal Mail provides a particularly clear test given its specific quality of service obligations and the improvement plan now in place, but the principle should apply across the wider parcel market.

That would. That would not mean imposing identical obligations on every operator. It would mean making sure we can identify where intervention is working, where it is not, and changing course when the evidence demands it. So in responding to the debate, will the noble Lord, the Minister, set out how the government intends to assess whether Ofcom's current approach is delivering sustained improvement across the parcel market, and given the Business and Trade Committee's recommendation for a regulatory reset, will the Minister set out what course government, what course of action? The government to conclude that the existing regulatory approach is no longer delivering the improvement that consumers and businesses reasonably expect, because competition is valuable, but competition is valuable precisely because it should deliver better services, innovation and choice for the small businesses waiting for its goods to arrive, and for the vulnerable customer who needs to know that their needs will be understood.

The test is ultimately very, very simple. Can they trust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the system to work? My Lord. I am grateful. For the opportunity. To intervene in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To intervene in. This debate owing to the lack of general interest, because I think it is a pity that this is an it is a pity that this is an important subject, and I agree with the two former speakers that where the service lets people down, it the service lets people down, it can be very damaging to their businesses or to their lives. If drugs don't arrive on time, or if a drugs don't arrive on time, or if a company needs an urgent supply for its production process and it doesn't arrive.

This is a very disruptive event. And I welcome the the new Minister to his post. It's in all our interests that Ministers feel happy in their job and are positive about what they can do, and he will be relieved to know
14:33
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
that I won't hold him to blame for anything today because. He he needs anything today because. He he needs opportunity to read his way in, but I would like to raise 1 or 2 more general points in relation to general points in relation to postal services and other public services. As we on this side of the services. As we on this side of the House try to get used to a government under new leadership, because we have read or listened to because we have read or listened to the Prime Minister's speeches very carefully, and we wonder whether there is going to be change for the good as a result of the new devices.

The Prime Minister is introducing with the postal services. This is a competitive market, and I'm pleased to say that my own personal experience has been extremely good and the deliveries have been swift and prompt and accurate, and I'm very grateful to all those, the variety of carriers that have made that possible. And I hear in the criticisms that there is a very serious worry about theft. Now, this, of course, is a matter for criminal law enforcement, and it's something where the government, through the Home Office and through the police forces and through the police, commissioners and local government can have a role.

And it would obviously be good if there was a way to ensure that fewer of those parcels were lifted from doorsteps. But it's also the case that all of us customers can do things to help ourselves, because obviously, those of us who are busy may not be at home to receive the parcel when it arrives, although the safest thing is to be at home to receive the parcel yourself. So it is probably a good idea to have an alternative, safe place where you can ask them to put the parcel.

And most of these online services now give you that right to specify some place out of sight, or even under lock and key, where you could receive the parcel to avoid the theft. Or for those who haven't got that kind of equipment or money, they may well have a friendly neighbour. So you could volunteer the address of a neighbour who would be in to take the parcel in. So there's some self-help could supplement the competitive market because the competitive market is clearly driving prices down for quite a lot of carriage and is on the whole, for people like me and many others here, probably delivering a pretty good service.

But the thing that fascinates me about the changes, the new leadership of this government is introducing, are the matters of process and the the theory that areas of service in a competitive market like postal services may not be good enough, and that a bigger government involvement would in some way be helpful to achieve those higher standards. Now, as we hear the Prime Minister, he thinks he's got at least two major options in his toolkit. There is full nationalisation, which he seems to favour where he thinks nationalised service would be better than a private competitive market.

That is not my experience, and certainly there were lots of troubles when the postal side of the Post Office, which then was was fully nationalised. And of course it was only the Royal Mail services which were privatised. And so we can contrast the experience of the privatised mail services with the results of the nationalised industry Post Office. Is that my time limit? Then I. I will complete

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my remarks. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Pack. For securing. This important debate. And I look forward with great interest to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord Lord Sarwar. And it is right that we Sarwar. And it is right that we reflect on the mounting issues within this country's National within this country's National Postal Service and highlight the potential solutions. I will be brief and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the Gap. My Lords. Royal mail has been hit hard by the impact of the government's tax increases.

Earlier this year, Royal Mail warned that the increase in employer National Insurance contributions announced in the budget would cost the business some £120 million. For a company that is expected to balance the books whilst providing a complex, expensive and reliable weekly service. That is not a trivial sum. It is yet another burden placed upon a business whose quality of service was regrettably already in decline. Royal mail has missed its first and second class delivery targets for the government's first two years in office.

Additional National Insurance tax could otherwise have gone towards these delivery targets, and instead the public are feeling the effects of a worse service caused partly by taxes that they are having to subsidise. And now the bill is being passed again from 5th of October, Royal Mail wholesale prices, the mail that carries marketing, communications, household bills and medical
14:39
14:40
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, may I start by welcoming the noble Lord, the Minister. First of all, he has entered the House today and I can't recall a moment when, on the very day of entry, a noble Lord, particularly the noble Lord. The Minister is to make his maiden speech. We can hardly bear the weight, because in many ways. Who is going to pay tribute to this wonderful occasion? I hope the Chief Whip will find some way of ensuring that that happens.

The noble Lords transition from the leadership role he held in Scotland to the frontbench here serves, I believe, as a reminder of the great value of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. As a Liverpudlian, I welcome this one way traffic down the M1 and in many ways he shares a lot with our new Prime Minister. They were both members of the House of Commons. They both held prominent positions as leaders of the North and they are no.

They are both now back in Parliament and I wish him well in his role. This has also been a great opportunity and I thank the noble Lord Lord Pack for ensuring that we debate the whole question of a reliable Postal and parcel service. As the noble Lord Lord Pack said, it's a vital lifeline and these services remain essential to households and businesses across the country. But as several of my colleagues have just pointed out, since taking office, the government has placed very substantial additional costs on Royal Mail, as it has upon all businesses across the UK.

As my noble friend Lord Earl of Effingham pointed out, the government's decision to increase employer National Insurance contributions that has been estimated by Royal Mail that it will face as a result, an additional tax burden of approximately £120 million every year from 2025 to 2026. Royal mail itself warned that these increased costs impinge on its ability to deliver change. This is £120 million, which has to be found from the same business that needs urgently to invest in its network to improve pay and conditions, to recruit and retain its workforce, improve productivity and ultimately deliver a faster and more reliable service to its customers.

And as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, industrial relations is another part of the same picture. Royal mail, sadly, has a long and difficult history of industrial disputes. The major national industrial action of recent years, of course, predated this government. But surely the lesson from that experience should have been that we need a sensible balance between the rights of trade unions and the ability of employers to continue operating and restructuring their businesses instead, through the Employment Rights Act 2025, the government has moved substantially in the opposite direction.

They have legislated to abolish the 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots. They've reduced the notice that unions must give employers before industrial action from 14 days to ten, and doubled the duration of an industrial action mandate from six months to 12 months. Taken together, these measures all serve to constrain employers at precisely the time when the Royal Mail needs flexibility to transform its operations. Which brings me to the universal service obligation. In July 2025, Ofcom gave Royal Mail greater flexibility, including allowing second class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays.

However, those changes could not simply be put into practice because implementation of Royal Mail's new operational model became caught up in its industrial dispute with the CW. Ofcom itself subsequently said that progress had been constrained by the ongoing industrial dispute, and agreement was not reached until April this year. Against that background, I question whether the government's decision to remove still more safeguards around industrial action will make future transformation easier or harder then. Then there is the approach taken by Ofcom, which the noble Lord referred to.

Royal mail was fined £10.5 million in December 2024 for its previous performance. It was then found a further 21 million in October 2025. Together, that is £31.5 million in penalties imposed since this government took office and more than 37 million in recent years. Now, these fines don't go towards recruiting more postmen and women. They do not finance better sorting equipment. They don't fund new vehicles, technology or improved delivery offices. They are paid into the consolidation fund.

At some point, surely, we must question whether the crude act of simply imposing larger and larger fines on a business already struggling with mounting costs is creating the right incentives and improving matters in any way at all. So I do ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what evidence does the government have that this repeated cycle of financial penalties is actually producing better outcomes for customers? Could the noble Lord, the Minister, also tell the House what discussions the government are having with Ofcom about whether its regulatory approach is actually working? Also, what assessment have Ministers and Ofcom made of the underlying productivity problem within Royal Mail? The measure of successful regulation should not be how much money Ofcom can extract from Royal Mail.

My noble friend Lord motte did point out the advantages of new technology. Well, let's make sure we take every opportunity to take advantage of this new technology. And it should all be. Whether letters and parcels arrive reliably, whether productivity improves and whether we retain a financially sustainable universal postal service for the future, a system of which we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rightly be proud. Yes. My noble Lords, thank you first of all for the very kind comments, of all for the very kind comments, and I'm pleased to respond to this question for a short debate as part of my maiden speech. And can I of my maiden speech. And can I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this important debate? And can I also start with an apology can I also start with an apology that it will not get the full and detailed response it deserves, given it's a maiden speech, but I do make a firm commitment both to do make a firm commitment both to meet my noble Lord, but also the commitment that he asks for to look at all the issues.

So we give the people of this country the Postal Service they need and deserve. But, my noble Lords, with your permission, I want to share some reflections before responding directly to the issues raised. And I cannot help but think about the journey that got me to this place and the many, many people who have supported me along the way. And it feels pretty surreal. Standing to make my third career maiden speech in a third chamber. My first was in the House of Commons 16 years ago, my second in the Scottish Parliament ten years ago, and today in the House of Lords and at 43 years old, it does feel like I am living my life in fast forward and there's nothing I could have done in my life if it wasn't for the great people of Glasgow.

It's a city that raised me, that shaped me, that taught me my values and gave me my passion for social justice. But it's also a city that taught me not to be afraid to do difficult things. As a teenager, campaigning to save the shipyard as a young adult, being an NHS dentist in the area with the poorest dental health record in Western Europe. As a relatively new member of Parliament to become deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and helped lead the campaign for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom.

Throughout my time in the Commons, campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a proud achievement of this Labour Government, I shadow Health Secretary in Scotland, working with whistleblowers and grieving families to expose the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital scandal. And can I please repeat, I promise that I made to all those families that I may have moved to a different chamber, but I will continue to stand with them until they get the truth and the justice they deserve. And in 2021, I had the honour of being elected to lead my party in Scotland.

With just ten weeks to go before an election, a hollowed out, divided, skint Scottish term. For those that don't know and we're just one MP, we were viewed as the drag on the UK Labour Party's chances of winning an election, and I will be forever proud that three years later, Scotland led the way in changing the government and electing a UK Labour government, going from one MP to 37 MPs and there have no doubt been many achievements in the first two years of a Labour government.

But we must be honest that for many we did not live up to their early expectations and they were keen to deliver that message in May, and I remain heartsore at the outcome of the Scottish elections, not because of what it meant for me. You learn to develop a thick skin when you're in the Scottish Labour Party because of. But because of what it means for my fellow Scots. Because Scotland needs a new government and the politicians that are willing to confront the big challenges and NHS there when you need it, and education and skills system that guarantees opportunities for every young person.

An economy that backs innovation and entrepreneurship, and a politics that actually puts place before party so that every part of our great country can flourish. And to my colleagues and friends in the Scottish Labour Party, note that I will always be cheering you on and working for your success. And to whoever my successor is, know that you will always have my unequivocal support in public. And as a former leader, my advice in private. My noble Lords, I have been fortunate to have so many political friends and supporters over the years, too many to name individually, but they know who they are and I thank them dearly.

But every politician also knows that you can do nothing without your staff team. And over the years I've been supported by so many hard working, committed and incredible people, not least the brilliant Kate Watson. She and they will always be family. And speaking of family, I couldn't do it without mine. I thank them for their love, their patience, their understanding, and most of all, making sure that my feet are and always will be firmly on the ground. I hope I have done you a little proud.

I am certainly proud of each and every single one of you. My noble Lords, I'm also joined in the gallery today by my mother and father. Faces that I know are well known to many of you, because, yes, I may have been the first person of Muslim heritage to lead a major political party in the UK, but I was certainly not its first Muslim MP. That achievement belongs to my father. Almost 30 years after his election as the Labour MP for Glasgow Govan.

It is truly humbling for me to be standing here addressing what he would call the Other place and I imagine in some ways this will feel like a bit of a homecoming for him. Many of my noble Lords served with him and so have known me from a very young age. But let me reassure them that while I have aged, they have not. My noble Lord, I also look around the chamber, and I see many who have supported, encouraged, advised, consoled, and even on rare occasion rebuked me over the years.

So I'm sure that will continue. But I hope you'll forgive me for remembering one person in particular, Baroness Meacher Ramsay, who remains in our hearts today. And that brings me to the here and now and why I answered the call to serve. See, I played my part in helping the Labour Party succeed at the last general election. But, my noble Lords, our new Prime Minister must succeed. This government must succeed, and most importantly of all, our country must succeed. And I am determined to play my part in making that happen.

As the late, great John Smith once said, the opportunity to serve is all we ask, and I couldn't turn that opportunity down. But there is also, in my view, a bigger fight that I cannot walk away from, and I am determined to play my part in it. And that is what I believe is the fight for the heart and soul of our nation. It is about who we are as a people and who we are as a country. And for me, it actually goes beyond the usual mainstream political
14:54
Lord Sarwar Portrait Lord Sarwar, Minister of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
divide. And that is, who are we as a country? Do we continue to look out for and love our neighbour, or do we treat them with suspicion? do we treat them with suspicion? Are we a country that succumbs to the politics of division and hate, or are we going to make sure that or are we going to make sure that we have a country and a politics that believes in unity and hope? That is the generational challenge, That is the generational challenge, I believe, for all of us, and one, I hope we overcome.

My noble Lord, I hope we overcome. My noble Lord, is also no secret that I have expressed public views on this place before. I, alongside a certain former Greater Manchester Mayor and now Prime Minister, together advocated for reform of this institution. And let me reassure you, I did so questioning the principle, not the purpose or the people. And I continue to support a more democratic and more representative upper chamber, a Senate of the nations and regions. My noble Lords, I am deeply honoured to have been asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the UK's Minister of State for trade with a clear mission and objective to make the UK the most connected economy in the world.

But that will be measured in maximising exports going out of the UK, maximising investments coming into the UK and making sure good growth is felt in every postcode, every region and every nation. Let me sorry in the closing moments, make sure I'm also addressing some of the challenges that were addressed in the question. We have greater economic insecurity than perhaps ever before, and I think this country has to demonstrate trade and economic leadership. That means building more partnerships. It means embracing a more interconnected world rather than having over protectionism in this country, or indeed across the globe.

And many of the challenges of the new economy. We can see in our postal delivery service, our economy is changing, habits are changing. We are now sending fewer letters than ever before, but we're sending and receiving more parcels than ever before. 4.2 billion items being sent in the last year alone. We've got a rise of online with new giants like Amazon, eBay, echo, to name a few. That is putting more pressure on our SMEs and our businesses. How do they compete? People have got more demands and what they expect from a quality service.

In terms of postal deliveries, yes, satisfaction is relatively high, but. But noble Lords are right to say that the the consistency of that service and the handling of complaints in that service is nowhere near good enough. And the Minister in the other place has met both Ofcom and businesses to make them known that she is not content with that performance so far. So let me say in closing again, that I am happy to meet individually with any noble Lord that has a care of this issue, and I am happy to robustly challenge Ofcom and the businesses related to postal delivery services to make sure that they live up to the people's expectations.

Let me just say in closing that it is an honour to be here. Thank you to the whips for making sure that I get to work straight away and being here, and I look forward to working with all of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you to deliver for all of the great people of this great country. Thank you. Hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Hear. My Lords, I. Congratulate my noble friend Lord Sarwar. On a truly excellent. Maiden speech. Delivering your first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speech. Delivering your first. Speech from the government despatch box is not easy. That was an outstanding, articulate, fantastic speech. We're so lucky to have you in our house before even many, many more times. My noble many, many more times. My noble friend brings many years of experience having served in the other place in the Scottish Parliament as a distinguished record of public service, which are all. Look forward to have him here with us. We look forward to more contributions.

My noble friend. I actually believe he's on his feet again tomorrow in this house, so we're keeping him busy right from the start. But a fantastic speech. So lucky to have you here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The captain. Of the Gentlemen at Arms made a rather irregular intervention, rather irregular intervention, which I thoroughly approved of. And since by accident, I happen to be here as Leader of the Opposition. here as Leader of the Opposition. May I offer these benches also congratulate, as I know any of our colleagues who would have spoken colleagues who would have spoken after him. Congratulate him on a most distinguished maiden speech. most distinguished maiden speech. We greatly enjoyed it, delivered with fluency and charm.

And you already demonstrate the civility. That is the great thing about this house. We don't shout at each other, at least not inside the chamber. I recognise the noble Lord said you needed sometimes a thick skin in Scottish Labour politics. I have to tell him sometimes you've needed a thick skin in English Conservative politics. But I congratulate the noble Lord and we look forward to occasions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay, yay! My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for noble Lords Motion Motion to Motion to debate Motion to debate the Motion to debate the government's political priorities and legislative agenda. The Lord Hunt of Kings.
15:00
15:00
15:02
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
said he accused this government of going back to the 1970s. I would just gently point out to him, this country was much more equal in the 1970s, and the last 40 or so years has seen us lose that equality. 10% of prospered, but 90% of people have fallen behind or stagnated. Many of the places and people most Many of the places and people most affected have not recovered from deindustrialisation. The government is ambitious, improved standards of living, sorting out social care and housing, boosting vocational education, meeting our NATO defence commitments and making the UK's voices count.

The Prime Minister is clear that devolution is the key to progress and prosperity, with the setting up of number ten North at the heart of the growth agenda. And as a Brummie, can I say that we have now redefined ourselves as being part of the North. My Lords, the immediate measures taken by the government are important both in themselves, but as a visible sign of intent for the longer term. Capping bus fares at £2 in England has been a huge boost to many, many people.

