Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(5 days, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 502N, in my name, would insert a proposed new clause after Clause 62, which raises the issue of seclusion in education, particularly in the form of isolation rooms.
Isolation rooms have serious implications for the emotional and psychological well-being of children, especially disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. This is a probing amendment that would introduce a statutory definition of seclusion. It would empower the Secretary of State to regulate its use through consultation. If regulations are made, my amendment requires minimum protections: banning seclusion as discipline, notifying parents, recording incidents and ensuring internal safeguarding oversight.
The experience of seclusion impacts too many children today—children with speech, language and communication needs—whose communication may not be understood, recognised or supported in that moment. Children with ADHD may find it hard to regulate strong emotions without timely support, and yet instead of being supported they are removed, placed alone and not free to leave, in rooms with such labels as isolation, calm, breakout room, nurture space or any other number of euphemisms. What they experience is seclusion, whether it happens in a locked room, a space with a closed door, or an area where the child is simply not permitted to leave. The impact is the same: a loss of connection and potential safety.
Disabled children and those with special educational needs are disproportionately affected. Some children are removed daily, and there is no guarantee that parents will be told. These experiences can be isolating, traumatic, and deeply damaging to a child’s sense of safety and belonging. Other sectors, such as healthcare and secure settings, already regulate seclusion and deprivation of liberty. Education should not be an exception.
The Department for Education acknowledged the issue in its 2020 guidance, but guidance alone does not close a legal loophole. This proposed new clause invites us to act thoughtfully and proportionately, to close a legal gap that has persisted for far too long. It is not a radical proposal. It is a proportionate, enabling amendment, grounded in evidence, shaped by lived experience and guided by the principle that no child should be left unsupported or invisible in the name of behaviour management. Seclusion happens in our schools, even if we do not call it that. This proposed new clause would not ban it but would give us the tools to see it, define it and scrutinise it. At the very least, we should agree that when a child is confined and not free to leave, we ought to know and we ought to care.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 502YF, proposed by my noble friend Lord Nash, and Amendments 502YV to 502YYA, proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran.
There has long been a lot of discomfort about permanent exclusions. No one likes the idea that there are children who cannot thrive in mainstream schools or who are too likely to harm others to be allowed to attend them, but last year’s youth justice statistics show 12,000 convictions of children for offences of violence, 3,000 for knife-related offences and 1,400 for sexual offences. Serious misconduct does not begin only once children have left school. There is also a lot of hope that keeping children in mainstream schools, no matter what they may do, will avert later criminality, but in fact excluded children are more likely to have come into contact with youth justice services before they are excluded than after. Because we have been remarkably successful in reducing the number of children in custody, there are more children with very serious behaviour problems in the school system who might once not have been there.
What I saw at Ofsted is that the vast majority of schools work extremely hard to keep children in mainstream schools. Relatively few exclusions are unjustified. Many parents, especially those with children who have been harmed by other children, believe that there is too much pressure rather than too little on schools not to exclude. The vast majority of exclusions are a culmination of a long period in which a school does all that it knows how to do to support a child and help them to progress academically and socially.
As a result, I believe that we have a problem of a different nature. Many teachers will tell you that it is often possible to spot the children who are most likely to fall out of school as early as reception year, or even earlier, but the pressure is always to keep them in mainstream schools, even when that school can do little more than warehouse a child with teaching assistants until this becomes manifestly unhelpful for the child and the parent succeeds in obtaining an EHCP and a special school place.
We do not start contingency planning for those children as early as we should and could, which contributes to there not being enough specialist provision. Even at the point of permanent exclusion, our laws and processes are focused on the legitimacy of the exclusion and the process that has been followed. What is not part of any of those processes is a pragmatic assessment of what kind of education to adulthood will give the excluded child the best chance in life, by which I mean reaching adulthood with basic skills in place, functioning within social norms, being willing and capable of holding down a job and, in the longer term, being capable of sustaining a marriage or stable relationship. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Nash will help to concentrate minds on how best to do what it is in the power of the state to do to help excluded children to the best possible future.
My noble friend’s Amendments 502YV and onwards in this group would also help to direct attention appropriately. They reflect a pragmatic recognition of the circumstances in which the harm to other children from reinstating a child is likely to exceed the benefits to the excluded child of reinstatement. For example, it is well known that sexual offending tends to be a persistent pattern of behaviour, and I referred to one such case in an earlier group. I add that the bullying survey suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, might be useful in showing how much fear and unhappiness can be induced in many other children by a very small number of their peers.
For many years, there has been a strong presumption that children should be reintegrated in mainstream schools as soon as possible after exclusion and policy and processes have been designed on this basis, but there is good data that shows that pupils who have been permanently excluded and returned to a mainstream school very rarely stay in mainstream to age 16. Nearly all will be moved into alternative provision subsequently, with or without another permanent exclusion, or drop out entirely. It would be useful to know what proportion of managed moves are in fact effective in the long run and which kinds of children and problems are most likely to be effectively dealt with in this way. My noble friend Lady Barran’s amendments, relating to a presumption against reinstatement for certain children, dovetail with my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment to steer schools and local authorities towards constructive and realistic planning for the children with the greatest difficulties in their lives.
I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The last thing we need is more measures that could be weaponised and potentially cause more divisions in schools and society. When two young children fight, labelling the tussle as racially motivated may not help those two children get along and may in fact encourage factions in the class. Promoting and focusing on what we have in common and should value together is at least as important, and probably more important, than labelling and division if we are to achieve the social cohesion that we all aspire to.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I rise—briefly, I hope—to urge the Minister to reject all three amendments. They come, I am sure, from the very best of intentions, making sure that disadvantaged children, children who labour under the additional difficulty of having a special educational need and children whose parents are in prison are deserving of our compassion and our support, but the means by which the Minister and the Government are being urged to support those children is a diversion of resource, an addition to bureaucracy and an impediment to progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, requests that we have a national tutoring guarantee. That seems to me to be an entire misdirection of resources. We should be concentrating on making sure that children are actually in school in the first place. When we have a level of persistent absence at the rate that we have at the moment, and when any national tutoring service would be staffed inevitably by people who are already stretched and are hard-pressed members of the teaching profession, it seems to me to be—I hesitate to suggest that such a thing would ever come from the Liberal Democrat Benches—a performative attempt to secure publicity rather than a thoughtful analysis of what is actually going on in our schools. If we want a national tutoring guarantee, perhaps we should make sure that, across the nation, tutors—or, as I prefer to think of them, teachers—are guaranteed the support they deserve in the classroom.
The children of criminals and those in prison deserve our support: the sins of the father and mother should not be visited on the son or daughter—absolutely. But equally deserving of support are the children of veterans, those who work in our emergency services and others in homes where daily stresses and pressures increase the likelihood of anxiety or depression in that household. To single out and devote administrative resource to the children of one vulnerable group rather than others is simply to divert the energy of the Minister’s civil servants from the work that they should be doing. Believe me, it is vital that we improve education in the criminal justice system, but it is the job of the Ministry of Justice to improve education in our prisons. That will make far more difference to ensuring that, when people who are currently incarcerated leave, they can be useful members of our society and supported in their parenting roles.
Most striking of course is the need to improve education for children who have special educational needs, but the term “SEND” has become so stretched and capacious that we have almost lost sight of what we are really talking about. There are children who have high-impact low-instance special educational needs: those living with severe learning difficulties, visual impairment or hearing loss, who need discrete tailored support—as well as children with physical disabilities, who will need significant investment in order to achieve everything of which they are capable. But there is a larger and growing group of children who have behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. They certainly deserve our support but occupy a very different category from those who are living with neurological, physical or other barriers to learning.
