House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Covid-19 Inquiry
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the covid-19 inquiry. Yesterday, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the UK covid-19 inquiry, which examines the resilience and preparedness of the United Kingdom between 2009 and early 2020.
My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the families of those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Their grief and the nature of their loss is harrowing, with so many loved ones lost before their time; so many heartbreaking last goodbyes said over a phone or iPad; and in some cases there was not even the chance to say goodbye at all. So many friends and family members were denied even the chance to go to a funeral, and many others found their lives changed by covid forever. We can only begin to imagine the anguish and anger that people feel, because this report confirms what many have always believed: that the country was not as prepared as it should have been, and that more could and should have been done.
Baroness Hallett is unequivocal:
“The UK was ill prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the coronavirus…pandemic”.
She finds that “processes, planning and policy” across all four nations failed our citizens. There were fundamental failures of state, with poorly performing public services, as well as health and social inequalities contributing to our vulnerability.
The inquiry finds that
“the UK prepared for the wrong pandemic”,
with a focus on influenza to the effective exclusion of other potential pathogens. There was a lack of leadership, a lack of appropriate challenge and oversight from Ministers and officials, which allowed major gaps to open up in the UK’s resilience in the period leading up to the pandemic.
Baroness Hallett finds
“fatal strategic flaws underpinning the assessment of the risks”
and
“a failure to learn sufficiently from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of disease.”
Ministers and officials took false comfort from a positive analysis of the UK’s preparedness. Not enough thought was given to how we might seek to prevent the worst effects of a pandemic, such as with a system of test and trace, rather than accepting the consequence of spread as inevitable.
In this emergency, the cracks in our society were exposed. The inequalities were glaring, and that weakened the response. That is why the report’s findings on the most vulnerable are so important: what it says about the elderly, ethnic minorities and those already subject to existing health inequalities, particularly in the early months of the pandemic; those with higher risk of serious illness who were asked to shield for extended periods; those living in overcrowded houses, working in the gig economy or on low incomes; those who suffered as a result of the appalling increase in domestic abuse during the lockdowns; and, of course, disruption to education and the inequalities of vastly different access to online learning and IT equipment. Resilience has to be for all of us, not just some of us.
The underlying picture that this report sets out is stark. Before the pandemic began, our public services were already stretched to their limit, during what should have been normal times. This was especially true of the NHS, overstretched even before the pandemic hit, and key workers in other services, overburdened in normal times and then asked to go above and beyond. A nation can only be as resilient as the foundational strength of its infrastructure and public services.
As I stand here today with 8 million people on NHS waiting lists, prisons overflowing, councils pushed to the brink and public services in a worse position than they were even in 2020, we must ensure that we are prepared. Baroness Hallett says that it is not a question of if another pandemic will strike, but when. Resilience is not just about another pandemic, but about the full range of risk that we face. We are reminded of that this morning as reports come in about a global IT outage affecting airlines, GP surgeries, banks, media and other organisations. It is not easy to know what the future holds. We cannot plan fully for every possible risk, but we must do what we can to learn the lessons of this period.
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is a top priority of this Government. With a long-term approach to strengthening our national resilience, I shall lead a review of our national resilience against the range of risks that the UK faces. I shall chair a dedicated Cabinet Committee on resilience to oversee that work. Of course, it is not just about central Government, so we will work with the devolved Governments, regional mayors and local leaders as we consider the report’s recommendations. When we have an emergency, we should do everything we can to work together locally and nationally. The Prime Minister has already started to reset relationships with critical partners, because resilience is too important for division to get in the way. Instead, it has to be about co-operative strength.
Some improvements to our operational effectiveness have already been made. The previous Administration did make efforts to improve preparedness. These include changes in the way that the Government access, analyse and share data, including with the public. They also changed the risk assessment processes and the way in which the centre of Government works to prepare for and respond to crises. As an incoming Government, in office for just two weeks, we will look at those efforts in the coming months as we develop our own approach. Where things are good, they should be kept; where they are not good enough, they should be changed.
The inquiry’s report recommends improvements in the way whole-system risks are assessed and managed across the UK Government and the devolved Governments, and improvements to the leadership and oversight provided by Ministers. The Government will carefully consider all the findings and recommendations, including any from the Grenfell inquiry that also have a bearing on resilience planning. We will respond in full within six months.
We will also play our full part in international efforts to improve global health and pandemic preparedness, from disease surveillance and vaccine development to strengthening health systems in the global south and building even greater international co-operation. The United Kingdom has a huge amount to offer and it is in our national interest to do so, because, as we have seen so powerfully, pandemics do not respect international borders, so global health security is an essential element of national security.
I wish to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for all their work so far and for putting the voices of the bereaved at the heart of the inquiry. Amid the tragedy of the pandemic, the British people came together in the most extraordinary ways—from the incredible service and sacrifice of our frontline workers, not least in the NHS, to the generosity of volunteers across our communities supporting one another with acts of kindness. It was a story of service that showed the very best of our country. This Government of service are determined to learn the lessons from this inquiry and to prepare as best we can for the future. That is the duty that we have to the people we serve, and indeed to the memory of those we lost. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not only for early sight of his statement, for which I am grateful, but for his tone in how he addressed what is an extremely sobering report—module 1 of nine. I suspect that we will look at many more such sobering reports in the coming months.
I put on the record our gratitude to Lady Hallett and her team for the work that they have done and to all the witnesses who gave evidence, particularly those who had experienced loss and trauma. That evidence was vital, but giving it will not have been in any way easy, given what they had been through. I pay tribute to them. This module, the first of nine, is not only a hugely important piece of work, but the least this country owes to those who lost loved ones in the course of the pandemic.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly talked about how this country came together in the face of an unprecedented event, about which we learned more every day as the country had to adapt to changing knowledge. I join him in paying tribute to emergency workers and all across the country who worked in whatever way to come together and help the country get through, but particularly to those who worked in the NHS and care services and those who lost someone. It was an incredibly traumatic time for the entire country.
What has been set out by the right hon. Gentleman today and by Lady Hallett yesterday is deeply sobering. It lays bare failures of the state in respect of planning, challenge, resourcing and leadership. Irrespective of Government or party in power, it is incumbent upon us all to consider it in the spirit in which Lady Hallett has put forward her recommendations.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work already done since the pandemic to improve resilience in this country and ensure that we are better prepared for the next one. We started that work in government, having announced the largest overhaul of our resilience structures in decades. We created the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office, breaking it out from day-to-day crisis management so that it could focus on resilience, horizon scanning and better preparedness. We set up the resilience academy to increase and improve the training of Ministers, MPs, civil servants and all those in civil society who respond to crises. We also announced a new national exercising programme to test our systems.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster highlighted that the focus of previous pandemic preparedness planning was around influenza. It was seen in the context of Operation Cygnus, which was often pointed to as the blueprint of how to prepare for these things. The right hon. Gentleman was right that it focused on influenza, for which we have therapeutics; in the case of the covid pandemic, we did not. As a country and a civil society, we need to look completely across the piece at how we can best prepare for whatever eventuality may occur.
In setting out his next steps, the right hon. Gentleman adopted exactly the right approach; I am grateful to him for that and for his candour. There will be many more lessons still to learn. It is incredibly important for our country, this Government and any future Government that we learn the lessons to ensure that we are ready for future pandemics, however painful those lessons are. I am also grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to respond swiftly.
I have a few questions for the right hon. Gentleman. What plans does he have to consult the devolved Administrations and local government structures on the detailed changes proposed to how they would operate in the context of a future emergency? What steps will he and the Government be taking to ensure that our emergency planning structures are more cohesively joined up if our country is to face another pandemic?
More importantly, I want to conclude by saying that we stand ready to work constructively and openly with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the national interest to ensure that, as a country, we learn the lessons from this module and from Lady Hallett’s future recommendations to build better resilience in our country and ensure that, irrespective of who is in government, the country is better prepared in future. That is the least that all of us in the House owe the country and those who lost loved ones or suffered in so many different ways—those whose mental health suffered, the children who suffered from not being able to go to school, those who suffered from domestic abuse, and those up and down the country who in many ways still suffer from what happened back then.
As I have said, I approach this issue in a spirit of co-operation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I look forward to working with him in the national interest and to building resilience for the future.
Pat McFadden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response and for the tone in which he spoke. He set out what the previous Government have done, and in my statement I acknowledged that progress has been made, but I think it is also right that a new Government take the opportunity to have a fresh look at this, with fresh eyes and in the right spirit.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a couple of questions on consultation with the devolved Administrations. Yes, that is essential, as is consultation within England with local authorities and elected mayors. It is important that different parts of the country work together when there is a national emergency. There were also questions about how this operates within Government and the balance of responsibility between the centre and individual Government Departments. Baroness Hallett is quite clear that in a truly national emergency the centre has to step up and responsibility cannot be left to individual Departments.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to conclude with the spirit of co-operation that we need on this issue. This work is in the national interest and in the public’s interest. It is the first duty of any Government of any political stripe to do what they can to protect the public. The challenge is that the risks we face are more complex and more unpredictable than they have been in the past. As I said in my statement, we cannot fully plan for every risk, but we have to try to have a system in place that gives us the best possible chance of planning for the risks we can see in front of us.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Like everyone, my thoughts are with the many victims who tragically lost their lives. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ hospital in my constituency who cared for so many people in their last dying days, and who cared for the former Prime Minister when he caught covid-19. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the national covid memorial wall is in my constituency—a stark reminder of the many lives that were lost, each heart painstakingly painted by a family member and dedicated to their lost one. It is a reminder of the many lives that were lost. Will my right hon. Friend visit the covid memorial wall with me and meet the families, and look at how we can make that wall permanent? This is not just about resilience, but about remembering those victims who tragically lost their lives.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the staff at St Thomas’ and other NHS staff across the country, who did so much to care for people during that very difficult period. I have visited the memorial wall in her constituency, and she is right: it is an incredibly moving and human experience. I am very happy to take up her invitation to visit again.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am covering for our spokesperson, who sadly cannot be here today.
I start by paying tribute to Baroness Hallett and all those who have painfully given evidence to this inquiry. It will not have been easy for them and our hearts go out to them. This will be a painful day. The inquiry’s damning findings confirm in clear terms what we unfortunately already knew, and this must be a moment for change. The country was badly let down during the pandemic and this new Government must ensure that lessons are learned swiftly. The Liberal Democrats called for this inquiry back in 2020 and we will continue to demand that the full facts be known about every aspect of this catastrophic failure.
One area of particular focus was the lack of leadership provided by the then Conservative Government. The inquiry found that proper scrutiny and accountability was often missed by Ministers. That is why Back Benchers across this House set up the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which I was privileged to chair. Over 18 months we heard from frontline workers, public health professionals and bereaved families, and there was a deep frustration that they could see what was going wrong, but it was falling on deaf ears in Whitehall.
This is a moment to change how politics works, and I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Government will work across the aisle. What will the Government do to ensure that the right voices are in the room for future such health emergencies, and do they agree that we need a commissioner for ageing and older people, as the Liberal Democrats have been advocating?
Care homes were another area of critical failure. Many of those victims died not directly from covid but because of the lack of care. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain contact in all health and care settings?
The third area that has been under-reported is long covid. Many of us will remember standing in the cold in November banging on our drums for frontline workers, yet they have not received compensation for a disability that has put them out of their beloved profession. Will the Cabinet Office work with the Department for Work and Pensions to progress the compensation scheme that is in train and to gather the right evidence to ensure that we get it right?
Layla Moran
Very finally, on the memorial, will the Minister implement the recommendations in the final report of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the Front Benchers that we are all learning, but we should do so by setting the best example? You are meant to have two minutes, not three. Please can we help each other? Otherwise, I will have Members complaining that they did not get in.
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Member for her questions and the spirit in which she asked them. The truth is that it is easy for any of us to say, “Lessons must be learned,” and whenever anything goes wrong, people say that. The proof is in the practice. Will it be shown in practice? That is the ultimate test for us all.
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member that, just as I said to the Opposition spokesperson, yes, we are happy to work across the aisle on this and to consider suggestions. My colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering the recommendations on the memorial.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Minister spoke of resilience. He is aware that Northwick Park hospital in my constituency was the epicentre at the start of the pandemic, and the lack of resilience meant that nurses there had to wear bin bags to protect themselves. I noted that he spoke of Grenfell in his statement. That was fundamentally important, because this is not simply about resilience in health. In that regard, I ask him to look at the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The same RAAC that caused problems in our schools was used in many housing developments at the time. We need to be resilient to any potential disasters in that respect, too.
Pat McFadden
I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the work of the NHS staff in his constituency. RAAC in public buildings is part of the Government’s inheritance. Just because the problem has slipped down the news agenda somewhat, that does not mean that it has gone away. In time, we will have to address it to ensure that such buildings—whether housing accommodation or public buildings—are safe for people to live in, work in and be treated in.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his new role and welcome the tone of his statement. The report is a stark reminder—if any were needed—that even the most eminent and public-spirited scientists can occasionally be wrong when groupthink affects assumptions. What can the Government do to ensure that Ministers and parliamentarians have access to the widest possible range of advice—including, where appropriate, dissenting voices—across a whole range of issues?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right that groupthink is identified in the report, so it is important for the Government to have access to the widest range of advice, but no part of that, for me or the Government, will be about engaging in anti-science rhetoric or anything of that nature. A diversity of views, yes; a denial of the facts, no.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Yesterday evening, I walked alongside the covid memorial wall and was moved by the number of hearts, each one representing someone who died from covid. I extend my sympathies to all the bereaved families who lost loved ones. Many people of all ages continue to suffer the consequences of the lack of resilience and preparedness due to long covid, so will my right hon. Friend reassure Members that those children and adults who continue to suffer with long covid—such as the young granddaughter of one of my constituents in Shipley—will not be forgotten as the inquiry continues its work?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Again, I echo her comments on the memorial wall. Following the election, we have a lot of new Members in the House; if any of them find themselves with a spare hour, they could do a lot worse than go to the memorial wall, contemplate, and look at the outpouring of grief that is reflected on that wall.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about long covid, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. When we think about the pandemic, of course we think about those who were lost and their families, but there are also people several years on from the pandemic who are still living with those consequences.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. As the former Minister of Health in Northern Ireland who served during the pandemic, my thoughts and condolences are with those who were lost and those who were bereaved, and I pay a tribute of thanks to those who worked across health and social care during that trying time.
The Minister said that resilience has to be for all of us, not just for some. I ask him to ensure that all the devolved nations are equally involved. He talked about there being a consultation with the devolved nations and regions. Can I ask for it to be more than just a consultation, and for it actually to be a partnership?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He is quite right: this report covers all parts of the United Kingdom, and it makes a real effort to do so. The new Prime Minister also made an effort to do so in the days following the election, and one of his first priorities was to visit Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member about co-operation—I think it is essential. Small differences sometimes act to the detriment of the whole effort.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend and near neighbour to his place. Like so many families, my family was affected by the death of a loved one during the pandemic, and a small heart on the national memorial wall reflects my auntie for time immemorial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that procurement during a state of emergency such as the pandemic is important, and that any fraud that occurs must be pursued ruthlessly?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and ask that he accepts my condolences on the loss of his auntie during the pandemic. He is absolutely right to draw our attention to the procurement issues that have been highlighted—they are not specifically covered in this report, but they will be. As he will be aware, this Government will bring forward proposals for a covid fraud commissioner to recover as much as we can of the money that was lost to fraud or waste during that period.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I welcome the statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was particularly pleased to hear him talk about the role of local government. Local government was instrumental in the response, and I imagine the inquiry will find that had it had a greater role, there would have been better resilience. However, as we know, local government financing is in crisis; my own local council is trying to save £100 million this year. What reassurance can he give us that local councils will be given the funding they need to have in place the resilience we need for the future?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right to praise the role of local government. My experience in Wolverhampton was that the council stepped up and did a fantastic job for local citizens during the pandemic. The financial position of local government is difficult; the financial position on a number of things is difficult. I am afraid the truth is that I cannot stand here and promise to write big cheques for everything. We did not say that we would do that during the election, and we will have to operate with a difficult—very difficult—economic inheritance. Everything that we do has to be underpinned by economic stability and financial responsibility. Tough as that is, I am afraid that we have seen the consequences of doing otherwise all too clearly in recent years.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
In her report, Baroness Hallett said:
“The UK government’s…pandemic strategy, from 2011, was outdated and lacked adaptability. It was virtually abandoned on its first encounter with the pandemic.”
Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that any future strategy will be robust and will be updated regularly?
Pat McFadden
One of the things that Baroness Hallett advises in her report is that every three years there is a proper exercise to test any plan and see whether it is fit for purpose. That is an important recommendation to take away and consider. It is difficult to plan for every possible risk. This is not an easy thing to do, but it is really important to try to have the best possible systems in place between the centre of Government, between the Departments and, as we have said, between local authorities and the devolved Administrations too.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which this has been approached, looking both at the things that went well and at the things we need to learn? Having external scrutiny from the covid inquiry provides that lens. As the Government look at the recommendations and begin to put plans in place, some of that will build on the work that was already being done and some, as he said, will be on things that need to improve. I suggest that external scrutiny of the Government’s response is equally important. Will he ask Lord Norton’s Statutory Inquiries Committee to monitor the Government’s response to the covid inquiry?
Pat McFadden
Scrutiny is always good, and I am sure that what we do will be scrutinised. It is really important to have a proper dialogue with the public about these things, because it does no harm for us as citizens, and as Government Ministers, to have a conversation about resilience, about what we do in an emergency, and about we think about that. We do not want to frighten anybody, but it is a good thing to do, and it is a proper role for Government to have a good dialogue with the public about this.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I visited the wall this week, and it was a stark reminder of my own experience during the pandemic. I am an operating department practitioner, and I worked in emergency maternity theatres during that time. From day one, there was next to no strategy. Staff were fighting over inadequate personal protective equipment. We tried to speak up, but we were not heard. We were given out-of-date masks, gowns that were ill-fitting and visors that just fell off our faces.
Even when colleagues sadly lost their lives to the disease, the chaos continued. I sat with new mothers, holding their hands because their partners were not allowed to be with them. We stood by the bedside of a colleague on life support as they lost their battle with covid. Even now, staff are traumatised all over again when people who have waited so long for treatment cannot be helped. Will this Government ensure that NHS staff can have an input in future pandemic planning, as it is we who know how best to protect our patients?
Pat McFadden
I am very, very grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting her experience. There is nothing that I can add to the power of her words. She is absolutely right that in planning for future pandemics, we have to listen to the voice of the staff, who are the people the country will rely on if we face any kind of similar emergency in future.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Members on both sides of the House will recognise that children and young people really felt the impact of the pandemic and the lockdowns on their mental health, their learning and their social and emotional development. We all recognise that executive decisions have to be taken in an emergency to protect children and staff in schools, but I think the public were aghast that pubs and zoos opened before our schools and colleges. Will the right hon. Gentleman’s committee look at putting a proper process in place—potentially designating schools and colleges as national critical infrastructure—with this House taking a vote on any extended lockdowns of our schools and colleges if those ever need to be put in place, and with evidence taken from the Children’s Commissioner and our school and college leaders?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the pandemic’s impact on education through lost learning and, as I said in my statement, the great inequality that children suffered as a result of differential access to online learning. Did they have a good wi-fi connection at home? Did they have the equipment? Was the school fully geared up to providing online learning? The answer for some children to some of those questions was yes, but the answer for a lot of children was no. It is really important in future planning that if we have to make a change, we ensure that it does not reinforce inequality but helps everyone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I put on record my gratitude for the service of the staff at the Hospital of St Cross and of other healthcare workers and volunteers across my constituency of Rugby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that failures of state in the pandemic, and in other cases, have often been due to under-investment and an ideological suspicion of the state among some, including, regrettably, some members of the last Government? Does he agree that a party that puts service first and that believes in investing in our health service and wider Government will ensure that this country is far better ready for future crises?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend talks about failures of state, and that is the essential finding in Baroness Hallett’s report: there were failures of state. He also mentions ideology; I tried in my statement to make it clear that we would not take an ideological approach and that where the last Government had done good things in response to the pandemic, we would keep them. But I also think that a change of Government after such a long period in power is an opportunity for fresh eyes—not necessarily in a partisan way, but having a different set of people to look at what has been done, keeping what is good and changing things if need be. That is one of the advantages of a change of Government, regardless of political colour, after one has been in office for so many years.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I welcome his announcement of a review of national resilience. Does he agree that the many legacies of the pandemic are still very much with us, from the awful personal impacts of bereavement and long covid to the terrible public service impacts on everything from school readiness to social care systems and more? Does he agree that those impacts were worse than they need have been, as set out by Baroness Hallett yesterday? In that spirit, does he agree that this Government’s work of renewal must necessarily also be a work of repair?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend talked about the legacies and, yes, they are very much still here. In terms of vulnerabilities and exposure, Baroness Hallett also mentioned the different impacts on different ethnic minority communities. When I say that resilience must be for everyone, that is also what I am talking about: it has to be for everyone, young and old, and regardless of their ethnic background. Sometimes there were vulnerabilities—particularly in the early months of the pandemic—that exposed inequalities in that regard, and that should give us all pause for thought.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome him to his place. May I also thank Baroness Hallett and her team and associate myself with the comments that everyone here has made to the victims, the bereaved families and frontline workers? As my right hon. Friend said, the voices of the bereaved are at the heart of this report, and that is right. Can he assure me that when the Government are reflecting on the recommendations, that same spirit will be applied so that those insights go into the Government’s response?