Cutting VAT on electricity bills, reducing tax on pubs, investing to get rough sleepers off the street, funding to support the delivery. In the first instance of more than 70,000 social homes, an action on the mountains of illegally dumped waste. Prime Minister is using government to make a difference for people who feel hard pressed. Solving problems long neglected or a public authorities have been too slow, unwilling or seemingly powerless to act. Economy is clearly critical to this. And my Lords, despite doom laden predictions, the UK economy had GDP growth of 0.6% in the first quarter, followed by 0.4% in the second quarter.

In fact, the UK is currently the fastest growing G7 economy, and borrowing this fiscal year is running 6 billion below last year. And as the ONS have noted, the 12th lowest April to July period since 1993. Now, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord true mentioned borrowing yesterday. We hear a lot from the Conservatives about borrowing, and they certainly know a thing or two about borrowing. The last conservative government borrowed more than the G7 average in every single one of the 14 years in government.

This year this government is borrowing less. I have to say, my Lords, the appointment of Andrew Griffin as shadow Chancellor, the co-author of Liz Truss's mini budget, does make one question the seriousness of the claim. The party opposite has to economic competence. But I would also just say in relation to debt. Recent analysis by Morgan Stanley compared its estimate of the UK's 96% general debt to GDP at the end of this year, compared to 120% for China, 120% for the France, 125% for the US, with Japan and Italy higher still.

And Morgan Stanley commented this was two weeks ago. UK stands out amongst the major economies in trying to do something about rising debt. Now, clearly growing the economy becomes crucial to the future, and there are three points I'd like to put to my noble friend, which I think are important to growing the economy. The first is tackling the high costs and long time scale to build essential infrastructure in this country. The center for British Progress has reported that British public investment is on a par with OCOECD averages, but we get less back from it.

The Fingleton review on nuclear regulation put it very well. Our regulatory, environmental and planning processes have become too fragmented, too cautious, too slow driving up costs. Now, the recently enacted Planning and Infrastructure Act will deal with some of the blockages. I'm absolutely delighted that elected mayors are going to be given powers to take over large scale planning applications. I would urge the government to go further and extend it to energy infrastructure projects, and actually speedily legislate for Fingleton's recommendations. My Lords, the second key factor in growing the economy is sticking to our commitment to net zero.

In the face of ever worsening climate change, I mean the Conservatives retreat from their commitments on net zero. This was the party that actually legislated for net zero is no reason why we, as a government should recoil from those targets. Nor, my Lords, will obsessing about marginal increases in output of the rapidly declining North Sea oil and gas reserves have any impact whatsoever on energy prices. My Lords, I readily acknowledge energy prices are too high both for industry and domestically. But my Lords, I hope the government on this will be brave and fundamentally reform our flawed energy pricing system, in which volatile gas prices can set the cost of home grown renewable energy.

So, my Lords, no retreat on net zero. It has huge potential for growth. CBI analysis recently estimated as £105 billion sector generating high skilled jobs across every part of the UK. My Lords, a third factor in growth for me is getting young people into work. Alan Milburn seminal review identified nearly 1,000,018 16 to 24 year olds who were not in education, employment or training. And of course, behind those statistics lie stagnated aspirations and hopelessness. And over the past decade, the proportion who say they are in need due to work limiting health condition has increased by 70%.

And once health related inactivity takes hold, moving those people into employment becomes incredibly challenging. And, my Lords, in contrast, the Conservatives brutal approach to welfare. I believe we need a welfare system to protect those who cannot work and provide proper financial security for people with severe or enduring disabilities. But for young people who could participate with the right support. Our welfare system should be a springboard to employment, and that is why the government's emphasis on vocational education with links into local industry is so important.

It was a subject of an excellent debate earlier today by my noble friend Baroness Morgan, and I'm convinced that negative attitudes towards vocational education have bedevilled this country over decades, leading to an Fe sector deprived of resources where staff are underpaid compared to school teachers, and where a VAT burden is unfairly placed upon them. I hope my noble friend may have some good news in relation to that. There's no question in my mind that technical excellence needs to be recognised as being as valid as academic excellence, encouraging and allowing young people to follow a skills route at the age of 14 opens the gateway to huge opportunities.

And Lord Baker, in the earlier debate, spoke eloquently of the importance of technical education. Of all the social issues we face, the provision of adult social care for me is the most pressing. Its current shortcomings impact badly on the NHS, as can be seen from the spectacle of corridor care, delayed discharges and too many people admitted into hospital. I would also echo what Baroness Casey had said in a July speech to the LGA, when she argued that previous attempts at reform have failed because they've either tinkered with parts of the system or tried to push through changes without securing public consent for the tough choices involved.

And there will be tough choices involved. But, my Lords, I also think the NHS needs to change as well. One reason and it's own my own personal experience with in-laws. My own mother is the reason so many people are inappropriately in hospital is that in too many cases, the NHS itself puts up barriers to treatment at home or in care homes, which forces people into A&E. And we need the NHS to really start to shift that proposition. My Lords, on the global stage, the Prime Minister is making the UK's voice count.

His decision to help Ukraine build long range missiles is both encouraging and a sign of the UK's unwavering support for that country. The global picture is one of increasing instability. As Mark Carney, the Canadian Premier, pointed out in his speech last year as he said, there is a rupture in the world order as we live in an era of great power rivalry with the rules based order fading and calling for cooperation among middle powers. Carney said middle powers are not powerless.

They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values like respect for human rights, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. My Lords, we have huge potential in the UK to cooperate with like minded countries and that, of course must include the EU. On that, the Prime Minister emphasised the benefits of closer UK EU relationship, forging links on trade, security and economic growth. This, of course, very much links to defence. On defence, the 2025 Strategic Defence Review was clear for the first time, it said.

Since the end of the Cold War, the UK faces multiple direct threats to its security, prosperity and democratic values. UK is committed to reaching NATO's 3.5% GDP target on defence by 2035. The Defence Investment Plan has brought an additional 15 billion for defence over the period to 2930, on top of what was allocated in the 2025 spending review. And despite My Lords, the media comment over the last few days, the Chancellor has actually been consistent over the last few months that it would be at the next spending review.

He will set a clear path to meeting our 3.5% NATO commitment and a target date for 3%. I would just repeat the words of the Prime Minister in Chancellor, the. When they said the determination that we share is to do what's necessary to keep the country safe, and the recognition, quite simply, of that truism that for any government, the first duty is to keep citizens safe. My Lords, what else is there to say? My Lords, I believe our new Prime Minister offers us hope through strong intent and hard actions.

Actions to deliver economic growth, improved security, better public services and cost of living increase relief miles. And for all our problems, all our challenges, we as a country have also very much to be proud of. We have so much going for us and it's my. It is that and the hope that the Prime Minister brings that underpins this government's programmes and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

priorities. I beg to move here. The question is that this motion be agreed to. The street. In Liverpool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In Liverpool. Called Hope Street. It's a very special street. At each end there is a cathedral in between. There's cultural wonders not only the grade one listed toilets in the one listed toilets in the Philharmonic, drinking house in the pub, but also the Philharmonic Hall, pub, but also the Philharmonic Hall, as well as every man and theatre and indeed places of education. And
15:14
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
this has been the big vibe of our new Prime Minister is about hope. new Prime Minister is about hope. Well, we need to make sure that hope translates into actual delivery. I am also a person of faith, but it may take a leap of faith. Having heard what the Prime faith. Having heard what the Prime Minister has been saying in various speeches of how we will get that growth, that hope, that hope for growth, that hope, that hope for young people.

Indeed, the Prime Minister should take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of Gatley, who, just after hearing the Prime Minister the other day, said this would worry investors. And there's one thing that I appreciate that the Prime Minister does want to succeed. I'm not disputing that in any way, but to try and destroy the past, including the very successful years of the Blair government, would be a mistake to think that the 70s were all rosy. But indeed, we had huge amounts of mortgage rates, huge inflation, and indeed candles were not the only way that you had to do your homework.

But indeed, I don't even know if it made it to the House of Lords in order to keep the lights on while we're legislating. But I do welcome, actually, the commitment made by the Prime Minister yesterday to get to 3% of GNI defence by 2030. I'm sure the Minister of the Prime Minister needs to correct the record by going back to the House of Commons to change that. He will. But I think that actually he won't want to lose another Chancellor and that together I'm confident they will find a way.

Not least they might want to take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, who set out a path to achieve that. Actually, what I thought was really interesting was the statement made by the first Secretary of State yesterday, and that was about rewiring the state. I actually welcome a lot of what is in there, more power going back to Ministers who should be rightly accountable. We should have to consider how we will need to legislate for actually quite a lot of that, because it is through legislation.

Many powers have been taken away from Ministers and given to non-ministerial departments and indeed other other bodies. I think also, though, we will need to look into what is happening in terms of the delays and the consultations that are referred to. To give you an example, we know that Labour backbenchers are nervous about changes to the welfare system. They're very quick to vote for legislation that rapidly increases benefits, but not so quick when to look into necessary reforms. And indeed, the Tims review has apparently been delayed.

Again, these are the sorts of challenges that vibes and hope won't get through. It's going to have to take detailed work to get to that element of genuinely trying to get the country into a better path in terms of prosperity for all, in terms of, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seem to spend half his speech talking about the opposition instead of what the future of the government is. And we heard some elements in terms of Fingleton review and the like.

I just gently remind that while there were difficulties and undoubtedly in our time in office, part of which we shared with the Liberal Democrats during coalition, but having inherited 11% deficit in 2010, having been through Covid when, frankly, the whole economy juddered to a halt, and we did undertake undertake unprecedented borrowing in order to protect people's health, in order to be ready to try and spring back that difficult decisions were made, which will take time to recover. Therefore, my Lords, hope isn't enough.

Let's work together to make sure that we get that growth we all desire.
15:18
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm sure we all wish Andy >> I'm sure we all wish Andy Burnham well in his new job as our Prime Minister. He is able to connect with people, is a good communicator and listens. He certainly has said the right things and spoken honestly and with sincerity about the major issues that we face. But speaking about issues is the easy part. Carrying out the actions and holding his and his government's nerve when the going gets tough is a very different matter.

He was right to say that Brexit has had a devastating effect on our economy. Maybe a bit of an understatement. I would supportively also remind him that if Labour, at the time of Brexit, had fully engaged with the remain campaign rather than the pipsqueak response from the then Labour leader, we would still be in and at the heart of Europe right? As a result, the GDP in the UK is 6% to 8% smaller than it should have been, and we've lost £1,990 billion a year in tax revenues.

I look forward to the government moving much closer to Europe on so many fronts and laying a firm foundations to us, eventually reapplying to join the EU. He is committed to a properly funded social care provision and has reached out to other parties to work with him. How refreshing is this? My party is also championing this issue will certainly do so. I remember when local authorities had the financial resources to open care homes for the elderly. We've seen in children's homes how private equity companies have moved in.

I don't want to see that for care homes run by multinational companies, but LAS charities and not for profit providers who are part of the community would be my hope. The duty of any government is to protect its people and ensure the economy is on a firm footing to pay debt charges. Borrowing charges of between 300 million and £337 million every single day is mad. Just think what that money could be spent on. In financial education, we teach children the dangers of interest charges.

Live now, pay later. Economy. It's not what we should be. Having to get the economy on an even keel will require nerves of steel and tough decisions. And tough choices will have to be made. Welfare spending is forecast to exceed £400 billion a year by the early 2030s. UK borrowing costs have risen sharply, with the ten year gilt yield reaching 5.323% and the 30 year yield 5.87%. And we are being warned that we have halved the roughly £24 billion of fiscal headroom, while public spending is forecast to reach 44.9%.

The world is a very dangerous place. And who would have thought there would be a war on our own doorstep? Putin's Russia is all the time pushing the boundaries, whether through proxy agents or misinformation. As a nation, we may need to make sure that if and God forbid, there is armed conflict, we are able to protect ourselves and support others. Our military in recent years has been hollowed out, leaving the Army and the Navy the smallest since the. Napoleon. Napoleon.

Napoleon. Napoleonic Wars. So we need to be able to commit to our contribution of 3.5%, not by promises, but having identified the money up front. My party suggested Woburn War bonds as a means of raising finance. I hope the government will explore that option. Finally, in the allotted time that I've got, I just want to say how absolutely disgraceful and I agree with Lord hunt that 16 to 18 year olds are that we're heading towards 1 million. Not in a job, not in a school, not in training.

We can't wait for Alan Milburn's report. We need to do something now.
15:22
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
Yeah. >> My Lords, the economist Keynes upbraided for changing his view on some matter, allegedly responded with the phrase when the facts change, I changed my mind. What do you do? In 26 months since the general election, the facts have changed. The US assault on Iran, the explosive growth of AI, the devastating impact of climate change. So it's a noble. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has alluded threatening harvests here whilst killing hundreds in Nepal and Tibet. Meanwhile, we stand closer to global war than at any time since my childhood.

My Lord, the facts have changed. Kings changed his mind, didn't resign and reapply for his post. Rather, he sought to win others to his revised opinions. I've heard it said our new Prime Minister must either stick to the 2024 Labour manifesto or go to the country, but that is not how I believe Parliament should work. We are a well informed and reasonable house, many of us, not least on my own bench and the crossbenchers, owe no allegiance to any party master.

We swear our oath, as all noble Lords do, to the Crown. We will scrutinise whatever matters are brought before us with our usual diligence. But I will be both surprised and alarmed if we withheld consent, simply because a proposal reflected the context of 2024 not not 2020 six. 32 specifics. I welcome what we heard from our Prime Minister about renewed efforts to tackle homelessness. My churches and other places of worship have been at the forefront of working with this, alongside the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

The scandals of rough sleeping have children trying to access education whilst living in temporary accommodation cannot be allowed to continue. Having recently chaired the Manchester Social Homes Commission, I welcome a determination to build more social homes and along with the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I warm to the speeding up of the case review into social care and I pray that this time we will end up with action, not just another report. I remember the Dilnot report, which I thought was a good thing at the time, not least so that if we must, as I suspect, we will have to consider again matters such as assisted dying in this House.

We can do so in the context of a proper offer of palliative care to all. As the Prime Minister has said, three years ago, I was privileged to stand alongside Mr. Burnham when he and the faith leaders of Greater Manchester met Pope Francis. We didn't just give him a signed Manchester United's football shirt, but we did. We also committed ourselves to our net zero target. The climate emergency is not some woke middle class distraction. It's destroying the lives and livelihoods of the poorest across the globe.

In communities I meet when I visit my Anglican sisters and brothers in the Global South, and it is an increasing drag on well-being and household economy in Britain. This is by its nature, a short debate, so I would urge the government to consider whether the best way to present fresh proposals to your Lordships House, so that we can have a more substantial discussion at an early stage, will be through a fresh session of Parliament before the end of this year, so that His Majesty can come and set out a full programme before us.

I began with an economist. I've segwayed via a Pope. So let me end with a Protestant theologian, Martin Luther, challenged by the inertia of so much of the church of his day, urged his followers on with the words, if you must sin, sin boldly. So I would urge our new Prime Minister and his government to show similar boldness, and then let us here in this chamber, weed out any of it. We are judged to be a sin.
15:25
Lord Eatwell Portrait Lord Eatwell (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords, economic growth is the government's prime objective. Growth provides the resources to fund all our national goals, from fund all our national goals, from health to the police, from defence to a fair distribution of income. And central to the growth objective is investment. Rachel Reeves laid the foundations for a growing economy, with a 12% increase in public investment this year, but on that foundation must be built a programme of increasing investment in science and technology.

The inventive core of a competitive economy. Reflecting on the underlying strengths of Britain. Politicians invariably cite our outstanding research universities. Yet daily we have reports of the financial difficulties now being experienced by the university sector. We can debate the origins of those difficulties, but that's to look back backwards. Looking forwards, we must ensure that the research universities thrive. They are Britain's number one strength. That is why it was particularly distressing to learn on the 9th of July, of the substantial cuts that are to be made in scientific research by 2030, spending by the Science and Technology Funding Council is to be cut by 15%.

In money terms, that's not even allowing for inflation. Research potentially impacted includes work on new cancer treatments and on battery design. The national research laboratories face the tightest squeeze. Their funding is to fall by over half. Now, those of the national labs that developed radar, the computer and high strength carbon fibre, the touch screen of your mobile phone was invented at a British national research lab. The Royal radar establishment. The national labs undertake research that would never be done in the private sector, because the risks and uncertainties are too great, and initial market often non-existent.

Yet discoveries in those labs, often by serendipity, have changed the world. Now, some research may at first sight appear irrelevant in the light of our economic problems. Research in theoretical physics, for example. But that is a serious misconception. Consider, for example, the caesium atomic clock experimental physics developed at one of our national labs, and is now the basis of the timing for the internet and the timing of global navigation systems. Or take X-ray crystallography, a highly specialised branch of physics concerned with the arrangement of atoms.

This technique now underpins genetic engineering, biotechnology and modern pharmaceuticals. All more generally consider the fact that for years, this country's finest mathematicians have worked on number theory, proving the series of prime numbers is infinite. Worrying about the minimum distance between primes, that sort of thing. Totally abstract. Yet with the advent of digital computing, number theory is fundamental to all secure programming, including the programming of your mobile phone. If Britain is to rediscover its competitive strengths, we must not reduce our commitment to science.

We must not lose our lead in research areas. The 9th of July cuts are a signal of the nation's faltering commitment to industrial strength. I trust that in his speech scheduled for Monday, the Chancellor will be able to assure the country that the new government will reverse the cuts of the 9th of July.
15:30
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, a new report by justice, a law reform charity, and King's College London, has found that survivors of the Home Office Windrush scandal, who seek compensation, should receive the same free legal support given to victims of the Post Office and infected blood scandals. The report points out that the government has set up a series of compensation schemes in response to all three state injustices, and yet, my Lords Windrush victims have been denied free legal help with their claims.

The Home Office, who runs the Windrush compensation scheme, has argued that the process is more straightforward than others and says it was designed to be accessible without free legal support. But my Lords, the report found the Windrush scheme is just as complicated as the others, involving assessments of historic laws, facts and evidence that are complex even for lawyers and judges. My Lords, recalling precise dates and sequences of events in the distant past can also prove challenging, particularly for very elderly claimants.

Also, victims suffering from severe trauma may find it all too painful to engage with the scheme. Lawyers for Windrush claimants have described the process as torturous, blaming a culture of disbelief amongst Home Office staff for delays and unreasonable refusals. My Lords Post Office claimants have the option of taking a fixed compensation payment between 75,000 and 600,000 at the start of the process, allowing them to avoid the stress of providing detailed evidence to demonstrate their losses.