I know that civil servants currently working in the department and Ministers are paying attention to that. A royal commission—it is a cliché, but it is true—which takes minutes and lasts years, would not provide the focus required to deal with those children. It would be a diversion once more. Having been in the department and worked with the outstanding civil servants there, I know just how hard-pressed they are and that, almost every day, there are new calls on their time from well-intentioned lobby groups that have compassion in their hearts but will only lower the morale of those seeking to improve our schools.
The one thing that I say to the Minister is that we have actually seen, in living memory, a narrowing of the attainment gap in state schools. It happened as a result of the policies introduced by the coalition Government, which was as a direct result of giving front-line schools greater autonomy, making sure that Ofsted provided appropriate and rigorous scrutiny, with transparent judgments on schools that parents could understand. This was allied to strengthening our curriculum and our accountability measures at the end of key stage 2 and through GCSEs and A-levels. I am afraid that, overall, this legislation puts in peril some of those gains that saw the poorest children catch up with the wealthiest in our schools.
So, as well as urging the Minister to reject these well-intentioned but deeply flawed amendments, I hope she will be able to persuade the Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, to think again about those measures in the Bill that will do damage to the gains that were made and that were supported once upon a time by every party in this House.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I was delighted to put my name to Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because it took me back to thinking about my experience at school, which admittedly was a while ago. My parents used the work of Baroness Warnock to threaten to sue the Secretary of State for Wales over my right to go into mainstream education. Without that, I would not have had the career that I now have. The system that existed back then took a tiny percentage of disabled children and gave them a great education, but everyone else was left languishing in a special school system that did not even allow children to sit exams. At the school I nearly ended up in, I would have been able to sit three CSEs at most. So there was nothing around looking at the ambition of disabled children.
I had hoped that things would have moved on by now, but the reality is that disabled children in the UK still face a significant educational attainment gap compared to their non-disabled peers. Studies show that they are significantly behind in key exams and assessments and are less likely to achieve higher qualifications or degrees. The Education Policy Institute has research that shows that disabled children are some of the most educationally disadvantaged children in the English state school system. Around four in 10 children are identified as SEND at some point between the ages of five and 16. These children have been shown to have multiple grades lower than their peers. I find myself in a slightly interesting situation: I agree with some of what the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said about making sure that children are not absent, and I am certainly not seeking to expand the definition of “SEND”, but there has to be something in the middle of where we are now and where I came from through my educational experience. To me, it is about getting the right support to the children who need it.
Disability Rights UK has reported on the situation with the gap. There is a huge gap for disabled children, and it is even larger for children with an education, health and care plan. In 2019, children with an EHCP scored grades that were 3.4 places lower than a those of a non-disabled child, and by 2020 that gap had increased to 3.6 places lower. Whatever we are doing, it does not feel like we are able to educate and support disabled children in the best way that we can.
We already know that, when disabled people apply for jobs, they need at least a qualification higher than a non-disabled person. If the job requires a degree, a disabled person needs at least a master’s or a PhD to have a chance of getting it. If we do not get this right, we are not giving disabled people the chance to work, pay taxes or contribute to society.
Like other Members of your Lordships’ Committee, I feel that we need to understand where we are and what is required, whether through a royal commission or however it works out. This amendment fits with amendments I have tabled in other groups that talk about teacher training, because there is more that we need to do to make sure that teachers are in the best position to educate and teach everybody in the class. At the moment, that gap for disabled people is just too big.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will say just a few words, inspired particularly by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
We know that there is an attainment gap for those with disabilities, and we also know that bits of the education system do not help. The biggest one for me—and I remind the Committee yet again that I am president of the British Dyslexia Association—is English and maths, because guess what, the British Dyslexia Association also covers dyscalculia.
About three days ago, I sat down with a child who said that they had a brother with dyscalculia who had been made to sit English 14 times and still had not achieved a pass. What an incredible waste of time, because we have decided that English and maths are gatekeeper exams. People have a better target with English, because they seem to understand it a little better, but maths is a real problem. Getting some degree of flexibility and understanding and looking at the attainment gap and what causes it would be very helpful.
However, I must slightly disappoint my two, shall we say, noble colleagues on this—I do not think that I am allowed to call them noble friends, although I hope that they are friends—by saying that we would have to say, “identified special educational needs”, because we might know somebody who is blind or deaf, or who has impaired movement, which is pretty obvious. We know that, for instance, well over half of the dyslexics in the country are never identified. We do not know the situation for the others—dyspraxia, et cetera—and we are still very bad at identifying them.
Therefore, we could adjust this amendment to say that we should have a look at the attainment results of those who have been identified. That would give us an idea of how the system properly fails, because we know that there is a problem, we just have not addressed it. There is a problem that is running through here. When the Minister replies, I hope that she can start to address this, because we know that there is a problem here. We know that something is going on. If we have that information already, which we should if the problems are identified, we might be able to bring it forward, because addressing the problem itself would help.
Briefly on the other amendments, tutoring, if properly targeted, will help these people, especially if the tutors are trained to support. Also, for those in prison— I have worked in the prison sector, not extensively, but I have worked there—the fact that a child is disadvantaged or comes from an environment where everybody is expected to fail will probably work into the other two groups. As a dyslexic, I still say that the only time I have ever sat in a group of adults whose educational attainment was below mine was with a group of prisoners, and I am pretty badly dyslexic. How we address this problem, this idea and this culture is very important.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the general thinking of the Government. It is very important—if we are starting to address these deep-seated problems, which we have, in many cases, given lip service to in the past—to get support for which you do not have to fight and be a tiger parent to obtain. That is where we are coming from now.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I congratulate him on all the work that he continues to do in this area. I thank my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for cosigning my Amendments 491 and 498. I will take them in reverse order, with Amendment 498 first.
Quite simply, it addresses the issue we discussed in the previous group: current SEND provision is not working. It is not working for the SENCOs, who try their utmost; it is not working for the teachers, who strain every sinew to educate all in their classrooms; it is not working for the parents; and, most importantly, it is not working for children with special educational needs or a disability. Yet it can, if we start from the provision of inclusive by design and set out an approach where the funding is identified and ascribed to that SEND provision. The department should and must reach out beyond its budgetary constraints, because the reality is that this is far more than an issue of education. For example, there is a clear causal relationship between the education attainment gap and the subsequent employment attainment gap for those with disabilities.
Other departments must also pull their weight in addressing this issue of special educational needs and disability provision. This is why in Amendment 491 I suggest a practical, reasonable and achievable measure to make a difference across government: to introduce a mentorship scheme for those young people with special educational needs or disabilities.
Before the question arises of distracting departmental officials from their incredibly important work, or of putting more pressure on already overstretched resources, I suggest to the Minister that this would be an ideal situation for an effective, practical and achievable public-private partnership. Imagine how local, regional, national and international businesses could get involved to help support and be part of the delivery of such a mentorship scheme for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Imagine the empowerment for those young people in hearing from adults in successful careers, professions, jobs, activities and third-sector work, across the piece, who have lived experience of being a disabled person and have come through, succeeded and achieved. That is not just mentorship; that is leadership and empowerment, enabling all those young people.
The scheme could be brought in with minimal, if any, disruption or resource pressures put on the department. The difference it would make for those children with special educational needs and disabilities could be profound, impacting their educational experience, setting them up for life and enabling them not only to positively be part of closing that education attainment gap but subsequently closing the employment attainment gap. Any Government should have this as one of their core provisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 491 and 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to which I have attached my name, and Amendments 502U and 502V in my name.
With regard to Amendment 491, we have already spoken about how disabled children are being left behind. I worry that we are wrapping some disabled children in cotton wool. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked in an earlier group about resilience. We have to do more to ensure that our disabled children in schools can build resilience. This is one way in which they can do that.