Pat McFadden
Baroness Hallett deserves credit for putting the voices of the bereaved up front. If anyone has looked at the actual report, they will find that before we even get into the recommendations, findings and so on, there are quotes from the bereaved that bring home exactly what these losses of loved ones meant to people, and the lasting impact of that. Here we are some four years on from the beginning of it.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I recognise the conclusion in Baroness Hallett’s clear report and thank her for it. In Cornwall, our peripherality made it so much harder. Our local authority’s public health test and trace was halted by the Government on 12 March when fewer than half a dozen cases were in existence in Cornwall. PPE came very slowly. Citizens were making masks and some councillors and officers drove up to Exeter to pick up some. Care homes and workers in particular were slow to get PPE. In many care homes in my constituency, there were tragic results. Will we ensure that local authority public health directors can be more involved with decision making and setting up local solutions such as test and trace?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of care homes, where it was such a difficult situation throughout the pandemic. We were trying to get the right PPE to the staff. It was a huge problem during the early weeks of the pandemic. I remember raising questions about that, and it just exposed what a scramble for safety there was, particularly in the early months. She is right to urge us to learn the lessons from that.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Mr Speaker, as you will have noticed, and as other people have referred to, the report states that there was a failure to engage appropriately with local government in preparing for the pandemic. Sadly, that failure continued throughout the pandemic. I had the dubious pleasure of being the cabinet member for health and social care in Hammersmith and Fulham council throughout the pandemic. We had to fight to close our care homes because the hospitals, under instruction from the Government, were discharging residents without testing and would not listen to us and would not stop. We had to fight to get vaccination in our local pharmacies, and we had to fight to establish a local test and trace system, which then reached 99% of people when the Government were only reaching 62%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further stages of the inquiry, or what the Government now do, should identify and learn from the previous Government’s failure to engage appropriately with the local authorities not only before but during the pandemic?
Pat McFadden
The points that my hon. Friend makes about local government are well made. As I have said, my experience in my local authority area was that I thought the local council stepped up. Sometimes the issue of who is vulnerable and where they are is much easier for a local authority to know than central Government. The spirit of co-operation that I called for in my opening statement is in the public interest and the national interest, and it is what we have to do. If we co-operate, we will be stronger.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for an important statement, and I welcome him to his new role. Like many of us in this room, during the pandemic I lost a good friend and Harlow lost an incredible councillor in Councillor Frances Mason, an incredible community champion who served her community until the very end. In my constituency, NHS staff at Princess Alexandra hospital were on the frontline during this terrible period. Their feedback to me was that the Government’s initial response to covid was too slow and failed to recognise the seriousness of the issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Pat McFadden
Let me offer my hon. Friend my condolences on the loss of his colleague Frances Mason. He is right to pay tribute to NHS staff. Baroness Hallett has set out a number of failings, whether speed, leadership or co-ordination. It is important that we try to learn lessons from this, and we intend to do that.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. May I associate myself with the comments made today about the bereaved and the integral role of our public sector workers throughout the pandemic? Local government workers across Paisley and Renfrewshire South were on the frontline during the pandemic. They established temporary mortuaries to bury our dead, and they looked after the children of key workers so that they could go to work. Could my right hon. Friend say a little more about how to ensure that local authorities will be treated as an integral partner in our resilience planning and the response? That is about not just their funding but the respect with which they are treated by Government. Could he assure us that, in that spirit of co-operation across the four nations, Barnett consequentials given to the Scottish Government will be passed on to their intended recipients?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important role of local authorities, as other hon. Members have. I hope that I have made it clear in my statement and in my responses today that this must be an effort by the whole United Kingdom: central Government, devolved Governments and local authorities in every part of the country. We are stronger together.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and Baroness Hallett for her important report. On the doorsteps of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the anger and grief are still palpable. Where was the accountability from Ministers? Where was the leadership? Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust was on high alert before the pandemic hit. Is it not the case that our NHS was desperately struggling years before, through mismanagement from the Conservative party, and that lives were unnecessarily lost because of it? Careful preparedness planning and management of our NHS and social care services must be a top priority for this Government.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that the NHS was in a vulnerable position before the pandemic, which is why the long-term health of the NHS is so important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has begun that process. I have to be honest with the House: better long-term strength for the NHS will not happen overnight but it should still be an important aim for us.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place on the Front Bench, and I thank him for his statement. He touched on victims of what has been labelled the shadow pandemic—the surge in domestic violence during lockdown. Does he agree that any lessons learned must include action to protect those for whom the instruction “stay at home” is the most dangerous they can receive?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He highlights a very important issue that I spoke about in my opening remarks. It is an important aim of this Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I can assure him that the Minister put in charge of that will champion the cause with a passion and determination that I think and really hope will lead to results. Homes should be a place of safety. Sadly, as he rightly points out, during the pandemic that was not the case for some.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We all have stories from the pandemic about how we and our families were affected. That is as true for Members as it is for constituents right across the country. My family were on the other side of the England-Wales border, and my stepfather was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis during the pandemic. I was not able to visit him and provide the support to my mother that our family needed. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will create a joined-up national strategy? As he rightly notes, the pandemic did not pay attention to our national borders. Will he assure me that we will work very closely with scientists to ensure that there is a national strategy moving forward?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend, who highlights the difficulties people had in not being able to visit relatives and so on. Being joined up across the UK is really important. As I said, there is no place in this kind of planning to let what are sometimes small differences get in the way. We have to work together in a co-operative way. We are stronger together.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Module 1 of the report finds that pandemic planning did not take pre-existing health inequalities into account. In my constituency, those inequalities are particularly wide, as we saw at Grenfell Tower. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Grenfell inquiry recommendations will be incorporated into the Government’s response. Does he agree that in that response we must have a far better plan for protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who are often the most disproportionately affected?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his mention of the Grenfell inquiry. As I said, it is important to take its findings into account. It is also true that pre-existing inequalities left people more vulnerable. A national emergency like this exposes weak points and brings them into the a glaring public light, and they weaken the response of the whole country. The truth is that we have a stronger response as a country if we manage to reduce inequalities, be they on the basis of ethnic minority or of income.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. To build on the previous question, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK has said that module 1 of the report does not go far enough in looking at inequality. Given the high incidence of diabetes and other long-term health conditions in the south Asian community in particular in my constituency, and the disproportionately high covid death rate among disabled, black and Asian people, what assessment has he made of the deep structural inequalities in the health of the nation, after years of Conservative inaction, that caused us to be less prepared for covid-19, and that ultimately led to unnecessary deaths?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is quite right to point out that the prevalence of a particular health condition can be higher in one part of the community. As I have said a few times today, the inequalities exposed in the pandemic made the response weaker than it might have been. If we are to be stronger and better able to handle an emergency like this in the future, we have to address those inequalities. That is not just in the interests of those it will help directly, but in the interests of all of us, because when it comes to emergencies like this, we are all in it together.
Israel and Gaza
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the middle east. I was very disappointed to miss yesterday’s foreign affairs debate due to the European Political Community summit, and I welcome this early opportunity to come to the House.
Last weekend, I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, meeting leaders on both sides. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spoken to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and I have discussed the issue with colleagues from the G7 and, of course, the region. This has been a priority from day one because of the desperate situation in Gaza, and the serious risk of escalation in Lebanon in particular. I must be frank: Britain wants an immediate ceasefire. The fighting must stop. The hostages must be released. Much, much more aid must enter Gaza—Israel promised a “flood of aid” back in April, but imposes impossible and unacceptable restrictions—and there must be de-escalation on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I sincerely hope the parties will agree a ceasefire as a matter of urgency.
I have been discussing with partners the need for planning for what follows, on reconstruction, governance and security, and for reforming and empowering the Palestinian Authority, but President Biden presented his proposals nearly two months ago, so we in this new Government have not sought to cloak our position in qualifications or conditions. This horror must end now.
My visit brought home the conflict’s appalling impact. I met the families of those murdered and taken hostage so cruelly by Hamas, now separated from their loved ones for so long. I told them that the UK would continue to push for the immediate release of all hostages. I also met Palestinians displaced by settlers. Settlement expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government have seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. This Government will challenge those who undermine a two-state solution.
Finally, I met aid workers from the United Nations agencies operating in Gaza. More aid workers have been killed in Gaza than in every other conflict globally combined this year. Those who risk their life to save others are heroes. With journalists banned from entering, aid agencies are a vital source of information from the Gaza strip, and their reports are devastating: almost 40,000 killed, mothers so malnourished that they cannot produce milk for their babies, rivers of sewage in the streets, a surge in disease among children—with 40 times the normal rate of diarrhoea, and with polio now detected—and looting; one aid truck driver was killed only yesterday. I announced on my visit new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began.
Humanitarian aid is a moral necessity in the face of such a catastrophe, and it is aid agencies that ensure that UK support reaches civilians on the ground. UNRWA is absolutely central to those efforts; no other agency can deliver aid on the scale needed. It is already feeding over half of Gaza’s population. It will be vital for future reconstruction, and it provides critical services to Palestinian refugees in the region. I was appalled by the allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attacks, but the UN took those allegations seriously. I have spoken to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Commissioner-General Lazzarini. Following Catherine Colonna’s independent review, we are reassured that UNRWA is ensuring that it meets the highest standards of neutrality and is strengthening its procedures, including on vetting.
UNRWA has acted. Partners such as Japan, the European Union and Norway have also now acted, and this Government will act too. I can confirm to the House that we are overturning the suspension of UNRWA funding. Britain will provide £21 million in new funds, with some directed at supporting the management reforms recommended by the Colonna review. UNRWA supports more than 5.5 million Palestinians, and almost 200 of its staff have died in this conflict. I thank the agency for its lifesaving work.
As we look for a pathway out of the wider crisis, I am conscious of this conflict’s complexities and am determined to listen to all sides. I approach every decision I must take carefully. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel. There is no way out of this crisis without a route to both Palestinians and Israelis enjoying security, justice and opportunity in lands that they can call their own. We are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in a renewed peace process, and to contributing to that process by recognising a Palestinian state at a time determined by us, not anyone else.
I know that other aspects of this crisis are of great interest to the House, including the Government’s assessment of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, the investigation by the International Criminal Court, and what further measures might help to deter malign activity by the Iranian regime. Let me reassure the House that I take those issues extremely seriously. Our commitment to international law is clear, and we are following the necessary processes. As soon as I took office, I tasked officials with a comprehensive review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, and that process is now under way. I will update the House again once the process is complete.
Twenty-four years ago, just weeks after I first joined the House, President Clinton hosted the Camp David summit—a reminder that this tragedy has lasted far too long. There are those in this House who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand Israel’s predicament. To them I say that Israel is in a tough neighbourhood and is threatened by those who want it annihilated. There is no equivalence between Israel’s democratic Government and Hamas, a terrorist organisation responsible for an act of barbarism on 7 October that sought to kill countless Israelis and provoke wider conflict with Palestinians. I fully supported the UK’s role in defending Israel when Iran launched its unprecedented attack, and I utterly condemn the Houthi attack on Tel Aviv overnight.
There are also those who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand the depth of Palestinian suffering. To them I say that civilians in Gaza are trapped in hell on earth. The Palestinian people have been in purgatory for decades, and have been denied the state that is their inalienable right.
As Foreign Secretary, I understand both those perspectives. I recognise the pain and anguish felt on all sides. It makes me only more determined to do all I can in this office to advance the cause of peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
May I start by welcoming the Secretary of State and his team to their places? They take up their roles in one of the greatest offices of state, which is committed to shaping the future and the safety of our country. That is, after all, the foremost duty of our Government.
I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Lord Cameron, Lord Ahmad and, of course, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for their steadfast determination to end this conflict, and for the humanity that they displayed when faced with a situation of untold horror. I also thank them for keeping me—in my previous role as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee —and both Opposition Front Benches fully updated. I am sure that the current Government will continue with that collaborative approach.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, although I cannot say that it prepared me fully to find myself on the Front Bench on a Friday morning. He will know the extensive work that we undertook while in government, following the horrific terrorist attack suffered by Israel on 7 October and the crimes against humanity suffered by her people. I welcome his visit to the region. Israel did suffer an appalling terrorist attack—the deadliest in its history. As we said from the outset, Israel has the right to defend itself in accordance with international humanitarian law, and we must remove Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly set out, the situation in Gaza is desperate. Too many Palestinian civilians have been killed. We continue to see strikes on humanitarian infrastructure and the humanitarian situation is unforgivable. The index on famine states that Gaza is now in just that: full famine. I saw this when I went on my own visit to the Egyptian border with Gaza and met families who had had to be evacuated due to the severity of the harm caused to them. We need an immediate end to the fighting and to secure the release of the hostages, whose families continue to suffer unbearable torment on a daily basis, so will the right hon. Gentleman please provide an update to the House on reassurances he has received on the safety of the hostages?
On aid, in his meetings has the Foreign Secretary secured any reassurances to increase the number of trucks going into Gaza? Seventy-odd a day is just not enough. In government, we did everything we could to urge Israel to let more humanitarian aid into Gaza and open more crossings, including through Rafah, and we trebled our own aid commitment within the last financial year, doing everything we could to get aid there by land, sea or air. We had success in getting the Ashdod port open, as well as Kerem Shalom, and helped get 11 airdrops into Gaza. The field hospital provided by UK aid funding to UK-Med has treated thousands of patients. We also supported and helped to set up a maritime aid corridor to Gaza. The right hon. Gentleman announced today the return of funding to UNRWA. Can he please advise the House on the timeline for that, and provide assurances that taxpayers’ funding will be directed with due regard?
Only an end to the fighting will enable a significant scaling up of humanitarian aid. The right hon. Gentleman rightly stated that Biden set forward a proposal backed by Israel and the UN Security Council to end the hostilities. What action is he taking to move that proposal forward? Can he also provide us with any reassurances he has secured in his meetings with Netanyahu? He rightly raised the case of extremist settlers; we were one of the first Governments to put in place sanctions against some of them. Can he assure us that he raised this issue with the Israeli Government, and whether more sanctions will be forthcoming?
The risk of escalation remains high, particularly with Hezbollah in Lebanon, so can I please ask whether his Department assesses any change in Iranian intent, activities or funding following the sham election of the Iranian President? When they sat on the Opposition Benches, both the right hon. Gentleman and the now Home Secretary were crystal clear that, were they in government, they would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, so can we please now have the timing for this proscription?
We all want to see an end to this devastating situation, which threatens the stability and security of so many. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, our priority will be to work with the Government, but also to challenge and scrutinise them as needed. Ultimately, we can assure the Government that we will always work in the national interest because it is foreign policy that keeps our people safe at home, and that is our foremost duty.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her remarks and for her work previously on the Foreign Affairs Committee, in which she was a stalwart champion for international humanitarian law. She raised these issues frequently in the House, challenging both sides on the issues she thought were important, and I am pleased to see her elevated to this position. I am grateful for the work that I was able to do with the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, and the way in which he kept us—in opposition, in those days—up to date with what was happening in our national interests. I also thank the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for all his work when he was in office, particularly on the issue of development.
The hon. Member asked me about the safety of the hostages. That is of primary concern. Of course, we were engaged in detailed conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu on what support we can offer to assist in the business of getting those hostages out. I met hostage families—many of them UK hostage families—to discuss the plight of those hostages. They remain paramount in the Government’s mind as we head, I hope, towards the ceasefire that we all want.
The hon. Member was right to centre her remarks on the question of aid. Seventy trucks a day, when we know there should be 500, is not enough. The whole House recognises the word “flood”, and we were told in April that Gaza would be flooded with aid. Seventy trucks is nowhere near enough. As a consequence, we hear stories of disease—now including polio—setting in, which is horrific and troubles us all deeply.
Let me reassure the hon. Member that we allocated an extra £5.5 million to support UK-Med in Gaza because those field sites are so important against a backdrop in which hospitals and medical facilities have been pummelled and bombed into the ground. She is right to focus on the Biden plan, which we would like to see adopted in the next few days. The plan dominated discussion with G7 Foreign Ministers in Washington DC last week and the conversations I have had with Arab partners, and all of us want to see the deal done. I sincerely hope that we get to that point by the end of the month.
There is a sticking point with prisoner release as well as with hostage release: what happens on the day after? Israel’s security is paramount. Hamas cannot remain in charge of Gaza. But equally, the Israel Defence Forces cannot remain situated in Gaza. There has to be a new paradigm. It will involve, I suspect, Arab partners and others who can give security guarantees to Israel. It is a complicated picture. We have to work at pace on what comes afterwards.
The hon. Member is right to raise the terrible situation on the west bank. It was important for me to meet the new Prime Minister on the west bank to discuss the finances that have been withdrawn and the febrile situation we saw against a backdrop of an unbelievable expansion, which breaches international law that the House stands by. I press the Israeli Prime Minister on that issue greatly. We are of course looking closely at those issues.
On the role that Iran plays in sponsoring Hamas, sponsoring Hezbollah and engaging in malign activity, we keep a close eye. I stand by what I said at the Dispatch Box when I was Opposition spokesman on these matters, and I will work over the coming months to review the context of terrorist activity and state threats with the Home Secretary.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. What discussions has he had on a deal to secure the release of the hostages? Can he inform the House of the welfare of the remaining hostages?
Mr Lammy
It has now been many months indeed, and it is sadly possible that some of the hostages are no longer alive—there are reports that some have lost their lives. I have spoken to hostage families, aware that, in this case, their sons may no longer be with us. Of course, like any parent, they want the body returned. There are also hostages still in tunnels, and their parents, brothers, sisters and families are unaware of their health at this point in time. We will continue to do all we can, working with the Israeli authorities and with nations, such as Qatar, that, importantly, are able to speak to Hamas in a way that this Government cannot, in order to ensure their release.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place.
The situation in Gaza is, frankly, soul shattering. It has been nearly 300 days, and the death toll stands at 38,000, with the vast majority of those killed being women and children. Only three days ago, 22 people lost their lives in a strike on a UN-run school—the fifth attack on or near a school in the last eight days. Those who survive the bombings are at severe risk of disease and malnutrition, against the backdrop of a medical system that has been completely decimated. I warmly welcome the restoration of funding to UNRWA as a backbone of Gazan society, but the number of deaths will only increase exponentially now that polio has been found—The Lancet estimates that the number might reach 186,000.
This has to end now. We need an immediate ceasefire, but we also need the hostages out and the aid in. It is also right that we should start thinking about not just the next day, but how we stop this ever happening again. There is only one viable answer, which is a two-state solution. That is our north star, and it is the keystone to stability in the region.
I have to express disappointment that the Foreign Secretary refuses to pull the lever that would best signify our commitment to a two-state solution, which is to recognise the Palestinian state on 1967 borders. Ireland, Spain and Norway did it in May. Will he consider it? If not, why not? Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel actively rejects a Palestinian state, and we know that the fact a Palestinian state does not exist is Hamas’s rallying cry. We must prove them wrong, so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that it happens?
The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas leaders, but there is confusion about the Foreign Secretary’s position on the block. Will he clarify that for the House today? Finally, will he consider meeting me so that we can work together across the House to advance the cause of an immediate ceasefire and, most importantly, an enduring peace and a two-state solution?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady not just for her remarks, but for how she took up these issues in the last Parliament, which I am sure she will continue in this Parliament. We are all reminded of her family’s plight in Gaza, particularly in those early months. I welcome her support for restoring funding to UNRWA. Many of our allies made that decision months ago, back in April and May, and I am sorry that it has taken a change of Government to look at it clearly and reach this point. She is absolutely right to raise the huge concern about polio now taking hold in Gaza, alongside the tremendous growth in respiratory disease and diarrhoea, which can both lead to death if untreated.