But my Lords, there is no equivalent option available to Windrush victims who have to demonstrate their losses through a lengthy and complex claims process, with no funding provided for any expert evidence which may be needed. Windrush victims also find themselves at a disadvantage if they wish to challenge the compensation order, as the scheme lacks an independent appeals process, unlike infected blood and Post Office schemes. My Lords, there is no justification for treating Windrush claimants differently to other scandal victims.

If the Prime Minister is serious about writing this historic injustice, he must level the playing field and give them the legal support they need and deserve. Yes, a Windrush commissioner has been appointed, but to improve fairness and accountability, the report calls for the provision of funded legal advice and the creation of an independent expert appeals body, with the power to make binding compensation awards for the Windrush scheme. So can I ask the Minister, given this new evidence for change, with the Government Act on the findings of the Justice and King's College London report to deliver a fairer and more accessible compensation scheme for the Windrush victims and survivors? My Lords, the Windrush generation answered the call to come and rebuild Britain after the war.

Surely government should now answer their call for justice and to restore trust. I look forward to the minister's response here.
15:33
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the values that drive the government's political the government's political priorities are Labour values shared by the new Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, to whom I former Prime Minister, to whom I also pay tribute. There has, however, been a very welcome change of tone and direction. Building on the work of the last two years, I celebrate the hope, the optimism, the positivity and also the determination to do politics differently. Our citizens want and deserve problem solving rather than point scoring, because that alienates people rather than encouraging them to engage.

The cross-party talks over social care are a fine example of doing things differently. Understanding that achieving consensus is a strength, not a weakness. The Prime Minister shows great courage in his resolve to address the desperately needed reform of social care, and he has a very long term interest in this, which is well known. There's a huge lack of workers in social care, with a vacancy rate of more than 8%. So I ask my noble friend the Minister, if consideration will be given to enable more workers to come from overseas so that we can provide a better service in social care whilst it is being reformed.

I agree with the Prime Minister's analysis of the current situation in this country and the damage that has been done to the fabric of our country and the economy, including Brexit, which, as he said in the Commons, can band compounded the damage, ushered in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. His words will, I hope, give impetus to the UK. EU reset. The economic challenges are mighty. We are continually buffeted by global storms and people are suffering.

But action is already being taken to address the lives of people, including the homeless. This is a moral but a very practical mission. The Right reverend prelate spoke about homelessness on the day that he became Prime Minister. Before he went to the palace, the Prime Minister went to The passage, a homeless charity, where he met people sleeping rough. In his speech outside number ten, he pledged to end rough sleeping in England, and just last month he announced immediate action to offer everyone who needs it a route off the streets.

By Christmas, accommodation and support will be rolled out across England this winter, backed by £442 million in funding. Areas in the greatest need will receive the largest share of the money, with mayors working with councils to make decisions on delivering help where it's needed most. This, I believe, is devolution in action. Homelessness damages the lives of individuals, their physical and mental health, and it affects their dignity. It impacts on many areas of policy, not least the health of this nation.

1 in 6 people recalled to prison in breach of their licence is homeless. They have not committed a further offence. They simply don't have the roof over their heads, which everyone deserves. If a person is homeless, they can't get or sustain employment. If a child is in temporary accommodation, they cannot do their homework. Safe. Affordable homes are vital, so I warmly welcome the £10 billion pledge to build 7000 homes in the first tranche of the Social and Affordable Homes programme in England, and it would indeed be great if they could be built near railway stations.

My Lords, this government is radical and will act to ensure sustainable change for individuals and the country. Galvanised by hope. To quote Bertrand Russell, man needs hope and enterprise and change.
15:37
Baroness Sheehan Portrait Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We're having this very necessary debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord hunt for Kings Heath for Lord hunt for Kings Heath for moving it, and not least, my Lords, because it gives me a chance to highlight my private member's bill targeting waste crime, a critical issue which I'm delighted to say the Prime Minister himself has prioritised for action, not just words. We hope this time last year your Lordships, Environment and Climate Change Committee's report on waste crime, which I chair, drew attention to the appalling illegal dump at Hoads Wood, a protected SSSI site in Kent.

And despite persistent warnings from local residents to the council, the Environment Agency and the police, nothing was done. The week after our report appeared, the notorious Kiddington dump was discovered over 2000 tons of illegal waste. My Lords, these are not one off cases. Numerous other super sites continue to blight communities for years without intervention, not least the dreadful site in Bickershaw, Wigan, in the Prime Minister's own constituency, which may have had something to do with the prioritisation.

I do hope so, my Lord. Around 38 million tonnes of waste are illegally managed each year. The Waste services representative body, the Environment Environmental Services Association, estimates a lost tax revenue at £2 billion each year, double official estimates. While criminals profit from this low risk, high reward enterprise, the financial burden of cleanup falls squarely on taxpayers and private landlords. Organised crime groups are comprehensively outmanoeuvring our enforcement bodies. To solve this crisis, we must trace the waste to its source and turn off the tap rather than continuously using public money to rectify environmental damage and community damage.

My private member's bill, the Corporate Waste Responsibility Bill, addresses the problem at its roots. The bill is simple. It holds large corporations legally and financially accountable for the waste they produce or control by firstly requiring large companies to designate a named director to be responsible for enforcing statutory waste duty of care compliance. That means overseeing the journey of the waste from its production to its final resting place, and secondly, imposing direct financial liability on these corporations for the clearance and remediation of their waste whenever it is mismanaged and the duty of care standards are breached.

By establishing clear board level accountability and ensuring businesses bear the financial responsibility for their waste. This legislation aims to halt illegal waste sites and dismantle waste crime before it begins. I do hope the new Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will give it their support. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I love. I have to rise slightly faster than I thought. My Lords, my noble friend Lord hunt gave an eloquent introduction to this debate as to why we should support debate as to why we should support the government's political aims. And I am, of course, a well known And I am, of course, a well known Labour Party hack, and I tend to vote for the government on most occasions. But I have to admit, in
15:41
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
-
occasions. But I have to admit, in the early months of this government, I did have my doubts from time to time as to whether what I thought were the political aims of this government. I totally shared in particular, when we had the winter fuel payment crisis, the National Insurance increases, and indeed the tax on tax on farmers, which has been one of the Treasury's favorite things to do for years. But previous Ministers had resisted. I do think the new government, under Andy Burnham, has given us a new sense of purpose and direction, and I in general support the way in which he is going.

I would, however, like to have some clear indication from my noble friend Lord Collins at the end of this debate that I am right, so to do, and that we reaffirm some of our commitments. In particular, I would like us to reaffirm our commitment on net zero, because there has been some sniping, not just from the opposition and from various. Business interests and from the Petro states in the United States, but from some within the labor movement and others who would be normally supporting the government, we must reiterate those objectives, and our path to net zero must continue.

That does not mean that we. There aren't some compromises on the way, but a sense of direction and the momentum needs to be continued and if anything, substantially enhanced. I think compromises along the lines on which we are advocating. The FTT yesterday on the North Sea. Gas might be sensible, but they should not stop the pace of switch to clean energy for the rest of this country. There are other priorities I would like to see emphasized more, and the way in which we're going to do it be clearer, in particular on housing, the numbers involved in housing have been reiterated by Angela Rayner just recently, and I welcome that that recommitment.

But there are some serious problems in the delivery of those housing houses. I particularly am interested in the the numbers of social housing that will be produced, but the industry suffers from a double problem of a an oligopoly amongst the developers and the house builders, which constrain the choices that local authorities and others have over housebuilding and the pace at which it can be delivered, and a lack of adequate skills in the construction sector. We need to have a clear commitment to address both of those problems.

We've just had a debate on employment, which I and others emphasized the need for employment to be a serious priority for this government, and that the coming budget in six weeks time needs to be clear that employment and the quality of employment and the pace at which we can deliver jobs to the majority of our people, needs to be part of our economic policy. There are a lot of debates about the fiscal rules. Well, rules are constraints and standards. They are not objectives.

Objectives are economic policy and economic growth need to be to increase and develop the employment of a people of this country and the quality of employment available to them and to their successors. My Lords, if the government can reiterate their commitment on these fronts, I will continue in my support for as long as I am able. My Lords, I agree with the noble.
15:45
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
Lord, Lord. >> Lord, Lord. >> Whitty, that the National Insurance increase. And the farms Insurance increase. And the farms tax were very bad ideas which did considerable damage, and it's a pity more noble Lords behind the government didn't make that clearer in time to avoid the disaster. And I do hope the new Prime Minister and new Chancellor will have learned from the bitter experience of the two Reeves budgets to allow a large amount of adverse speculation threatening everyone who's successful or enterprising or has some savings with higher taxes, and then being surprised when confidence is not then putting taxes on in the budget, which do considerable damage.

And we then ended up with higher unemployment, fewer job vacancies cancelled and deferred investment projects, and a lack of confidence in the business community. We need the opposite of all those things. And the new Prime Minister, I wish well, if he can translate his tick tock optimism into a genuine set of policies which will promote enterprise, business, jobs and success, which is what is needed in this country. As someone who has had conversations and offered advice to a series of prime Ministers and Chancellors on the conservative side, from Margaret Thatcher onwards, I've had a chance to observe at quite close quarters what has succeeded, and quite often what doesn't succeed, and have tried to learn from those experiences.

So let me share this piece of advice to the new Treasury team. Take the bond market seriously. The bond market. You may not like them. You may think they're wrong, but you're going to find it very difficult to argue with them. And those very high costs of government borrowing now are a message. They are saying that the tax option is no longer there, put taxes up more and you may even collect less revenue. They are saying the spending is too high.

You do need to look at the benefits bill as my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservatives in this House and our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out in considerable detail about how sensible, modest cuts and proposals would help and by all means, accelerate the work on how you can get more young people into work by positive means and get them off benefits, because that is very crucial. But look at those interest rates. Labour made a lot of fuss when, for one day under Liz Truss, there was a spike to quite high levels in government borrowing costs, and some of them still carry on.

And I don't think they've understood that for the whole of 2025 and now for the whole of 2026 to date, government borrowing costs have been considerably higher than that one day spike under Liz Truss. So if the Truss spike was wrong, they are gratuitously wrong on an extended basis. And there are two differences in the situation. The Truss government didn't borrow a penny at that very high rate on the spike day. This government is borrowing day after day, week after week, at these very elevated rates, at least 20% higher current rates than the worst rate under Liz Truss.

And they have not persuaded the Bank of England to stop selling bonds in the market into a very depressed market. Whereas the thing that got the rates back down again after the Truss budget, which was spending too much, was, of course, the Bank of England stopping for a period selling the bonds at very depressed prices. The government needs to get a grip on that because it is doing it and us grave damage. I want this country to succeed. I want a strong, fast growing economy.

I want those young people back into work that takes lower interest rates, not higher interest rates. It takes proper fiscal discipline. Spouting about fiscal rules doesn't work. You have to do the hard work and get the budget into more balance.
15:49
Baroness Keeley Portrait Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I want to focus on the government's priorities on creative government's priorities on creative education and the importance of making changes to improve uptake of music education in state schools, and I welcome I warmly welcome the government's acceptance of the curriculum and assessment review recommendations, including the removal of the EBacc performance measure, because this gives us the vital opportunity to rebalance education in our state schools and support creative subjects and pathways which have suffered a serious decline since 2010.

The Cultural Learning Alliance, or CLA, has reported since 2024 on what it describes as a denuded arts education landscape. It has highlighted the erosion of arts provision in state schools, and argued that the narrowing of subject choices through the EBacc led to systematic devaluing of arts subjects and experiences. In 2024, the CLA reported that the take up of arts GCSEs had fallen by 42% since 2010, and as the Curriculum and Assessment Review highlighted, music has the highest disadvantage gap of any GCSE subject.

So it's deeply concerning that an arts entitlement gap persists in state schools, with socio economic background remaining a major determinant of arts participation. At 14, 16 and 18, schools in the most deprived fifth of local authorities are more likely to have no entries in some arts GCSEs. 54% of state schools in those areas have no GCSE music entries, compared with only 21% in the least deprived authorities. And similarly, the most disadvantaged regions have the lowest A-level arts take up.

So while welcoming the government's ambition to revitalise arts education, the CLA has warned us that the long tail of EBacc damage will continue to affect subject choices at Key Stage four and post 16. Now, last night I was at an event of the excellent Royal Philharmonic Society, where they had convened the enormously talented trio of the cellist Sheku Kanneh-Mason, the horn player Ben Goldscheider and the saxophonist Jess Gillam for a discussion about music in advance of their expected prom on Sunday on music education.

These talented young musicians, some of our most talented musicians, were worried that music education is not in a great place, they said. It's not what it was. Like many musicians, they do what they can to support music in our schools, but they can't. As individuals solve the issues, it falls to us in this place to create a better future for both arts and music education in our state schools. I am indebted to Professor Adam Whittaker and Doctor Anthony Anderson for their research on disadvantaged related attainment gaps in music education.

I learned from their work the disturbing fact that in 18 local authorities, either only one school offers a music qualification, either A-level or vocational, or, in the worst cases, no schools offer that. These authorities include Knowsley, Hartlepool, South Tyneside, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside, as well as four London boroughs. So this decline in music education must be reversed if we are serious about protecting the talent pipeline, which we do have in this country, into our universities, conservatoires orchestras and our successful music industry.

My Lords, this Labour government has rightly committed to removing the EBacc performance measure, but we now face the task of rebuilding music education, particularly in those state schools serving our most deprived communities. We can, in your Lordships House, continue to press DfE Ministers to reverse this decline, which happened, of course, under conservative governments by rebuilding the music teacher workforce and restoring the bursary for music teachers teacher training. We've talked a lot in this debate about hope. My hope is that under this government and with this new PM, every young person, whatever their background, has the chance to choose music here.
15:53
Lord Liddle Portrait Lord Liddle (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I'd like to congratulate my noble friend Lord hunt on his excellent introduction to this debate. I first met our new Prime Minister when he was a special adviser in the first term of the Blair government, and he was a great friend of the man I shared an office with in number ten, James Purnell, who's now his Chief of Staff. So I think it's a very nice thought that 27 years later, they're working their work.

28 years later, they're working together to try and run the country. I've always liked Andy Burnham. I've always thought he was a man with. I would, if I wanted to describe it simply with social Catholic values, which I mean, I'm not from that background, but I appreciate the people who are. I'd just like to make 1 or 2 points about which no one else has mentioned, really, about the political reforms that Andy Burnham seems to have in mind.

I'm a passionate supporter of devolution. I think it will have a growth dividend, but not in the immediate term, but in ten years or so time. I think that the government should should be bold on this subject. It should try and devolve real financial powers to mayoralties, and it should enable the big mayors to borrow money in order to finance financial projects that they think are worthwhile. I'd also like to see, as someone who in my political life has spent 20 years on local authorities, a great emphasis on reviving local government, probably with some reform of council tax.

Again, a long term project. But Burnham's talked about land value, taxation and getting rid of capping, which restrains what local authorities can do and has basically destroyed the independence of local government. I also believe that the Prime Minister is right to say that our politics needs reform. I believe in politicians working together. I don't think that we can address long term issues that we face, like social care, like climate change, unless we establish some degree of political consensus.

And I think electoral reform is one way of doing this. Thirdly, I think that the that the Prime Minister is a strong pro-European. One of the things that I admired about him was that he came out and said, Brexit has been a disaster and it has been a disaster. And the starting point for putting that right is to be honest with the public about what the losses have been. And that is, I think, the crucial thing that Burnham is doing in his approach to Europe.

And I would like him to set out why I think it's right that he sticks to Labour's manifesto. Pledges for that were made for this Parliament. I think at some point we should. We should be bold about what is the objective that we're seeking on Europe, and I hope that he will have the courage to do that.
15:58
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
And I'm glad that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised the question of Europe, because it probably won't Europe, because it probably won't surprise those listening to learn that. I intend to say a word about that, too, and I intend to say a word about it, not just because I'm deeply interested in it, but also because the new government and the Prime Minister and his Ministers don't seem to have said a huge amount about this subject, either. In the Prime Minister's statement earlier this week or in PMQs, and policy has swung around a bit.

We heard during the by election, the Wakefield by election, the PM wants to rejoin and perhaps the noble Lord Liddle hopes that that will be the outcome of this rethink one day. Since then, the government's retreated from it and the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, yesterday said, and I quote, we are not going to rerun the argument on Brexit in the near future. I suppose that leaves open the question of what in the near future actually means. But there seems a degree of uncertainty and on the one hand the government is claiming, as we just heard, that Brexit cause damage and the the Prime Minister said that too.

Yet at the same time they are using and talking up the benefits of leaving the EU. And as the noble Lord. Lord true said yesterday, they are cutting. The government is cutting VAT which would not have been possible in the European Union. And the new Trade Minister, who gave an excellent maiden speech, say that even though he's not in his place now, gave an excellent maiden speech, was out earlier this week celebrating accession to the Cptpp as a fantastic new opportunity for British business.

Of course, none of that would be happening if we hadn't left the European Union, so I'm left a bit uncertain, I must admit, as to how the EU really fits into the hierarchy of priorities for the new government. We've got a new Minister in charge of the negotiations. What are we supposed to read into that? And all this uncertainty means it's a little unclear sometimes what is meant by comments on the on the reset. For example, the PM said this week that the country needs a good deal for farming.

Well, what does that mean? I thought there already was a deal for farming. It was announced in the summit last year. Does that mean he's doubtful about this deal? Does is he uncertain that some of the protections, the carve outs that are needed, will actually be secured in the negotiations that are going on? We simply do not know any of this, and that really is the problem. Our Lords, I think it's well beyond time for the government to give a proper account of where things stand.

The summit was over a year ago now, and each time there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is an event in Brussels or a meeting, it seems that the government gives away Something, whether it's joining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Something, whether it's joining the ETS, whether it's joining the single electricity market, we now learn this spring that concessions on student fees are in play. The nature of the youth mobility scheme nature of the youth mobility scheme and so on. And it's not clear what we're getting back from any of this. we're getting back from any of this. The much e-gate access has not yet been delivered. I can tell you, from my experience, and perhaps other noble Lords have had the same experience this summer.