This amendment is not about physical activity, but disabled children are routinely excluded from physical activity in schools and physical activity is one way that they can build this resilience. There are myriad excuses—“Well, they are sent to the library”—which are often wrapped up in health and safety. It sometimes feels that we are writing off disabled children before they have been given a chance. Often their world is smaller: there is less opportunity and a lack of ambition that is placed upon them.
This is something that I would like all children to be offered. It is probably dependent on what His Majesty’s Government are thinking of on enrichment around the school day. I declare an interest here as chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, and we are talking to the Government about what this enrichment would look like. I believe that providing mentoring will help. It is about not just grades but building skills for life.
Amendment 498 simply seeks a view of SEND provision and how it is funded. Amendment 502U links to amendments that I have in other groups, but this one sits better in this group. I do not think that we have got right the support that disabled children are getting in school, and we must think about what more we can do.
The organisation Contact a Family and the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice surveyed 2,000 families with children and young people who have SEND but do not have an EHCP to see how the process was working. The survey concluded that there was not enough SEND support in schools, which leads many families to seek an EHCP to secure support for their child’s needs. This does not feel like the right way that the system should be supporting disabled children. It leads to school avoidance, absenteeism, pupils being put on part-time timetables and exclusion, and therefore an ever decreasing circle of support and ambition. This amendment seeks to ensure better support.
I am keen that access to the curriculum for disabled children is not reliant on a single member of staff. I do not, in this group of amendments, seek to debate the role of TAs. It is about how we get the right support beyond that so that we do not limit children’s opportunities. I know that there will probably be some discussion of whether, under this amendment, their role should sit under the supervision of a qualified teacher.
Finally, on Amendment 502V, we need to know how much we spend on SEND provision. In a previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton—admittedly not talking about this—said how important it was to identify how every penny is spent in schools. We must have a better understanding of how SEND money is spent. I do not mean to place a lot of additional work on schools, but we need to know that we are getting value for money and, ultimately, that we have the right provision for disabled children to thrive.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 502Q, 502R, 502S, 502T and 502W in my name. Amendment 502R is supported strongly by my noble friend Lady Bull, who has expressed sincere regrets at not being able to be with us tonight because of a long-standing engagement.
These amendments seek to achieve co-ordination between criminal justice services and schools in relation to children with special educational needs. The amendments are the product of a review carried out by the Michael Sieff Foundation, chaired by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC of University College London, of which the membership included Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor. And I had a part in it too.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I shall add something on those points, although I do not want to drag this on. Clearly, this arouses a lot of emotions, but we are mixing a lot of things up. There are rooms full of evidence on how these effectively work, not least on the things that the noble Lord is putting forward. I do not think that schools are being asked to undertake surveys—it is about giving information to schools, which is a completely different aspect.
What we should all be talking about here is keeping children well, which means intervening when they need help; it does not mean taking them to clinics or overmedicalisation but it is about providing positive environments in which children can flourish. Also, it is not something that we are asking schools to take on; schools have had to take this on, because it comes through the door. We are talking about other professionals —health professionals, youth workers and others, who know about well-being—being able to work with schools to support those children. This is a win-win for everyone, and children and their families are the last ones who want to overmedicalise this and come up with what has been described as an industrialisation of a medical complex. That is not what anyone wants, and I do not think that it is there in any of the intentions that have been put forward.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am chair of Sport Wales. I strongly support Amendment 472 in the name of my noble friend Lord O’Donnell, and I agree that it is one of the most important things that we can do. At Sport Wales, we carry out a school sport survey, and we had responses from 116,000 children who gave their opinion on sport and well-being. We do not use it only to focus the funding; it is to help them to be part of the solution, to think about how their well-being might be improved.
I have my name on Amendment 500. I make a plea for physical literacy, and for giving it the same status as literacy and numeracy. We know that, if we teach children good physical literacy skills, it helps their mental well-being. The reason why we need to do this is that we are in a time of crisis. UK Active data shows that we have a generation of children who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. A press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 18 June 2025 stated that one in eight young people is not in education, employment or training. I realise that that cuts across age groups and is looking at something different—but we have up to 93,000 young people between 16 and 24 on personal independence payments. This is not to criticise the Government, but the system is not sustainable in this current format. We cannot keep just pushing young people on to benefits, so we have to do something differently. This group of amendments is part of the solution to helping young people. In a Bill that has well-being in its Title, it would make sense that we measure well-being.
Lord Storey (LD)
The hour is late, so I shall be brief. This group of amendments has brought out the best in your Lordships. How people have spoken on each of these amendments I have found truly caring.
Stupidly perhaps, earlier on I was saying how the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made me consider more closely particular issues, but I have to say that on this issue I think she is wrong. For me, the most important thing in schools is not just getting children learning; it is about how they learn about themselves, and their well-being and mental health is so important. The sooner they can get the feeling of a sense of well-being and get any mental health problems sorted, the more their learning will accelerate—not as the noble Baroness suggests. We know that about ourselves; when we feel good about something, we give of our best, do we not? I know that I do. If I feel down and miserable and things are not going right for me, I do not give of my best. So it is important to get mental health issues sorted.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to explain my Amendment 437A, which relates to qualified teachers, and to offer a different point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted—although we are both trying to achieve the same thing, I think.
The first thing to establish, if one does not unquestioningly accept the bureaucratic definition, is what exactly a qualified teacher is. We have drifted into accepting that the postgraduate certificate in education, or PGCE, is the gold standard. With the reforms made by the previous Government to the teacher training standards, the new inspection framework and the accreditation exercise, it has got better, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Is it really the kitemark that we should use as the standard for good teachers?
I put to noble Lords two hypothetical but frequently occurring sets of circumstances. A newly qualified graduate with a degree in, say, maths or one of the sciences decides that they would like to spend a year or two teaching the subject in which they have specialised. Across the corridor, a person of the same age who completed an undergraduate degree in sociology or politics but has completed their PGCE asks to teach maths. All other things being equal, who would you rather have teaching your child the specialist subject? I know which one I would choose; that is the brutal reality.
Anyway, what business is it of the DfE, sitting remotely over 22,000 schools, to be imposing rules like this? I have met heads who support both sides of these arguments. Why are we not letting them be the judge? For example, in some parts of England, such as London, it is easier to recruit PGCE graduates than it is in the provinces. How can bureaucrats in the DfE possibly know how to run a school better? We touched on that earlier. We have a mixed economy at the moment—and thank goodness we do, for reasons I will come on to in a moment.
I do not want noble Lords to think that I am dead against the PGCE. The coalition Government introduced the concept of SCITT—school-centred initial teacher training—and I have just finished my term as a trustee of the National Institute of Teaching, which is supporting SCITTs across the country that have been set up at the behest of the DfE. It has helped increase the number of graduates entering the SCITT programme; indeed, we have one in my academy trust, and we end up hiring many of our PGCE students to teach. So why fiddle around with this? What are the Government seeking to achieve, other than mouthing slogans about the need to have qualified teachers in the classroom? It is insulting to those who have studied demanding degrees and have acquired skills that are so badly needed in schools to be called “unqualified”, particularly when most of these young people could go into other, more highly paid jobs.
We turn next to the elephant in the room: the shortage of teachers in the state system. The most recent DfE data that I could find tells me that, in 2023-24, there were 22,700 postgraduate trainees, of which 21,210 achieved QTS status. However, that was down from 22,437 in the previous year and 29,715 in 2021-22. Of those 21,210 trainees, 15,900 are teaching in state schools—a drop from 21,971 in 2021-22. The data is inviolable, but perhaps the Minister has more up-to-date data.