There is no confusion on this party’s position on Palestinian recognition. We are committed to Palestinian recognition. We hope to work with partners to achieve that, when the circumstances are right. I say to the hon. Lady that it is my sincere hope that the Biden plan is adopted in the coming weeks, and that we get the immediate ceasefire that this party has been calling for—it is now a good almost eight months since we have been calling for an immediate ceasefire. Under those circumstances we can work with others, because Palestinian recognition is not the end, in and of itself; it is actually a two-state solution that is the end that we want to achieve.
The hon. Lady is right that the chief prosecutor at the ICC has made his intention clear in relation to arrest warrants, but she will know that there are further hearings to determine whether they will actually be issued. We have been two weeks in office. It is right that I allow Treasury solicitors, lawyers and the Attorney General to assist me in any judgments that we have to make in relation to that. I said in my statement that there is a process; it is a quasi-legal process that must be followed with all integrity, and I intend to do that.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It is a real relief, particularly his description of the hell hole that is Gaza. Many of my constituents in Rochdale feel deeply appalled by the ongoing deaths and suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza, but they are also deeply appalled by the rising tide of settler violence and expansion in the west bank. Many of them are desperate for peace in the region, as are many of us in this House today. What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to actively promote and uphold the independence of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice?
Mr Lammy
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. It is great to see him here—I know he long held an ambition to move from journalism to this House. We are clear that the International Criminal Court is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious international crimes. We fully respect the rules-based order and the ICC’s independence and impartiality. We are aware that the ICJ is likely to issue an advisory opinion shortly and we will consider it very carefully.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Member to his role. Members on both sides of the House want to see critical aid getting through where it is needed, but I am concerned by the Government’s decision to resume funding to UNRWA. UNRWA schools have been repeatedly used by terrorists both to store weapons and to launch attacks, and over 100 UNRWA staff have had links to terrorist groups in the region. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give UK taxpayers an unequivocal assurance that Hamas have no links to UNRWA in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I had the pleasure of meeting Catherine Colonna in her role as the Foreign Secretary of France. She is a woman of tremendous capability and integrity. She looked at these issues in depth, she reported and all our allies have continued to fund UNRWA. She did make a series of recommendations. That is why I spoke to the UN Secretary-General and to Commissioner-General Lazzarini, who is responsible for UNRWA, to ensure that they are implementing the action plan that came out as a consequence of that review. In finding the money available for UNRWA and restoring its funding, I have also ensured that there is £1 million of funding to support the implementation of those recommendations.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his work on moving Government policy on this issue and for putting the situation in Gaza at the top of his agenda. In particular, I commend the fact that he and the Prime Minister have consistently called for international law to be followed in the conflict. When will he publish the Government’s assessment of whether any party has breached international law since 7 October and what the consequences of any such breaches should be?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he has championed the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people in this House for many, many years. He pushes me on an important subject. May I say to him—he is an esteemed lawyer, so he understands why I am choosing my words carefully—that this is a quasi-legal process and it is important that I follow the actions in the appropriate way, with all probity and integrity? I will consider those assessments when they are made available to me. I instigated a process on my first day in office. I am supported in that by our Attorney General, and I hope to be able to make my views known with full accountability and transparency.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place and I welcome the decision to restore UNRWA funding and the overall change of tone from his predecessors on this issue. The Liberal Democrats have long called for arms sales to Israel to be suspended while there are questions over its human rights record. As shadow Foreign Secretary, he called on the Conservative Government to publish the legal advice that they had received on this matter. Will he commit to doing so now?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady will have heard what was just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham—[Interruption.] The boundaries have changed and he is now my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter)—Hammersmith has gone more upmarket! [Interruption.] Members will understand that, as the Member for Tottenham, I think that I can get away with that.
In all seriousness, because this is a very serious point, I will seek to make my decision with full accountability and transparency.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on UNRWA, whose work I know well. It saves lives in the face of unbearable horror, and we must be careful about believing any misinformation about its work.
Earlier this year, in one of the only hospitals still functioning in Gaza, I met a mother whose child had been injured by an Israeli airstrike. With almost 40,000 killed, she asked me to tell the world what was being done to the Palestinians of Gaza. She assumed that we did not know, because if we knew, surely we would have acted to stop it. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as well as an immediate and lasting ceasefire, accountability is essential in upholding international law, and that the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice are doing vital work on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories that must be supported and acted on? Will he meet me to discuss those issues?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Many in this House will know of her considerable work and the work of her colleagues on behalf of those suffering in Gaza over the past few months. They will also know just how hard and unbearable it has been for many, many of those working on the ground.
My hon. Friend makes an important statement about the independence of the work of the ICC and the ICJ. I believe in the separation of powers, as I think do all democrats in this House. It is for judges and the judiciary to have the time to reflect and make their considerations and for politicians to step back and respect them in that process. That is the case in our own country and it must be the case in international courts of law. Of course I will meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues and keep them updated.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary and his team to their places. I also welcome the statement, in particular the emphasis on the need for an immediate ceasefire, for the immediate release of all hostages and for a stop to settler violence and expansion in the west bank. I welcome the resumption of funding to UNRWA.
I add my voice to the calls that a couple of hon. Members have made for the Foreign Secretary to commit to publishing the comprehensive review of Israel’s compliance or non-compliance with international humanitarian law, as soon as officials have completed it. In the meantime, will he apply the precautionary principle and act to stop all UK arms exports to Israel, given the already widespread evidence of considerable breaches of international law?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks; I welcome her, the Green party’s representative for North Herefordshire, to the House.
As I said in my remarks, this is one of the toughest neighbourhoods in the world. Israel is surrounded by people who would see its annihilation—it is being attacked by the Houthis, Hezbollah are firing missiles and Hamas want to wipe it off the map. For those reasons, it would not be right to have a blanket ban between our countries and Israel; what is right is for me to consider in the normal way the issues in relation to offensive weapons in Gaza, following the quasi-judicial process that I have outlined.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and congratulate him, on behalf of my constituents in Warwick and Leamington, on giving priority to this issue. I commend him for today’s announcement. The restoration of funding to UNRWA is long overdue; as we have heard, many other nations did this many months ago. Given its importance in the supply of 60% of aid and 50% of food into Gaza, the 70 trucks a day we have heard about are way insufficient—an estimated 500 are needed.
My right hon. Friend may be aware of the Oxfam report showing that the IDF has almost systematically weaponised water in Gaza; there has been a 94% reduction in the water supply, to just five litres per person per day. My right hon. Friend spoke about dysentery and polio. What does he believe the UK can do to assist the restoration of the water supply in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s continued championing of these issues. He is right to mention the importance of water. I think it is now half a million people who are at category 5—the definition that constitutes starvation and famine—and in large part that is due to there being no access to clean water. He knows of the scenes of sewage getting into the system. The lack of clean water is a desperate situation. In the end, what we need is a ceasefire, because only with a ceasefire can reconstruction work begin.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to speak of the need for an immediate ceasefire and the need to restore funding to UNRWA. I welcome both those moves. He also spoke of the Government’s needing to make an assessment of Israeli compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, but the question then arises: after that assessment has been made, what is going to happen? He said in his statement that the horror must end now, and indeed it must, but he has just explained to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) that to cease supplying arms to Israel would cause, as he sees it, a greater problem. What is the leverage that he has? If the horror must end now, and it must, then this Government must be able to take some actions once they have reviewed and received the legal assessment that he has called for. I am prepared to give him time to get that assessment, but I want to know what he is going to do once he has got it.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is very experienced, experienced enough to know that the minute any individual describes their leverage, that leverage is lost. Therefore, if he will forgive me, I will not share that at the Dispatch Box at this stage. However, the passion that lies behind his question is a concern that, for nine months, Foreign Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box and said that the aid must get in and that we must follow international humanitarian law—and now, months later, there is a new Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box and there are still serious concerns about international humanitarian law and the aid has simply not got in in the quantities needed. He shares my frustration, and it was frustration indeed that I shared with leaders in Israel.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was not bobbing, but I am happy to ask a question. Are you sure it was me you were calling on?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
Please go ahead. The Clerks are struggling a bit with new Members.
Emily Darlington
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his entire team on their positions, and thank him for the restoration of funding to UNRWA. As someone who has worked in international development, I have seen the vital work those organisations play, and in particular those organisations under the United Nations umbrella, because they are where we can come together as an international force. Does he agree that the solutions in the Israel-Palestine conflict are not necessarily solutions here in Parliament, but solutions that we will have to work with our international partners to build?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has got off to a good start. She is right, first, because we have seen so many aid workers lose their lives and, secondly, because her emphasis on the partnerships that we have to strike with allies across the world is essential if we are to see the change that we need, particularly in Gaza but also in the Occupied Territories.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is very welcome to see the Secretary of State and his team on the Front Bench as Britain’s voice in the world. That has a particular significance for me, as one of my predecessors in the Livingston constituency was Robin Cook. I know Robin Cook’s time in office and his thinking did much to inform the Secretary of State’s approach to his new role. This statement is incredibly welcome, although it set out the horrific situation on the ground in Gaza. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no peace without a two-state solution, and that opposing a two-state solution is wrong for both Israelis and the Palestinian people?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to have been asked a question by the new occupant of Robin Cook’s seat. He was a stalwart and a champion of this cause. I was grateful to come into this House when he was serving as Foreign Secretary, and in an article I wrote recently in Foreign Affairs I paid tribute to his work over many years.
The vote by the Knesset yesterday was hugely disappointing. We believe passionately in two states. I say to those who reject two states, “If you are a proponent of one state, you have to explain how everyone enjoys equality under the law. And if you are a proponent of no state, you are effectively suggesting that occupation continues.” That is unacceptable, I would have thought, to all Members of this House.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Foreign Secretary, and I welcome his statement outlining the restoration of UNRWA funding, for which Labour Members have been calling for a long time. He will remember that many of us have raised the issue of humanitarian aid. We met many aid organisations throughout the last Parliament, including Islamic Relief, which is based in my constituency, who told me, two days after 7 October, the harrowing story of losing contact with all their staff on the ground. We know that blockades and restrictions are key issues, so will he outline how they will be lifted so that urgent aid can get to the people who need it?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and may I congratulate her on her remarkable speech at the beginning of the debate on the Address? She has also raised these issues before. We certainly share a Christian faith and have talked about our deep concern as people of faith, and I pay tribute to Islamic Relief for its work. One issue is that Rafah is now closed, and it needs to reopen. Another issue is not just the trucks getting across but the distribution once they are there. Very sadly, the picture that is now being painted is one of lawlessness in Gaza: widespread looting from the trucks that get across, and, very sadly, a driver losing his life yesterday. Her question is, as the people of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green would say, on point.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position and the restoration of funding to UNRWA. It is good to see that when we talked about change at the election, we also meant in the international approach of the Government. I know that he will share the House’s revulsion at the ongoing horror faced by hostages, their families and the innocent civilians in Gaza facing this enduring crisis. That revulsion is shared by many people in my Peterborough constituency. It is a privilege to be a voice for them in calling for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, peace and a complete solution to recognise Palestine. What message would he send to constituents of mine—who have for too long heard discussions about a two-state solution—to say that this time, with a new Government, we have a new approach to deal with the immediate crisis and achieve the recognition of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend knows that I know Peterborough very well, having spent seven years of my life in that great cathedral city. I have knocked on doors with him and know that this is an issue of great concern there. We are absolutely committed to the two-state solution. The global community has, for too many years, talked about it but not acted, and I recognise that there is now almost tremendous cynicism when that phrase is used, but there is no way out of this crisis without a plan for afterwards. That plan must, of course, guarantee the security of Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a just cause, and we must work with Arab partners and build up the Palestinian Authority. I spoke to them at length about what more we can do to assist them with the reforms that they need to make so that we can realise that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record our deep concern for the hostages, their families and their plight. If they were released, we could end this now.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his position as the first Labour Foreign Secretary for 14 years, which is very welcome. Does he agree that the UK’s extensive, long-standing diplomatic, economic, cultural and defence ties with the Gulf Arab and other middle eastern Governments mean that we are better placed to bring our influence to bear and work in co-operation with our international partners, in order to achieve a two-state solution that ensures a safe and secure Israel and a viable, sovereign and—one day, we hope—prosperous Palestinian state? Can he also assure me that all will be done to enable British organisations and companies to play their fullest role in rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure and economy?
Mr Lammy
I say to my hon. Friend, the new Member for Rugby, that that is a very good question. That is why in opposition, I spent so much time with partners in the region, talking to them about the future. All of them want to be engaged, want peace and want to move towards a process of normalisation, but they are all crystal clear that that cannot happen by ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people, or without setting up a road map to two states. They are not prepared to reconstruct Gaza for this to happen yet again in 25 years’ time, so we have to work with them. They play a critical role, but we must now get that immediate ceasefire.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary and his team to their places, and strongly welcome the decision announced today to restore funding for UNRWA, which will be recognised by many people in south Birmingham as an important step—among many others—towards ending the horror that we see today in Gaza. The Israeli Government’s decision to end the legal routes for Palestinians to work in Israel has played an important role in the entrenchment of poverty and political instability in the west bank, alongside the illegal settlements programme. Will the Foreign Secretary make representations on this important matter, recognising that both the Israeli Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, as pillars of civil society in both nations, have an important role to play in the establishment of a lasting peace?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about what I saw on the west bank. The situation is febrile—it is anxious. There is tremendous hardship because of the withdrawal of those funds. It is phenomenally tense, and against that backdrop, people are watching their land being taken from them before their eyes. As such, the representations that my hon. Friend has asked me to make are absolutely the representations I made when I spoke to the leadership in Israel, because this simply cannot continue, and we must act to stop it.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the whole Front-Bench team to their place—it is wonderful to see. I also welcome the visit that the Foreign Secretary made to the middle east, and thank him for the time he spent visiting the families of the hostages who have been held in Gaza for nine months now. I ask him to commit to do everything he can to ensure those hostages are released immediately.
Mr Lammy
I welcome my hon. Friend and north London colleague to his seat. He represents a part of the country with a significant Jewish population; in my own constituency, I am very proud of the Stamford Hill area of Tottenham, which is also a historic home of the Jewish population. They are hugely concerned about the plight of hostages, and they worry that the discussion about hostages has fallen off the lips of so many people. They worry that the horrors of 7 October have been forgotten against the backdrop of this unfolding crisis and this war, and I want to reassure them and my hon. Friend that they have not been forgotten. The British Government—and this is a cross-party issue—are working very closely with the Israelis and others to see the hostages released.
Debate on the Address
Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
It is an honour to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, and it is the honour of my life to address the House for the first time as the Deputy Prime Minister.
We have been given a mandate by the British people to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and start the new chapter that they deserve. That began with this week’s King’s Speech, but it is not the words that we offer; it is the action. I know at first hand how Government can change lives for the better. I say that not as a politician, but as someone whose life was changed for the better by the last Labour Government, and I am determined to do the same for others. That is why we have set out a bold vision to smash the class ceiling, to get Britain building, and to improve the quality and standard of life for everyone everywhere across our country.
Let me give a huge welcome to all the new Members on the Government Benches, who are crucial in delivering that programme of national renewal. I also extend a welcome to new Opposition Members. We will disagree on much, I am sure, but we all share the honour and privilege of representing those who sent us here, so I wish the very best to all hon. Members making their maiden speech today.
Just over nine years ago, when I made my maiden speech on behalf of the people of Ashton-under-Lyne, I pledged that I would always tell it as it is, and I think that is one promise I have kept. Now I intend to fulfil another, because we promise the people of this country that we will serve their interests and not ours. That starts with us having the honesty to say that we will not be able to put right the mess of the past 14 years immediately. But after just two weeks, we have already made a difference by creating a national wealth fund to grow our economy; scrapping the failed Rwanda plan; lifting the near-decade-long ban on onshore wind; starting work on the 40,000 extra NHS appointments that people need each week, and on getting the 700,000 urgent dental appointments up and running; and resuming and expanding teacher recruitment. In my Department, newly renamed the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we will replace slogans with substance.
We are getting back to the real work of governing in the national interest. We have already taken early steps to unblock our planning system, creating a new taskforce to accelerate progress on stalled housing sites in our country, beginning with four that alone could deliver more than 14,000 of the homes that Britain so desperately needs. The housing crisis is holding Britain back. Too many families face soaring mortgage payments, or sky-high rents for damp, unsafe homes, and there are leaseholders who are trapped, facing eye-watering charges with no way out. All this has been fuelled by the chronic housing shortage, after the last Government failed to meet their housing targets every single year. Housing completions are now set to hit their lowest level since world war two.
We know we have a mountain to climb. That is why we are already taking the first steps, starting with an overhaul of our planning system—a reform that will help us build the homes we need and speed up provision of the infrastructure to support them. We are committed not just to an ambitious target for overall housing building, but to building the biggest wave of social and affordable housing for a generation. That is a promise that we will bring back with meaningful housing targets.
It is right that local people have a say on what kind of houses are built and where, because our aim is not to build big, but to build well. We will work with local government to plan new housing in the best possible places, with the infrastructure, public services and green spaces they need. Social housing must be there when people need it, and affordable housing to own should be there when they want it.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on her new role. My local councils in South Staffordshire and Dudley have worked hard to prepare local plans that provide the housing they have assessed that the local community needs, while also protecting key green belt. Will the right hon. Lady really tear up plans that have been adopted, or that are in the formal process of being adopted, if her bureaucrats feel that their assessment is better than the local council’s?
Angela Rayner
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I congratulate the local authorities that have those local plans. If those plans are adopted, that is exactly what we want to see; we want to see more local plans, and more engagement with local leaders, so that we can build the houses that people want in their areas, working together with them. The hon. Gentleman talked about the green belt, but we have been very clear on the grey belt as well. We will not get the housing we need just from brownfield sites, although brownfield will be first. We will work with local leaders, because the mandate the British people gave us at this election was to get the housing that Britain needs. I am afraid that the last Tory Government did not take this issue on but failed people, and we have a chronic housing shortage. Everyone should have a place to call home, and we will legislate to make that happen.
Our renters’ rights Bill will give protection and security to tenants, as well as responsible landlords, levelling the playing field. We will plug the gaps left by the last Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents and strengthening leaseholders’ rights. Our planning and infrastructure Bill will provide the extra homes we need, unblock stalled development sites and unveil the next generation of new towns.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
My constituency has vast swathes of high-risk flood area—zones 2 and 3—and we see flooding every year; we saw it most notably in 2014, but also in January. Will the right hon. Lady’s planning reforms protect areas at high risk of flooding, so that they are not built on, making our flooding worse?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. We have a lot of speakers to get through, including some maiden speakers, so I urge Front Benchers to make shorter speeches and take fewer interventions. Otherwise, we are not going to get through these maiden speakers.
Angela Rayner
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take your advice, and I apologise to Members for the fact that I will not take more interventions.
We have to grapple with these issues and work with those in these areas. Obviously, flooding has been a major issue, and the Government will look at it. It is devastating to people when their homes are flooded, and we have to look at these things in the round when looking at planning.
We will unveil the next generation of new towns, and we will learn the lessons of the past to create safe and beautiful homes and the sustainable green communities of the future. This Government are fully committed to the 13 targets set under the Environment Act 2021, and we will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary to ensure that we protect the environment and nature. We will work with local leaders to ensure that these towns meet our gold standard of having 40% genuinely affordable housing, with homes for social rent a priority. In some places, we will extend urban areas and regenerate them so that everyone benefits from better public transport and extra public services. We are building not just homes but communities.
Our first port of call will be brownfield land. Previously used land will be developed first wherever possible and those sites will be fast-tracked, but brownfield development alone will not meet the country’s increasing urgent need. The green belt was designed for England in the middle of the 20th century. It is right to keep that principle but make it relevant for today. That is why we will release lower-quality grey-belt sites, disused car parks and garages, and ugly wasteland to meet the needs of 2024. Our golden rules will require developers to enhance local nature and public access to green spaces and provide the local services for communities’ everyday needs, such as schools and GP surgeries.
We will also reverse the damaging changes that the previous Government made last December. While they backtracked in the face of vested interests and scrapped mandatory housing targets, Labour will govern in the national interest and take the tough choices to get Britain building. We will do so under an updated national planning policy framework, which we will have by the end of this month, because the current system just is not working, either for housing at a local level or for projects at a national level. These are projects such as data centres, labs and research sites, which should unleash a modern economy, not to mention large-scale projects that help improve the environment.
Onshore wind is the cheapest form of electricity going, but planning policy has effectively banned it for nearly a decade. We are starting it up again, and we will go further. As part of our plan for cheaper household bills and achieving net zero, we are taking the brakes off the planning system. In the first three months of this year, just a fifth of major applications were determined within the 13-week period. As for nationally significant infrastructure, the average time for consent is now more than four years, compared to two and a half years as recently as 2021.