Actually, arguably the situation for British travellers is worse than it was a year ago. So, my Lords, I think the government needs to come clean about where things stand on this rather amateurish Keystone Kops style negotiation. We don't need a running commentary, but we do need a statement about what the government is trying to achieve. And so my question to the Minister is, would he ask his colleagues, would he ask his ministerial colleagues to come to this House or to the other place and tell us what their approach to this negotiation actually is? What are they trying to do? Where are they trying to get to? And meanwhile, will the government stop being pushed around and start standing up for the people and the businesses of this country?
16:02
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
My congratulations to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for securing this of Kings Heath for securing this debate, this government's agenda marks a fundamental shift in how power and capital are distributed across the United Kingdom. Positioning my old European constituency of the West Midlands and the second city, Birmingham, as central drivers of national growth. My Lords, by sweeping away decades of bureaucratic inertia and empowering the West Midlands to control its own wealth, transport and housing. The government is unleashing the true potential of Britain's industrial heartland.

I welcome that this government is implementing a structural strategy to rewire the state through radical fiscal devolution and targeted regional investment. Through a multi year, 2.5 billion integrated settlement and a committed ten year retention of local business rates valued at 45 million annually. The government is also granting the West Midlands Combined Authority and the mayor unprecedented financial autonomy. This will allow the region to manage its infrastructure independently, shifting funding away from rigid competitive bidding systems.

This autonomy is already driving visible outcomes in local infrastructure, backing a rapid transition to bring the West Midlands bus network back under local public control, supported by 35 million Bus Service Improvement Plan grant, and that will work alongside the nationwide £2 single fare cap to lower commuting costs and to link residents directly to employment hubs. As Lord hunt has outlined earlier. Now, to a subject closer to my heart, the regional housing crisis. The government has injected a landmark £1.7 billion into the West Midlands social housing.

This funding scales up the region's existing affordable housing framework, which has already surpassed targets by delivering 7237 new homes in its first localised phase. However, to solve this housing crisis, we must look at the entire life cycle of a home and I would urge the government and the Minister here to help older homeowners, the empty nesters, to help them to downsize and free up 50 million surplus bedrooms. Therefore, I urge the Ministers to consider a targeted exemption of the stamp duty on a household level, the abolition of 5% VAT rate on domestic electricity bills offers immediate financial breathing room for two families across the West Midlands.

Now, crucially to the economic strategy focuses on high value industrial revival. The newly formed Midlands Defence Growth Deal integrates local academic institutions, advanced manufacturing firms and regional government into a single ecosystem. This initiative aims to inject billions into local supply chain and create 38,000 highly skilled engineering and technology jobs across the region. To sustain this growth, the government is introducing the West Midlands Works Initiative, a comprehensive ten year employment plan designed to train and place 93000 residents into stable, high quality jobs.

This is supported by an educational shift that grants 14 year olds early access to technical qualification pipelines and direct employment links. My Lords, this agenda is a ten year blueprint for economic resilience. It is a sharp break from the managed decline of the past. A definitive blueprint to ensure that the engine room of the UK economy is finally fired up, self-sustaining and built to win.
16:06
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> Wish to discuss. >> Two crucial components. >> Of the Prime Minister's programme for growth, the devolution agenda in England and our relationship with the EU. For decades I have advocated greater devolution of powers to Yorkshire and so greatly welcomed moves to shift decision making out of Whitehall. I have, however, two principal concerns over what the government is currently proposing. First, whilst it's relatively clear how an existing large mayoral authority such as Birmingham or Manchester could be given and realistically managed greater powers, the position elsewhere is very much less clear cut.

The Prime Minister has said that devolution deals will be possible, for example, without even an elected mayor, as may happen in Cornwall. But if there are a plethora of types of devolved authority, as there are inevitably now will be, this has the potential for very considerable muddle and confusion. So I fear that whilst the PM has a pretty good idea how his new settlement will benefit Manchester, I simply don't believe that any such clarity exists for much of the rest of England.

And in North Yorkshire, for example, where I live, expectations have been raised, but it's completely unclear under current proposals how they might be realised. Secondly, under the new number ten North arrangements, the Prime Minister has said that he will be the person who is in charge of driving the growth agenda in the short term. This may be good news, in that only prime ministerial authority is likely to be able to prise powers away from the Treasury, but in the longer term, it's worrying what happens if the next Prime Minister has a constituency hundreds of miles from Manchester.

And unlike today, where no fewer than nine members of the Cabinet have constituencies within an hour's drive from Manchester or travel, both he and his senior colleagues have other priorities. The present institutional changes do not look robust enough to survive such a scenario, and the whole devolution agenda, therefore appears to be built on pretty shaky foundations. Although the ill fated Department of Economic Affairs of the 60s has given the idea of a separate ministry for growth a bad name, it seems implausible that without some such permanent body, a significant long term focus on growth of the kind which the Prime Minister is promoting will actually be maintained.

The other element of the growth agenda relates to our relations with Europe. The Prime Minister has actually said pretty little about the EU, and in his statement, he only said that Brexit had economically been very damaging. Which is hardly new or news. But the new government does not appear to have any new substantive proposals for strengthening our economic relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister appears to recognise that unless we move towards the single market and the customs union, hopes for strong growth in the EU are likely to be mere pipe dreams.

Yet there seems to be no real ambition to move in that direction. My Lords, I wish the new Prime Minister well. I support much of what he's trying to achieve, but I'm afraid that as yet I'm unconvinced that he has well-thought plans for doing so.
16:10
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord hunt, for bringing this debate. And I also want to apologise to him, because I'm always surprised at how passionately he talks about climate passionately he talks about climate change. So, you know, that's that's on me. Sorry about that. It's on me. Sorry about that. It's wonderful to listen to. I, I've met the new Prime Minister a few times, and I've got a lovely photograph on my phone of him and me at Glastonbury last year.

And I sort of thought we could work together. But the more I see what's happening, what's what's going through, I. I'm beginning to think it won't be possible. It seems as if the sort of slow moving, stagnant mechanism of government has got its claws into him and he he is not thinking very creatively anymore, and I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see over the next few weeks and months. I just want to mention three things that I think are absolutely crucial for the future of this Labour government, and they are all things that will help society, as well as helping the environment, because we have to accept, for example, that the climate chaos is the new normal and thousands of people dying this summer in the heat is going to be what keeps happening if we're not very careful about adapting to it.

And arriving at A and E is also going to be the new normal with people from heat exhaustion and so on. And so I would say this government really mustn't make it worse by going ahead with a jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields. That is just folly. And what they should be doing is what they've just scrapped, which is putting solar panels on every sort of on every supermarket, car park and on every every roof, everywhere they possibly can. That's the sort of thing they really ought to be doing to, to be creative about combating climate change.

We need to adapt to hot summers. And so why not? I mean, a tiny, tiny measure would be to put, as in France, to put shutters on all the windows and so on. I've got lots of ideas. Quite happy to chat them through. The second thing is to actually help save the NHS, not by privatizing it, but by remembering that prevention is better than cure. So if you cut pollution, you cut the number of people going into hospital, you cut the number of children whose lungs are so stunted by pollution that they have lifelong problems with, with with their breathing, breathing and well done to Sadiq Khan here in London, where really he has massively cut air pollution.

We should have low emission zones across the whole country, as they do in mainland Europe. Thirdly, one big way to reduce pollution would be to take the water companies into public ownership. And the Prime Minister did mention those words, public ownership yesterday. And I would like to think he means renationalisation, but I don't know any more because he keeps changing his mind. I've actually stopped paying the sewage part of my bill. I asked Thames Water how much that that part was because I was happy to pay for the water, obviously, but I wasn't prepared to pay for the sewage that they were dumping in the Thames.

And they told me that they didn't work out the bill like that. And so at the moment, I'm not paying my bill. And we'll just see if they take me to court before they go bankrupt. We stopped the poll tax with a campaign of non-payment. And I think possibly civil disobedience is the only way to fight companies like the water companies who are actually operating, in a way, is a dis benefit to the whole of society. And so I would say to the government, the Green Party has also got loads of ideas, all very practical, very happy to share them with you.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a treat to be asked to to be able to take part in this debate. And I'm going to talk about the And I'm going to talk about the government's programme on pensions, where I think the scale of what's where I think the scale of what's being undertaken by this government and what potentially is in prospect is far greater than people appreciate. We, of course, already had one pensions bill. I didn't had one pensions bill. I didn't agree with everything in the bill, but it is leading to major changes in the way pensions are provided.

We haven't seen the end of a 30 year experiment in personal pensions. Pensions are becoming collective, and the emphasis on collective defined contribution schemes, the consolidation of existing arrangements, the removal of small pots and and so on signifies that significant change in the way pensions are being provided. We've also seen the government introduce measures which potentially can help members as well as employers, with the release of so-called scheme surpluses. That's another debate.

But the money is there and should be used productively to grow the economy and to improve members benefits. We've also got issues specifically in relation to personal pensions, where existing arrangements can now be consolidated and provide more effective investment arrangements for individuals. And we're also getting. What's called. A default pathways for retirement. The biggest, hardest problem in pensions is what to do if you're in a defined contribution arrangement with the money at retirement, and the government is taking good action there to ensure that people have straightforward arrangements to achieve a decent income in retirement.

Now, all that's important. But of course, we now have the Pensions Commission. Although the government has made no formal commitment, we know that the commission timetable, the Commission's timetable permits another pensions bill. I look forward to this with some relish. Not in the current session, but in the next session, and that will have to address the issue of adequacy. That's the missing part of the debate. That's what the Commission has been set up to establish, and that's what we'll have to confirm.

There will be big debates over that. I think at the same time, we're going to have to take decisions about the state retirement age. Governments of both sides have, in practice, dodge the decision there. I've got strong views, maybe not in line with those held by many. I think that the challenge is to provide incomes for people who are no longer able to work as ably as younger people. So I think the retirement age clearly an issue.

And the third and final leg of that debate will be state pension increases. And what is going to follow the triple lock? I think just saying, keep the triple lock doesn't satisfy the needs to get a stable financial system. And we've got to have that debate. And I'm afraid that so far people seek to dodge that debate rather than address it. address it.
16:18
16:18
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
By with our new Prime Minister. >> Lens, because he has. >> Been away from Westminster for ten years. >> And I think when he came to to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think when he came to to Westminster, he was able to to voice a lot of the frustrations that we all share in our lives. We all hear it from our friends and our neighbours. I, as a radio

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presenter, hear a lot from from my listeners. Lots of people outside just cannot get their head around why we cannot get their head around why we here in Westminster continually and through decade after decade, fail through decade after decade, fail to get things done for this country. And I think tribalism is holding And I think tribalism is holding back a lot of the success for this country. And I do really like the fact that one of the things the fact that one of the things the Prime Minister said and Baroness Royall alluded to this, was problem solving over point scoring, and I hope that I try to not be I'm very proud to be associated with these benches, but I try to look at things with with fairness and not be tribal.

And in that spirit, I want to begin by saying that that I profoundly disagree with people on my own side who dismissed the Russian threat as being nothing but NATO fiction. That is absolutely not the case. These threats are real. They are here. Look at Leipzig Airport just in the last few days, and I really hope that we can work across politics to build a national conversation about the threats, the psychology that we might need to to face if things escalate, resilience.

We need to think about bringing back the war book in to make sure that local authorities and we have proper preparedness. So defence has got to be a priority. Of course, growth must be a priority as as well. And I think, again, we can get captured up in these kind of tortuous, polarised discussions around the economy where the right will say, just cut welfare and the left will say, just raise taxes. Well, we all know that just doing both of those things are not going to give us the result we we want.

We have to have a more intelligent conversation and we need growth. And we need to help small and medium sized businesses. And I really hope that this new Chancellor in particular, will really seek to to try and make life a bit. We've heard this phrase breathing space. Let's give a bit of breathing space to some of our small businesses around the country. Another reason why I think people feel really dismayed with the country right now. They look around and they feel that the social contract is broken is because of what's happening in their communities, and with that is a lot of anti-social behaviour, and it's called low level crime, but it isn't low level because of the blight that it causes on the lives of so many people.

Just look at what's been happening in Middlesbrough. That story, you know, replicated all around the the the country. You know, shops have become a war zone for people. I'm sure we'll be hearing from from Lord Walker about the excellent work he does with with Iceland. You know, Lord Barber has talked very eloquently about the pressures that Shopworkers face. You know, we've got to. That's why a lot of people feel that the country doesn't work for them because they see it in their high streets.

They see it in their everyday world. And I suppose I just want to end on on this kind of tonal note. I think we all have a responsibility to try and fix this country. I mean, I could be very tribal, we could, you know, we could all point score and slag each other off, but we are not going to succeed until we try and find some, some, some common ground. We on the left often get accused of virtue signalling. And sometimes that does have some merit.

Sometimes we do go over the top. But I would also say that some on the other side can be accused of vice signalling because let's be honest, you know, making disabled people poorer is not going to make us a richer, happier society. But from our side, we have to also get more people into work who can work as well. So this is a very timely debate. I congratulate Lord hunt, and I look forward to the rest of the contributions.
16:23
Lord Oates Portrait Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm delighted to follow the noble Baroness Hazarika and her noble Baroness Hazarika and her excellent, eloquent speech, to which I agree with entirely. And which I agree with entirely. And today I want to focus on the justice system and in particular, the contrast between the crisis and the adult justice system and the many successes achieved by creative policy making in the youth justice system. The prisons, as we read every day, are overflowing. The courts have huge backlogs, with cases currently being listed as far ahead as 2029 and 2030 with calls to prison are at unprecedented levels.

51,000 prisoners were recalled to prison in the 12 months to March, a 28% increase in the year before and in in the January to March quarter. More prisoners were recalled than released for the first time ever, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall said, many of these cases are not committing new offences. There are people who have chaotic lives after being released from prison and having attended perhaps a probation hearing or whatever, but we really need to get to grips with that.

And of course, prisoner releases have become the latest political football to be kicked to and fro. This is a problem we all own. All of us. All our parties own it. Over the last decades, we've had a legacy of rhetoric driving up sentence length and prison numbers. Despite falling crime rates. This has been combined with a failure to build the prison places required to soak up the inevitable outcome of that sort of increasing sentencing levels.

But that is not necessary at all. This is not normal. Our levels of incarceration are not normal. We do not have higher levels, on average, than most of our European counterparts. And yet we are incarcerating people at double the rate of places like Germany. And much more than that for places like the Scandinavian countries. But the youth justice system, by contrast, which is the subject of my private member's bill next Friday. So like my noble friend Baroness, I taking the opportunity to, to, to raise some of the points here, as some of you might not be able to be there next week, but by contrast, that is one of the greatest public policy successes of the last 30 years.

When I worked at the Youth Justice Board, shortly after it came into existence, it. The. The number of children in the juvenile secure estate peaked at over 3500 in June this year, there were less than 350 in the secure estate, a reduction that has been achieved while youth crime has reduced. That is a remarkable achievement by any standard, particularly when the adult system was going in the opposite direction. It was achieved by creative, innovative, innovative policy making of the 1997 Labour government in establishing the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams, so one might have expected the incoming government to seek to apply some of the lessons of the youth justice system to the crisis of the adult system.

Instead, it's chosen to abolish the Youth Justice Board in all but name. The noble Lord. Lord Whitty referred to Treasury old favorite. This is an old favourite of the Minister of Justice and the Treasury, and should be resisted. I hope that the new Prime Minister will take a new approach to this.
16:27
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
Here. told us repeatedly that its number one priority is growth, and I'm sure that every single one of us in this House would wholeheartedly this House would wholeheartedly back that aim. But I'm afraid there is a startling gap between those words and an actual, real words and an actual, real understanding of the people who create that growth. Because, my Lords, as we know on this side of the house, wealth isn't created in Whitehall, no matter whether it's it's in number ten North.

It's created when somebody takes a risk, when an entrepreneur decides to start a business, to put their own capital at risk, or to put their family's capital at risk, to take on another member of staff, to buy new plant or equipment, or to make a new investment, or when an international investor chooses Britain rather than somewhere else. And increasingly, those people are looking around the world and they're making choices about where to invest. And that matters, my Lords, because our public finances are extraordinarily dependent on a very small number of taxpayers, a relatively small number in our country, the top 1% of income taxpayers contribute around 28% of all income tax.

So this isn't the usual scare stories about millionaires leaving Britain. I'm not I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that when a wealthy person leaves Britain, we potentially lose a disproportionately large taxpayer as well as an investor or an employer or an entrepreneur. And this is something that the office for Budget Responsibility itself has warned about. It's warned of our increasing reliance upon this small and very mobile group of taxpayers. It's flagged this as a fiscal risk for the government.

It. The company found that two thirds of ultra high net worth individuals surveyed had considered leaving the UK for tax reasons during the previous year. And I know that many of us have seen that in our own personal lives. We've all got friends and acquaintances who. And young people who who are thinking in that way, unfortunately. But the most interesting finding, I think, to me wasn't just that those people said their priority was having lower tax, but they prioritise certainty and stable government.

And that really should tell the government something. And I do think part of the problem, unfortunately, is just the lack of that business experience and private sector and entrepreneurial experience at the heart of government, because it is so easy. If your experience is just politics and the private sector or NGOs to think about business as a cash cow, that can be milked as though it's not going to change its behavior, although it's going to continue filling the Treasury's coffers. But anyone who's run a business knows there comes a point when the numbers don't add up, they don't add up.

The investment isn't made, the extra person isn't employed, so you don't get 40% of a greater pot. You just get a smaller pot and the business, the business just ceases to exist. It goes bust. Now we all agree that successful people should pay more tax than they are paying more tax. But there is a fundamental difference between taxing wealth once it's been created and creating the conditions for successful businesses to start in the first place, in which people actually want to create that wealth.

Capital is mobile. Talented people have got choices, and every founder who chooses an overseas country is going to bring wealth and growth to that country, not our country. And that's where we're losing out in revenues to our public sectors. There's only two ways of improving our public finances. We can keep asking those people to keep paying more, and we can make or we can make the economy bigger. And there's nothing bad about wealth creation. We should be encouraging it. That's the only way we get those better hospitals, schools and roads and everything else that people want to see.