On teacher shortages, the DfE data tells me that, in 2024-25—the most recent year—against the 21,210 to which I referred, the estimated need was for more than 33,000 trainees. Secondary recruitment was at only 62% of the target. In secondary, there are acute shortfalls in maths, physics and computing, respectively hitting only 31%, 37% and 43% of the DfE’s targets. Again, perhaps the Minister can correct me on any of this.
The next bit is what really breaks my heart; it shows, perhaps, that I have common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. Teacher shortages are especially acute in schools with disadvantaged pupil intakes—that just breaks my heart. I came into politics 15 years ago to go for that, but it is just getting worse. There are more vacancies and they remain open for longer, so it is the poor kids who suffer. The National Audit Office tells us in its April report that teacher recruitment targets have been missed every year but one in the last 10; the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, said that it is over two decades. This is a structural problem. The DfE has missed its targets in 13 out of 18 subjects in the most recent year, despite a DfE recruitment budget of £700 million. It will be interesting to see whether that level of funding is sustained in this autumn’s Budget with all the other pressures that the Government face; I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.
This is not about having a swipe at a Labour Government—we struggled too—but they have no credible plan to turn the tide. Forcing through this new measure will just make the job harder for everyone on the front line, with children being the losers. It will deter potentially excellent teachers, particularly in specialist subjects, from spending a few years in the teaching profession if they have had to spend nine months training—and probably paying for the privilege, although I accept that there are some bursaries.
The NAO adds that the percentage of less-experienced teachers in the most disadvantaged schools is far higher than in average schools, which goes to our earlier point. They have higher staff turnover and a higher percentage of unfilled vacancies. In the interests of time, I have not talked about retention, but, broadly, one-third of secondary teachers leave within five years of joining the profession, so we need to keep filling the funnel. The only way to hold on to teachers for longer, in my view, would be to pay more in the early years—that is not really practical in the current circumstances—and to support schools in taking much stronger action on bad behaviour. From my experience, that is why many teachers, in particular female ones, leave—and can you blame them?
Then we have the cherry on the cake: Teach First. It is another great Labour invention and is responsible for pumping thousands—around 16,000—of superb teachers into the state system over the past 20 years. Some 150 are now head teachers and the proportion of Teach Firsters who go into senior leadership roles is seven times higher than for comparably qualified teachers.
What training do they get? They get six weeks and then they are on the front line. When some of these facts were presented to the Government, the best they could manage was saying, “Oh, well, you can stay, so don’t worry”. So where is the intellectual coherence? My amendment is very straightforward: it would widen the definition of what a qualified teacher is to include degree-qualified professionals who teach in this area of specialisation.
This clause is a classic example of why I get so frustrated with many parts of the Bill. We have had hundreds of hours of debate on things like this that will only make it harder for the people who are trying to improve education, particularly for disadvantaged young people.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 495, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and to which I have added my name. This amendment, after Clause 62, seeks to insert a new clause on teacher training reviews. I declare my interests as president of the LGA, chair of Sport Wales and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, which is actively looking at enrichment around the school day to help children develop more skills that will help them across the whole of their lives.
It feels like we have been discussing teacher training for sport and physical activity for years. Quite often, certainly around primary-age teacher training, only about four hours of instruction are given on how to deliver physical education. It is a very difficult subject to teach because, even at the youngest age, there is a huge range of capability in children. The amendment is important because it is not just about finding a new set of Olympians and Paralympians but about developing physical activity for life. The amendment is required because of the state of inactivity in England and in the UK.
Women in Sport data shows that 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy. The organisation ukactive has published lots of research on obesity rates in children, which seem to be creeping up and up. While I acknowledge that the school cannot do everything around encouraging children to be fit, healthy and active, it can play a huge part.
If we look to another subject, we do not expect children to be able to do trigonometry without teaching them the basics of maths; there is a path to follow. However, we expect children to play sport without teaching them the basics of physical literacy. It is really important that we learn from elsewhere. In Wales in 2012 and 2013, we came very close to giving physical literacy the same status as literacy and numeracy in schools; it would have been part of the teacher training and measured by Estyn. This is important because it is about a healthy mind, body and spirit and about developing a certain level of activity. We know people’s relationship with physical activity: they drop in and out, and girls especially drop out at the ages of 18 and 13. We have to do something to change that pattern of behaviour.
This is also really important for disabled people. Quite often, PE teachers, through a lack of experience, will still send disabled children to the library—and that is happening more and more. You would think that, on the back of some amazing Paralympic success, there would be better attempts at inclusion, but that is not happening. A number of parents write to me to tell me that their children are being excluded from PE lessons under health and safety rules. Alternatively, they are told that, because there is not another disabled child in the class, they cannot participate or play sport with anyone else, so they are excluded.
His Majesty’s Government already offer support through the Inclusion 2028 programme, which is a step forward. They have worked with the Youth Sports Trust and 50 lead schools to develop this knowledge. I would be interested to understand how that is developing. We have to develop much wider support to ensure that the patterns of inactivity are broken and that we have a fitter and healthier nation.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom I hope she does not mind me calling my noble friend.
I will speak to Amendments 437 and 495, which are in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who deeply regrets that he cannot be with us today. Amendment 437 speaks for itself. I have attached my name to Amendment 495; I have worked with my noble friend Lord Moynihan on it for quite some time.
Our concerns are the weaknesses of the sport and physical literacy components of teacher training in the UK. They are most pronounced for generalist primary school teachers, who often lack sufficient training, confidence and practical opportunities. These issues are compounded by the low professional status for physical education within schools and it not being prioritised. There is also a minimum time allocation: generalist primary teachers typically receive very little training in physical education during their initial teacher training—ITT—programmes; one source cited an average of four to six hours. This is widely seen as woefully inadequate for preparing them to deliver high-quality PE.
Universal Credit Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson ExcerptsTuesday 22nd July 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Local Government Association and a recipient of personal independence payment.
Like others, I have received many emails from people worried about the proposed changes and I am extremely concerned about how this narrative has played out in the media. Disabled people are being portrayed as benefit scroungers and a drain on society. Like others, I am disappointed that this has been made a money Bill. I recognise that the Bill is different from what His Majesty’s Government originally intended, due to a number of concessions. I am frustrated that Members in another place, when talking about PIP specifically, seem to have become confused, called it a not-in-work benefit and conflated it with the Pathways to Work Green Paper. It is not a benefit that is linked to whether you work. These fundamental inaccuracies do not help a reasoned debate about proposed changes.
I will briefly cover personal independence payment because it is integral to disabled people’s lives. It exists because society is inaccessible. Successive Governments have been slow to bring about the necessary changes to make society more inclusive, and disabled people face discrimination in all areas of their lives, whether that be in public transport, healthcare, education or employment, to name a few. People should be working, and I agree that the system is not sustainable in its current format. However, the extra costs of being disabled have not gone away. Scope has published a disability price tag and, even after taking PIP into account, the average household that includes at least one disabled adult or child faces extra costs of £975 per month. This figure is updated yearly.
Also of concern is the article in the i paper yesterday that reported errors in the way that PIP has been awarded that could cost the Department for Work and Pensions another £260 million. Ultimately, I believe we are missing a fundamental opportunity to look at the whole system, and I hope that Access to Work can be part of a wider review. What we are doing at the moment feels slightly too piecemeal.
The current Bill could develop a two-tier system. I repeat the quote from Disability Rights UK given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle:
“Debt and poverty are already a fact of life for existing Disabled claimants of UC, with many unable to afford essentials such as food, energy and housing or the additional costs of disability. The cuts will exacerbate this grave situation even further, pushing people into deep poverty”.