Our Bill will speed up and streamline the process from start to finish. It will modernise planning committees and increase the capacity of our local planning authorities. By reforming compulsory purchase, it will support land assembly for development in the public interest. We will unblock new grid connections, roads, railways and reservoirs—game-changing reforms for national renewal.
The leaders of our communities are best placed to take forward that mission, and I was delighted to invite our mayors to Downing Street with the Prime Minister, days into a Labour Government. They represent our biggest cities and our most beautiful countryside, and I know only too well the diverse challenges that our people need to overcome. There are now so many Labour mayors that I have lost count of how many we have. I also noted the positive words from Ben Houchen about the constructive engagement that local leaders have already experienced under this new Government. Along with their local citizens, we will give them a bigger say on how to transform their neighbourhoods and high streets. We will hand them the powers to transform their regions, so that they become the best places for people to live, work and enjoy.
We are under no illusion about the hard yards needed to repair the economic and social damage that the last Government left behind. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, we have the worst inheritance since the second world war. Back then, it was Labour that rebuilt Britain from the rubble of war, creating the NHS, the welfare state and council homes for our returning heroes. It will be a Labour Government who now rebuild Britain once again.
Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
It is a delight to be back at the Dispatch Box, and I have been looking forward to speaking opposite the right hon. Lady for a very long time. She and I have never really met, and certainly never spoken to each other, despite being in this House together for seven years. We have some things in common, although not much. We were both born in 1980, although I am older and wiser than she is. People often think we are both much younger than we really are, because we have got such great skin and good hair, and we are both known as being quite feisty. I am really pleased to be able to congratulate her on her elevation to Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister. This is a phenomenal achievement.
She will be a great inspiration to young people, particularly young women, in many communities across the country. That is a wonderful thing. That is the sort of Britain we are: where people from all walks of life can grow up and reach the top. It is an extraordinary story, dare I say it, of Conservative success. Because unlike me, the right hon. Lady grew up under a Conservative Government, with a welfare state that provided a safety net, a strong economy and opportunity. I mostly grew up in Nigeria, under a socialist military Government, who used a lot of the rhetoric that I heard her promote when she was sitting on the Opposition Benches. She may not credit the Conservatives for what she has achieved, but we will take some of the credit anyway.
I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the right hon. Lady on her first outing as a Minister in the Chamber, because it will only be downhill from here. The thing is, I have been a Secretary of State, and after five years as a Minister one learns a thing or two about government that cannot be learned in Opposition. I have been there and done it, and I can tell the right hon. Lady that she has been stitched up. It is quite clear that the Bills and policies from the King’s Speech that she just referenced were written not by her, but by the Chancellor and her advisers. We all know that because we watched the Chancellor announce them in far more detail in her speech last week.
All the stuff that the Secretary of State worked on in Opposition, such as her new deal for workers, has been taken off her and given to the Business Secretary. I am sorry to tell the right hon. Lady that her colleagues—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their many advisers—have written a manifesto and made promises that are not deliverable, and they have hung them around her neck and said, “Ange, you go out there and you sell it.” I am sad to see many of her shadow team not sitting beside her as Ministers. They worked for free, grinding in opposition for years, only to watch the children of the chosen ones get the ministerial cars and salaries before their maiden speeches were written. Wow. Sue Gray was a lot nicer to me when she worked in my Department.
I think we know who is in charge, and it is not the right hon. Lady. She has been stitched up—her colleagues have made her the fall guy. The Government have promised 1.5 million houses by the end of this Parliament—over 800 houses per day—and we are already two weeks in. As she goes on, day after day, she will realise that a backlog is building, and there is no way out. I want her to know that I am here for her. I will be here to hold her hand and walk her through what is likely to be a very difficult time. I may even give her some tips because, having worked in that Department, I know what needs to be done. I know what we should have done but did not do, and I know that the Labour Government will make the same mistakes.
It is not that 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament is unachievable, but it will require the sort of systemic change that Labour Members are not ready for. I know that because of how they voted in the last Parliament and how they campaigned in their own constituencies. I will not read out the long list of all the Cabinet members who have been opposing planning in their backyard, including the Housing Minister. Many of them thought that they would get into government and concrete over lots of Tory constituencies. Three weeks ago, just 15% of the green belt was in Labour constituencies. Now it is 50%. They are not Tory constituencies now—they are Labour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, they are Labour. I say to Labour Members, “They are now your voters and your electorate, and you’re going to have to tell them that you’re going to do something that many of you promised locally that you would never do, not that long ago.”
However, mostly it will not be the problem of the Cabinet, who will look after themselves. It will be the Back Benchers—all those bright, shiny faces I see sitting behind the right hon. Lady, who are really excited to be here. They have not started getting those angry emails that we have been replying to for 14 years. Many of those voters, on whom their narrow, slim majorities now rely, will be writing to them.
In the spirit of sisterly support, I will let the right hon. Lady know what will happen over the next few weeks and months. Labour Members are looking so nervous right now. The right hon. Lady will have a consultation period, which will take this long. Then, she will have to respond to that consultation, which will take that long. Assuming that nothing goes wrong with either of those processes, we reach December or January. Six months will have passed—10% of the Parliament—and the Government will not have built any extra homes. At this point, she will be running 500 homes behind the target every single day and they would not have started building properly. [Interruption.] The Minister of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is chuntering from a sedentary position, “You wait and see.” We have seen. We have been there. We know; you don’t.
And as it becomes clear to their voters what is happening in their new Labour constituencies—for which, congratulations—in the green belt, those MPs are going to receive a lot more emails. I mean, a lot more. They are going to want a lot of public meetings, because they will know that the decisions she announced are now being taken out of local hands and made by central Government. And the only way that they can register their concern is by appealing to their local MPs, who will all be appealing to her.
Well, this is what being in power is. Government is about making difficult decisions. Opposition is easy—we have been watching Labour do it for 14 years, and it has spent all that time telling the people of this country that they will do better. So here is the record that they are going to have to beat: we built 1 million new homes in the course of the last Parliament, while safeguarding the green belt; and 2.5 million since 2010, despite covid. We delivered nearly 700,000 new affordable homes and over 172,000 of those were for social rent. We put in place the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme. Does the right hon. Lady even know yet if the Chancellor will give her up to £11.5 billion? She is going to need a lot more than that if she is going to beat our record.
And let us not forget what Labour did just last year. We had a majority in this House, but not in the other place, where they whipped Labour Lords to vote against an amendment on nutrient neutrality, using new Brexit powers to unlock 160,000 homes. Many new Members did not see that happening. They are going to find it shocking. We legislated for that and they blocked it—destructive opposition. Are they going to reverse that decision? I have a feeling they will not. And that is why I am worried about the right hon. Lady. Is she going to be able to face down her Back Benchers? Or will Labour carry on not doing the things that have to be done in order to build homes?
Let us look at Labour’s record. The right hon. Lady talked about what happened after the last world war. In the year to June 2009, when everybody here was alive and they were last in government, they only built 75,000 new homes—the lowest level of housebuilding since the 1920s. And what are they doing where they currently are in government? In London, Sadiq Khan has failed to hit his own targets, beginning just 21,000 new homes in 2022, despite us giving him pots and pots of money. We were forced to intervene on his housebuilding failures. Why has he not built on all those car parks that she was talking about in her speech? In Wales, the Labour Administration promised to deliver 20,000 new homes for social rent by 2026. They have barely delivered a quarter. The right hon. Lady may pretend that building homes is easy, but Labour know it is not easy because they failed in London and they failed in Wales, and they are already making new mistakes.
We all know that immigration increases housing demand. Just this week, we heard that they are going to be fast-tracking 90,000 illegal immigrants who already landed here. If they are permitted to stay, they will require permanent housing. We put the Rwanda scheme in place to limit illegal immigration. They have scrapped it. With no plans whatsoever to tackle the problem, has she got 90,000 homes ready for the people the Home Secretary is going to be fast-tracking through? If not, she is already 90,000 homes down on the target the Prime Minister has set for her.
So that is why I am feeling very generous towards the right hon. Lady, because she has been stitched up. She is going to need some friends, and I want her to know that we are all here for her. [Laughter.] Some people think opposition is about throwing mud across the Chamber or calling your opponents scum, but often it is about saying, “I told you so.” I want to reassure the right hon. Lady that I will be here to say, “I told you so” when these targets are missed.
We, of course, will be a constructive Opposition. We want to see homes built in the right places with the right infrastructure. We are here to help. I doubt the same can be said of the biggest local nimbys in the country, the Liberal Democrats. There are many more of them now—you wouldn’t know it, but there are—usually elected on promises not to build anything anywhere in their communities. In the last Parliament, I watched them oppose planning reforms on permitted development; reforms that would have allowed us to build on land that was already in use. It will be very interesting to see how they square their nimby tendencies with their manifesto promises—but then again, saying one thing and doing another has never bothered the Liberal Democrats. The right hon. Lady will not get any help from them, but we are here for her.
I have heard some of Labour’s plans. Introducing mandatory targets while introducing new regulatory costs will not work. Without taxpayer funding, Labour’s affordable housing targets are unviable. Where is that money going to come from? The mandate that Labour wants to enforce implies a consequence for missing the target. What will that consequence be for local councils? Is Labour going to scrap the neighbourhood plans that communities have put together to deliver more homes? What will those councils say when they are forced to do things that they promised they would not do just eight weeks ago?
We have heard from Labour Members that they will introduce mechanisms for overriding local decision making to identify the land for development. That is fine, but identifying land does not mean that homes or infrastructure will be built. I look forward to the Second Reading of the right hon. Lady’s Bill, when she will have to explain the plans that the Chancellor and her spads have written up for her, and she can tell us in great technical detail how they will be delivered—although I suspect that she will leave the tricky stuff to her junior Ministers. We Conservatives may not be as many as we used to be, but we still know all the stuff that we learned over 14 years as we delivered 2.5 million homes. We know where the difficulties are, and we know the technicalities; the right hon. Lady is just learning. We will be ready and waiting to show that she and her party have made promises that they cannot keep, and in many cases have no idea what they are doing.
The Labour Government have a tough act to follow—[Laughter.] They do! However, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am pleased to see that they have been copying and pasting many of the policies that we had in government. We introduced metro mayors with substantial powers; now they are announcing that they are going to do more. We put billions of levelling-up funding into communities, backing metro mayors such as Ben Houchen; let us see whether Labour will follow that for all its new mayors. In the last local government finance settlement we made £64.7 billion pounds available to local authorities, a 7.5% increase in cash terms. Let us see whether Labour tops that, rather than just moving money from one part of the country to another.
We would like to see the Labour Government get the Holocaust Memorial Bill—which we initiated—on to the statute book, as the Prime Minister promised, and we will support them in that. We must do right by our Jewish communities, and we provided record levels of funding to protect them from harm and extremism. We took decisive action to tackle growing sectarianism, so we were disappointed not to see any mention in the King’s Speech of how Labour would continue that. In the election we saw independent MPs win seats from Labour on the back of sectarianism and integration failures, a problem whose existence Labour continually denies even as we are watching riots in Leeds.
It is time to put away the childish displays and fake outrage that Labour has been showing. The right hon. Lady will need to get very serious very quickly, and where she has the right ambition, we will do what we can to support her in facing down those members sitting behind her who still do not get it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Because we are trying to get in as many Members as possible, I shall have to impose a seven-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speakers. I urge maiden speakers, who will not have a formal time limit imposed on them, to stick to that sort of limit. Obviously, the time limit will not apply to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I know that she will try to be brief.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) in her rightful place as Deputy Prime Minister. It is also a pleasure to speak in this first King’s Speech under a focused and mission-led Labour Government. I wish to record my thanks to the constituents of Southgate and Wood Green for putting their faith in me to represent them as the first Member of Parliament for this newly configured constituency.
The legislative programme in the King’s Speech shows that the Government are determined to get cracking with the legislation needed for a long-term national renewal, and nowhere more so than in housing. The shortage of both private and social housing is a huge problem across the country. Families and children often wait for years in temporary accommodation that may no longer be suitable, and many young people are unable to afford a deposit on a new home whose price has far outstripped earnings in recent years. They are forced either to stay at home with their parents, or to live in precarious shared accommodation. Another scandal is the high level of no-fault evictions, which is adding to the pressures on local authorities to house homeless people. It is for those reasons that I welcome the proposed renters reform Bill, which will abolish section 21 no-fault evictions and strengthen tenants’ protections and rights to challenge rent increases, among other things.
I also welcome the proposed planning and infrastructure Bill, as we need to get on with house building so that people do not have their lives put on hold because of unaffordability. We need to build more houses in the right places, and ensure that there is no adverse impact on local services and that the design and specification are to a high standard. The types of houses built should conform with the needs of the local community, with more family-sized houses needed urgently. We also need more council houses. I applaud the efforts of Enfield and Haringey councils in building more council houses in my constituency, but more needs to be done. I encourage the Government to support councils in any way they can so that more council houses are built. To build more houses, we need a highly skilled local workforce, which is why I welcome the measures in the proposed Skills England Bill, which will identify national and local skills needs and ensure that they are being met.
I turn now to other elements of the King’s Speech. We all need to ensure that our communities are safe, which is why I welcome the measures in the proposed crime and policing Bill, which will give the police and law enforcement new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour and retail crime, focusing on attacks on shop workers and low-level shoplifting. Small and medium-sized local businesses, which are the lifeblood of our local high streets, are now seriously impacted by even low-level crime, so we need to make sure that they are supported and that law enforcement takes seriously all reported retail crime.
Knife crime has a terrible, devastating effect on the lives of victims’ families and friends, and I find it shocking and sad that the perpetrators are often the same age as the victims. That is why I am pleased to see that tougher sanctions will be introduced to ban ninja swords and other lethal blades, while tackling the gangs who exploit children for criminal purposes. It is also good to see that there will be support for teenagers at risk of being drawn into crime.
On a personal level, I am delighted to see that the tobacco and vapes Bill will be reintroduced in this Parliament. I had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee earlier this year, and there is cross-party support and unity on progressively banning the sale of tobacco products forever. It was a joy to see the UK become a world leader in this area of public health, and I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and Dame Andrea Leadsom for the excellent bipartisan work that they did to progress the Bill before it fell as a result of the general election being called. I sincerely hope that it progresses to Royal Assent this time.
The final Bill I wish to comment on is the draft equality (race and disability) Bill, which will enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for ethnic minorities and disabled people, and introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting for larger companies. I sincerely hope that where there is any disparity, employers take the appropriate action to address their failings and close the gap.
The King’s Speech is an exciting beginning for the Labour Government, who are keen to make a real difference to people’s lives, including those of my constituents in Southgate and Wood Green. The starting gun for national renewal has been fired, and we have got off to a flying start. I hope that the pace of change continues and that we see positive, long-lasting benefits in housing, community safety, health and equality for all.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and welcome her to her place, and I welcome the shadow Secretary of State as well. Because we are talking about local government today, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The topic of today’s debate is planning, the greenbelt and rural affairs. We need to talk about planning and housing, and I will certainly do so, but we also need to talk about rural affairs, and I am slightly confused about why none of the speeches by Front Benchers has done that. I welcome the Government’s focus on house building and the reintroduction of housing targets. In England, the number of people left languishing on the social housing waiting list has reached 1.2 million, and there are 8.5 million people in this country with some form of unmet housing need. Last year, under the Conservative Government, 29,000 social homes were sold or demolished, and fewer than 7,000 were built, so we all know that we have an unprecedented need for new housing, particularly social housing.
The Liberal Democrats’ ambitious commitment on social housing would be to build 150,000 social homes a year by the end of this Parliament—
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is muttering from a sedentary position. He may wish to know that my grandparents lived in social housing, and I have no particular prejudices against it whatsoever.
We are committed not only to building the homes that are so important to easing the crisis throughout the housing market, but to ensuring that those new homes are of a high standard, that they are zero carbon and that they are built alongside proper infrastructure that provides communities with the services and amenities they need. Integrating public service delivery has to be part of the planning process, so in principle we welcome the Government’s plans to streamline the delivery of critical infrastructure, including in the housing sector, in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, but we need to be clear that the current system has benefited developers rather than communities. The Bill must take that into account.
Crude targets alone have led to many developments being given permission, only for affordable and social housing elements to be watered down on the basis of viability once permission is granted. That must change. We know that local authorities are best placed to make the decisions about housing in their areas, so I urge the Government to ensure that their mandatory housing targets are built from the bottom up—by determining the type of housing and infrastructure communities need, and empowering local government to build social homes where they are most needed. We need the necessary infrastructure, including GPs, schools, bus stops and bus routes, while also ensuring that there is appropriate green space and access to the countryside, which is important for health and wellbeing. Our experience is that residents support good plans with good infrastructure.
Now, I imagine that we will use the term “nimby” in this debate, and it has already been used about the Liberal Democrats, but it is not appropriate to approve housing in areas that are unsuitable—for example, where there is a high risk of flooding. It is not being a nimby to oppose poor planning; it is common sense. Local authorities are under enormous pressure and we know that their planning departments are overstretched. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on that point. They need proper funding to ensure that they make good and consistent decisions, and that their councillors are well advised.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. Member is talking about infrastructure and about decisions being made in the best interests of our communities, so can I ask why Liberal Democrat-run Rutland county council this week turned down an application for a new day care centre for people with special educational needs without even taking it to the planning committee, meaning that we now have to rely on the council’s service, rather than providing choice to ensure that anyone with learning disabilities or other disabilities in our community gets the support they need?
Helen Morgan
I do not know the details of that individual case, but we need to ensure that planning departments are properly funded so that the decisions made by planning officers are appropriate. Without knowing the details, I do now know whether it is a good development or a poor one, but those departments need to be empowered to make decisions correctly.
Some proposals for development are inappropriate and some are downright dangerous—we mentioned the building of houses on floodplains earlier. The only insurer to re-insure houses on floodplains is due to close its operations in 15 years’ time. We cannot build houses on floodplains. It will not be possible for them to be insured or sold; homeowners will be trapped.
We should also not be building housing developments without additional schools or GP surgeries. Most importantly, we should not be building housing developments where the developers do not prepare the roads and green spaces to an acceptable standard and do not allow them to be adopted by the local authority, but set up a shared management company and leave the homeowners fleeced for the rest of their home ownership experience. I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to consider that in the forthcoming legislation.
Good councillors approve planning for good developments. That is why, on the days when the Conservatives are not accusing us of being nimbys, they are telling people that we are going to concrete over their countryside.
Planning is not just about housing. We have many demands on our countryside: housing, renewable energy, nature restoration and, importantly, the growing of food. We need to simplify planning so that all those things can happen. Housing, renewable energy and job creation are incredibly important, but I urge the Government to ensure that when they go ahead, it is not at the expense of food production. The Liberal Democrats have called for the development of a land use strategy so that these important and competing demands can be balanced, and so that we use land in the optimal way, protecting the highest grade arable land for food production and putting the infrastructure of renewable energy and housing in less prime places. I therefore hope that the Government will consider a land use strategy as part of their planning reform.
That brings me to another important area of the countryside: our waterways and our beaches. It is a scandal that raw sewage has been allowed to be dumped into our rivers and on to our beaches, while water company executives have taken home huge bonuses and their—often overseas—shareholders have taken huge dividends. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have led the campaign to end the sewage crisis. We welcome the water (special measures) Bill and will be watching closely to ensure that the water regulator is given the powers it needs to finally end this sewage outrage.
I will move on to rural affairs. There was no mention in the King’s Speech of rural communities or priorities for the countryside, which I hope means that the new Government will be ensuring that every policy is rural-proofed and that the demands of delivering public services in rural areas, where the population is spread over a large area, are being considered.
I also want to mention the English devolution bill. The Liberal Democrats are the proud voices of local communities and community-led politics, and we absolutely welcome steps to devolve power away from Westminster, but I ask the Secretary of State to confirm what that will look like for those councils without a devo deal, a metro mayor or a combined authority mayor. It is important that all local councils have the powers and funding to deliver for their communities. That funding must reflect the cost of delivering services in rural areas. Rural councils have been taken for granted for far too long. We need to ensure that people who live in rural areas, who also see increases in their council tax, are getting the public services that they deserve.
Rurality affects the delivery of all types of services, but I want to touch on just a few key areas. Health is an important issue in my North Shropshire constituency, where we have seen huge problems with GP and dentistry access and a crisis in our A&E service. While I welcome the Government’s plans to tackle the crisis in mental health service provision, which is also a big problem in rural areas, we really want to see rural-focused policy to deal with the recruitment crisis in rural areas and the cost of delivering health services over large distances, and to ensure that people who live a long way from a hospital or diagnostic centre can travel to it more easily.