The government says it wants growth. It needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand that. It demonstrates it understands the people who create growth. Yes. My Lords, I declare an interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest as executive chairman of Iceland Foods and by water as the former Foods and by water as the former Prime minister's cost of living champion, I advocated targeted help for families who could not absorb soaring bills. And it's good to see some of those ideas come to
16:31
Lord Walker of Broxton Portrait Lord Walker of Broxton (Labour)
-
-
some of those ideas come to fruition. But that is just applying a sticking plaster. We cannot cure the underlying disease with yet another subsidy or benefit. This government's top priority must be getting Britain back to work. One in every seven households has no one in work, not a single adult earning a wage. A million children live in long term workless homes, more than a quarter of those in households where no one has ever worked, not once. Ever. Now is the time to turn around by giving business the confidence to invest.

Our new Prime Minister says he wants a pro-business government. My Lords, he needs the courage to deliver on that. Start with the October budget, shift the tax burden away from jobs and productive investment. Cut the cost of employing people, give more high street businesses relief on rates because a growing private sector will do more to relieve poverty than any support programme ever can, now is the time to make brave decisions on welfare and, dare I say it, the triple lock.

I started my business career in Poland and have watched with admiration it grow almost as rich per capita as Britain, indeed soon likely to overtake us. They have a formula we should follow encourage investment, build infrastructure, develop skills, attract businesses and pursue integration into global supply chains. As a father, I'm horrified that, as we've heard, we have almost 1,000,016 to 24 year olds NEETs. We are complicit in allowing them to enter adulthood without a structure, confidence, skills, friendships, and sense of purpose that only work can provide.

Of course, I believe that the state must support those who are ill, disabled or otherwise unable to work. But the welfare state should be a safety net and a springboard, not a system that leaves people who can work parked on benefits. We need to create a smoother pathway from school into work, meaning more apprenticeships, vocational training and work experience. The Prime Minister's focus on creating more work placements is welcome, but businesses will deliver far more if they simply remove the barriers that currently deter them from hiring.

Lowers the cost of creating jobs helps businesses invest in skills, cut red tape and make sure work always pays. Do that and Britain will get a triple dividend. People move from welfare to wages. The benefits bill falls, tax revenues rise, businesses gain the people and skills that they need to grow, and a generation currently being offered too little hope gets a stake in our country's future. Britain cannot redistribute its way to prosperity like Poland. We must build our way there.
16:34
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the noble Lord >> My Lord, I thank the noble Lord hunt for securing this debate and I welcome his contribution. I will welcome his contribution. I will focus on energy and climate. This government has an opportunity for a reset. The British people support change, but this government has to do more to enable it. Nowhere is that clearer than on energy. Labour deserves credit for delivering enough renewable energy through two successful record breaking auctions to supply the equivalent of 23 million homes.

But our energy bills remain among the highest in Europe. There has been no fundamental energy market reform. The Climate Change Committee citizen's panel shows that people support the transition to net zero, provided the government plays its part grants for heat pumps, better public transport and EV charging, and clear phase out dates. Yet heat pumps and electric vehicles remain well behind target and too expensive for far too many. The transition being offered is not yet affordable, equitable or fair.

The Green Greenpeace's power shift report, for example, shows that moving gas fired power stations power stations into a strategic reserve could save households and businesses £5.1 billion a year by 2028, a £65 saving off the average household bill. We need cheaper electricity by removing levies. We need a social tariff, the new Energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is a trained economist and former chief of the New Economics Foundation. That gives me hope that she will grasp the urgent need for fundamental energy market reforms.

Labour must do more to back community energy so that everyone can participate in and benefit from the energy transition. Europe is the fastest, fastest warming continent on earth and we are not prepared. Summer 2026 was the UK's hottest on record, made around 130 times more likely by human induced climate change. England had its driest July ever. Across Europe, extreme heat was linked to at least 35,000 excess deaths. The UK Health Security Agency estimated at 2877 deaths in May and June.

Heat waves alone. The London Ambulance Service recorded its busiest day in its history on the 26th of June. Nurses fainting in hospital wards where temperatures exceeded 30 degrees conditions the Royal College of Nursing called inhuman. The UK is on track for its worst harvest since records began, threatening our food security and pushing up prices. The Climate Change Committee's 2025 adaption report found not a single outcome is rated as good, not one. My Lords adaption has been forgotten by all governments.

The time when we can afford to forget is over. Nature remains the missing element in this government's agenda. Confused policies, compounded by poor communications, erode trust. Wildfires worsen every year. My Lords, the National Fire Chief Councils has called for an emergency summit and greater resources. A written answer to me confirms that the UK is entirely dependent on commercial aviation to fight wildfires. That has to change urgently before the Super El Nino arrives. Mega fires are on our doorstep and we are not prepared to contain them.

The UK cannot lead globally while cutting overseas aid. We need a roadmap back to 0.7%. Ed Miliband must show this government takes global climate finance seriously. The British people overwhelmingly accept the reality of our warming planet and support change. Government must enable that change. Labour must take people with them, work with them, not do things to them. The transition must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work for everyone or it will work for no. One day I hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One day I hear. What I do congratulate my noble friend Lord hunt, for securing this important debate and also on his excellent opening speech, our new Prime Minister, on entering number Prime Minister, on entering number ten, said, let's make this moment when Britain starts to believe again. The moment we bring back hope. It's been mentioned several times today that spirit was clear in his commitment during recess to tackle social care through cross-party talks. What is striking
16:39
Baroness Nargund Portrait Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-
-
about this government's priorities is its willingness to confront Britain's hardest problems head on. Placing country first. My Lords health needs now a similar approach the manifesto commitment promising a fairer Britain where everyone a fairer Britain where everyone lives well, long for longer and where we have the gap in healthy where we have the gap in healthy life expectancy between richest and poorest regions in our country has never been more urgent. A child born in Richmond on Thames can now expect nearly 20 more years in good health than one born in Hartlepool or Blackpool.

A recent campaign by Health Equals has revealed. An 18 year old 18 year gap between the postcodes between the longest and shortest life expectancy in the UK. My Lords, the HSC alone cannot close these gaps and we should stop treating it as it is the sole responsibility of the National Health Service. There is now an irrefutable case for a Cross-governmental health board or a Cabinet subcommittee reporting directly to the Prime Minister, chaired by a senior Cabinet Minister and, crucially, with strong regional representation.

My Lords, devolution offers a brilliant opportunity to deliver this in every region. The health Bill, now in the other place, offers a genuine opportunity to put that understanding to work. My Lords, health does not start in the NHS. It starts where we are born, where we live, whether we can access decent housing, whether we can, where and where we work. That's why the Prime Minister's pledge to end homelessness is so significant. Homelessness is not simply a housing failure.

It's one of the starkest health inequalities that we have. The social housing bill before us, giving the tools to build more social homes locally is not just an answer to our housing and homelessness crisis, but it is a preventative health intervention. My Lords, I leave you with one further thought. If the health of people in the North of England match that of the rest of England, it could generate an additional 18.4 billion a year to the UK economy.

This is not just a moral case, it is an economic one. Health needs to be at the heart of the government's priorities and central to its legislative agenda, giving power back to local communities, tackling health disparities that hold our country back. That's why I back all these priorities wholeheartedly. My Lords, Labour created the NHS to care for our health, and it's now Labour that can strengthen the NHS by tackling what creates ill health in the first place. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister, will the government consider setting up a Cross-governmental health board or a Cabinet subcommittee to address the wider determinants of health

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to create more equal Britain? The noble. Lady and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady and. My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow my noble friend the Baroness. follow my noble friend the Baroness. The Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to social care in his response to questions on his response to questions on his statement to the Commons on Tuesday. And whilst we wait for the recommendations from Baroness recommendations from Baroness Casey's review, there are opportunities to build on the important steps the government has already taken to raise the profile of and boost much needed capacity in social care nursing.

One of the signal achievements of the previous administration was the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and within that, the establishment of the Fair Pay Agreement. The potential impact of this
16:43
Baroness Rafferty Portrait Baroness Rafferty (Labour)
-
-
development cannot be underestimated. It seeks to elevate the status as well as the terms and conditions of those working in social care, shining a light on those on the margins of care, with those on the margins of care, with no representation or negotiating power to improve their lot. This is power to improve their lot. This is to be welcomed as a social care sector. Employs some 1.5 million sector. Employs some 1.5 million people. It has a huge economic footprint. Even though most workers earn just above the minimum wage or poverty pay.

As a Prime Minister commented on Tuesday, the potential to boost the earning power. Career and professional development of social care workers. Therefore, and therefore the attractiveness of one of the largest sectors of employment in the UK compares, I would argue, with the adult equivalent of reducing child poverty by removing the two child cap. Let us not also forget that most care workers are women, and any boost to wages can also bolster household incomes. The Fair Pay Agreement could provide a much needed stimulus for nursing reform.

The most recent estimates from skills for health records. Some 37,000 nurse registrants in the sector, concentrated mainly in care homes. Registered nurses carry carry heavy responsibilities. Adult social care pay has lagged far behind that of the NHS. This fair pay agreement will hopefully link responsibility to reward and begin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to align social care pay with that of the NHS. My Lords, I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two minutes. I will be brief. Firstly, UK debt and financing it as my noble friend Baroness Coffey as my noble friend Baroness Coffey put so well. Lord Hunt spent half his speech talking about the opposition and for whatever reason opposition and for whatever reason certain noble Lords opposite wished to attribute to the current national debt pile. It is there. It national debt pile. It is there. It is not going away and simply blaming others for its existence. And looking backwards, not forwards, solves zero.

It is critical that it is reduced by every government, and Baroness Hazarika and Baroness Royall were spot on when they said that this is about problem solving
16:46
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
together, not point scoring. My noble friend Lord Redwood knows what he's talking about. You need what he's talking about. You need to respect the global bond markets. Bond yields and financing costs are Bond yields and financing costs are at multi-decade highs. The Prime Minister spent the summer making welcome spending commitments, but without explaining in any shape or without explaining in any shape or form how they will be funded, we need clarification. If the markets need clarification. If the markets have certainty, borrowing costs will be lowered and ultimately hard working people benefit.

Secondly, taxes and spending will the noble Lord, Lord Collins, listen to the Prime Minister's friend and adviser, Lord O'Neill of Gatley? Lord O'Neill is a globally recognized and respected economist who said only last week and I quote if Ministers raise taxes, it will show they are not thinking about growth as seriously as they claim. Lord Walker of Broxton was entirely correct when, in a previous debate he agreed that he supports the Labour Party, not the Benefits Party. So will the noble Lord.

The Minister listen to the advice of both Lord Walker and Lord O'Neill and cut the welfare bill. And finally, my Lords, we hear about GDP from this government, including Lord hunt in his opening remarks. But as my noble friend Lord Hintze, one of the world's most respected fund managers, often reminds the government we should be looking at GDP per capita. It is more important for measuring individual living standards versus GDP. So please, will the government consider that it's a benchmark universally agreed by economists as the measure of individual living standards?
16:47
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. Well done. >> Happy to have followed the noble Lady, Baroness Nargund, for reminding us of the blight in our reminding us of the blight in our country, for the extreme levels of difference in deprivation, social deprivation on a postcode to deprivation on a postcode to postcode area. But it's also an urban rural issue also. And if the Prime Minister is to be successful, then it's not just growth in every postcode, but it's also reducing that blight of inequality, of opportunity that so many of our communities face.

And I'm glad that she raised that in the debate. I'm also glad that the Labour whips responded positively to a suggestion from these benches that when we came back after the summer recess, it would be an appropriate time to consider the statements by the new Prime Minister and some of the priorities that he has outlined. And we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord hunt, for opening this debate and giving a very good fist to the arguments of of the new ministerial team, and he's to be commended for doing that.

So clearly, I reflected yesterday in the chamber. And when we heard the when we were asking questions on the Prime Minister's statement, the Leader of the House that in the 13 years I've been in this House, there have been seven Prime Ministers with an average tenure of just 21 months. This is an an underlying symptom of some of the challenges we have in our political system, which I refer to in a moment. But I join the noble Lord, Lord hunt, in thanking Sir Keir Starmer for his service.

There's this curious part of our system in politics in Britain that someone is a terrible politician in a disaster shortly before they resign and then after they were a great public servant who had a very proud record of of service. But nevertheless, we thank Keir Starmer for his role and we wish him well, whatever, whatever new role he will be carrying out. Yesterday, I also went through the areas where the first speech of the new Prime Minister were essentially the same as the first speech of Sir Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, but with a little more emotion and heart.

I do not disregard emotion in heart. In our politics. They are important parts of our government. But both Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham said in their first speeches that words are not actions. And as my noble friend Lord story said, the tests are really ahead of this new ministerial team and we will all judge actions in many of those areas. We are very willing to work with the government and the new ministerial team, and we are eager to see some actions.

One of the early things that the new Prime Minister could do is to respond positively to the very clear appeal by my noble friend, Baroness Benjamin, finally restoring the justice to that community of victims that I had the privilege of meeting with her. And that is a scar on our country that the new Prime Minister can erase. We have had an opportunity now to look at the first areas where Mr. Burnham has said he wants to be judged, political reform and economic growth with fewer costs.

In doing business. We we share those priorities. These benches are hungry for considerable political and constitutional reform, not for its own sake, but because I said our system is failing. The great dividing lines in politics of our age. And in the future, I suggest, are less the rather sterile one of. Whether the economic policies of the 70s were better or worse than the. 40 years hence, as the Prime Minister has said. But instead are about tolerance and social cohesion, about defence of institutions and the rule of law, and protecting diversity and gender equality, and those other forces which are incredibly well funded and organised, which are seeking to restrict, to separate and to blame communities for failings.

These benches and our liberal international sister parties know that this division is global, not just here at home in the UK. It's why we work so closely with our sister parties, who are the governments of Canada, Ukraine and Taiwan, who are at the front, who are on the front line of these dividing lines in politics, our system of politics in this country is simply not resilient enough. Reform UK, for example, believes it's appropriate for a political system to receive influxes of untraceable crypto money and not appropriate for leaders of parties to be accountable for donations they receive.

This is cancerous in our system. But Elon Musk supporting restore and a dark area of social media where foreign interference is all too easy to corrupt our system. Those areas need to be closed, and we will work with the government in ensuring reforms to strengthen our system are in place. But so far as my noble friend Lord Patten said yesterday and today, we haven't seen that the government is wanting to go far enough and we look forward to the legislative proposals, and we want to work constructively to ensure that those loopholes are all closed.

Another area where, regrettably there seems to be a dividing lines is on the climate crisis. There should be no dividing lines on this because, as my noble friend Earl Russell, so Soberingly outlined, and the noble Lord, Lord hunt, had indicated so eloquently that there needs to be consensus that this is a crisis of our age that needs to be tackled. And we have a mainstream political party seems to prevent anyone standing for it that believes that net zero needs to be tackled.

These are statutory targets. Lord Hunt spoke eloquently on climate. We share his views. But I would say one element which has been disappointing in the first announcement, the first announcement by the new Prime Minister was that the cap on bus fares, unquestionably popular and indeed needed, but that was paid for by a cut in international climate finance. So we have a situation where the first decision of the new Prime Minister was to cap bus fares in Britain and cut support for the poorest countries to replace filthy, polluting diesel buses in their cities.

We will not be a global partner which is trusted if we make decisions like this. Yesterday I asked the leader what the new Prime Minister's proposals were for electoral reform, and the leader responded that there was no mandate for this. But equally, there wasn't a mandate for the Labour government cutting official development assistance to the lowest ever levels that I hope can be restored by the new Prime Minister. And I also appeal that the new Prime Minister on the international stage, of course, supporting Ukraine with support, of course, being a trusted partner around the world, but is a leader on the worst humanitarian crisis in the planet, where the UK is the United Nations Penholder, which is Sudan, the second area where the Prime Minister said in his recent Financial Times interview he wanted, which was growth and we support that.

He said he wanted percentage points growth. The latest OECD growth forecast puts the UK equal third in the G7 at 0.9%. This is not a sufficient, sustainable level of growth to balance our spending and debt pressures, which we've heard about in this debate today. Lord Pitt-watson referred to trade deals as part of the government's growth strategy. Yes, on Tuesday. But post-Brexit trade deals barely reach more than a third of 1% growth after 15 years. And the government's recent reset approach on SPS and other areas welcome, as they are also represent, on the government's own estimate, a third of 1% and as my noble friend Lord Newby had appealed, the government needs to think more ambitiously on our relationship with Europe and the Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister.

It's very disappointing that he did not take that opportunity to ditch the red lines, which are a straitjacket to our growth with our European partners. But finally, we will work with the government on other areas we've already seen. As my noble friend Baroness Sheehan said, some welcome moves on tackling the blight of waste. We've seen welcome moves on supporting the hospitality sector, and we will want to see the government working on water industry accountability. But we do need clarity on what the intentions are for Thames Water, and I hope that the Minister will be able to just circumvent all of this and say that he will be supporting my noble friend Baroness Sheehan's private member's bill, which will go a long way towards that.

And while we're at it, the Minister can support my noble friend Lord Oates private member's bill on youth justice, too. That would be a very good signal of the new government's intent. We welcomed very much over the summer, the Prime Minister reaching out to Ed Davey on care that was mentioned yesterday. If there are signs that there is a new type of politics for the remainder of this Parliament, as the noble Lady Baroness Hazarika indicated then working on a cross-party basis to move towards some degree of consensus on social care is necessary because we know that decisions which might be difficult will have to be made and they can only be sustainable if they are built on consensus.

And Ed Davey and these benches want to play our part. So we welcome the approach of the new Prime Minister in these areas. We will be pushing and pushing and pushing for further, faster reforms on our political system and our European relationship for growth. And we want to improve lives, and we want to make the reforms sustainable. And we hope that the Prime Minister will last more than the 21 months of the average tenure in order to seek these to be delivered.
16:58
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> Well, it has been an excellent debate. And there I do agree with debate. And there I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who I always attempted to agree with but sometimes falls short, which I do apologise, and I may later in these brief remarks. But like so many others, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for bringing forward the debate. He's a good and brave parliamentarian, actually, a good Labour man, a fine Minister.