There are some more positives with the Bill: the proposed increase to the standard allowance means that 2.3 million disabled people currently receiving universal credit will see the total amount they receive protected, but dramatic cuts to universal credit remain in the Bill, such as the restricted eligibility gateway of the severe conditions criteria. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation think the latest concessions could mean the Government make no net savings by 2029-30.
I am concerned that the tone of the debate has generated quite a lot of victim blaming for disabled people. This is never more apparent than in the debate around Motability cars. I do not have a Motability car, but when I was learning to drive it was the only way I could afford to do so; public transport was even less accessible than it is now. The cost of insurance when you drive on hand controls is high—even more so if you are young. In the media it is being portrayed as a free car, which it is not, and we should remember that over the years it has considerably helped the car industry. There is a website, which was taken down over the weekend with promises to put it back up, to help people detect if “an annoying neighbour” is seen driving a new car. This is terrifying for a number of disabled people. It has been reported to the police; it feels like it crosses a line to incitement. Over the weekend, the replies on the website were despicable. This does not feel like a collaborative environment in which to have sensible debate.
The reality that is the system we have is too complicated and many disabled people find themselves unable to navigate the complex and lengthy processes. We do not have time today to consider it, but I would prefer a system that is better able to assess people’s needs, one that wastes less money with overturned appeals. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but now it is time to rebuild trust and have a genuine consultation. Can she give more information about how we can properly co-produce with disabled people? We have to find a better solution for everybody.
People with Disabilities: Access to Services
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, for tabling this debate and for giving your Lordships’ Chamber the opportunity to discuss a wide range of interconnected issues. The barriers that disabled people face do not sit easily within one government department.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my register of interests. I am president of the LGA, chair of the Wheelchair Alliance and I receive a PIP.
I thank the huge number of disabled people who contacted me. Bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said about the wide range of issues, I am going to give it a go and cover as many as possible. I will take a deep breath and see how many I can get through. Everything included in this speech is from my personal experience or is what disabled people have told me directly.
I am treated in one of three ways: as a Paralympian, very nice; as a politician, quite mixed; but as a disabled woman I experience most discrimination. I have been told that people like me should not be allowed to get married, have a job or have children, but one of the biggest barriers that many disabled people face is that non-disabled people often do not understand those barriers and make wild assumptions. They think that, because they once sat in a wheelchair or pushed their grandmother somewhere in a wheelchair, they know everything about it. I am horrified to see companies still offering these experiences as a way to help non-disabled people understand the barriers we face. It is appalling and outdated; it is what we in the disability community call “cripping up”.
It is a long time since the DDA was implemented and I sat on the National Disability Council with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, but what has really changed? The Paralympics in 2012 were great, but the people who tell me that they changed the world are non-disabled people. We are portrayed as Paralympians or as benefit scroungers, with a healthy dose of inspiration porn thrown in. The reality is that the least privileged disabled people are mostly invisible in society. Representation in the media is far from equal.
I accept that we work in an old building, and it is not the most accessible. It is much easier if you are a pass-holder. I am very grateful to the team who have been talking about accessibility, but using the new carpet that has been put around the Chamber is like pushing through sludge. I very much enjoy sitting next to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but the fact that we are both wheelchair users means that we cannot actually sit with our groups.
I was contacted by a teacher, who told me that children sitting GCSE English who need a scribe will not be able to access the 20 marks available for spelling, punctuation and grammar, so they have already been put at a disadvantage.
Employers do not really understand the Equality Act or the legal obligation for a reasonable adjustment. It is a get-out clause. Disability Confident is simply a reimagining of a previous scheme; I question how many people’s lives it has actually changed. We are far from sorting out working from home for disabled people, and mandatory requirements for companies to provide it for a certain percentage of jobs are not helping disabled people to get into work. Access to Work is out of date and has a huge backlog. It is awful for the creative industries or contract work.
Expanding the definition of disability may be helpful for some people, but just lets companies get away with not employing more disabled people. One company told me that, as only 50% of disabled people who can work are in work, its target for employing disabled people needed to be only 10%—I think not. There are good practices out there, but not nearly enough.
I will mention PIPs briefly, because many other noble Lords will mention them, but we need a wholescale reform of the system. I know from when I filled in the forms that I was pages in before they asked who the best medical professionals are to explain my impairment. There are none, because I am not sick.
Disabled facilities grants for housing are out of date. The National Planning Policy Framework does not mention equality or duties for local authorities or homebuilders to consider the Equality Act. It is notable that recent consultations on proposed changes to the NPPF have not been accompanied by a government equalities impact assessment. Why not?
On the built environment, disabled people are rarely consulted at the point when changes are being made. A-boards, pavement parking, abandoned rental bikes and countryside paths that have barriers to prevent cycles all stop wheelchair users. A Sustrans report into the cycling network identified 16,000 barriers. There was a removal programme but funding for it has been cut.
There are inaccessible restaurants and toilets, and a lack of changing places—not least in this building. Floating bus stops are not always near zebra crossings, or the island may be too narrow for wheelchair users.
In hotels, there is a lack of definition of what their accessibility actually is. It should not be just putting in a grab rail. Their walk-in showers may not have a seat.
If you want to go out to the cinema or a restaurant, you can have only one friend, because that is the way they are set up. When I took my daughter to see “Winnie the Pooh” when she was three, I was told that, because she was not my carer, she was not allowed to sit with me and had to sit 20 rows away.
There are issues with access to sport, and to buses. There is only one wheelchair space per bus. On flying, I am only going to mention Frank Gardner.
I will briefly mention trains, which were meant to be step-free by 1 January 2020. By the Government’s own data, it will take 100 years to make that change. Transport for the North launched an accessibility survey and found that only 48% of its stations had step-free access. Greater Anglia trains are fantastic for level boarding but, when I asked about accessibility, I was told not to worry because I would be in sight of the café-bar. All my dreams for inclusion became as one when I realised that I could see the café-bar, but could not actually buy anything from it.
London Bridge has no contingency plan for a single lift failure, yet billions were spent on its refurbishment. Crossrail has level boarding only at its core. The lifts have been out at St Pancras for months. I can access only one-third of Tube stations. The Network Rail map has inaccurate information: it tells me that the lifts are working at my local station—fantastic—but my local station has no lifts.
Our legal right to turn up and go is being eroded, because we are being forced to book through an app that has no in-app contacts. You cannot buy tickets and it does not show lift status. Every trip is a magical mystery tour. It goes on. Shockingly, John Pring from the Disability News Service reported that market-testing companies are using non-disabled people to pretend to be disabled to test the access app. I am very interested in understanding what the noble Viscount thinks of that. I have deep admiration for Doug Paulley, who continues to fight for change through legal means.
Lack of ATP enforcement means that luggage is put in wheelchair spaces. There are no primary or secondary timescales in the draft rail reform Bill. Accessibility is seen as an add-on or a nice-to-have. Disabled people cannot buy concessionary tickets through ticket vending machines, except for on Northern. You have to buy them through ticket offices—and we saw what happened with them last year. ScotRail has not changed its ATP, so mobility scooter users are not allowed to travel on Scottish trains. They can get there by Avanti or LNER, but they might not be able to get home.
Today, Southeastern announced that it is moving towards level boarding and Steve White, the CEO, said that anyone bidding for contracts has to show level boarding, but there is no guarantee that it will ever happen.
Tony Jennings wrote to me saying that he cannot turn up and go at his nearest station outside staffed hours, because there is a barrow crossing.
I could go on: lack of EV charging; inaccessible dental chairs; not buying the right wheelchairs for the right people at the right time; disability hate crime; Covid; elective office—I have run out of time.
I understand that the noble Viscount is not able to answer these questions, but I would welcome any of the departments writing to me to continue this conversation.