That brings me to public transport, which is quite problematic in Shropshire. We have lost 63% of our bus miles since 2015, which makes it difficult for anybody to access work opportunities, social opportunities, educational opportunities and, indeed, health services. I am really pleased that the Government will allow local authorities to franchise their own bus services—the Liberal Democrats have long called for that—but I would like to see the detail of how that will work and how we will get the funding to kick-start those routes and get labour moving properly around our countryside.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Can the hon. Lady bring her remarks to a close, please?
Helen Morgan
Of course.
I was briefly going to mention mobile signal, but I will rush over that because I have talked about it a reasonable amount in the House. I want to talk about farming and the rural economy, because that is the backbone of our economy and food production is extremely important. Farmers have faced a crisis over the last few years, with the botched introduction of the environmental land management scheme, the input costs they face and the fact that vast tracts of farmland are underwater and have been for the last 18 months. I must encourage the Government to look at trade deals to ensure that farmers are working on a level playing field, and to ensure that the sustainable farming incentive deals with the consistent problem of flooding following prolonged rainfall, given how our farmers are storing an enormous amount of water upstream.
I will draw my remarks to a close because I am keen to hear the maiden speeches of all these new Members, who I welcome to this place. To reinforce the points I have made, community-led planning is so important, and we would love to see a land use strategy. We need to ensure that the cost of delivering public services in rural areas is properly considered and funded, and the infrastructure needs to be there. Finally, please do not forget about food security, which is so important to national renewal.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to make my maiden speech during the King’s Speech debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for his excellent contribution, as well as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Like her, I represent a rural constituency, and I recognise many of the issues she raised in my own community.
I also want to thank my predecessor, Dehenna Davison, for her service. In her maiden speech, she described Bishop Auckland as England’s “most beautiful constituency,” and on that point we agree. She is a formidable campaigner who did important work to raise awareness of migraines, lobular cancer and the danger of one-punch assaults. Although she already has the accolade of being the first ever Conservative MP for Bishop Auckland, I hope that, in decades to come, her legacy will be even more impressive as the only ever Conservative MP for Bishop Auckland.
If the House will indulge me for a moment, I would like to say a little about the place I call home, the people who live there and what makes them so special. Getting my priorities in order, I will start by talking about football. I had been looking forward to singing “one general election and one European cup” this summer, but that was not to be. I am gutted that our England team did not quite make it, but football did come home in 1909, when West Auckland became the first football team to win the world cup. That is true, and you can look it up.
Another important footballing moment came in 1958, when Bishop Auckland’s amateur football club famously provided players to help Manchester United fulfil their fixtures following the Munich air disaster.
I was really touched when I met Barry, who volunteers at the local Bishops football museum. I listened to his passion as he shared how a gentleman with dementia came in and recognised himself in an old black and white photograph. They developed a friendship as he used football memorabilia to help that gentleman reminisce and reconnect with his past. I am similarly grateful to others in my constituency who give up their time to run sports clubs, whether it is football, rugby, cricket or boxing, providing opportunities for young people to exercise, connect and enjoy themselves.
Secondly, I have to mention railways. It was in Shildon, in the south-east of my constituency, where Stephenson invented the Rocket locomotive, making Stockton to Darlington the world’s first commercial railway line 200 years ago next year. It is inspiring to see the commitment of local volunteers who work together to preserve this heritage, caring for parts of the line and organising bicentenary events. Likewise, it was inspiring to see those who worked to save the Shildon Railway Institute, which was set up by working people nearly two centuries ago, with a library and school rooms to upskill the local workforce for the new industrial age.
Thirdly, we are blessed with fabulous arts and culture in Bishop Auckland, which is the home of Stanley Jefferson, of Laurel and Hardy fame. It is also believed to be where Elgar first played the anthem “Land of Hope and Glory.” And how grateful I am to the volunteers who give their time to enable participation in the arts: Daisy Arts, Jack Drum, the Teesdale operatic society, the Weardale Warblers and “Kynren,” England’s most spectacular outdoor theatre production. The work they do is not only developing talent but building the character and confidence of the rising generation.
Fourthly, we have magnificent countryside. Under the new boundaries, the constituency brings together two Durham dales—Weardale and Teesdale—around the market town of Barnard Castle, which is not only a handy place to test your eyesight but is also an idyllic place to stroll along the river with your family on a sunny Easter bank holiday, surrounded as it is by hill sheep farms and moorlands that are home to rare wildflowers and endangered ground nesting birds. I am full of admiration for those who work on the land and put in the graft to keep this place so lovely and to provide us with food. Without wishing to disappoint the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Kemi Badenoch), when I recently met local farmers they were delighted to see that Labour is bringing in planning reforms and lifting the ban on onshore wind.
Finally, Bishop Auckland has a long connection with the Church. Auckland castle served for centuries as home to the Prince Bishops, while the seventh-century Escomb Saxon church is one of the oldest in England and stands as a monument to the devotion of the men and women who built it more than a millennium ago. What I find equally inspiring is the work done by churches in our community today, such as Woodhouse Close church and community centre and Shildon Alive, which recently received the King’s award for voluntary service.
What makes Bishop Auckland so special to me are the people I live among. People who have stood together in hard times, people who take pride in their neighbourhoods and people who serve without thought for themselves.
If I might make a slightly more political point as I draw to a close, we have just accepted the decline of northern heartlands like Bishop Auckland for too long. I live in the town centre, where one in three shops is boarded up. Our local businesses are excited to see the powers that this Government will devolve to local authorities to compulsorily purchase some of those buildings. We will hand them over to businesses and we will get our town centres booming again.
Finally, I am proud to be a Member of the most representative Parliament in our history, with the highest percentage of women, minorities and state-educated Members. There are also, on all Benches, some exceedingly talented people. It is already clear to me that while I will be bold in speaking up for my constituents, there will always be someone more gifted in oratory or more learned. However, I hope that if I can excel in anything, it will be in showing kindness and respect to my fellow Members, to the incredible staff who have done so much to make me feel welcome in this rather strange place, and to my constituents who I hope will always know, whatever our disagreements, that I love and care about them.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on his maiden speech. We are all much more knowledgeable about his constituency now than we were a few minutes ago, so well done for that.
I acknowledge that the planning system is in need of reform. We cannot have a process that takes months—in many cases, years—for major projects, crucial to economic growth and associated jobs, to grind through an endless system. In my constituency, most such projects are located in an area that is, and has been for many years, mainly industrial. Although we should not trample on local opinion, we have to get those projects through the system more quickly than we do at the moment.
The Gracious Speech included this:
“My Government believes that greater devolution of decision making is at the heart of a modern dynamic economy and is a key driver of economic growth and my Ministers will introduce an English Devolution Bill. Legislation will be introduced to give new powers to metro mayors and combined authorities. This will support local growth plans that bring economic benefit to communities.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 39.]
Of course we need to increase the supply of housing, but how do Ministers square devolving decision making with strengthening central direction of the planning process and tying the hands of planning authorities? The Labour manifesto said that the Government would
“make full use of intervention powers”.
That does not sound like good news for local democracy.
Experience from my constituency shows that local communities will, in most cases, accept more housing developments, but they make the justifiable complaint that recent developments in all parts of my constituency, from Humberston, through New Waltham, Waltham, Scartho, Laceby, Wootton and Barton, to name just a few, mean that the already stretched highway infrastructure and public services, such as school places, GPs and the like, are now stretched beyond what is acceptable. What assurances can Ministers give that they will ensure new build will run in parallel to the provision of infrastructure and public services?
Another aspect of the planning process that angers people is that many appeals are determined by planning inspectors who frequently overrule council decisions that have been made after careful consideration of local circumstances. In some cases, such decisions have even overturned the local plan. That is not acceptable. Local plans go through various stages of consultation, including public hearings, all of which passes by the overwhelming majority of the public, until an application is lodged that could change the whole character of the neighbourhood. Clearly, the process needs to be reviewed, as I have previously argued, including in a ten-minute rule Bill I introduced some years ago.
If devolution and local decision making is to mean anything, planning issues should be determined at a local level, wherever possible. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that there are current Ministers who lodged objections to planning applications for developments in their own areas. That went under the radar to some extent while they were in opposition, but now there is no hiding place for them. Every Labour Member who votes for proposed planning changes to some village or some part of the town will have to justify not supporting their constituents when they are up in arms about the application.
As someone who spent their childhood and early adulthood in a council house on a Grimsby estate, I have always supported the ability of local authorities to build council houses where that is appropriate. The ones that I lived in were built in the early 1950s when a Conservative Government were in power. They were of high quality and have stood the test of time. Sadly, that is not the case for much of the social housing that is imposed on new developments. I certainly would support the Government if they had a programme to encourage and support councils in house building, but I would be interested to know how they would finance it.
One proposal that is causing considerable concern, not just in my Brigg and Immingham constituency, but in many other constituencies along the east coast of Lincolnshire and through into East Anglia, is the National Grid upgrade on the Grimsby to Walpole route. These proposals could result in a network of 50-metre-high pylons running through some of the country’s most beautiful countryside, including impacting on the Lincolnshire Wolds area of outstanding natural beauty. I secured the final Adjournment debate on this matter before the election and the then Minister said that he was minded to order a review of the scheme. I urge the Government to honour that commitment and follow through with that review.
Finally, let me return to devolution and the policy to create more combined authorities. The proposals for the Greater Lincolnshire Authority have already passed through all stages of consultation, and a statutory instrument has been prepared, but, unfortunately, the election intervened. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that this is an opportunity for an early win in her wish to create combined authorities. If she were to put forward that SI, I think most of the Lincolnshire MPs would give her some support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
I call Dr Scott Arthur for his maiden speech.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for a fantastic speech, but I fear that he has made my job only a little more difficult. I have to say that it is a delight to give my maiden speech in a debate led by our fantastic Deputy Prime Minister.
It is an honour and a privilege to stand before this House as the representative for Edinburgh South West. I am deeply grateful to my constituents for placing their trust in me and also to my church for praying for me, although I know that they prayed more after I won the election than before it. I am committed to serving them all with dedication and integrity.
Before I address the subject matter of the King’s Speech, I would like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Joanna Cherry KC, who represented the constituency for nine years. I had many dealings with her office in my role as a councillor, and I aways found her team to be utterly professional. I wish them all well. Joanna Cherry herself was a formidable parliamentarian. Members will recall that, during the Brexit crisis, she worked hard to ensure that Government decision making remained transparent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We all owe her a huge debt for that. I must also say that, although I disagree with her on many issues, I am happy to stand in complete solidarity with her in the face of the threats that she has faced. It pains me that, since coming here, so many others have spoken about threats and intimidation as well. This is an issue that we must take seriously. I must, however, tell the House that the campaign for Edinburgh South West between Joanna Cherry and myself was conducted entirely on the issues that matter to local people there, which is perhaps why I am so proud to be here to address the House today.
I must also pay tribute to my predecessor’s predecessor. Alistair Darling was one of the greatest public servants of my lifetime. He sat here from 1987 to 2015. Like me, he was a councillor in Edinburgh, and convener of the city’s transport committee before he went on to serve as MP for Edinburgh South West. The similarities may end there. Indeed, we must all hope that I am never called on, as he was, to save the Bank of England. I know that Alistair is still much missed and I am proud to follow in his footsteps—indeed, without his help I doubt that I would have been elected as a councillor in 2017.
Before I address myself to the debate, I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my constituency, its institutions and its people. At this point, Members may need a map. Edinburgh South West is the best part of the greatest city in the world. It stretches from the west end of Princes Street to the East Cairn hill, some 18 km to the south-west. Along its length, the constituency moves from dense urban communities—places such as Gorgie, the home of Hearts football club, Dalry, Parkhead, Wester Hailes, Sighthill and Oxgangs—to suburban settlements such as Colinton, Craiglockhart, Swanston and Baberton Mains, and to the semi-rural Water of Leith villages of Currie, Juniper Green and Balerno.
Of all those, Oxgangs is perhaps the place I know and love most. Many people there struggle in temporary and overcrowded accommodation; that is why it has been so important today to hear about the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition to build affordable homes. In Edinburgh, we have worked with the whole city and set aside land for 37,000 new homes. The land is there and the planning is there, but the barrier to building those new homes is the lack of funding from the Scottish Government. I hope that they can now follow what we are doing here, and show more ambition on affordable housing in Scotland.
When it comes to natural beauty, the Pentland hills and the Water of Leith dominate my constituency, and the habitats along the Union canal should not be forgotten. But of course it is the people who make my constituency so special, such as those who volunteer at the Water of Leith Conservation Trust or who converted a disused railway tunnel into Scotland’s largest historical mural—the Colinton tunnel; please google it later. I must also mention Tiphereth, a unique charity that delivers residential and day services for people with learning difficulties. It really is unique.
The Edinburgh campus of Heriot-Watt University is perhaps the biggest employer in my constituency. It supported and developed me every day from when I started working there in 1996 until I was elected to this place. I shall miss my civil engineering colleagues and the many students it welcomes to Scotland from around the world. I hope to use some of my time here to support higher education, particularly the wellbeing of students. Mental health support in Scotland is failing its young people and acting as a barrier to many of them reaching their full potential. I will work with anyone and everyone to address that and the many other challenges facing students across the UK.
Other large employers in my constituency include Lothian Buses, a bus company owned by the people of Edinburgh that defines the city just as much as the castle. I should stress that the castle is not in my constituency. If some Members question municipal ownership of public transport, or the importance of collaborative working between trade unions and management, they should speak to some of the 2 million passengers that Lothian Buses carries every week without any subsidy. Big businesses are also important in my constituency, but it is the small ones that define it. They are at the heart of many of the neighbourhoods. Many have high hopes that the UK and Scottish Governments will now work together to support them more.
I am also proud to say that there are two infantry barracks in my constituency: Dreghorn and Redford. Both are valued by local residents as real assets, and they never caused me a problem as a councillor. The proposal in the King’s Speech for an armed forces commissioner will be supported by many in my constituency, particularly if it helps improve the living quarters for our service personnel and supports spouses at the point of relationship breakdown, particularly when domestic abuse has been an issue.
Elections are a reminder that we are all equal in this country, but it pained me that many constituents felt that they were less equal than others during the election campaign. That is why local groups in my constituency such as Soul Food Oxgangs, Best Bib n Tucker and Whale Arts must be mentioned in my speech, as they all work hard to ensure that people feel included and valued. That is our job too, of course—indeed, all of us here have a duty to keep on listening to voters now that the election is over. The first-past-the-post system means that I was elected on just 40.9% of the vote—I still cannot believe it, to be honest—and I know that some of those voters still want to be reassured that they did the right thing. I am here only because I promised to work with other parties where possible, and to listen to everybody in my constituency, no matter their sex, gender, background, faith, age or birthplace. I will keep listening to people, even if they voted for my opponents or did not vote at all.
We know, of course, that the people who need our help most did not vote for us. Among them are the 3,000 children in my constituency who are living in poverty. That number has grown across the whole UK since Labour last sat on the Government Benches, and that should shame us all. I know the costed measures in the King’s Speech are our best chance of changing those lives.
Measures such as GB Energy, building more homes, a new deal for working people and our plans for sustainable economic growth will not just get our country back on track and help us to meet our climate targets, but give parents hope again of a better future for their children. The child poverty taskforce is an opportunity to maximise the benefits of those policies by integrating their delivery. That is the change our country needs and voted for, and we must now work together across this Chamber to deliver it.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on his maiden speech. It was wonderful to hear him champion so many local charities and causes, particularly for young people. It is great to hear that he cares about the mental health and wellbeing of young people. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on his speech, and his drive-by of the entire constituency and the wonderful things that people can see and experience in his patch. What I loved about both speeches is that both hon. Members put their constituents first and talked about being a local champion. I will support anyone, whatever party or part of the House they are from, who wants to put their constituents first and be an advocate for them in this House.
On that subject, I am here because the people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages sent a clear message to me during the general election that they want me to stand up and defend the green belt. I made a promise to them back in 2019 and again in 2024 that I would stand up and defend the green belt. I will continue to do so. For my constituents, the green belt is not just special; it is vital. It acts as the lungs of London. It is vital because for my constituents it is the buffer between the sprawl of London and Slough; because green space provides much-needed mental health and wellbeing space for my constituents; and because it provides the biodiversity and nature conservation areas that we need between London and the home counties. It is essential that we protect nature, and I want to be a champion for that as well. Once our green belt is lost, it is lost forever and we cannot get it back.
I want to be clear: I believe in the right housing, in the right place, with the right infrastructure. It is entirely a false prospectus to think that people who defend the green belt are somehow anti-growth and anti-housing. That is not true. Here is the truth: the Government seem determined to deny that the green belt is green space, but any attempt by the Government to use some Orwellian twisting of words to make it grey belt will fail in the sunlight of simple truth.
In Marlow in my constituency, we fought together with local community groups to stop the Marlow film studios being built on green-belt space. We worked tirelessly to protect the green belt, so that future generations could enjoy that beautiful green area. We fought as a community, and the proposal was rightly rejected. If the Government try to bring it back, I and the residents will fight it every inch of the way.
The Government established their intent in their first three days of existence: the Government know best and communities will be ignored. The Chancellor—not, funnily enough, the Deputy Prime Minister—announced that the Government were calling in an application, rejected by planners and the Planning Inspectorate, to build a data centre in the Ivers, right up against London. It was a blatant attack on local opinion and professional planning officers. Do Ministers really believe that there are no better sites for a data centre than directly on the only green belt that separates us from London? I say to the Government: you will soon discover that you are on the wrong side of this debate. Our green belt in south Bucks is not a political, ideological prize to be won. Residents will make their voices heard, and I will be right there by their side. It matters to my constituents and the generations to follow who will grow up and live in the beautiful area of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. I urge the Government to think again. Leave our green belt alone.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Emma Foody to make her maiden speech.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who spoke passionately about her communities. It has been wonderful to hear so many Members make their maiden speech today and over the preceding days, speaking with great pride about their constituency. I stand here today representing my home constituency of Cramlington and Killingworth, and I speak with similar pride. It is the place that generations of my family have hailed from, worked in and loved, and it is a great honour to represent it here today.
My home, and where I grew up, is a little place called Wideopen. It was once represented by Margaret Bondfield, a giant of our Labour movement. She was a shop worker and trade unionist who was the first ever woman in the Cabinet. As a former shop worker, and a trade unionist and Co-operative Member, it is pleasure for me to see in the Gracious Speech provision for the protections that shop workers deserve and need in order to make our high streets stronger.
Cramlington and Killingworth constituency was newly formed at this election. Dominated by our two new towns, the seat is made up of a further 25 villages and settlements—every single one a community in its own right. Although I do not propose to list each and every one of them now, I will fight for the support and success of them all. Our area and our communities are places of industry, innovation and creativity. Whether through coalmines, factories or the arts, my community has contributed a lot that has put it on the map.
There is a certain mention today for George Stephenson, the father of the British railways. Although the Rocket might be in Shildon, he learned his trade and started his inventions in my constituency, where my ancestors worked alongside him to build our railroads. Colleagues may recall that in “Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?”—a favourite of yours, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker—Bob and Thelma’s new starter home on a nice new estate was in Killingworth. We also have notable public art in the shape of a giant spoon, a herd of concrete hippos, and a Lady of the North in Northumberlandia.
Members my age may recall the absolutely iconic BBC children’s TV programme “Geordie Racer”. Spuggy and Wordy got up to hi-jinks at Seaton Delaval hall, our stunning National Trust property. I am sorry that those familiar with the programme will now have the theme tune in their head all day. More recently, those who watched the popular detective show “Vera” may have noticed the stunning coastline and cliffs; all too often, a body is found at the bottom of them. Those cliffs and beaches, along the coastline of south-east Northumberland, including Seaton Sluice and Old Hartley, are second to none, and they are ours. The crime rate is much lower than ITV would have us believe.
As is tradition, I will pay tribute to the previous MPs, but as mine is a newly created constituency, I pay tribute not to one but to four current and previous Members of this House. I will start with my predecessor but one, Ronnie Campbell, who was the MP for Blyth Valley for over 30 years and a great friend to many in this place. Locally, we still feel his loss. Ian Levy was elected as the first ever Conservative for Blyth Valley in 2019. I know that he cares deeply for our area, and that he will want it to prosper and our communities to thrive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), of course, is also our Chief Whip. It says here in my speech that he has shown me great kindness and generosity, which I can only assume was a late Whips Office edit. In all seriousness, he has been a great support to me.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), who are both phenomenal advocates for the north-east, and from whose constituencies we took a variety of towns, settlements and villages. When I first got involved in politics, I was warned that it could be a boys’ club. Well, those people underestimate the girls of Sacred Heart high school, which all three of us attended. There, we were told in no uncertain terms that places like this are meant for people like us. To serve alongside my hon. Friends is a tremendous privilege.