And thank you for doing this today. As he knows, I did want to have effective scrutiny of the government's political priorities and legislative agenda before summer. We didn't get that. I'm glad this is happening today, but I say with the greatest respect, it should have been a government motion. The government is so proud of its agenda. The government should bring that motion. The government should put the time here, and I apologise for referring to it. But frankly, the Cabinet member in this House, the Leader of the House, should be present to address these questions.

So the noble Lord, Lord Collins, outstanding member, we came along to this gin joint about the same time and he'll give a good account. But, my Lords, this house must be taken seriously at the highest level and not left to a backbencher to initiate this. When Ministers avoid scrutiny, the whole country is left in limbo. And the longer we are in the dark on policies, the longer markets remain frozen and fearful. And that is a problem for our country, as we are seeing now.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord hunt referred to picked out several themes. The first was planning and I think we all agree that planning is far too sclerotic. I'm not certain that mayors are necessarily the answer I can speak for most major planning application in my borough, which went in over ten years ago and has only just been determined, was held up for about five years with the Mayor of London faffing around and intervening and changing his mind all the time.

It's not a panacea, and I think when we look at devolution, I'm concerned that devolution, which is now a good buzzword as a local government person, we must never lose sight. My Lords, that local government should be local. Now, instinctively, I understand that our new Prime Minister, with his role in Manchester and the sense that Manchester is a real place or group of places may feel that the whole country can be run in that way. But I thought the noble Lord, Lord Newby, had some wise things to say about the patchwork of communities, and we must be careful in this drive for devolution that we don't lose local accountability and local feeling and getting people back to work.

Of course, we all agree on that, and many have spoken in this debate about the tragedy of young people who don't have a job at social care. Also, we own this on this side, and we did cooperate and respond to the suggestion that there should be cross-party discussion. I hope that happens with regret. I regretted that when Prime Minister Theresa May put forward proposals before the morning had passed, there had been condemned by the other parties as a dementia tax and the whole thing was mobilised against the Conservative Party for electoral benefit.

So I think a bit of repentance all round and a new resolve to work together would be something we could all join in now. I thought. The noble Lord, however, was remarkably optimistic in his analysis of the present economic situation, and I'll come back to that at the end. It's not shared by many observers and hasn't been shared by everybody. It's actually spoken in the debate. But there have been some very interesting speeches on particular subjects. I think the noble Lord is quite right to say the noble Baroness Benjamin deserves an answer to the question that she put on on Windrush.

I thought that what Baroness Hazarika said about low level crime was very important, and I'm here encouraging things not only from the government but also in in my own party. I always amazes me that we see what's going on in California, the crazy decisions they take, the social consequences that happen, and we do the same things here. Why should we be surprised? We've seen what's happened. If you avert your eyes to low level crime, you get more of it. There were many other.

The noble Lord. Lord, I thought he made a very powerful intervention, as did the noble Baroness Gillian. Music and the noble Lord on science. I went. Had a liberal, useless education in classics myself, but I think that we overlook sometimes that a liberal education or a non-specific education is something very important. So I agreed with those speeches. Defence came up several. Several people in Lord hunt mentioned it Baroness Coffee, Baroness Hazarika again. Of course that's important. We wait to hear the commitments from the government how they will be put into effect.

Prime Minister has said that that will be made clear at the time of the budget. It must be made clear there must be a clear path to real targets because there is a threat from Russia, there is an international danger and we have to work together on that, as we have on Ukraine. And I very much welcome what the Prime Minister has reiterated, our joint commitment on Ukraine. Can I say that in that area? I hope very much the new Prime Minister will scrap the shameful pursuit of veterans for past offences.

I'd like to hear from the noble Lord opposite. There will be a review of that planned programme of legislation that is putting trust between the state and armed forces at risk. My Lords, Europe was mentioned with varying degrees of rapture, predictably high from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and from these benches with more skepticism elsewhere. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said something which is really important, which we should all share, is we do need clarity.

What is the path? What is the negotiating mandate? What are the objectives? What are we going to give away? And I think the government in this and many other things is, is leaving the world unclear. And that needs to be clarified on constitutional reform. Of course, there was great enthusiasm about the idea of electoral reform. A Prime Minister has said there needs to be a mandate for that. Can I say that mandate must be, if ever those ridiculous proposals are again put before the British people, the mandate must be backed by a referendum of the British people.

That is. That is essential. My Lords, housing and homelessness came up in the debate on many occasions, led by the noble right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Manchester. That is fundamental. We do need more homes. We promised a million more homes in 2019 and we delivered on that objective. The government's falling short on its objective. I hope that they will be able to improve that. Almost 100,000 fewer than were needed, according to that target, were actually delivered last year.

But, my Lords, the fundamental issue is, of course, the economy. Stupid. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know the. Baroness Jones said she disagreed with the idea Of growth. She was brave enough to say that. I'm surprised she's here. Actually, I thought she'd be in heaven. And Saint Pancras there campaigning. I suggest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

campaigning. I suggest. You need a better candidate than. What's that chap? Mr. Polanski, I don't think he's going to appeal to don't think he's going to appeal to many voters. But, my Lords, we get growth and we can only get growth. And here the Lord, noble Lord, Lord, Lord Walker, absolutely. Put it on the nail. We have to support business. We have to restrain tax. We have to reduce the burden on jobs. We the state. More state spending cannot create growth.

The state activity too often stunts growth. And I think I would think that the noble Lord, Lord Walker, made a speech which I'd be very happy to have heard from behind me, and I hope that. I hope that his colleagues read it carefully, because these are moments of difficulty, my Lords and my noble friend Lord Redwood is absolutely right that the borrowing costs now, month after month, day after day, are higher than they were in the spike under under Liz Truss.

This is a serious burden to a deeply indebted country, and I strongly disagree with the noble Lord Liddell, who want to add to the excessive borrowing. We have a whole spate of local government borrowing. My Lords, we need to manage the economy with great care. We need to restrain spending, restrain borrowing, restrain taxation and release enterprise incentive. Family hopes. Family aspirations. If not, there is a danger. We will get to a bad place. And I have to say to send one, Mr.

Healey to the IMF, as Labour did in 1976, was a misfortune. But to send another Mr. Healey would look like carelessness, because we do know the dangers, my Lord. So we wish the Prime Minister well. But as I said yesterday, and I don't need to repeat that we're hearing too much of this 1970s language, more state, more tax, more nationalisation, more control, more intervention. My Lords, that is not the way to a future. Let him be a bold, reforming Labour Prime Minister and have the courage to say something like Jim Callaghan said realistically to the Labour Party back in the 1970s, you cannot go on in the way of state intervention, state spending, taxation and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

borrowing. We have to set the people free. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. My Lords, I think we've had a great debate and I'm looking forward to responding to all the forward to responding to all the wide ranging points that have been made. But can I just say to the noble Lord, Lord. True. Of course, not only did the Prime Minister break a world record on Tuesday break a world record on Tuesday with a 3.5 hour statement setting out his priorities and being
17:09
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
subject to questions, he also, of course, did that at PMQs. But we had the repeat. As the noble Lord said yesterday of the statement. And again, the leader answered And again, the leader answered questions on that. And I was very pleased that the chief whip, backed pleased that the chief whip, backed by the Labour Party, whose debates today have been focused on this today have been focused on this subject. So I'm grateful for the noble Lord, Lord hunt, for submitting that debate.

But in effect, we've had five hours of debate today on the new programme of the new Prime Minister and the new government, and I think it's a great opportunity. And can I just say that, as the Prime Minister has set out, the government's agenda rests on four core areas, making Britain better off putting power back into the hands of communities, giving people room to breathe and tackling the most intractable problems so that Britain can believe in itself again.

And first, we will permanently shift decision making out of Westminster. That is not a return to the 70s. I'd say to the noble Lord we established the number ten North in Manchester, an engine room for devolution and local growth. Decisions affecting local areas will be taken by local leaders who know their communities best and underpinned by fiscal devolution and rebalanced public investment. And can I just also pay tribute to the comments made in this debate, particularly, I thought at the beginning with Baroness Coffey, she's absolutely right.

We do have to empower local leaders. We do have to empower Ministers. And I think actually, generally this debate been about how we bring people together. Tribute to this House. Second, the government will drive reindustrialisation and good growth in every postcode. We will back British business and industry at every opportunity. We are the party of enterprise, where the party of aspiration. Those are the sorts of missions that I think this government is absolutely committed to, and every pound of taxpayer spending will back British jobs, address skills shortages and support communities, and we will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, as my noble friend has pointed out so well.

Third, we will give communities room to breathe. 20% business rate discount for pubs, clubs and live music venues from April 27th. Bus fares capped at £2 and that removed from electricity bills this winter. Fourth, the government will tackle the systematic issues that have been ignored too long, and I will come back to these as the noble, the right Reverend prelate, Bishop of Mentioned Manchester mentioned ending rough sleeping, ending decades of political drift on social care, addressing youth unemployment crisis and building our way out of the housing crisis.

We will continue to pass legislation underpinning our political priorities to deliver this change on spending. It's not my place. And I repeat, I know the noble Lord, Lord true wants details, but it's not my place to preempt the Chancellor. But we are committed to fiscal discipline. The government, as my noble friend highlighted, is on track to reduce borrowing more than any G7 country and will reprioritise existing spending and budgets where necessary. My Lords, let me just turn to some of the specific points made in the debate, and I thank.

My noble friend is absolutely right. Planning has been a critical barrier to the necessary investments in our infrastructure. He asked me a specific question about Fingleton's recommendations, and can I reassure him that in The King's Speech we were committed to legislate in due course, and that remains our position? Absolutely. And can I just repeat, we are we don't want to continue with this period of speculation, and that's why the budget is going to be on the 28th of October and will be built on very strong fiscal discipline.

We're not borrowing for day to day spending, get debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the forecast. And we are on track, as I say, of reducing borrowing more than any other country. And I think my noble friend Lord Davis is absolutely right. There has been very strong progress on pensions, but also how pension funds can be used to drive that sort of growth that we're committed to. And I think my noble friend, Lord E12, raised a specific point about investment in science and technology.

And he's absolutely right. And I think, you know, we do have to address him. But let me reassure him that, you know, the the problems that the Stfc core budget has been affected by, of course, has been energy costs, staff costs, and unfavorable foreign exchange situations. But can I reassure him, major international subscriptions such as CERN are being fully protected. Stfc will also generate more external income through supporting industrial partnerships, commercialisation and better use of its assets.

The outcome, published in July, is long term sustainable plan for STFC, with Ukri providing an additional £135 million, enabling programmes to realise the benefits of current investments as transitions to a long term financial stable position. Can I also just also acknowledge my noble friend Baroness Hazarika's position? And I think it's reflected across the House. We are all committed to recognising the threats that we now face, and certainly our commitment to Ukraine has been absolutely on a cross-party basis, and this House remains absolutely united.

But we know that threat is serious. And I agree with my noble friend that the idea that Russia is not a threat is complete nonsense. We are absolutely committed to the 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. The Defence Investment Plan will be fully funded and defence will be an engine for good jobs across the country. I would point out that, you know, we signed over 1400 major defence contracts, 94% are within UK firms.

We're ensuring that that need to spend on defence actually benefits our communities across the United Kingdom. And we also, as my noble friend coca, has reminded the House recently, we have the biggest investment in military housing for half a century and the biggest pay rise for our armed forces absolutely committed. Can I also just say to my noble friend Lord hunt and to other noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend Lord Whitty, I want to reassure them that we are absolutely committed to our climate change commitments.

Investing £100 million in fire and rescue with record levels in flood defences to ensure that we are adapting to those climate change effects. And the summer has shown how important, how the clear impact of climate change has had on our country. And to Baroness Sheehan, I would also recognise, you know, the waste dumping as being an unmitigated disaster and a crime. And the PM will set out the need to plan to shut down those criminal gangs. He's given a commitment to that plan, and we have also given additional funding to those three major illegal waste sites in the country.

Can I also say to the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin, can I pay tribute to her for her constant raising the issue of the Windrush Windrush scandal? And I know that my noble friend Lord Hanson has answered questions to her on this issue, and I understand the impact of the compensation scheme, but I'm afraid I will have to write to her with the detailed response on that report. I can't go further than that at this stage. Can I also just pick up the point about health and social care? And the Prime Minister has been very clear that he does have a clear ambition to work on a cross-party basis to end decades of political drift and reform on adult social care.

And part of his mission is to tackle this issue, which has been ignored for too long. And as part of this work, Baroness Louise Casey is, as we know, chairing an independent commission into adult social care. And, of course, in July, the Prime Minister announced that publication of the Casey Review will be brought forward by a year to 2027, as well as work to go further on reform of social care workforce building. As my noble friend has raised, Baroness Rafferty on the Fair Pay Agreement, and I think these two issues are linked.

Baroness Royall raised the issue about staffing and the need for staffing, and I think Baroness Rafferty is absolutely right that we do need to ensure that there is fair pay in social care, because that's how we retain people and what we have said. It's an important step towards that ambition. Alongside wider workforce reforms like the care workforce pathway and our longer term vision for a national care service. And that's why we are taking a deliberate and phased approach.

It is important that reforms are implemented in a way that is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the sector. The first fair pay agreement, backed by £500 million in funding, will lay the foundation for future agreements. So I very much welcome that contribution. And of course, as the right Reverend prelate to the Bishop of Manchester raised, we have been very clear about the impact of homelessness, and the Prime Minister has understood the urgent social priority to end rough sleeping.

Backed by a dedicated 442 million funding package targeting funding established to offer everyone needing it a route off the streets by Christmas and part of the core mission to tackle infrastructure. But of course, housing is a really big issue and we need to tackle the housing crisis and boost economic growth. And 39,000,039 billion for social and affordable housing. The first 10 billion being allocated. And I'm glad my noble friend Baroness Taylor is here, because she's been highlighting to this House on numerous occasions the importance of this.

And, of course, 9.5 billion allocated to deliver 70,000 homes, 60% for social rent, the highest number of social rent completions since 2012. I think we've got a very clear pathway on that. Can I you know, in relation to the economy and our commitment to business and how we are actually focused on driving growth, particularly through that devolution and giving local leaders that responsibility? We also understand absolutely the impact of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. And our goal is getting people up for success, not paying for failure, 3.5 billion for tailored employment support, major making major changes to technical education to give 14 year olds access to skills and experience.

And we've just had a 2.5 hour debate on a number of those issues. But employment is at a near record high, risen by 1 million since the election, the third highest employment rate in the G7. Economic inactivity is down, but we do need to ensure that those young people who are not in education or employment or training do need to be addressed. And I think some of the schemes that we've seen are working the 300 £0 hiring bonus for firms hiring long term youth unemployed is just one of these examples, and I think it's absolutely important that we do understand that.

And, of course, a number of Lords and Lord foster has raised this issue about Europe. I think the Prime Minister has been very, very clear that we must be bolder in securing a closer relationship. And the UK, EU summit this year is the right way to boost GDP and growth and improve trade, defence and security. These things are not in isolation. That partnership with Europe is vital also to improving our security. But as my noble friend leader said yesterday, this is not opening the door to a single market or customs union, but there is a way that we can improve our partnership to deliver the things that we need to ensure our economic growth and security.

Can I just say that I think the noble Lord, Lord true, also mentioned some of the legislative changes in the programmes that we've had, and there will be I mean, there will be some changes in details of bills, as noble Lords would expect when there's a change in ministerial leadership, and ministerial colleagues will be updating, keeping noble Lords updated in the usual way, including by tabling amendments. Can I also just turn to the point that noble Lord, Lord Purvis has raised in terms of our democracy and as my noble friend Baroness Taylor made clear yesterday, we're absolutely committed to making our democracy fairer, more secure and more resilient.

And we've accepted all of the recommendations in Philip Croft's review of foreign interference in our democracy earlier this year and our legislation, as my noble friend made clear yesterday, is progressing through Parliament and will protect our elections and open up our democracy. A cap on 100 000 on political donations from overseas, protecting democracy from the surge of dirty money, and a ban on cryptocurrencies, and certainly were absolutely clear. But I would reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, our priority is a democracy that works for everyone, everywhere, not just people in some places.

And the Prime Minister still supports electoral reform as part of that mission. But he understands that it is a big constitutional question, and it is premature to legislate. Now. There does need to be a mandate, as I would reassure the noble Lord. Lord. True. I think we've made clear that mandates are governed by manifestos, not by some spurious other form that can be invented at any other time. But can I just I, I'm sort of running out of time, but I, you know, if there are areas that I haven't specifically addressed that have been raised, let me reassure noble Lords that I will write to them.

But I think this has been an incredibly useful debate, because I do want to reassure noble Lord. Lord, true that we are committed to working together to address the big issues that this country face. And I think particularly social care. But can I just say that the Prime Minister has set out his priorities for the country, making Britain better off putting power back into the hands of community, giving people room to breathe and and tackling the most intractable problems so that Britain can believe in itself again.

And I have outlined those issues. But can I just reassure noble Lords? I mean, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that said, 21 months has been the average. And I you know, I mean, let's let's be clear about this. There is an expectation out there that our big problems can be solved immediately. That is not the case. And I think as politicians, we can do more to get people to understand these challenges cannot be resolved overnight.

And that's why later this year, the Prime Minister will bring forward a new plan for Britain, a ten year plan laying out a path from where we are now and where we believe we all, we all want Britain to be combining immediate and direct action today with lasting national renewal and change, which will be felt across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the whole country. My Lords, I think I have about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think I have about 1.5 minutes to respond. So what I will do is to, first of all, thank all noble Lords who've taken part all noble Lords who've taken part in this debate. It has been very good natured debate and I'm very grateful for that. I would say to grateful for that. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord, true, I always enjoy his contributions, but I think that we've had a good run I think that we've had a good run in the House this week in terms of the government's future priorities.

We had the statement yesterday, the
17:29
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
extra 20 minutes for backbenchers, my noble friend Baroness Morgan. my noble friend Baroness Morgan. After all, the. Her debate was absolutely in the core purpose of the government, particularly in the government, particularly in relation to young people and vocational training. I would defend the right of backbenchers actually the right of backbenchers actually to lead debates on critical issues. So let me just say that, my Lords, So let me just say that, my Lords, there is very little time left. I then want to come back to the issue my noble friend left with, which is this issue about seeking some consensus and some of the hardest issues we face.