Personal Independence Payment: Mobility Criterion
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, has tabled this debate. I also congratulate her on her persistence. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of DLA and am eagerly awaiting the call for my PIP reassessment. It will be very interesting to experience it for myself. I do not have a Motability car, but in the early years of learning to drive I did. For me, it made a massive difference to what I was able to do. Because of my condition I can only drive an automatic car. The cost of hand controls is now around £1,000 and the cost of insurance would have made any other way of being mobile totally prohibitive.
I am very sorry that my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton is not able to be here tonight because of the lateness of the hour. She asked that I ask the Minister about how people with hidden impairments would be affected, particularly those with haemophilia. One day they can walk but, if they have a bleed, they may have to use a wheelchair; so for them, this arbitrary 20 metres makes a significant difference to how they are able to live their lives.
We are starting to see a significant impact from the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill, and it is affecting a huge number of people. I believe that the 20-metre guideline is an arbitrary number—where does 20 metres get you? It is barely the distance from one wall of the Chamber to the other. How can we reasonably expect people who can walk only 20 metres not to require some sort of assistance?
I live in the north-east of England, where public transport is not particularly accessible. If I did not have a car, I would not be able to take my daughter to school or to work. As a wheelchair user, the knock-on effect is significant. For me to come to London, I have to use a train. As a wheelchair user, I am meant to book a train journey 24 hours in advance. This week, I was not able to, and so the only way that I could get on the train was to get out of my chair, crawl on board and pull my chair on to the train, and do the same at the other end. The impact on disabled people if they are not able to drive is quite significant.
I have a number of concerns, and not just around the 20-metre rule but around the process of assessment. My inbox is consistently full of emails from people with issues relating to the assessment process, and I have three examples that I would like to give. One person had their car taken away, and in the documents that they received back to go to tribunal it said that because they did not look undernourished, were able to communicate and could arrange for the payment of bills, they were not eligible for the enhanced rate. However, removing the car while the process is going on is very short-sighted. That person was unable to carry on working. This individual is now going through the process of applying to the Access to Work programme, which is apparently willing to pay £32 a day for a taxi to take them back and forth to work. That seems ludicrous. We are just talking about money coming from different budgets rather than the total sum. It must make greater sense to allow the person to keep the car until the full process has been gone through.
Another person who spoke to me is someone with cerebral palsy who is a wheelchair user. In the assessment process, it was written down that they could stand for an hour and no mention was made of the 20 metres. However, they were not even asked that question in the assessment process.
My final example is a woman who, on her first assessment, had a home visit and then a medical with a doctor. As her condition deteriorated, she asked for the mobility section to be reassessed. She was informed that the only way in which this was possible was to go through a full reassessment—there was no other option, so she had to agree to it. However, the full reassessment was 20 minutes with a medical professional at a walk-in centre; no home assessment was considered or took place. In the second assessment, her points changed quite drastically, but the real difficulty was that she was told that the mobility criterion had changed and that she had lost points. They assessed the wrong side of her body. She is a hemiplegic. In the assessment process, they said that there was nothing wrong with her left side—that was because she is hemiplegic on her right side. It seems crazy that the assessment process is doing this to individuals. A number of people say that it is very stressful and painful—they worry about it—but if they cannot even have assurance that the assessment is being carried out properly, what are we doing?
Will Her Majesty’s Government look at the failings in the assessment process? It is ludicrous that so many people are rejected only for the decision to be overturned on appeal. How much money is being spent on mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals for the award to be given in the end? It seems to be a total waste of money. Finally, I ask the Minister to talk with Disability Rights UK and the Disability Benefits Consortium to prevent the current criterion assessment process costing us all far more money in the long run than we are trying to save.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, in these opening remarks I shall cover Motion B as well. Last week the Commons considered the amendments passed by this House to place a duty on the Secretary of State to estimate further the impacts of the changes to the ESA work-related activity component and the universal credit limited capability for work element. The Commons also considered the aspect of those amendments that sought to make the commencement regulations bringing both changes into effect subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Commons voted solidly to reject those amendments, and the Motion now asks this House to accept that decision. In addition, the Commons Speaker has also ruled that these changes attract financial privilege. As noble Lords have not tabled amendments to the contrary, I will make the presumption that the House is now prepared to accept the changes, albeit with great reluctance, and will not defy convention.
I put it to noble Lords that as a House we have performed our duty. We have rigorously scrutinised the legislation to remove unintended consequences and sent back a number of concerns for the Commons to reconsider. Indeed, on the ESA work-related activity component and the universal credit limited capability for work element, we have twice asked the Commons to reflect on the measures and twice it has voted down proposed amendments with substantial majorities. I think that our duties are discharged, and there comes a point when we must accept the decision of the Commons on this financially privileged matter.
I am proud of the important work this House has done to improve and refine the Bill. I remind noble Lords of the important changes they have secured. We have put in place additional statutory protections around the publication of low-income data; we have secured exemptions from the benefit cap for recipients of carer’s allowance and guardian’s allowance; and, in the case of the limit on support through child tax credits and universal credit, we have secured exemptions for certain children being looked after by family-and-friends carers and adopted sibling groups. On the social rents measure, supported accommodation will now be excepted from the changes for one year, and across the Bill we have accepted—in full or in part—recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Speaking personally, I thank noble Lords for the precision and clarity with which they have made their arguments. It has made immeasurably easier my task of relaying the concerns back to my colleagues in the department and across government and getting an agreed response. The quality of scrutiny in this place amplifies the power of the arguments within government.
On this occasion, I will not expand on the measures at issue; we have had an extended opportunity to do so during the Bill’s passage. However, I remind the House of the improvements it has helped to secure: improved guidance for those with progressive conditions, £15 million for the flexible support fund, and removing the 52-week permitted work limit in ESA to reduce barriers to part-time work.
I am proud of the work this House does to scrutinise legislation and highlight unintended consequences—as it has in this case to improve these measures to help more sick and disabled people back into employment. It is, I believe, the right moment for the Lords to accept that it has done its job in communicating to the Commons areas of concern for it to reconsider. I am confident that noble Lords have done an excellent job in scrutinising the Bill, and I am grateful to colleagues throughout the House for a series of powerful and thoughtful speeches.
In the light of the convincing votes in the Commons and the application of financial privilege, I beg to move the Motion.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply disappointed that we have got to where we are today with the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but I thank the Minister for continuing to meet Members of your Lordships’ House. I and others spent a great deal of time last week working through every possibility of tabling another amendment to send this dreadful and punitive part of the Bill back to the other place. Unfortunately, because of parliamentary procedure, that was not possible. Placing financial privilege on these amendments means that the other place ultimately has its way, and it is entitled to do that—just as we were entitled and absolutely right to ask the Commons to think again.
As a Chamber appointed because of our expertise in areas such as this, we know and understand the impact this Bill will have, even if no formal impact assessment was carried out. I apologise to the people affected by this Bill that, at this point, we could not do any more. This may be the end of the legislative process, but it is the start of the negative impact the Bill will have on thousands of people’s lives. It may be seen as a victory in terms of voting numbers in another place, but we cannot forget that there are many disabled people who will lose out. That may be realised only when the letters come flooding in.
Motability
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, does the Department for Work and Pensions monitor the accuracy of assessments by Maximus and Capita? What action is being taken against assessors who make inaccurate assessments? Perhaps this could be an opportunity where disabled people could be employed.
Baroness Altmann
A very small number of the cases actually go to appeal. At this moment we are confident that the processes in place are doing the work that they need to do.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for meeting a number of Peers last week and listening to our views. Unfortunately, that has not alleviated my concerns about the impact the Bill will have on a significant number of people. Many people are already close to crisis point. They feel so beaten up by the changes that they are finding it hard to articulate. It is not that they do not care. They just do not have the energy left and are just trying to survive.