I am proud to be in this place today, and to be able to speak on behalf of my communities on this most Gracious Speech—a wide-ranging set of commitments and actions that I know will deliver, not only for my community but across the country, and not just in housing and, crucially, leasehold reform but for our economy, our energy security and policing. I am particularly proud of the measures to support our national health service. As a former 999 call taker at the North East Ambulance Service, I know how my former colleagues work tirelessly to serve people, often in the most challenging and desperate of circumstances. It is an honour to be here and to have their back in this place. I believe passionately in the measures in this most Gracious Address, which we fought so hard to earn the country’s support for, and I cannot wait to get to work.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Harriet Cross to make her maiden speech.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody)—she is clearly very proud of her roots and of what she has achieved in the area. It is lovely to follow another girl from the north-east—although in my case it is the north-east of Scotland.
It is an incredible honour to be elected to this place to serve the great people of Gordon and Buchan. Having moved homes many times in my lifetime—more than I can remember—from Yorkshire to Ireland to Scotland and many times in between, I have seen my fair share of houses, but I can definitely say that this one will take the most getting used to. As Members are all aware, you are not a true Scottish MP if you do not proclaim that your constituency is the most beautiful, so: from the beaches of Balmedie and Newburgh through the fertile farmland of Formartine, Garioch, Huntly and Turriff, to the heights of the Correen hills and the Bennachie range, Gordon and Buchan has it all. I can tell Members in all seriousness that it really is the most beautiful constituency, and not just in Scotland but in the whole of the UK.
Those of us who are blessed to live north of the Watford gap know that there is a direct correlation between how far north you get and being approachable and determined, having a dry sense of humour and being great company. As such, I am also delighted to say that I am the Conservative Member with the most northerly constituency.
First, I must reflect on my predecessors, beginning with the most recent Conservative Members from the two former constituencies that have now been combined to make Gordon and Buchan: Colin Clark in Gordon and David Duguid in Banff and Buchan. Both Colin and David were embedded in our rural communities. They are unwavering champions for our region, in particular being loud, constructive and prominent voices for our farmers, fishermen and distilleries, and for the energy sector. I also want to take the opportunity to wish David Duguid and his family all the very best in his ongoing recovery.
It would be wrong of me not to mention Malcolm Bruce, now Baron Bruce of Bennachie, who served Gordon for 22 years up until 2015. It is a show of the mark that he left on the area that his name was mentioned to me on the doorsteps many times during this election campaign, always very fondly. Finally, the former SNP Member for Gordon and my immediate predecessor, Richard Thomson, has long served the people of Gordon and Buchan and of Aberdeenshire, both in this place and on Aberdeenshire council as both leader and opposition leader. While he and I will not pretend that we see eye to eye on the means, we both agree that we want the very best for our special corner of Aberdeenshire, now and in the future.
Much was achieved for Gordon and Buchan and the north-east of Scotland in the last Parliament. I wish to draw attention to the north-east investment zone, an £80 million investment in our region made as part of the last Conservative Government’s levelling-up agenda. It is a real investment in our area’s growth, development and potential—an investment in our future. The north-east shines with energy in every way. Indeed, the energy sector is what first brought my family to Inverurie, the largest town in Gordon and Buchan, 50 years ago this year. My grandfather, having been medically discharged from the Navy, never lost his love of service or the sea, so he channelled that love into creating in Aberdeen the International Association for Safety and Survival Training, whose courses are still used today by each and every offshore worker in our oil and gas sector. I am sure that if he were still here today he could give me some sound advice on surviving in this place.
The energy sector powers Aberdeenshire, from direct jobs and high-skilled employment to the associated services and hospitality sectors that rely on it. To the people of Gordon and Buchan and the north-east of Scotland, the debate on the future of the oil and gas sector is not really about energy security, markets or net zero; it is about our jobs and our livelihoods. It is about knowing that we have secure employment for the years to come and that our children will not have to move away to start their career, or that the bottom will not fall out of our local economy. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member would sit here and allow their constituency’s key employment sector to be run down or conceded, and I will not do that either.
Our rural communities are the beating heart of Gordon and Buchan. Indeed, three quarters of the land in the constituency is classed as agricultural, a fifth is forestry and only 2% is thought of as built up. If someone drops a pin on a map, it is more likely to land in a field or forest than on a house. Before being elected, I worked as a rural surveyor, meeting farmers across Aberdeenshire, many of whom I am now proud to call my constituents. As intimidating as it might be being on the Opposition side looking across at the Government Benches, that is nothing compared with sitting at a farmhouse table trying to tell farming clients that no, their farm is not worth three times what they think it is worth or that their worse-for-wear heifer will not get top figures at next week’s sale.
I am delighted that my first contribution in the House is in this rural affairs debate. I know, and my constituents know, that rural living is unique, rewarding and, in my opinion, far superior to urban life. We also know that it is not all about green fields, welly boots and labradors, idyllic as that might sound. The reality is locals waiting in villages such as Fyvie, Auchleven and New Deer for the only bus of the day, which never arrives. It is the only healthcare facilities for many miles closing down. It is children having to move away to build their career. It is poor-quality, unsuitable roads. Or it is the lack of housing, or houses without gas, poor broadband and no phone coverage.
We in the UK quite rightly hold our rural landscapes up in lights: our green and pleasant lands, which bring ecological benefits as well as much-needed tourism to remote areas. But rural communities are not there solely to be an escape or plaything for others; they are where my constituents make their homes and livelihoods, and where they grow up and grow old. We need tailored policies for our rural communities that help industries such as farming and food and drink producers, and the numerous small and medium-sized enterprises across Gordon and Buchan that bring so much not just to the immediate area but to the region and to the UK as a whole. Yes, we are less densely populated and yes, understandably, we have less choice in services and on where to find work, but we have no less aspiration.
I am proud to have been sent here by the people of Gordon and Buchan to represent them, to fight for them, and always to keep their interests at the top of the agenda.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who made an excellent maiden speech, which I enjoyed. I also have to mention the excellent maiden speeches from my north-east colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody)—she represents a new constituency—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth). I look forward to hearing more from them in the weeks, months and years to come.
Having entered the House 19 years ago, I am honoured to have once again been elected to serve my constituents in Washington and Gateshead South—another new constituency name. It is fantastic to see so many new faces around the estate, and my door is always open if new Members, or indeed old ones, want to pop in for a bit of advice, a cup of tea, or just to see a friendly face.
This King’s Speech ushers in a new era of government—one based on service of the people, and focused on building back trust in politics, which is greatly needed, by, as stated in the King's Speech, adhering to
“the principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all.”
We will start that process by bringing in legislation to transform the rights of every worker in this country. As a trade unionist, I believe that workers must have the right to access trade union representation, as well as the repeal of the disastrous minimum service levels legislation, which failed to protect public service users and workers alike.
We will ban all exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave people in uncertain and unstable employment. We will definitively ban fire and rehire practices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) led the way on tackling with his excellent private Member’s Bill, which sadly did not make it. We will protect workers’ wellbeing by ending short-notice shift cancellations, and we will introduce the right to switch off, so that workers can enjoy a healthier, structured work-life balance—I think we could do with a bit of that sometimes as well. Finally, we will establish rights such as paternity pay and the right to challenge unfair dismissal as rights from day one. The basic rights of a worker are not a reward earned after years of service; they are rights from day one.
The Government have already got the ball rolling, building on the excellent work of former Labour Governments to truly deliver devolved power. It was excellent to see that, just days after moving in, the Prime Minister welcomed all Labour and Conservative metro mayors—thankfully, they were mostly Labour—to Downing Street to discuss how to kick-start growth in all parts of the country. Nine times out of 10, local knowledge is superior to departmental control, so it is only right that we bring power back to communities.
Among the mayors invited to meet the Prime Minister was our excellent new Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, who I have worked with in my long-running campaign to reopen the Leamside line and extend the metro to Washington. I am sure that Members have all heard me say this, but Washington is one of the largest towns in the UK without a direct rail link. [Interruption.] It is. We see wasted opportunities, with people unable to travel easily for work, school or university or even to see loved ones. To quote the former Conservative Member for Sedgefield, with whom I co-chaired the Leamside line all-party parliamentary group, “Without physical mobility, there can be no social mobility”—now that he is not here, I am going to nick that line. I am pleased that, with a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, that project will at long last become a reality.
I grew up in a council house, and my family was totally reliant on social security. Free school meals were a lifeline for us, but I know that, in many ways, it is more important to have a warm, safe and secure house; that is what saved my family more than anything else. That is why, throughout this general election campaign and when I was listening to the King’s Speech, I was so pleased to see Labour’s commitment to building 1.5 million new homes—not just houses, but social and affordable housing—based on five key principles that will enable those houses to turn into secure homes, and those homes to turn into stable and thriving communities.
We will also deliver for our children, with policies intended to tackle childhood health and obesity head-on. Our plans to deliver free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England will ensure that kids can start school with a meal in their bellies, ready to learn. But we know that child feeding does not start and end with the school day, so we will also tackle the crisis of youth nutrition outside school by restricting the advertisement of junk food and the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children—both things I long called for when I was shadow Minister for public health for four years, and shadow Minister for children and families for four years, and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food from 2010. I could not welcome these developments more fervently. We cannot shy away from protecting our children’s health, which is why I also welcome our tobacco and vapes Bill—carrying on the work of the former Government, I have to say—to phase out smoking. That will ensure that our children live a healthier future.
As we look to the coming years of our Government, I am excited not only to see these policies, and more, come to fruition and deliver the change that this Government were elected to bring, but to work with Members across the House to deliver these things together, because we need them for the benefit of all our constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Unfortunately, because of the pressure on time, we have to reduce the maximum time for speeches to five minutes, but that does not apply to those making their maiden speeches.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber today, and I congratulate all new and returning Members on their election successes. It is an honour to be back in this place and to be called to speak in this debate on the King’s Speech. I start by thanking my constituents in Aldridge-Brownhills for returning me to this place for a fourth time. I thank the residents of Pheasey Park Farm, Park Hall, Nether Hall and Orchard Hills for returning me for the first time following the boundary changes.
There is much to consider in this King’s Speech, and rest assured that I will welcome those elements that benefit my constituents. However, my job on the Opposition Benches remains to get the best for my constituency and my constituents. Where the Government’s legislation and plans harm my constituency, I will stand up and be my constituents’ voice and fight for their interests. That brings me nicely on to the areas that I wish to raise today.
Starting with housing, we need homes, but we need the right homes, built in the right places and with the right infrastructure to support them and their communities, and we need local decision making. What we do not need to see is swathes of houses—the wrong homes, in the wrong mix and in the wrong place, driven by top-down mandatory targets. That is not nimbyism, but common sense. That is why I have always advocated for a brownfield-first approach, because the minute the green belt is released, that is it. When it is gone, it is gone forever, taking away the integrity of our communities and the sense of amenity and belonging, which we all believe are vital.
It concerns me that while Government Members say they will prioritise brownfield sites—they have coined this phrase “grey-belt land”—to meet their target, they are also telling local authorities to identify areas with green-belt collars to build on. That surely is wrong. It simply risks nibbling away at our green belt until it is gone.
The definition of green belt, in case we need a reminder, is that it is a buffer zone between towns and between towns and countryside. It is a planning tool to prevent urban sprawl. In the case of my constituency, it prevents us from being subsumed into the suburbs of a greater Birmingham. The green belt is not a nostalgic vision, but a future vision for future generations. The former mayor, Andy Street, had a vision for it. It is thanks to him, his leadership and his brownfield-first approach that we have seen 16,000 new homes built and thousands of jobs created on brownfield land, which has benefited many, including those in the Walsall borough. We need to see more of that approach. Surely we should build out the brownfield sites first before we release any green belt, with more financial incentives for land remediation funds.
We also need to understand what the new Government mean by “grey belt”. Is it simply another grey area? I, for one, sincerely hope not. One specific area that I seek clarity on is the new powers for compulsory purchase. I hope that can unlock some of the brownfield sites. In my constituency, there are some small derelict sites—often pubs in town centres—so let us look at working with local communities to unlock some of them.
Communities also need transport. It is inherently linked to communities and is key to jobs and opportunities. The Government have set out that they will get Britain moving, but I am deeply concerned, to put it mildly, that the new Labour Mayor of the West Midlands has said that he will review the decision for a train station in Aldridge. What has happened to the money that the former mayor Andy Street and I secured for that project? In the absence of any confirmation that it will be completed on time by 2027, within the budget allocated, I can only assume that the new mayor has no intention of delivering the project. It is 65 years since Aldridge had passenger trains. Today we have the track, freight trains and the land for a car park. Various partners are already working on it. It might not be a big deal to Mayor Parker, but it certainly is to the residents of Aldridge and to me.
I am conscious of time, but I want to touch briefly on crime and justice, as they matter to my constituents. Communities need police officers and police stations. I will continue my campaign to keep Aldridge police station. With a “for sale” board appearing recently at Sutton Coldfield, it is time for the Labour police and crime commissioner to come clean about his intentions for Aldridge police station. We need our police station as a base for our local bobbies, to increase the safety of our residents and to support our communities—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Order. I call Luke Myer to make his maiden speech.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Having listened carefully to the debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech, I am grateful for this opportunity to make my first speech in this Chamber. It is a privilege and an honour to represent the communities of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, where I was born and raised. Much of this debate has sought to pit rural and suburban against each other, but as a representative of both, I know that we can deliver for both, and that is precisely what I expect this Government to do.
Distinguished predecessors have represented my seat. In maiden speeches, politicians often say that they stand on the shoulders of giants, but rarely is it so true as in my case. My predecessor, Sir Simon Clarke, was a giant not only in physical terms but within his party, particularly in his admirable zeal for planning reform—an issue on which he campaigned and stood up to his own party. It is fitting that today’s debate places such emphasis on those reforms. This Government are committed to building the homes and infrastructure that this country needs. Measures such as the planning and infrastructure Bill will start to create the jobs and growth that we need. I will push for Teesside to be at the heart of that work.
If the House will permit me, I would like to pay tribute to two other predecessors from my party. First, Tom Blenkinsop, who some in the House will remember, not only served his party and constituency but served his country in the Royal Military Police. Dr Ashok Kumar, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) in his maiden speech, was my MP growing up. He was a tenacious constituency MP, whose model I hope to follow. Ashok once said that our constituency is a microcosm of British society. He was right. It is not particularly left or right wing, but it is full of decent people who want the best for their families.
Our identity is complex. Officially, we are in the north-east, but we are also proudly in Yorkshire, as part of the historic North Riding. We have been called Cleveland and Langbaurgh, and today we are told that we are in the Tees Valley. Whatever we call it, our home is an incredible place. My constituency sits between wildly different landscapes at each point of the compass. To the north, we find the beach, where the North sea fret washes out over the seafront at places like Skinningrove. To the south, we leave the beautiful market town of Guisborough and meet the vast, wild purple of the North York moors. To the east are the rolling fields of East Cleveland—rural North Yorkshire at its best. There are proud villages and towns from Loftus to Lingdale, Skelton to Stanghow, and Brotton, where I grew up. I am proud to be our constituency’s first MP from the villages, and I hope to serve them well.
To the west, we find suburban south Middlesbrough, home to many working families and, in Marton, to the birthplace of one of this country’s greatest explorers, Captain James Cook. If we venture further, those communities give way to the towering chimneys and snaking pipes of industrial Teesside, once the beating heart of Britain’s economy—the “infant Hercules” as Gladstone called it. It is home to a 300-year economic relay race from one major industry to another: first fishing and agriculture, then coal, then iron and steel, and then chemicals. The saying on Teesside is, “We built the world.” Steel forged in Teesside furnaces found its way into the Sydney Harbour bridge and spanned the Victoria falls. When Churchill’s war Cabinet met in their underground bunker not far from here or when the ball hit the net at Wembley, it all happened under structures of Teesside steel.
Today, we are perfectly positioned for the green jobs of the future. We already produce around half the country’s hydrogen. With the right industrial strategy, we can create jobs in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and clean power—wind, nuclear and solar—and in our port. If our engineering capabilities are harnessed, we can lead the world again. Legislation such as the Great British Energy Bill, the Crown Estate Bill and the planning and infrastructure Bill can deliver that.
Teesside is more than just a place; it is the people. Like steel, Teesside is an alloy—a meld of the different communities that shaped us, from the miners and the Methodists to the labourers who came from Ireland, ironworkers from Wales, sailors from Japan, Jewish refugees from the pogroms of Europe, trade unionists, chemical workers, and so on. These are the small and disparate atoms that Teesside took on and blended into our culture, strengthening it into something solid and secure, bonded together with values of fairness, respect and a collective responsibility to look out for the community. We see that today in so many local community organisations, from the Guisborough Bridge Association and East Cleveland Good Neighbours to the eco-shops we see in Marton, Coulby Newham and other places.
We know what it is like to experience economic hardship; we now have levels of poverty and destitution that have not been seen in decades. When times get tough, it is easy to fall into the habits of division and blame. It is much harder to take that common pain and channel it into a common purpose, but that is what Teessiders do best. It was there in times of economic shock, whether from globalisation or the global pandemic. It was there in the floods and the food banks. The instinct, the base code of the people of Teesside, is to come together and look out for those in need—community in the face of adversity. That is our spirit, embedded like ironstone deep in our culture—the unbowed and unbroken spirit of the infant Hercules. That is what we are about. And with the powers set out in these Bills, the devolution to take back control of services and the investment in the jobs of tomorrow, we can once again drive prosperity on Teesside and prosperity across Britain, rebuilding our communities and rebuilding our country.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I join the House in thanking His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen for their dedicated service and continued example to us all. I welcome all the new Members to this place and I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on his maiden speech.
It is a great privilege to be returned to this House, having served the people of Rutland and Melton for four years. However, I am returned to represent the wonderful people of Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the new communities I serve, because it may not be known that service runs deep in south Lincolnshire.
In world war two, our communities on their own raised enough money for a Spitfire to fight for our country. It is also in our communities where the apple dropped for Sir Isaac Newton in 1687. And a long, long time ago, Bytham castle was known to have a Lady Alicia, the lady of Bytham. I suspect I shall not be getting that title. [Interruption.] I bless you all! It is also home to Easton walled gardens, a place President Franklin D. Roosevelt described as
“a dream of Nirvana...almost too good to be true.”
So it is no surprise that Stamford’s honey stone streets, whose patterns have essentially remained the same since Saxon times, often grace the pages of the best places to live in this country. It was also a filming site for “Pride and Prejudice”, “The Da Vinci Code” and “Middlemarch”. Most recently, Grimsthorpe castle was home to “Bridgerton”.
Somewhat uniquely for a parliamentary seat, Rutland and Stamford sits across three counties, Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, so I have my work cut out for me. What unites us is the rural landscape and traditions we share: our rural way of life embodied in the fields, farms and natural environment we are blessed to inhabit and hope to bequeath to the next generation. But protecting our green and pleasant lands is not about sentimentality. Our rural environment is the true workhorse of our country. Lincolnshire and Rutland alone produce 30% of the UK’s vegetables, 18% of our poultry, 30% of our turkeys and 20% of all English wheat. We are the agriculture super-producer of our country.
Yet the King’s Speech offered very little for us. It continued in the same vein as the Labour party manifesto, which did not mention the word “rural” even once, by ignoring the concerns of rural communities and ignoring farmers. It has put forward a different approach to development, setting out centralised powers for Westminster to impose projects on the countryside and stripping away the voice of local people. The consequences of that approach were apparent last week when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero imposed three mega solar plants on communities, two of which sit within Lincolnshire and Rutland.
During the last Parliament, I consistently opposed the Mallard Pass solar plant and was dismayed to see the Secretary of State wave it through after only three working days in the job. Yesterday, he referred to himself as a “super-nerd”. I would never question his self-classification, but I do question how somebody could read over 3,000 pages of quasi-judicial documentation in just that time, while also getting to grips with a new Department. That perhaps explains why he missed or ignored the fact that even the Planning Inspectorate told him to turn down one of those applications.
There are well-documented links between Uyghur forced labour and the primary developer behind Mallard Pass. Labour has said it wants a renewal in public life and a focus on public service, but I ask where the sense of duty is to responsible and considered governance when decisions are made, frankly, for a propaganda announcement to say what the Government have done in their first seven days—decisions that solely affect Conservative-voting communities. Together these three solar plants will remove 6,000 acres of good-quality agricultural land, the land that feeds our country and powers our nation.