He mentioned social care. We've had two false starts in 2010, and then later on with Mrs. May's pronouncement and the response to it, let's make sure we don't do that again. Secondly, on climate, surely we should work hard to try and recreate a consensus on that. And actually there are issues like the triple lock. We all know we have to face up to this. Again, I would urge the need for some form of debate between the different parties to see if we cannot reach a sensible outcome.

Having said that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who've taken part and I beg to move. This motion, be agreed to, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This motion, be agreed to, as many of that opinion shall say, content not content. The contents of. My Lords, perhaps we might have of. My Lords, perhaps we might have a brief break while people leave Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026. Baron of Stevenage.
17:31
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026 and associated regret motion in the name of Lord Roborough Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

My Lords. Restoration Levy Regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on the 18th of June. As members will recall, the government has been consistently clear in our commitment to get Britain building and to deliver the homes and infrastructure this country needs, but we have been equally clear that this must go hand in hand with improving outcomes for nature. To honour that commitment, we legislated to introduce the Nature Restoration Fund through the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The government is incredibly grateful to members of this House, not just for the late nights that we sat through on the planning and infrastructure bill, but for the very constructive engagement throughout the bill's passage, which has ensured that the NRF provides a robust framework to support development and to secure a lasting legacy of environmental improvement.

The Nature Restoration Levy regulations provide the statutory framework for the operation of the Nature Restoration Levy, which sits at the core of the NRF. Before I get into the detail of the regulations, I would first like to respond to the motion before us. I want to be clear that the nature restoration levy has not been designed to undermine development viability. On the contrary, the levy is intended to provide developers with a clearer, more certain and more streamlined route to meeting specific environmental obligations.

The legislation includes a number of safeguards to ensure that levy rates are set appropriately, and are based on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the impacts of development on a protected site or species. Natural England will be required to consult on proposed charging schedules as part of the Environmental delivery Plan process, and levy rates will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State before an EDP is made. Through this approach, we are ensuring that development contributes fairly to environmental improvement while providing the certainty needed to support the delivery of essential homes and infrastructure.

As noble Lords will be aware, the purpose of the NRF is simple to ensure that vital development is delivered while taking more effective action at strategic scale to deliver better outcomes for the environment. This approach will move us away from one piece, from piecemeal interventions on a site by site basis, and will secure the delivery of conservation measures that go further than maintaining the status quo to drive genuine environmental improvement. Before we consider this instrument in detail, it is important to note that we are not today debating the fundamental principles that underpin the Nature Restoration Fund.

The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both houses and approved by them. Shifting to a strategic approach requires proper planning, which is why the creation of the environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of this new approach. Edp's will be developed by Natural England, the government's advisor on the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species.

Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England. At the conclusion of that consultation process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established through the act before they formally make the EDP. Where an EDP is in place. Developers will then have the option to pay the Nature Restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers. And this brings us to the subject of our discussions today.

As the government has been clear that the action delivered through EDP will be funded through proportionate contributions from development. This ensures that developers continue to address environmental impacts of development. The Nature Restoration Levy regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They provide the statutory framework for key elements of the Levy's operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred. They also explain how the amount of levy will be calculated, when the payment will be due, and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England, where obligations are not met.

The purpose of the Nature Restoration Levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. These regulations, therefore, provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of Edps. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner, and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules, which will form part of the EDP, which is consulted on, and these charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures that are needed to materially outweigh development impacts.

At times during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were raised that funds collected through the Nature Restoration Fund might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. However, I can reassure noble Lords that these regulations ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements around how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny.

While the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF. Initial guidance has now been published by Mhclg, Defra and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDP, and this guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. The government will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist in the delivery of the Nature Restoration Fund.

I trust the House will agree that these regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF and the roll out of EDP, and I move the regulation here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment. Lord Roger. My Lords, I thank the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble. Baroness, the Minister. For introducing these regulations. And while I am. Pleased to see her in her place,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleased to see her in her place, I do wonder why these regulations are being introduced by the Minister of State for MH CLG. When Minister of State for MH CLG. When we were assured during debate that the responsible Department and Secretary of State for administering the Edps and part
17:38
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
administering the Edps and part three of the act would be Defra. That's right. Before I really begin my my my intervention, I would draw the House's attention to my register of interests as a landowner with land that has planning consent for residential development, although I believe it is not captured by the regulations being debated today. My Lords, these regulations follow the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and form part of this government's new approach to mitigating and compensating for environmental impacts caused by developments under this new regime.

It will be for Natural England to determine the environmental impact of developments and the conservation measures required through new environmental delivery plans. Natural England will determine the levy, as well as how the funds will then be spent. My Lords, England's recent performance has undermined confidence, found the quango had acted irrationally and beyond its powers and licensing of gamebird releases its approach to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor caused controversy, as the unintended consequence would have been a sharp reduction in pony numbers, which apparently caught them by surprise, and the quango then tried to shift the blame onto the government.

Its track record in planning is also poor, with the infamous bat tunnel on HS2 and the Fish Disco at Sizewell both being designed to meet its onerous demands, as well as the unnecessary Ebbsfleet Triple C jumping spider decision. My main concern with these regulations is that they make no mention of considering the financial viability of developments. This essentially puts Natural England's demands over and above education, health, transport, infrastructure, affordable housing and other. We on these benches care deeply about the importance of protecting and improving our natural world.

However, putting the demands of nature over and above our health, our housing and our children's education is dangerous. As for many of our countrymen, it will make nature a threat to their direct needs. How can we trust Natural England when to assess environmental impact accurately? When the greater that assessment, the greater the funds they receive when creating Edps? How can we trust Natural England to deliver value for money without any market competition? Our natural England really the right bodies to be making balanced judgements about how much should be contributed under the NRL? This is simply extending the size and power of the state, always with good intentions, but always with the same negative results.

This cost, without any accountability, risks making even more developments unviable. Many housing schemes are already stalled due to financial viability issues, as developments have been treated as a Christmas tree that can solve all of society's demands. Developers may still opt for site specific mitigation measures, but this means carrying out assessments separately to the EDP. And even then, Natural England can choose to make the NRL mandatory. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify in what circumstances the levy payments could be made mandatory? Can the supply, when a developer is willing and able to comply with the existing mitigation hierarchy, will developers still be allowed to opt for existing compensation measures through the nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain markets within that hierarchy? An important element of nature restoration and financial underpinning for many land managers.

Not only does Natural England compete unsuccessfully with private sector BNG and PN developers, it can now eliminate that competition. Apparently it will. It looks as though the charging rates may be set very differently for each environmental delivery plan, and the Secretary of State will also have the power to change the payment rate of an EDP without consulting Natural England nor developers. How will the government ensure consistency for developers? What happens when a development happens to cross two or more EDP areas? My Lords, these regulations are disappointing.

They put nature in opposition to core societal needs by ignoring the financial viability of the levy, they put the bureaucrats of Natural England in charge of nature restoration, undercutting private markets without any apparent limitations on what they can extract from developers. There is no acknowledgement of the mitigation hierarchy, nor recognition of the importance of nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain markets. In fact, in many regards, they seem to have been drawn up as if the debates and commitments that we heard in committee and Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act never happened.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and the response of the noble Baroness, the Minister, perhaps the noble Baroness. The Minister could at least commit to restricting these edps to nutrient neutrality, where they will do the least harm. And following the government's bizarre determination to impose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites limiting development of at least 100,000 houses, there is clear demand for nutrient neutrality units, and it's something the noble Baroness, the Minister, was very generous with her time in discussing.

When we when we brought this bill through the House, and if she's unable to give consideration to that, perhaps even committing to withdraw these regulations and think again, if neither of those things are possible, I would be very minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was the regulations laid before the House on the 18th of June be approved? on the 18th of June be approved? Since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Roborough, the. At the end, insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I am conscious that we spent a lot of time in the primary spent a lot of time in the primary legislation trying to understand and I'm not overly convinced that these regulations now help. One of the issues is, and I've been reading carefully Hansard from the Commons, where the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, was explaining, and there was some things in there which surprised me, and somewhere it should still be a matter of concern for the government that, for example, the necessary tech needed to undertake this whole process still isn't ready.

So it's unclear about how this will actually move forward. I also share my honourable my noble friend Lord
17:45
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Roberts concerns. I actually had a response from the Defra Minister that the Secretary of State for that the Secretary of State for Defra would be issuing the guidance on all these matters. It's accurate on all these matters. It's accurate to say Defra were, but it was also in conjunction with Mhclg, and I think this comes back to some of think this comes back to some of the ongoing nervousness about who is really driving this and is. Is is really driving this and is.

Is Defra just an add on? And the reason I say that in a different way is also because the Minister yesterday, Matthew Pennycook, talked about wanting to make clear that they would protect developers who choose to use the NRF from unjustified costs, and I'm unclear on who will determine what costs are unjustified. We know this is a novel way we're proceeding now in terms of trying to forecast many years ahead of how much the costs of this different edps are going to be, and there will be scrutiny for that.

But I'd like to understand also from the noble Baroness, the Minister, I understand the first EDP is addressing new nutrients, nutrient neutrality in Norfolk. Why? At the moment the consultation is only expected to be for 28 days of the EDP. That feels a very short time for the first ever of these models, and considerable amount of effort will need to be put in, I think, to assess them. I think the other surprise to some extent is actually that part of the country is one of the better areas for having actually got a green finance market going.

And so this is actually undermining a lot of the issues which we face in trying to make these a success. So it would be useful to understand from the Minister why we are starting there. There are plenty of other places dealing with nutrient neutrality issues, I think are the Solent, parts of Somerset and the like, where there isn't the same level of green finance market already underway in terms of also just trying to work out, I don't know if it's the regulations or the primary legislation that allows the Secretary of State to change the levy rate at any time without notice, and just trying to understand what when that would be the case under these regulations and why that would not require any consultation in that regard.

My Lords, the issue that I. I am was pleased to see that the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, put that it's in the case of the first EDP we bring forward, it will be the Defra Secretary of State who makes a judgement on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation. My hope is an expectation based on what was said in this chamber, is that the Secretary of State for Defra would make all the decisions on every EDP, not just the first, so I wouldn't be grateful to the Minister as we embark on these.

As I say, these novel ways of trying to improve nature and I respect that the government is trying to do that, that that she could make those. Try and answer those questions. I think the other element is that that's perhaps a bit surprising, and it's surprising developers as well. I know that a developer can ask for several quotations. I think the phrase uses quotes to understand what they might be getting into, but effectively, once they've made their planning application and make that commitment to pay, they're locked in.

And that is an interesting challenge as well. Now, I know that Natural England will need some certainty in in trying to develop the EDP. What sort of financing. But it does feel, bearing in mind what my noble friend has just been referring to, confidence is not high. And it. The other issue, which I hope does not quite come through, is that, of course, in the primary legislation, Natural England was able to delegate Edps to anybody. So again, it's not clear to me through these regulations how that bit is monitored and managed, and especially considering just the 28 day consultation period.

My Lords, there are many issues to raise, but I'm sure others will bring up various points. But all I can say is this does not feel like it's made the whole process clearer. In fact, it's genuinely muddied the waters, particularly those around nutrient neutrality.
17:49
Lord Randall of Uxbridge Portrait Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. And these regulations have been drawn to the special attention of the House by the attention of the House by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the basis that they are politically or legally important. Are public policy likely important. Are public policy likely to be of interest? Now, I have some points that I've raised. I'm not necessarily coming from points where my noble friends are are from the point of developers, but I do recognise the importance of getting developments properly done.

The regulations have been drawn to the new impact assessment has not been conducted despite the prior impact assessment, not assessing impacts beyond those relating to nutrient pollution. This also means that we still have not seen sufficient evidence to justify the need for these new provisions. The draft regulations are not strong enough to safeguard against abuse of the system. The details set out in the draft regulations will not protect local protected species and sites from the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Natural England will be expected to pick up the bill for developer obligations in several scenarios, despite being under massive sustained budget pressures themselves.

These include not being able to apply surcharges for failure to pay sums of under £1,000, not being able to enforce local land charges with less than £200. With less than £2,000 outstanding and having to absorb some degree of cost where material changes occur that will cost more money under draft regulations 2332. Natural England could reduce levy fields if they are expecting other sources of funding, which I understand means that public money could be used to offset the harm done by private development.

It's unclear to me whether Natural England can include the cost of designing the conservation measures in the levy amounts. Failure to do so will heavily incentivize generic copy and paste measures over more ecologically appropriate measures. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have highlighted several issues, including the lack of clarity of what the fund levy would look like in practice. Organizations environmental organizations strongly oppose the environment delivery plan model. Nonetheless, if it's going to go ahead and I believe it will do, some measures must be taken to limit the damage done by this model.

Natural England should be driven by environmental outcomes, not financial viability for developers. Public funding should not be used to reduce the rates in a charging schedule for private developers, as would be possible under regulation 23. Two of the draft text Natural England should be explicitly permitted to include the cost of designing conservation measures within the charging schedules. Appeals should be dealt with by independent, non-political actors and not a Secretary of State. A full assessment must be conducted on the impacts of the Environment Delivery Plan system before the first plans are enacted.

These impacts should be considered during the design of the plans in order to avoid to avoid avoidable harms, to protected species, protected sites and other environmental features and the stakeholders involved. I urge the government to make meaningful changes to tackle the issues that are raised here and as I suspect, the. Despite the endeavours of many. These regulations go ahead, but I would. What my noble friend has said that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this is a good case for again. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, environmentalists are up in arms are the Nature Restoration Fund and Edps because they break the link between a they break the link between a development and its nature mitigations. Developers are saying that the cost risks delay are that the cost risks delay are making development unviable, whilst everybody argues nothing's getting built in those areas of the country built in those areas of the country with the greatest housing potential. Now, taken together with all the environmental fees, charges and
17:53
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
other levies, it's put the price of a new home up by about 30 to £40,000 in the last five years. And £40,000 in the last five years. And the hard truth is that well-meaning but counterproductive nature, levies and other other levies are levies and other other levies are damaging our economy with brickies, ground workers, sparkies, carpenters, chippies all sitting carpenters, chippies all sitting idle. And of course, the simple truth is not building new homes, especially social homes, which are especially social homes, which are the first to get the job when the when viability is under question.

Not building those homes isn't going to clean up the rivers and the organization that's meant to grip this has singularly failed in the five years since. It's misdirected Ministers that families trying to get their feet on the housing ladder should bear the brunt of upgrading the sewage treatment works, rather than the water companies whose job it really is now. The situation we find ourselves in today is as a direct result of Natural England misdirecting itself as to the science and the arithmetic of nutrient mobility.

They confused absorption with absorption, and they misrepresented the scientific papers they purport to say supports their position when the reverse is the truth. And by way of declaration of interest, I'm involved in the fertilizer industry. Understanding nutrient mobility in soils is one of my specialist subjects. And about four years ago, when it became obvious that Natural England had stymied house building in my area and was incapable of addressing river pollution, I established the Norfolk Environmental Credits Company, a company owned by all the councils of Norfolk, to do the job that England, Natural England have the staffing powers, software and responsibility to do, but didn't.

I was the person that set up that green financial market referred to by my noble friend Baroness Coffey. And now, five years on, it wasn't for people like me rolling up my sleeves to get this problem addressed and franchising it to other council areas and other catchments. No new homes would have been built in the entirety of this Parliament. And, you know, I'd like to take credit for this, and but I am anxious that all this hard work will be for nothing if Natural England takes our homework and runs away with it, and leaves us high and dry, because the problem is that natural England have been allowed to get away with being simultaneously the regulator, the adviser, the enforcer, the operator, the price, the price and the procurer and competitor.

In a market in the grossest case of multiple conflicts of interest that in any other walk of life would be closed down for being contrary to the public interest. Their advice has caused us to sleepwalk into an Alice in Wonderland situation, where a fertilizer colleague could sell a farmer a kilo of phosphate for £0.85, but the developer must spend £50,000 to remove it from the treatment works at the other end. Other end. And if that wasn't crazy enough, the government has made the problem of river pollution even worse by subsidizing the production over 20 million tons of biogas digestate applied to the land at the wrong time of year, which does more than any other thing to turn the rivers green.

Yet these polluters don't pay a penny into the fund. It's wrong. All these levies have bought developers to their knees. All they wanted to know was how much, when, where and how these charges would be applied. The scope, extent, cost and regulation that the Edp's require an an evidence evidence based, transparent manner with a degree of consistency from one place to another. But it was too much to hope for when the regulations were laid in June. The first were all about how natural England could charge and enforce their fees, and we're still none the wiser on the important things.

The credibility of the Nature Restoration Fund ultimately rests on a simple question Will the levy income be sufficient to fund conservation measures for as long as they are required to deliver the promised environmental outcomes? When we went through the Planning and Infrastructure Act or Bill, we warned of the consequences of allowing Natural England to lead on this when they couldn't get their story straight on the jumping spiders, the ponies, the advice on bird flu that's been used as a bogus pretext to license shooting in the land use framework.

My Lords, they have ceased to be trusted and to their indolence. We still have no idea whether Edp's would issue some sort of permit or a licence for the resident to flush his lavatory in his new home. Now, that distinction is important because a permit is an asset that is tradable on the secondary market and repeating the milk quota disaster of the 1980s, whereas a licence, if no longer needed, perhaps a sewage treatment works has been upgraded, can be surrendered to the mitigation can be applied again for the benefit of the taxpayer for the remainder of the 80 year term.

So is it a licence or a permit? We don't know. This is an important matter and now we get to the pricing. The market for phosphate credits has settled at around £5,000 per dwelling, and that fee covers not just the immediate costs of introducing the mitigation, but also those tail liabilities of management for at least 80 years, together with inspection and regulatory costs along the way. As I explained in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, this is an actuarial evaluation problem. The problem is that Natural England exhibits little understanding of this economic reality.

All the indications are they'll just pick a number out of the air, wholly related and untethered to those liabilities, and in so doing, chop off at the knees. People like myself, through our councils who rolled up their sleeves to fix the problem when Natural England wouldn't. And if they do that at a stroke, it'll further damage our economic reputation. Because there is one area where the UK has developed some quite interesting and valuable, valuable intellectual property in the running of nature markets, and all the indications are that they're cack handed.