I welcome the changes in the permitted work rules, and congratulate the Government, as they have been needed for a long time. They could perhaps have been made before, but I am really glad that they have been fixed. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Young, on what it is technically right for us in this Chamber to do. We have to think about the effect the Bill will have on people outside this Chamber. I have received many emails on this subject from individuals worried about how these changes will push people further away from where we all want them to be.
My noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton made a compelling argument about the lack of proof about the incentive to get into work and about the contents of the White Paper. I should congratulate the DWP on our knowing so little about what is going to be in it, but it worries me greatly that we do not know what will be in it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we are doing this the wrong way round. I understand that there is a need for us to save money, but I believe we can do it in a better way.
I have previously said in your Lordships’ House, and I will reiterate, that this change will affect disabled people in work as well as disabled people out of work. Disabled people in work will get less under universal credit. I thank the Minister for his letter, but perhaps we will disagree on the numbers that come out of it. To push these measures through, the Government are relying on the report by Reform, which is an ideological statement of the Government’s intent. I believe there are a number of flaws, especially around the erroneous contention that only 1% of claimants in the WRAG group end their ESA claims, as was raised many times in another place last week. The reality is that a simple check of the Government’s figures shows that more than 250,000 claimants in that group have ended their claims.
One of the many reasons that so few people ended up in work was that half the claimants were ex-incapacity benefit claimants and were too unwell for work. They have been through that assessment process. There is a great deal of difference between someone who is categorised as sick and will get better, say someone with a broken leg, and somebody who is categorised as sick with, say, Parkinson’s, where we do not know how quickly that condition will affect them. It almost feels as if we are putting the blame on disabled people, trying to fix them and not understanding the barriers that they face getting into work. Reducing the gap between those who are economically inactive through sickness and those who are unemployed throws away all recognition of those who are facing hardship through sickness and through no fault of their own.
I am sure the Minister will tell me that the answer is in the additional discretionary fund delivered through jobcentres. That sounds positive and it might be helpful to disabled people who are able to look for work, but we should remember that we are talking about an additional £15 million given to jobcentres to be used at their discretion with a range of clients, not just disabled people. Furthermore, this pales into insignificance when we think that the Government’s cut to ESA is taking £640 million out of disabled peoples’ pockets. It further introduces an additional round of bureaucracy, as claimants, many with mental health problems, will have to grapple with increasingly inaccessible local support networks, which will become a postcode lottery. It is thus likely to lead to claimants simply not applying for whatever help they may need because they just do not know that it exists.
I want to know what the support looks like. I was told by a special careers adviser that the best job I could ever get would be answering telephones and that I should not aim too high. That might have been 25 or 30 years ago, but right now disabled people are being told similar things. An adviser who works in a citizens advice centre told me that job coaches are telling people who are correctly in WRAG that they need to reapply when they do not have to. They are putting their support at risk, getting removed from WRAG, going to appeal and getting put back on WRAG. This is costing a huge amount of money and undermining everything that we are trying to achieve.
If job coaches right now do not understand the system, how are they going to be able to administer the discretionary fund? Reformers also claim that there is a financial advantage to being on sickness benefit. That suggests to me that they have no experience of what living on that amount of money if you are sick and/or disabled is actually like.
Universal credit is today a benefit that promises much but has yet to get off the starting blocks. No analysis at all has been provided showing how the lives of claimants with limited capability for work, or limited for work-related activity, will be enhanced by universal credit. It is hard for me to see how the Government taking £1,500 a year away from people who are profoundly limited in their capability for work will leave them better off under universal credit.
If you look at what others have said about universal credit, you see it reported that it is behind schedule, dogged by computer processing errors, poor communication with claimants and delays in fixing simple administrative problems. That is how it exists now. Noble Lords should remember that many of those people who are going to be affected will not be able to apply for PIP because of tightened criteria and will not be able to get support anywhere else. The decisions that we are taking today need to be clearly understood for the impact they are going to have on disabled people.
I agree that there is a lot of money wasted in the system through assessments and reassessments, and I have discussed that in the legal aid Bill. The appeals for ESA work capability assessment logged at HMRC have reached record levels; they are currently at 1.1 million, the highest for all benefits. We need to look at the system—that is essential—but right now disabled people are bearing the brunt of wastage in the system.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend is highly sensible. I urge the Minister to keep listening and think about the consequences that this will have on a significant number of people. I strongly support my noble friend in his endeavours.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I ask for a little clarification. I was somewhat astonished by my noble friend Lady Meacher referring to patients with multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, and diseases that can in fact be terminal. I understand that there is a distinction between the point at which people are diagnosed and the point at which they might be assessed as being able to work, but these are progressive diseases and the danger is that these people could very quickly become not able to work and indeed very ill. It is on this point that I would welcome some clarification.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 44 in this group but I also have some comments that relate to Amendment 41. Like many in previous sections of this debate, I have been looking at disabled people getting into work, not what will happen, under Clause 14, to disabled people who are in work. There are some shocking and severe implications for this. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was absolutely right that 116,000 disabled people who currently receive the disabled worker element in working tax credit will lose £60 a week. I cannot believe that it would be the intention of the Government to affect disabled people in work in this way. However, if Clause 14 stays in the Bill, that will happen.
In numerous debates, we have talked about universal credit being more simple; quite frankly it is not. I apologise for the somewhat technical nature of what I am going to say, but this is going to affect hundreds of thousands of disabled people. We have been told that a similar amount of additional financial support for disabled people in work would be available in universal credit and would be accessed through the work capability assessment even if the person was working full-time. Any disabled person who is working and requires additional financial support because of the extra costs, which have already been mentioned, would have to take the WCA. If they still qualified as having a limited capability for work, they would receive the £30 element in their universal credit, regardless of the hours that they worked. They would also receive the disabled person’s work allowance. For single people in rented accommodation it is worth a further £30 a week. Together, the limited capability for work element and the work allowance would replace the additional support offered in the current system through the extra element in working tax credit. Removing the limited capability for work element will therefore reduce by about £30 a week, or £1,500 a year, the additional support available to many disabled people in work once universal credit has rolled out. Only those who are working but qualify for the support group will receive an additional element.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 64 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, an indefatigable champion of the rights of carers. I also express my support for other amendments, particularly those concerning the disability employment gap, on which we heard very eloquent arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton.
It is very welcome that the constraints on labour market participation created by the care of children are much better recognised now than they were in the past, but we still have a long way to go with regard to carers, who are an increasingly important part of the labour force. I hope that the carer strategy the Government are working on will address the need for policies that make it easier to combine paid work and care, such as the statutory paid care leave for just a few days a year which many other countries provide. I have argued for this very important policy in relation to a number of Bills going through your Lordships’ House. We are becoming a laggard compared with other countries. We can learn a lot from them.
As care is such an important part of the economy, the amendment underlines the case for reporting on the position of carers and former carers in the labour market as part of any duty to report on employment trends. I suggest that it might go a bit further, so that any such report includes information on those who combine paid work and care and those who have had to give up paid work to care, as well as former carers.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 67 in the name of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s laudable aim to halve the employment gap. Leonard Cheshire has called it the most ambitious and exciting commitment to disabled people in the last decade. However—I am sure that the Minister was expecting a “however” from me—without reporting it becomes just awareness. Awareness will not do it. There has been awareness-raising for as long as I can remember. There is a moment of “wake up”, when people realise they should be slightly more open to disabled people, but then they forget what they are meant to do. Charities such as Scope, Mind and Mencap, to name a few, have had amazing public campaigns to raise awareness. There is a host of such organisations. Disability Confident is a bit of a step forward, but the shift in attitude is minute. We know that because the employment gap still exists.