I want to delve more into the issue of slave labour. For years I have spoken out against what is taking place in Xinjiang. This House—including the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—voted to declare what was taking place a genocide. In opposition, Labour promised that should they become the party of government they would not only declare it formally a genocide, but would take the Chinese Government to court—I look forward to updates on that activity—but in government they have decided to carpet our countryside with solar panels produced by the blood of Uyghur slave labourers. The company behind the Mallard Pass, Canadian Solar, was found by our Foreign Office to have the highest complicity in Uyghur forced labour. It has been sanctioned by the United States Government for its
“ongoing campaign of repression against Muslim minority groups”.
This is a company whose representative rang my office and asked what I wanted to drop my opposition. Is that a company that we want operating on our land?
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. Does she agree that there would be full support on the Conservative Benches for measures to ensure that the supply chain for solar panels does not include slave labour?
Alicia Kearns
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, who has an incredible history as one of the greatest parliamentary advocates for tackling slave labour.
Will the Minister apologise, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, to the 32 anti-slave labour non-governmental organisations that opposed the Mallard Pass development. Will he apologise to the British people for signing over thousands of acres of prime agricultural land to such a company, and will he apologise to the 3,400 people whose petition I presented in the Chamber, with the highest number of wet signatures ever presented in this Parliament? Does he accept that the loudest statement made last week was not that we stand four-square behind renewables in this place but that we are giving the green light to all companies complicit in Uyghur slave labour to flood our country with bloodied solar panels? This Government are happy to go green on blood labour, and I will not stand for it.
Very briefly, in respect of rural economies, I want to express my absolute opposition to the Government’s intention to charge VAT on independent schools. There are 10 in my communities that employ more than 2,000 people and are attended by well over 1,000 children with special educational needs. Furthermore, one in five of my constituents who are military personnel or veterans send their children to those schools. This is ideology and dogma, and there is also no plan to support our comprehensive schools.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend is, again, making a very fine speech. She is talking not only about pressure on those families, but about any other families who will then see those children going to the state schools in the area.
Alicia Kearns
My right hon. Friend is, as usual, on point. In Rutland alone there are only three places for new children in year 9. Where are these children going to go? Why are the Government punishing parents who want the best for their children? Before Labour Members try to suggest that I am an out-of-touch Tory, let me point out that my children go my local comprehensive, just as I did. However, I recognise that this is wrong for our country, wrong for our local education system, wrong for our military families, and wrong for those who rely on employment in our local schools. It is dogma once again, and I expected better.
The Government have shown a degree of good grace and maturity in adopting some of the previous Government’s Bills for their agenda. It is a sign of political strength for a Government to acknowledge that other parties have good ideas, and to adopt them during their time in power. May I suggest that, in order to fill the blanks in their rural policy, the Government should look at ours? They should announce a £1 billion increase in the farming budget over the course of this Parliament. There should be reformed planning rules to support farming infrastructure. The introduction of legally binding food security targets should be at the heart of what the Government do, and they should recognise how much rural communities contribute to our communities. We provide the food that we eat, we offer an escape and access to nature, and we act as custodians for traditions stretching back deep into our history. I will work every single day for my communities, and I hope that the Government will see sense and do the same.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Let me first thank my constituents for returning me to this place; I am representing many of them for the first time.
I wish to speak in support of the King’s Speech, and to raise a number of points about issues that are important to my constituents and to many others across the country. The King’s Speech set out nothing less than a programme for national renewal, presenting a chance for us to change our country for the better for the benefit of all its people, including my constituents in Reading. I want to draw on a series of examples to show just how important these measures actually are.>
I will start with the important area of infrastructure, including the need for data centres, onshore wind and new electricity connectivity. All are absolutely essential if we are to get our economy growing again after 14 years of very low growth and, indeed, austerity. Building new homes is vital for tackling the housing crisis, and I speak from great experience. Residents in Reading are under severe pressure because of the high cost of purchasing a house in the home counties, the very high cost of renting and the growing population. Thousands of local families are struggling to get on the housing ladder; they are struggling both to buy and to find good-quality rental properties.
Action to build on greyfield sites and put brownfield sites first is essential in trying to tackle this huge problem, and I will give a short example from my experience as a local councillor. One of the hardest things that I ever had to do as a councillor was to try to help families who had been moved out following no-fault evictions. It was absolutely and utterly heartbreaking to see families with both parents in work struggling to find a new place to live after being moved out by a landlord, which is the sort of issue that measures in the King’s Speech will tackle. It is absolutely essential that we take this matter forward and deal with these really pressing social problems, which affect people across our country and which are dreadful for so many families, particularly in many of the towns and cities represented on the Government Benches.
I would like to draw out a number of other measures that are important to my residents and others across the country, particularly the Government’s commitment to legislate on knife crime. I have experienced appalling cases in my area, including the dreadful murder of a 13-year-old boy. I can only say that my heart goes out to any family affected by this appalling crime. The measures announced to tackle the problem through much tougher action on knives, and to provide better support for teenagers, are absolutely essential, and I hope they will be welcomed by Members of all parties.
I would also like to make a point in support of GB Energy. The Government are absolutely right to look at a new way to increase investment in green energy. We face an unprecedented crisis in the form of the climate emergency, and we must take action. It is simply vital that we move forward on this matter.
Rail renationalisation will make a huge difference to thousands of the residents I represent and, indeed, to people across the country. I echo many Members’ support for rail and public transport, which plays a very important role in connecting people across this country.
Finally, I thoroughly endorse and encourage the Government’s action to promote football regulation, which is long overdue. Some good work was carried out under the previous Government, and it is important that this continues. I hope that the legislation will support and help many clubs across the country that are struggling with enormous challenges, including my team, Reading football club. I look forward to hearing more on this issue later.
I am conscious of the time. I congratulate the many new Members who have spoken so eloquently today, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Chope.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Alison Griffiths to make her maiden speech.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches today—I have been taking notes.
It is a great honour to deliver my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. First, let me thank my wonderful association, my campaign team and all of those—they are too numerous to mention—who have helped me on my journey to this place. Let me also thank everyone I shall work with in the future in serving the people of Littlehampton and Bognor Regis.
Allow me to introduce my wonderful constituency. Bognor Regis has the accolade of having the most sunshine hours in Britain. William Blake, who lived down the road in Felpham, encapsulated this when he wrote:
“Heaven opens here on all sides her golden Gates”.
Residents can easily see that Blake’s reference to
“England’s green and pleasant land”
was surely inspired by his life there.
On the other side of the River Arun, Littlehampton is renowned for its rich nautical heritage. The harbour is central to the town’s identity, and the presence of the RNLI lifeboat station underscores the importance of maritime safety. Rustington adds further to our rich tapestry. Now home to Blind Veterans UK, Rustington is a model of community cohesion and local enterprise. Its thriving high street, supported by local businesses, is a testament to what can be achieved when we invest in our towns and villages.
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is a mosaic of vibrant villages and communities, from Aldwick and Rose Green to the rural charm of Yapton and the scenic settings of Middleton-on-Sea and Elmer. The industrious spirit of Wick and the agricultural heritage of Ford add to our picturesque patchwork. The beauty of Climping and the residential tranquillity of Felpham play a vital role in my constituency’s identity.
My predecessor, Nick Gibb, served Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for 27 years with great distinction. His dedication to public service and to our constituents has set a particularly high standard, as many have told me, and in this place and in government, his reforms to education have improved the lives of an entire generation, providing our children with the opportunities they need to succeed.
Today I stand before the House to discuss an issue of utmost importance to my constituents: opposition to inappropriate development, and the preservation of our green spaces. These areas are not just stretches of land; they are the lungs of our communities. They play a crucial role in combating climate change by acting as carbon sinks and promoting biodiversity, by contributing to our national food security, and by providing essential green spaces for recreation, wildlife habitats and natural flood defences.
In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the floodplains and green spaces are the very foundations of our local economic ecosystem. Our constituency has already taken more than its fair share of development and has felt the adverse impacts as a consequence: increased frequent flooding; exacerbated sewage discharges, into the very sea upon which our tourist industry depends; our best beaches closed for swimming; and the destruction of natural habitats.
One of my goals is to secure the right community infrastructure to support the growing population in the homes that have already been built. It is not enough to build new homes. We must also invest in the necessary infrastructure—such as schools, healthcare, wastewater treatment and transport links—to provide a high quality of life for all our constituents. I oppose Government plans for top-down mandatory housing targets. Such targets disregard local constraints, imposing unrealistic demands on our communities. Instead, I advocate for a more localised approach to planning, where decisions are made with meaningful input from local residents and authorities.
I am deeply honoured to represent the people of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton in this House. I am humbled by the trust and confidence that the people of our community have placed in me, and I pledge to serve them with integrity and dedication. Let us all together rise to meet the soaring challenges ahead. On that note, I invoke the words of William Blake one last time:
“Great things are done when men and mountains meet”.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Joe Morris to make his maiden speech.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). As the representative of the largest constituency in England, I share her concern for rural communities; I share a dedication to them, and I am the product of one of them.
First of all, I would like to thank the people of the Hexham constituency for placing their faith in me this July and sending me as their representative to this place. For many, it was their first time voting for my party, and I stand here as the first ever Labour MP for the constituency. It is an honour that I will never forget. I will work as hard as I can to repay that faith in the days, months and years ahead.
I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Guy Opperman. Having contested an election against him, I know that despite the fact that we disagree on many things, he is an incredibly decent man. I was pleased to get to know him a bit during the campaign. I know that a high bar has been set for me as a constituency MP. He is considered on all sides of the House to be an honourable man and a good public servant. It will be hard to match his legacy.
I would like to depart a little bit from tradition and pay tribute to some of my predecessors as Labour candidates in the constituency, who for over 100 years had the often thankless task of fighting to give the people of Hexham a Labour alternative to vote for. Until July, Ian McMinn had come the closest we ever got to winning the constituency, and his daughter Kirsty proposed me as the youth officer at my first ever Labour party meeting.
I would also like to welcome the areas that were added to the constituency, including the residents of Callerton and Throckley, who had been fantastically represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for many years. I hope to continue giving that same service to Kenton Bank Foot, Throckley, Newburn, Callerton, Woolsington and Walbottle. Longhorsley ward was previously represented by both my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, both of whom also served communities in Hepscott, Morpeth’s Stobhill estate and Felton in their way and were great servants to those communities.
I would not be here today if it were not for the education that I received at Queen Elizabeth high school, Hexham middle school and the Sele first school in Hexham, from teachers like Alison Higgs, Robin Hodnett, Leanne Clarkson and Tony Webster. I know that a great state education has the ability to change lives and to lift and change entire areas. I want every child in the constituency to have access to the kind of education that I was lucky enough to get.
Hexham constituency is named for the town of Hexham, which boasts a wonderful abbey that has welcomed worshippers and visitors for over 1,300 years. In that time, it suffered raids, including from the forces of William Wallace. We also have one of the first ever purpose-built jails in England, and a farmers’ mart that is at the heart of our rural economy.
But the constituency that I represent is much more than just one town. We extend from the Cumbrian border, where my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and I each represent half of the village of Gilsland, through the Tyne valley and across to Callerton and Throckley in Newcastle. In the north, we border Scotland, taking in Kielder forest, where, rather aptly for England’s largest constituency by area, we have England's largest forest. We are home to the largest man-made lake in northern Europe, almost 580 square miles of internationally renowned dark sky, and the Northumberland national park. We then go to our southern border, where the Allen valleys take in some of the most stunning scenery in England. We take in the Tyne valley line, Wylam, Prudhoe, Stocksfield, Riding Mill, Hexham, Haydon Bridge and Haltwhistle. We take in Ponteland and Darras Hall, and areas as diverse as Slaley and Slaggyford.
We have the UNESCO world heritage site of Hadrian’s wall running through the constituency. I am in the unfortunate position, though, of being the first ever MP for Hexham not to be able to take visitors to see the iconic Sycamore gap, which we so sadly lost to future generations last year. But the wall remains, as does the beauty that draws thousands of tourists to the constituency throughout the year, supporting the local economy in towns like Haltwhistle—the centre of Britain—Bellingham, Kielder, Wark, Byrness and Otterburn. I hope to see hon. Members from across the House walking the awe-inspiring Hadrian’s wall, enjoying the wonders of our dark skies, gazing at the beautiful Tyne valley from the train and taking in the joys of community life at events like Ovingham’s goose fair and the Northumberland county show.
With that being said, it will be no surprise to many hon. Members, or to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who I was delighted to welcome to the constituency during the election campaign, that my constituency conjures images of the agricultural sector. We have a fantastic farming community. It has been my privilege to engage with those in it, and to get to know them over the election campaign. I know that the farming community represents the beating heart of our constituency’s identity. I look forward to working with the Secretary of State, his Ministers and friends across the House to improve outcomes for UK farmers and consumers, and to address the challenges that they face.
As well as the agriculture sector, we have a large manufacturing base in the constituency. We have sites like Egger in Hexham, which has a firm focus on the sustainability of the wood-based material manufacturing sector, and Essity in Prudhoe, which produces more than 800 million toilet rolls a year. When we do our shopping, the odds are that we are elbowing someone out of the way for some of Prudhoe’s finest produce. I have worked in the steel sector, and I know how important it is for the country to make things, and how important well-paid, highly skilled jobs are to communities like ours.
Alongside our large manufacturing base, my constituency has a thriving small and craft brewery scene. I was delighted to take a break from the campaign trail to attend the Corbridge beer festival, which is all about raising money for good causes and charities.
Although there is a lot of beauty in the constituency, there are huge challenges as well. We have a great local health service, but every single week, I see the need for long-term solutions to the social care crisis. Elderly residents in isolated rural communities are doubly disadvantaged, as they are hit by the rural cost of living premium and by poor public transport, and they are reliant on carers who are themselves struggling to make ends meet.
We also face an acute transport challenge. I think I am the third Member to cite George Stephenson in their maiden speech today; he was born in Wylam. The constituency’s buses are too infrequent, and its trains are too regularly cancelled. I will continue my predecessor’s campaign to reopen Gilsland train station, and I look forward to working with friends across the House, and with my good friend Kim McGuinness, our Mayor of the North-East, to improve transport for our rural communities.
My constituency also faces a dramatic housing shortage, with too many elderly people being unable to downsize into more appropriate homes in communities they know, and with young people being forced to move away from where they grew up. For towns like Barrasford and Humshaugh, as well as for larger towns such as Ponteland, this is a generational challenge. It is a huge concern for parents and grandparents, and it came up time and again on the doorstep during the general election.
Crime and antisocial behaviour also impact communities—from west Newcastle and the towns and villages, to the smallest and most isolated communities. I look forward to working with Susan Dungworth, our police and crime commissioner, on these matters. The cross-departmental rural crime strategy is so important. I have spoken to sheep farmers out in West Woodburn who have been struck by the attempted robbery of their quad bike.
The north-east is famous for its rivers, and the Tyne is one of the most important rivers in the country’s history. It was the very artery of our industry. Wherever I went, constituents demanded that we clean up our rivers, and I am pleased to see that the Government have already got to work on delivering on that promise. I look forward to supporting that work as much as I can.
At every door I knocked on during the election campaign, I got the message for change. I know it is incredibly important to get on with that change by supporting the King’s Speech, so that we become the confident, outward-looking nation that we so evidently can be. I am conscious that we cannot work miracles in this place, and as the first ever Labour MP for my constituency, I know that I was not sent to this place with an expectation of overnight success. I was sent here to get on with working with colleagues across the House to deliver genuine outcomes and genuine change for my constituents. I look forward to continuing that service.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I thank him for his full tribute to his predecessor, Guy Opperman, who was loved on both sides of the House.
Very early in my political career, in 1999, when I was first elected as a councillor, my dad told me that nothing in politics is quite as vexed as the politics of the southern area planning committee of Test Valley borough council. He was right, but I reassure the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is responding to this debate, that the council has already modernised its planning committee. It has already taken great strides and, until the nitrate issue in the Solent hit us, it was one of the councils delivering the highest number of houses in the country, but it has faced challenges. I welcome the announcement on compulsory purchase orders and the changes that might come, but we need detail. I seek reassurance that the detail will come and will give real powers to local authorities, because Test Valley borough council has faced a challenge since 1982, when the Romsey brewery started its last brew. I was at school at the local primary school and I remember the smell well.
That brewery site has an extant planning permission that has not been built out in the last 40 years. It is a phenomenal shame to the town that every time the local council has tried to put place in a successful compulsory purchase order, the developer has simply started work on one more unit of accommodation to delay that from happening. Given the part of the country that you are from, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be familiar with Stanborough Developments, the company that brings that curse to Romsey. Its actions mean that we have a brownfield site in the middle of the town, with extant planning permission for a project that has never been finished, and that could be providing homes for local people.
I vividly remember a Westminster Hall debate on this subject back in 2019, brought forward by my former right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the great Anne Milton. That was the first occasion on which I had the dubious honour of trying to both chair and speak in a debate. Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, said that the Labour party would bring forward “penalties” for this sort of developer. I appreciate that it will require retrospective legislation, but I seek reassurance that the Labour Government will make good on the promises made by Mr Cunningham about extant planning permissions, and that we will see developers like Stanborough suitably punished.
I reassure colleagues that I will not bang on about green belt this afternoon, for the good reason that there is no green belt in Hampshire, save for a tiny corner in the very south-west, designed, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, to prevent the spread of the urban conurbation of Bournemouth, which is in an entirely different county. We would love some green belt, but we simply do not have any. What we do have is an area that is under extreme water stress.
We cannot take our foot off the brakes on building without also considering where the drinking water will come from. The Abbotswood development in my constituency frequently has to have water delivered by tankers because Southern Water repeatedly fails in its duty to provide water. It is not exclusively to blame, because although water companies can be consulted on development, they have no right to say no to it. They have no ability to say, “We simply cannot deliver water to this development.” In areas like the Solent, the situation will become increasingly challenging. I saw in the pages of the Daily Mail that the expectation is that southern Hampshire will take an enormous amount of development under this Government’s plans. It cannot do that if those homes cannot have a water supply.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about the need for proper infrastructure alongside developments. In my Basildon and Billericay constituency, around Burstead, Billericay and Laindon, there is a lot of concern about huge infrastructure going in without local consent. Do her constituents face that issue as well?
Caroline Nokes
Absolutely. Infrastructure is key to making new developments work, but we need to take communities along with us, and to work hand in hand with them.
In the debate, we have heard about villages up and down the country; they are the heart of our rural communities. Many villages in Romsey and Southampton North have worked incredibly hard to get their neighbourhood development plans in place, and held local referendums to confirm them, but now they are scared that that work will go to waste. Yet again, I seek reassurance from the Minister that that work will be upheld and cherished, because it will give us the scale and type of communities that we wish to see. When local people have been involved in the process, the Government should not turn around and tell them that their views are now irrelevant, and that a development will be imposed on them anyway.
In the minute I have left, I wish to make a couple of further points. Over the last 48 hours, a number of issues have popped into my inbox. First and foremost, there is still a problem with the quality of new builds. When houses are thrown up at speed, people are sometimes left with significant build quality problems. One gentleman emailed me yesterday saying that he had to spend £350,000—fortunately, he had insurance covering that amount—to rectify the developer’s problems. In my constituency, we have sometimes seen houses torn down because the build quality was not good enough. Let us ensure that we do not see a repeat of that.
While we are talking about new-build estates, can we solve the issue of estate management companies ripping off homeowners and not bringing estates up to the quality needed if the estate is to be adopted? [Interruption.] I can see that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is taking that on her shoulders. She should believe me. I will be beating a path to her door, because there is much that still needs to be done to ensure that the housing that is delivered is of good enough quality for people to live in.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Elsie Blundell to make her maiden speech.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech during this debate. I am so proud to represent Heywood and Middleton North. It is a new constituency, comprising part of Rochdale and most of the former Heywood and Middleton seat, both in Greater Manchester.
People from my constituency have long shaped our parliamentary democracy. Heywood is the birthplace of Peter Heywood, famous for apprehending Guy Fawkes in the cellar beneath Parliament in 1605. Middleton, too, has a famous son in Sam Bamford, the radical social reformer who led a contingent of weavers from Middleton into Manchester in 1819. Their peaceful protest for political representation ended in massacre at St Peter’s Field.
Spotland, in the Rochdale part of my constituency, is home to a stone road widely known as Cotton Famine Road. It is a monument to the cotton workers who lived there in the 1860s, and who bravely sided with the Union cause during the American civil war. It was a selfless act, especially as the Union side at that time was preventing goods from leaving Confederate ports. This resulted in a shortage of cotton supplies—a cotton famine—and caused unemployment, poverty and hardship across Lancashire, but support for President Lincoln and his pledge to end the slave trade held firm.