Ignorance will destroy the accumulated value of these nature markets completely. Our company has already had to take an impairment. So when is the government going to get a grip and rein in this organisation? There's so wilfully misunderstood. The science made our economies smaller homes, more expensive, social homes unbuilt workers and professionals sitting at home, mitigations delayed. When our global leadership in nature market is imperilled, when Natural England's, through their regulation, through their regulations, first priority was simply to featherbed their own bureaucracy.
18:00
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> This discussion this evening is the first chance this House has had the first chance this House has had to really try to understand exactly how the government is intending to implement the EDP new process, which we debated at such considerable length during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and a certain noble Lords have already said these regulations give us very little clarity about the process. It was our benches which actually secured at the Third Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, that there would be greater clarity from Natural England as to how they would prepare EDP and the prioritisation they would give to the actions to minimize the potential environmental damage that developments as a result of these edps would would be addressed.

Now, we did have the negative Statutory Instrument, which was laid in June, which did talk about how natural England had to take account of the mitigation hierarchy, but there was the rider that it should be they could do that only when they thought it was appropriate to do so. So there was almost a sort of a get out of jail card free. And the issues which the noble Lord Krebs and Baroness Willis focused on, which was getting clarity up front about the scientific evidence to provide the baseline.

Environmental assessments weren't mentioned at all in those regulations and indeed aren't covered again in the regulations before us today. And therefore, it seems that we will have to wait for the consultations on each individual EDP as they come forward to try and actually assess those critical environmental issues. And Baroness Coffey made a very important point. It has become clear that we are only going to get 28 days for each of those consultations, for that very complex job of understanding those environmental factors.

And I think that is something we we regret, and we would ask the government to think again about limiting the public consultation on those Edps to 28 days, given there has been so little detail in the regulations, it is necessary that at that stage, during the public consultation that we can get greater clarity. But on the the regulations that are here before us today, I have three substantive points of concern. And like Lord Roeber, though for different reasons in the main, I regret the regulations that are here before us.

The first one is around the fact that the levy can be paid in instalments by developers, whereas the present system that we have for developers, where they're going to bring forward development, which will cause environmental damage, the payment has to be upfront and the environmental mitigation has to be upfront. In these regulations, the only tied down part of the funding that the developer will have to produce is the first instalment. Now, this was an issue that the Secondary Legislation scrutiny committee picked up, and as we have heard, they got a response, which was that clearly that was around the issue of cash flow and viability on build outs, on development.

And in a sense that is understandable. But what we have seen in other areas where developers have come forward and argued later dates around viability is you get protracted arguments around those funding constraints, and that can lead to the fact that the environmental, the environmental improvements that we wish to see wouldn't actually come forward. So that is a concern for us that that only the first instalment is fixed down. Secondly, the issue that there which the noble Lord Randall raised, which is that there can be a reduced fee for developers if other sources of funding can be found.

Now, from my point of view, that seems to me that if charities or the public purse are funding environmental improvements in in in an EDP area, that means that somehow developers can get out of paying the amount that they should be paying. That doesn't seem to me to be right, and I'd like the Minister, if she could, to clarify exactly what funding that they think this is referring to. Could this be funding that's coming from charities or funding from the public purse, either through Natural England or through other schemes? The public purse is funding, but then that doesn't seem right that there can be reduced levies for developers if other actors are funding environmental developments in that area.

And the third issue, and this is one that Lord Robert raised, and which I feel particularly strongly about, is that in the explanatory memorandum to these regulations, it says that for some IDPs, the levy will be mandatory. Now we've got 16 IDPs that the government has said it is producing. And I think it would be good to know how many of those. The government thinks the levy will be mandatory for, because it effectively kills dead the private market, green schemes that are out there.

And that is something that I think we would all not wish to see. Indeed, the government has said they they want to see a plurality of of solutions to address the development and environmental challenges that we face now. During recess, I went down to the Solent and saw the very impressive nutrient management market down there, which has been developed by a combination of the Wildlife Trust and local authorities, where the Wildlife Trusts bought up and intensively managed piece of land, stopped using fertilizer and sold credits to developers.

And that scheme has resulted in 2500 homes being built in the Solent, in an area where there are big nutrient problems. Now, as soon as the EDP scheme was announced, that was put on hold and now has effectively stopped. And equally, and this was something that the concern the noble Baroness and Lord Fuller, the. There is a scheme in Norfolk, and therefore all I would say is apologies, yes, that we're really concerned about the mandatory nature of this scheme.

We need to encourage a plurality of systems, and these regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't do that. Apologies. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for her introduction of these regulations. And can I also thank my noble And can I also thank my noble friend Lord Robert for his motion and thoughtful words, and also the and thoughtful words, and also the thoughtful words of the other noble Lords participating in this debate. I think there is universal I think there is universal agreement that these regulations don't work. My Lords, we all want to see our natural environment preserved, but people also need somewhere to live.

There are 1.34 million people on council waiting
18:07
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
lists. Homes in many parts of England are simply unaffordable, with the average home costing ten with the average home costing ten times average. London wages for private renters rent is taking an increasing proportion of household income around about 40% in England, and nearly two thirds for some of and nearly two thirds for some of the lower income households, and the situation is worsening, with the situation is worsening, with paper money estimating 220 000 fewer rental properties as landlords exit the market following the government's Renters rights bill.

My Lords, we have a housing crisis and this government continues to make the situation worse. Despite the government's commitment to build 1.5 million new homes, only 200 000 homes were delivered last year, down 4% on the previous year. By contrast, the Conservatives delivered a million homes as promised over the last parliament, and that included the impact of Covid. The government continues to increase the burdens on housebuilding, which ultimately increases the cost to home buyers and renters. It's not just any one regulation or levy, but the continual layering of additional burdens building levy, landfill tax, high rise, building safety 106 Future Home Standard, amongst others.

The Home Builders Federation estimates that the cost of building a low rise home has increased by 76,000 since 2020. Now, my Lords, it's easy to say that this should be reflected in the price of land, but often the value is simply not there, particularly for brownfield land. And with the poor economic outlook and increasing interest rates, people cannot afford higher house prices or rents. My Lords, if the cost of building is greater than the sales price, homes will not be built.

And I fear that in many areas of the country we are approaching this point now. We do not dispute that harm to nature must be managed, mitigated and compensated for. It is a crucial consideration for any planning application. But people also need somewhere to live. During the Planning and Infrastructure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Debate, mitigation, hierarchy, viability and mandation were Debated and the House sought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debated and the House sought assurances. We need developments to provide infrastructure, whether it's schools, roads or health it's schools, roads or health facilities, as well as affordable homes. But these regulations risk homes. But these regulations risk cuts to these in order to make sites viable. Now, my noble friend sites viable. Now, my noble friend Lord Robert and Lord Fuller and Baroness Coffey all raised the issue of Natural England and its effectiveness and efficiency. Do we really want it to be judge, jury and executioner? Setting the policy, determining if it has been met and then setting up its own schemes and levies with no accountability, able to create its own monopoly and eliminate competition? As the noble Baroness Parminter mentioned in the Solent.

The Minister sorry. Minister, you know, has said that the homes England sorry, natural England will be accountable to the Secretary of State. But is it realistic that the Secretary of State is going to be able to fully evaluate the financial effectiveness of every EDP, all the potential competing schemes that are being eliminated for it, not to mention the needs of every single site that might be affected by the EDP. I am not sure that that is realistic. The Minister has said that this will not be an obligation of developers.

However, the regulations are littered with the phrases obligation imposed, mandatory and enforcement. We must also reduce our reliance on major housing developers. Yet it is the smaller developers who will be most exposed to the individual costs and levies of this regulation. What assurances can the Minister give that viability will be a core part of these regulations that schools, infrastructure and affordable homes will not lose out, that Natural England will not be able to impose a mandate. That consideration will be given for SME builders and recognition of the need to prioritise brownfield.

And as my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge pointed out, when will we see the impact assessment of this legislation? Sorry, regulation, my Lords. We need a balance between the need to preserve our environment and the need for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing, and regulators need to be accountable. My Lords. I am grateful to all noble Lords for the considered contributions in for the considered contributions in this debate, I would say that it's this debate, I would say that it's been a useful debate, but some of it has reflected some of the issues that we'd already rehearsed in the that we'd already rehearsed in the Planning and infrastructure bill, and not focus as much on the regulations. I will try and touch regulations.

I will try and touch on as many points as I can that noble Lords have raised, but I'm sure you'll appreciate in a short debate like this one if I don't get to them, I may have to respond in writing. The noble Lord raised the issue, and I think it is a very key issue about the balance between Mhclg and Defra in relation to this issue, both in terms of specifically around IDPs, but also more widely about the issue of the Nature Restoration Fund.

I think we're going to have to get used to working across more than one department for some of these issues. Defra clearly has a very key role in this, but Mhclg is the ministry responsible for planning. So we do have to make sure that we get that balance right. As far as I know, it will continue to be the case that Defra is responsible for IDPs. We had long discussions in the Bill about the Secretary of State for Defra signing off the IDPs.

I think that was concluded. If that's not the case, I'll come back to him, but certainly my memory of the bill was that that that was definitely the case. A number of noble Lords have raised issues, as we had discussions during the course of the Bill around Natural England capacity and capability. The noble Baroness Coffey, Lord Jameson. And I think that, you know, we did have those discussions. As I said, Natural England are the appropriate delivery body for the NRF. They have internal expertise and their ability to operate effectively across the whole of England, and by providing an alternative to the existing approach of that very what we saw, which was a fragmented site by site mitigation through the introduction of a strategic plan led system, the NRF enables Natural England to deploy more expertise more efficiently across regional geographies.

They will be supported to take strategic action and to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual IDPs, using income from the Nature Restoration Levy, and the regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover administrative costs. There were a number of questions about this. They can use that for the
18:14
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
administrative costs associated with the delivery, but of individual IDPs not not spread across the country, and that will across the country, and that will enable Natural England to build and maintain capacity and capability to design, implement and monitor IDPs effectively. The noble Lord Cobra focused a lot of his comments on focused a lot of his comments on viability and I and so did the noble Lord Fowler, and I understand noble Lord Fowler, and I understand the reasons for that. I would point out initially that, of course, planning the NRF is not the only consideration in planning in relation to infrastructure plan, the whole planning system, and we've just republished.

The NPF makes it very clear that all issues around infrastructure must be taken into account. Now, in relation to the NRF, Natural England will have the flexibility to set rates that reflect local circumstances and capture specific environmental and delivery considerations across the EDP, and where levy rates need to be higher. This will reflect the genuine cost of securing required conservation measures to address the impact of development. The vast majority of IDPs will be voluntary. I'll come on to the mandatory issue in a moment, so developers will be able to choose between using the EDP or meeting environmental obligations through existing means.

Rates will be set out in the individual EDP charging schedules, alongside information regarding how the rate has been set. So that will be a requirement on Natural England to set out how they've set their rates. And levy rates will vary between EDP and can be calculated for specific development by reference to factors including the type of development, the location and environmental impact. Now, just on the mandatory EDP, the noble Baroness Parminter both mentioned this. We would only expect EDP to be made mandatory in very limited circumstances.

For example, where Natural England have worked directly with the developer on a specific EDP to cover their project alone. And of course, all EDP will be subject to full public consultation before they can be made by the Secretary of State, and given that the vast majority of them will be voluntary, if an EDP isn't a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers can continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits that the NRF is designed to achieve.

So, in all but exceptional circumstances, EDP will be voluntary. The noble Lord Bradbury raised the issue of the mitigation hierarchy. And if. If this has been. If that's been weakened by this process, leaving natural England with too much discretion. Throughout the passage of the app, we were clear the mitigation hierarchy lives on in this model. Natural England are not required to apply in the inflexible way that is often constrained strategic nature recovery, and to make sure the government was as transparent as possible.

On this point, a specific duty was introduced in the House requiring regulations to be made, setting out the appropriate prioritisation by Natural England of the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development and the EDP appropriate prioritisation regulations laid alongside the regulations before us deliver on that commitment. They make it clear Natural England must consider the mitigation hierarchy when developing an EDP, while preserving the discretion of Natural England to determine the appropriate conservation measures in the circumstances.

Now the noble Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness Willis, have been working very effectively with Defra on these issues and I'm very grateful to them for their input. We've had some issues raised around, shall I call it, gold plating of conservation measures, notably by Lord Rosebery and Lord Fuller? Well, Natural England must prepare EDP based on the best available scientific evidence and explain why the proposed conservation measures are appropriate. They're also required to set levy rates that will enable the recovery of costs of delivering the EDP, rather than generate surplus funds, and all.

EDP, as I said, are subject to public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State. And finally, of course, Natural England will be incentivised to ensure the levy remains competitive and attractive to developers as EDP will be voluntary in almost all circumstances. So if they gold plate them, developers won't accept them. I think it's as simple as that. The noble Baroness Coffey and the noble Lord Bradbury raised issues around consultation. I'm going to go back and check on this because there are government consultation guidelines, which I'm assuming have been recognised in the consultation on this.

But if the noble Baroness will allow me, I'll go back and check that this this type of consultation does follow those government guidelines, and I'll respond in writing on that point. On the issue of setting the levy raised by the noble Lord Randall Noble, Baroness Coffey and the noble Lord Fuller, the levy regulations establish clear parameters that Natural England have to follow when setting the levy rates, and they also recognise that costs underpinning Edp's will vary according to environmental impacts being addressed and the conservation measures required.

This framework provides Natural England with the flexibility to set levy rates that reflect local needs and delivery requirements, and the levy is designed to enable full cost recovery, so there shouldn't be cost to Natural England for that, and rates are required to reflect the cost of delivering the necessary conservation measures, as well as administration monitoring and maintenance activities. And the governing test remains the overall improvement test so that the EDP will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. And I would just say that while I understand some of the concerns, particularly around viability, we can't carry on with a situation where developers were polluting doing development, which was polluting our rivers in a way that has caused in alternate damage to them.

So we had to take some action on this. Levy rates will also take account of relevant administrative costs necessary to the delivery of the EDP, under which the levy is charged. There were some questions on funding from other sources. I think Baroness Parminter particularly raised this, but I think Lord Randall had some concerns on this issue as well, that the ability to reduce levy payments, where there's funding from other sources, will result in developers not paying their fair share. That's not the case. The provision is intended to allow a targeted flexibility in very limited circumstances, enabling the government or other sources to contribute to the costs of delivering an EDP, where appropriate, to support viability for certain types of priority development.

So that's what that provision is in the regulation for. Baroness Parminter asked about the timing of levy payments. And this is a very important point. I know she's concerned about the payments by instalments. The regulations enable payments to be made in instalments to better align with the realities of build out phases, but this will only be possible where expressly provided for by Natural England through instalment plans and installment plan. Options may vary between EDP. So where an installment plan is used, payments will typically be spread across the development period rather than being required in full up front.

However, even where an installment plan applies, the first installment must be paid before development can commence. And I won't go into the detail because I haven't got time. But there are clear provisions to help Natural England with enforcement and with the follow up if payments are not made. So we have looked very closely at that. In conclusion, the instrument sets out a framework for the Nature Restoration Levy and provides Natural England with the tools they need to implement the NRF. I would say in response to the noble Lord Jamieson, who's who's made his points mainly about a housing crisis, a housing crisis that his government caused and we are now trying to fix.

I make no apologies for wanting to build these homes. I make no apologies for the £39 billion we're investing in housing. I make no apologies for wanting people's homes to be safe and secure for them, and for wanting their environments to be sustainable. And now, I trust the House agrees that these regulations will support both the delivery of the Nature Restoration Fund and our shared ambition more widely to grow both nature and the economy, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope these regulations will be welcomed. I beg to move. Before the Minister system. Can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister system. Can I just clarify a couple of comments that she made? The Minister was that she made? The Minister was very clear that there would be an option, whether one went with the option, whether one went with the natural England EDP. Now, can we be absolutely clear that will always be the case, particularly when Natural England is marking their Natural England is marking their own homework and deciding whether a. Whatever the mitigation that is put in place by a developer is suffice or not.

Secondly, they said that it would only be mandatory in very specific situations and gave the example of a EDP that was specifically brought forward for a particular large development. Can the Minister be clear that is the only instance that it would be mandatory? And thirdly, I'd just to clarify a point. I think the Minister said that developers cause pollution. I believe it's the fact that additional housing results in additional burden on nutrient neutrality. It's not necessarily that the developer is polluting of itself.

The Minister might want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarify that one. Well, I will clarify in all but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I will clarify in all but exceptional circumstances, EDP is a voluntary for developers. The Planning and Infrastructure Act establishes natural. England could establishes natural. England could only ever recommend the use of an EDP be mandatory where they deem it to be necessary. This is a high to be necessary. This is a high legal bar, and it would ultimately be for the Secretary of State to consider whether an EDP is made, and given that the vast majority of those edps will be voluntary.

If an EDP isn't a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers will continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits. As I said that the NRF is designed to achieve, we want to make this process work better for nature while continuing to allow the growth we all want to see to take place, particularly housing growth. And there is no doubt in my mind that we couldn't carry on as we were.

We've had to make some changes to make sure that we do both protect our natural environment, but get the growth we want to see.
18:25
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. this in this short debate. If I might just clarify, one point made by my noble friend Lord Randall, I hope no one thinks I'm speaking on hope no one thinks I'm speaking on behalf of developers. I'm speaking on behalf of nature. And my concern is that we give if we give nature is that we give if we give nature too much power in this debate, it will be seen as a blocker of development, and that is not necessary. And that that is why I'm concerned about this viability test.

I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, who I think made a lot of very helpful comments at the despatch box, which will people will read Hansard avidly, I'm sure, for for guidance from what she said and in particular for the clarification about the role of the mitigation hierarchy. However, I remain concerned about the viability impact of these regulations on house building and other development. I also remain very concerned about the impact on private nature markets where we currently lead the world, and therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House and I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that the amendment, in the name of Lord Rosebery be agreed to, as many of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rosebery be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question will be decided by a division. The question. Will be division. The question. Will be decided by a division. Voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you. I. I. I I. I couldn't
18:29
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page