It is important to look at the reality of how this changes for specific impairment groups. We are not one homogeneous group. We are not “the disabled”; we are disabled people. Different solutions will be required for different people: two wheelchair users do not require the same solutions, let alone the difference between me as a wheelchair user and somebody with a learning disability. We can all be treated and discriminated against in very different ways. With changes to things such as disabled students’ awards and Access to Work, which is too complicated and inflexible—it takes too long to apply to get support—and the other changes that have come in, a number of people have written to me to say that their access to work has been cut with extremely short notice. They have gone from full-time support to suddenly having 12 hours a week. They are then pushed out of work. Instead of helping them it is making their lives far more complicated.
Disabled people are tired of awareness; we are tired of waiting. Disabled people just need a bit of help. The biggest change will come if we move away from awareness. If the Government are really serious about closing the employment gap, the tone must come from this Chamber and the other place with them accepting the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, which would legislate for a disability employment gap reporting obligation.
If we are to take the Government at their word—that the measures in the Bill reducing benefits for the disabled are about incentivising work, rather than simply cutting the cost of the benefit budget—I freely applaud the intention, if not necessarily the execution. The disability employment gap is, of course, a sad indictment of a society that has for perhaps too long been willing to ignore the aspirations of the disabled to engage fully in society through work. As the Government’s own impact assessment found, 61% of those in the work-related activity group want the opportunity to earn a living. It is quite right that the Government have committed to this laudable aim of halving the disability employment gap. We all applaud that.
There are, of course, measures within the present Bill that the Government claim will contribute towards reducing the employment gap by incentivising paid employment; the WRAG cut is the obvious example. However, as was evidenced in this Chamber last week, there are quite a few people with a great deal of experience in this area who have grave concerns about the effectiveness of the measures. This kind of carrot-and-stick approach cannot be a substitute for the proper strategic, joined-up thinking across the departments that will be required if we are to help disabled people overcome the considerable challenges they face in entering or re-entering the workplace.
I acknowledge that the Government are making good progress on this issue on some fronts. For example, I welcome the announcement in the spending review of the new work and health programme. However, a proper reporting obligation will bring much needed clarity and transparency to the issue of disability employment, as well as allowing the Government to think more strategically about how best to allocate resources in an effort to close the gap. This obligation is made even more essential, given the seriousness of the implications of measures like the ESA WRAG cut for those who currently rely on such benefits. If the WRAG cut does not facilitate increased numbers of disabled people moving into work—or, even worse, makes it harder for them to find employment, as a number of charitable bodies have suggested—we need to know about it. These amendments would cost the Government almost nothing, but would give them a sound platform going forward as they seek to fulfil this excellent pledge to close the disability employment gap. I therefore hope that they will support some form of these amendments as we go forward.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support Amendment 69, to which my name is added. When I added my name, I received lots of really good examples of how apprenticeships can work for disabled people, especially when there was understanding of the needs of the disabled person and flexibility in some of the cases where it was required. As my noble friend Lady Campbell said, apprenticeships are really important. It is a massive opportunity for disabled people to develop their skills. But the barriers into apprenticeships can be very different from those into work, which is why this amendment is so important. One person who contacted me said that he wanted to offer an apprenticeship to a 19 year-old young man who has autism. The young man wanted a job and he was good with computers. He said that he wanted to get away from under his parents’ feet. He was offered an apprenticeship through a college. However, they then got stuck in the process of the assessments, which derailed everything. The college wanted to do the assessment in the college and not in the workplace, which made the young man feel very uncomfortable. He then went through this whole process of “dithering” and the young man pulled out because he could not get clear support for the opportunity he was going to be offered. It is a massive mistake and a real shame that young people are getting so close to being offered an apprenticeship but then feel that they cannot take it.
Another young man, who has a visual impairment, has lost out on two positions. He started working but lost out because his employers were unable to be flexible with the opportunity offered.
I have been sent many more good examples than bad examples; it is a shame that we are not using them. This amendment would provide an incredibly useful resource to help others and, if it is reported on in the right way, would help the Government achieve their aim of getting more disabled people into apprenticeships.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
Before I speak to Amendment 68A, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I also take this opportunity to declare an interest as a trustee of the Young Women’s Trust, to which I am grateful for the briefing it provided.
My amendment calls on the Government to include in the report the number of apprentices disaggregated by protected characteristics. As I support the other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend and others, I shall concentrate on young women and apprenticeships.
The Government’s target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020 is to be welcomed because they can be an important route to skills development and work for all young people, but only if they are of high quality and reach those such as the under-25s who are in the most need. It is also welcome that the Government propose to report on progress each year, but it is important that the information contained in that report is useful and not just a pat on the back for numbers going through the system. The report should identify areas where more attention is needed and inform policy development, because evidence shows that apprenticeships are not working as well for young women as they are for young men.
The Young Women’s Trust aims to improve the lifelong opportunities for young women aged 16 to 30 with few or no qualifications, who might be unemployed or in precarious or insecure employment and who are on very low or no pay. Because of a lack of understanding, the Young Women’s Trust undertook a year-long inquiry into the problems of young women who are not in education, employment or training. It produced a report called Scarred for Life?, which was based on consultations with young women and other interested parties, as well as polling conducted by ComRes.
The polling showed that young women work in fewer sectors than men. Two-thirds of female apprentices work in just five sectors, while the same proportion of men work in more than 10. Female apprentices account for fewer than 2% of apprentices in construction, 4% per cent in engineering and still only 12% in IT and telecoms, but 93% of early-years childcare and beauty places are female. The IPPR has said that traditionally masculine areas may receive better-quality training and these sectors also lead to better employment and further education prospects. As young women are less likely to receive training as part of their apprenticeship, they are more likely to be out of work at the end. This is compounded by other research which shows that employment gains from further education are generally not as great for women as they are for men.
The apprenticeship wage also deters women without parental support from applying. Young women say they understand the logic of earning less before being qualified but the pay is just too low to support themselves. Young women also receive less hourly pay on average than men; they could earn £2,000 less over the course of a year. Apprentice equal pay day was marked on 28 October—for the following 64 days, female apprentices would be working for free.
Young women also recognised that when apprenticeships worked well they were a good route into employment. However, they were concerned about how to meet their current needs while training. There is insufficient flexibility to balance apprenticeships and other responsibilities such as caring. They therefore have different priorities in considering apprenticeships.
Data from the Skills Funding Agency and BIS show that 90% of apprentices are aged over 25, with a greater proportion of women in that age group. It is therefore likely that they have been recruited from the existing workforce and that opportunities are not being provided to young people who are just starting out or who are NEET. These challenges prevent thousands of young women making the most of their potential as well as meaning that the wider economy and companies miss out on a vital source of talent.
Destination data are especially important in measuring quality. Apprenticeships are worth while only if they develop skills in all young people and provide a good route into employment. Young women are three times more likely than young men to be out of work after completing an apprenticeship. University education has long been assessed against destination data. Similar measures should be applied to apprenticeships if the esteem in which they are held is to be raised.
If the figures in the Government’s proposed annual report were disaggregated, it would also give added impetus to employers to develop a diversity policy for their apprenticeship schemes; to monitor the protected characteristics of their intake; and to work with careers services, schools and others to attract a diverse workforce, which I believe would command support from all quarters. Without any measurement of the quality of the apprenticeships, the jobs that might or might not follow, or the impact on the reduction of low wages, they offer no real route out of poverty.
I will listen with interest to the Minister’s reply to the questions posed by my noble friend, but, given the lateness of the hour, I will not add to them.