The workers’ campaign was supported by Rochdale statesman and radical John Bright, of whom a sculpture can be found in the Lower Waiting Hall of Westminster Palace. Bright was a lifelong campaigner against slavery and is especially well known for his role in abolishing the corn laws, alongside another great parliamentarian, Richard Cobden, who—with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh)—I will claim as a predecessor, as large parts of what was his constituency now fall under Heywood and Middleton North boundaries.
The history of the area I represent, then, is strongly linked to many political and social reforms in this country and around the world, and to ideals and values that we hold close to this day: that there is no place for violence in our politics; that the circumstances a person is born into must not prevent them from participating in our democracy; and that—as those cotton workers knew in the 1860s—we should be compassionate to all people regardless of race, class or any other distinction.
Alongside Heywood, Middleton and Spotland, I have the privilege of representing the former mill town of Castleton, with its proud history of manufacturing and engineering, and the fantastic villages of Bamford and Norden.
My constituency was also home to renowned architect Edgar Wood, who is widely recognised as the most advanced English architect of his time. More recently, Heywood was the birthplace of Ian Simpson—one half of SimpsonHaugh & Partners—whose buildings, such as Beetham Tower and One Blackfriars, compel people to look up to the skylines in both Manchester and London.
To this day, it is the people of Heywood and Middleton North who continue to make the place great, and I would like to use this speech to pay tribute to some of them. They include retail workers such as Robert and Brenda Bell from Heywood, who are also proud trade unionists, for whom the employment rights Bill, set out in the King’s Speech, will create extra rights to work flexibly and make parental leave, sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal day-one rights. This Government will also ban zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire.
Then there are the many volunteers, including the Pullen family, who run the 1st Heywood Scouts Group; Howard Bowden and Simon Bennett, who do excellent work through the Friends of Jubilee Park group and St Edmund’s church; and Pete Knowles and his group of volunteers at Stoney Hill community wildlife area, who protect and promote our beautiful meadows and woodlands and make sure that children in a relatively urban area can access nature too. People like these make my constituency great, and I will do everything that I can to support them.
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessors. Chris Clarkson has represented the people of Heywood and Middleton for the past four and a half years. I know that many Members of this House valued his good humour and enjoyed working alongside him, including on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Liz McInnes was the MP for Heywood and Middleton between 2014 and 2019, and served in two shadow ministerial roles. Liz worked incredibly hard in both of those positions and was a fierce advocate for her constituents on many issues, including the NHS, in which she had previously worked.
For the past seven years, I have enjoyed a career in transport planning. I am incredibly pleased by the measures set out in the King’s Speech to accelerate infrastructure delivery and to improve our transport network. Unfortunately, many people in my constituency do not have access to the opportunities and jobs they need, as Heywood and Middleton—despite their location in the great, modern city region of Greater Manchester—are two of the largest towns in the north-west of England not to be served by a rail station or Metrolink tram stop. As one former shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, argued in a recent paper, there has been too little transport investment in low-productivity areas such as mine. We need to improve transport connectivity throughout city regions like Greater Manchester because good transport infrastructure allows for more frequent interaction between people and creates larger pools of workers for businesses.
Earlier this month, we received promising news from the Greater Manchester combined authority of a re-commitment to the linking of Middleton into Greater Manchester’s Metrolink network and of progress on plans for Heywood’s tram-train connection. In future, that will form part of the city region’s integrated transport network, which Greater Manchester must carry on delivering at pace, to boost productivity, pay, jobs and living standards in Heywood and Middleton North.
Finally, when it comes to devolution for our city region the job is well under way, but we must be mindful of the fact that it is not yet finished. I look forward to supporting our new Government, because I know that, through the English devolution Bill and other measures, they will put power back into the hands of working people and money back into their pockets. They will strive to ensure that powerful forces are not able to disenfranchise those people again. Throughout history, my constituents have had too much experience of that.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their attention, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my first contribution.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who gave a wonderful speech. It was interesting to hear about her constituency; I confess that I did not know much about it before, but I certainly know a lot about it now. It was generous of the hon. Lady to pay rightful compliments to her predecessor, Chris Clarkson, who is much missed on this side of the House.
A couple of weeks ago, the Labour party won a mandate for the manifesto that it put before the British electorate. We respect that; it was part of the British parliamentary system and we respect the peaceful transfer of power. However, I say gently to the Labour Government that it is concerning that the King’s Speech and subsequent comments from Ministers have rejected the notion that local communities should be at the heart of developments in their areas.
One particular issue affects my constituency of South Leicestershire: the proposed Hinckley national rail freight interchange. On 8 July, the new Chancellor stated that she would ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the decision on the interchange, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to
“prioritise decisions on infrastructure projects that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.”
She did not, of course, explain what she meant by “sitting unresolved for far too long”, but let me help the new Chancellor and Government. “Sitting unresolved for far too long” is perhaps an unfortunate euphemism; what should actually be said is that in our system of laws we respect and listen to local communities. We listen to stakeholder groups and neighbourhood groups. Of course, in most instances local authorities—elected councillors—are, in most planning instances, the ones whose remit it is to make these decisions.
On the issue of the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, I should say that South Leicestershire already has its fair share of developments. It has one of the largest housing developments in Leicestershire, with New Lubbesthorpe; and Magna Park, one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, is to be doubled in size. It has Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which plays host to many industrial activities, and it has the prospect of a new village—Whetstone Gorse or Whetstone Pastures.
It is not nimbyism in South Leicestershire that has led to the objections to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange; it is the fact that there are five other rail freight interchanges within a radius of 30 miles of South Leicestershire. I am glad the new Deputy Prime Minster has taken a seat to listen to my speech about this matter, but it is important that the Labour Government listen not just to me and my constituents, but to Leicestershire county council, to Warwickshire county council and even to Labour-led Rugby council, all of which have raised issues with the planning process for this unwelcome proposal.
Alberto Costa
My hon. Friend is quite right: the decision now rests with the new Labour Government to make. I am afraid that Labour councillors and other Labour activists who might have opposed the Hinckley national rail freight interchange should look now to their party colleagues in government, who will be making this decision within a matter of a few weeks.
I urge the Government to listen to the people of South Leicestershire and the stakeholders I have mentioned. I urge them to listen to the people of Elmesthorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Stoney Stanton, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who himself has made some valuable comments against the proposed rail freight interchange. It is a deeply unwelcome proposal.
I want to offer a solution to the new Labour Government. Before they recommend this unwelcome development for approval, I suggest the relevant Minister meets me and the stakeholders, including Labour-run Rugby council, to discuss the proposal. They could perhaps look at drafting a national planning framework for the proper location of rail freight interchanges, rather than just riding roughshod over the views of the people of South Leicestershire, as a constituent of mine emailed me two hours ago to say he fears, and as I fear, the Labour Government will do.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
It is a great honour to be in the Chamber to hear so many wonderful maiden speeches, especially those of my north-east colleagues. They have made me very proud today, and I think they are going to be fantastic representatives of all their constituents.
This is my fifth election to Westminster, but my constituency has changed, with only four wards from my former North Tyneside constituency and six wards added from the former Newcastle upon Tyne East constituency. I thank the people of my former constituency for giving me the honour of serving them for the past 14 years, and I thank the people of the new constituency for placing their trust in me at the general election. I will work hard to honour that trust.
Voters in the former Newcastle upon Tyne East constituency were fortunate to be represented for 41 years by the right hon. Nick Brown, who commanded great respect in this House. Constituents hold him in high regard for all his work and achievements, both in the constituency and as a Minister in the last Labour Government. He has earned his well-deserved retirement, but personally I am grateful to Nick for all his help and friendship.
Across my new constituency, people face the same challenges—the cost of living crisis, a shortage of good social housing, hikes in mortgages and diminished public services—and they have all taken a toll on people’s everyday lives. My constituency is crying out for this Labour Government’s shared mission of renewal. I share the view of our new North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, in fully supporting the English devolution Bill. Kim believes that her office will be the delivery arm of the Labour mission in the north-east, and she is keen to start that work at pace. Although I know it will not be easy, I have great hope that the announcements made in the King’s Speech will start to turn the tide and make life better for everyone in this country.
I was a North Tyneside ward councillor for 15 years before I entered the House, so I have a self-confessed bias for North Tyneside council. The council’s planning committee has not voted against offers or recommendations on any medium or large house building site for over a decade. It has an up-to-date local plan and ambitious housing targets of its own, yet it still has sites stuck in the planning system. Although National Highways agreed in the local plan that strategic sites should proceed and be accommodated in road infrastructure, when it came to planning applications being submitted, National Highways placed a holding objection on the sites, leading to 5,000 new homes being stuck in the system. Alongside dealing with other planning reform issues, I ask Ministers to look at the impact of statutory consultees on delays in the planning system, to help authorities such as North Tyneside.
The Health Equals campaign coalition, which is made up of 27 organisations, has launched its visually though-provoking campaign, “Make Health Equal”, to highlight the fact that levels of poverty and deprivation lead to people in parts of my constituency and other such areas living 16 years less than people in more affluent parts of the country. The coalition acknowledges that the King’s Speech will start to repair some of the building blocks of health, such as decent and secure housing, good work opportunities and clean transport. It looks to the Government to assess the impact of the King’s Speech on health inequalities, and, in the spirit of unity, to work with such groups to deliver the mission in my constituency and across the country.
I also make a plea on behalf of the offshore energy industries. Although the Great British Energy Bill is welcome, we must not lose sight of the fact that oil and gas play a massive part in our economy, and will continue to do so. On the tobacco and vapes Bill, I hope that the Government will, unlike the previous Government, take into account the views of the industry.
I look forward to supporting the King’s Speech in the voting Lobby, along with my 411 colleagues and, hopefully, Members of the Opposition. In so doing, we will vote for an agenda fixed on making the lives of everyone in this country far better.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Lewis Cocking to make his maiden speech.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I congratulate all Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I am a geographer by background, so it is an absolute privilege to sit here and learn about all the different parts of our lovely United Kingdom.
It is truly the greatest honour of my life to stand here as the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne. I am under no illusion about the responsibility of representing the place where I was raised, where my family lives and that I call home. I am hugely grateful to the residents of Broxbourne, who put their faith in me and elected one of their own. They will be keeping me on my toes—not least my nan, who will not hesitate to badger me if she thinks I need to get things sorted.
We are straight-talkers in Broxbourne, and chief among us was my predecessor, Sir Charles Walker. He certainly was not afraid to speak his mind in this Chamber. More than a decade ago, I was lucky enough to do some work experience in Sir Charles’s office here in Parliament. I simply would not be here today without the opportunities and wisdom that he offered over the years. Sir Charles had a number of triumphs in Broxbourne, and I was grateful to join him and our community in our efforts to save Cheshunt urgent care centre in 2011 and to stop the energy-from-waste facility in Hoddesdon in 2017.
I joined Sir Charles on many occasions out on the doorstep. The December 2019 general election campaign in particular sticks in the mind. Despite the darkness and the cold, the ever-enthusiastic Sir Charles ploughed on. On one occasion, it was just the two of us, and all of a sudden, Charles slipped and fell. I gasped and said, “Charles, please don’t injure yourself when you’re just with me, or they’ll be saying I did it to get the seat.”
Sir Charles served Broxbourne for 19 years, and although I knew him well, it is only in the short time since my election that I have come to understand just how much of an impact he had on this House. As Chair of the Procedure Committee and, later, the Administration Committee, Sir Charles championed the institution of Parliament and the individuals who make it. That has been made clear to me from the reactions of House staff when they discover that I represent Broxbourne. I will do my utmost to follow him in taking my responsibilities of scrutiny and representation seriously.
As I have said, Broxbourne is my home and the place I love. The constituency is characterised by its closeness to both London and the countryside, with the Lee Valley regional park on our doorstep. In 2012, Broxbourne became an Olympic borough: we hosted the canoe events at our world-class Lee Valley white water rafting centre, and we have a gold post box in Cheshunt thanks to our very own Laura Kenny’s success in the cycling. There are a number of Team GB athletes with connections to Broxbourne heading to the summer Olympics, and I wish them all the best.
The area has many small independent businesses, particularly around our towns of Waltham Cross, Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. They are the backbone of Broxbourne’s local economy, and I will do all I can to support entrepreneurship at every level. I am also proud of the international investment coming to the constituency over the next few years. I am pleased to say that Hollywood is coming to Broxbourne: a £700 million project is well under way to build a film studio complex, which will have the capacity to produce four blockbusters at the same time.
At this election, the constituency of Broxbourne took on the villages of Stanstead Abbotts, St Margarets, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell and Brickendon. These villages are all known for their tight-knit communities and natural beauty, which brings me on to the topic of this debate. While preparing for this speech, I noticed that both of the former MPs for Broxbourne referred to the unspoiled green belt that we are lucky to have in our area. Broxbourne has a local plan and has built hundreds of new homes—too many in a short space of time, some of my constituents would argue, and too many in total. I tend to agree. As many Members who are councillors will have seen if they have sat on a planning committee, developers use outline planning permission to promise the world. I have seen houses in outline that look absolutely amazing: the development has schools, new roads, a local centre and healthcare facilities. However, once outline planning permission has been granted, the developers come forward for full planning permission, and nine times out of 10 the application looks incredibly different, with bad design and no infrastructure. And developers wonder why residents get up in arms!
We need to better link the NHS to new developments. On several occasions, getting local NHS providers to tell us what they need, or even getting them around the table so that we can plan new services for my constituents, has been a real struggle. I have a real issue in Goffs Oak and the wider west Cheshunt area, which has seen a lot of new housing but no new healthcare facilities. It is obvious to everyone living there that those facilities are desperately needed.
We must ensure that developments are acceptable—not development anywhere, but appropriate development in the right places. Infrastructure must come first, with new schools, GP surgeries and section 106 moneys up front, or as close to day one as possible. Above all else, we must ensure that local people have a say over development in their area, so I hope the Government will listen to local people. On this and other issues, I assure my constituents that I will be their voice in this place, and I hope I can begin to repay their trust as my hard work starts now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Peter Prinsley to make his maiden speech.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am a surgeon from East Anglia, and it is an honour beyond my imagining to have been elected to Parliament to serve the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in the most beautiful county of Suffolk. I thank its voters for putting their faith in me and in Labour, and for giving us the chance to change Britain. I am the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, which has been a Conservative seat for nigh on 150 years.
I must thank my predecessor, Jo Churchill, most sincerely for her long service to her constituents. I am the first ear, nose and throat surgeon ever elected to Parliament. I am not, however, the first member of my family to be an MP. I recall my uncle, George Jeger, from when I was a small boy in the 1960s—he was the Member for Goole, in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
I thank my teachers at Guisborough grammar school in Cleveland. As a descendant of Jewish refugees, what a pleasure it was to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) deliver his maiden speech. I went to medical school in Sheffield, and I thank the many surgeons who trained me in the NHS. I thank the thousands of patients whom I have treated during my career, and who put their faith in me and are my lasting inspiration. Indeed, one of the first people I met as I walked into Parliament was one of my patients, Paul from Great Yarmouth, who works here in this place to keep us all safe. I thank my family and in particular my wife, Marian, the former sheriff of Norwich, who has been my greatest supporter and who first encouraged me in politics.
My constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is a wonderful part of the world, with a rich tradition of agriculture and food production. We are home to Greene King and, according to the records in the House of Commons Library, one of my distinguished predecessors urged the House bars to stock the delicious beer created from Suffolk barley. I see that the present Greene King brew in the Strangers’ Bar is called Level Head—something we are all going to need in the years to come as we begin to rebuild Britain. We are also home to Silver Spoon, and the enormous Suffolk sugar beet production is key to the local economy. In Stowmarket, we have a brilliant food museum to showcase that most essential of national services, farming.
I was delighted to see our new Government’s proposals to sort out our buses. Let us think of them as the crucial services they are and support them. There are villages in my constituency that have two buses a day during the school term and no buses at all in the school holidays. How does anyone without a car get to the GP surgery or to the pharmacy in the nearby town?
Very few surgeons are ever elected to Parliament and I will bring my experience of 42 years as an NHS doctor to this place to do something to help mend a service that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has described as broken. Many of our hospitals are indeed in poor repair and we have seen very little progress on the 40 new hospitals famously promised by the last Government. In Bury St Edmunds, we urgently need to confirm the capital funding to progress the replacement of the West Suffolk hospital which, like my own James Paget university hospital in Great Yarmouth and our sister hospital in King’s Lynn, is supported by thousands of scaffolding poles and is literally falling down. Last week, it was reported that bird droppings had fallen through the roof on to sterile surgical instruments. My predecessor was a strong advocate for the replacement of our hospital, and I will aim to continue her work.
Our brilliant new Government have much to do. Let us use our huge mandate wisely. Let us look after the staff who look after us, end the outrage of food banks for the nurses in many of our hospitals, and sort out the pay and conditions of all who work in our most precious of public services. Let us make the biggest employer in the land the very best employer in the land.
There are things to do to sort out social care and to end the financial lottery at the end of life, which many families fear. The answers are political, and we can do this. Our hospitals are full of patients with a non-medical condition called bed block, because they cannot be discharged safely in many cases. I cannot begin to tell the House how many of my operating lists have been cancelled because of that problem. Whole surgical teams are waiting around for hours and operating theatres are lying empty.
If we solve the problem of social care, we will not need to build ever bigger hospitals.
But I am optimistic for our NHS. Britain leads the world in scientific advances. Right in my own region of East Anglia we have world-beating biomedical science and leading universities.
Recently, we celebrated 75 years of the NHS. My father—who, if he were alive and here today, would be astonished—was an RAF medic who joined the RAF in 1948. My son is an A&E doctor right here in London. My sister is a nurse. My family has served the NHS continuously since it began.
When the great Nye Bevan invented the NHS, a painful hip was treated with a walking stick, and a cataract with a thick pair of glasses. Now the miracles of joint replacement and cataract surgery are no longer regarded as the surgical miracles they are, but as an entitlement. Nye would have been amazed.
I am sure we will see in our own time scientific and medical advances beyond our imagination. Already we are at last seeing effective treatments for dementia and neurological disorders, and genetic cures for haemophilia and other inherited problems. We will also have cancer vaccines and other marvels that we cannot yet imagine.
I urge all my honourable colleagues in this brand-new Parliament to do whatever we can to support research and innovation with all our heart and all our soul, for as the great poet Seamus Heaney wrote,
“once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.”
I commend this King’s Speech to the House.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and the ministerial team on their appointments and wishing them well. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who did a lot of the hard yards in opposition and missed out on ministerial roles this time.
I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches we have heard on both sides of the House today. We started with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who I was delighted to hear has significant rural areas in his constituency and has an interest in this sector. We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who gave the House an informed tour of his constituency. We had a fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who brings real practical and professional experience to rural affairs and rightly focused on the need to tailor policies to the needs of rural communities.
We heard from the new hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), who was very generous in his tribute to his much-respected predecessor. We had a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who highlighted the importance of the rural economy and water quality—what an asset she will be in the House. We also heard from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who talked about farming as the beating heart of his constituency, while the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) spoke about the radicalism of a former figure from Middleton—I hope that will inform her relationship with the Government Whips Office moving forward.
We had two outstanding closing speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the importance of infrastructure in the rural economy, and focused particularly on planning. We also witnessed the huge experience, which is respected across the House, that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) brings as a surgeon. I know he will be an important voice in health debates, among others. I am delighted that all those new Members chose to make their maiden speeches on the issue of rural affairs in the King’s Speech.
Labour campaigned on a slogan of change, but they are offering only uncertainty to farming and fishing communities. It is no surprise that, just last night, the president of the National Farmers Union said that farmers are facing a “cliff edge” and are
“being kept up at night”
by the uncertainty. That uncertainty is not because the Labour Government have not had time to prepare their policies for farming and fishing; it is because the issue is not a priority for a Labour Government. That is why the Labour manifesto had just 87 words on farming and nothing at all on fishing. It is why this King’s Speech has nothing for the farming and fishing communities. It is why the Government have not even given any dates for when this uncertainty will end. We should be clear in this House that that is an active choice. It is a point that the Government have chosen to prioritise, in contrast to the prioritisation we were willing to make with the additional funding that we committed.
Is it not all the more ironic that just a few years ago, the now Prime Minister went to the NFU and admitted that farming and rural affairs had for too long been an afterthought for the Labour party and promised to change that? That is an early example of promised change that is not then delivered. We can see that uncertainty in the farming budget. The Government have made no commitment to what the budget will be, or whether they are continuing it or increasing it. We were willing to make decisions to prioritise £1 billion of additional funding over this Parliament. There is nothing from Labour on that, leaving farmers uncertain. Can the Secretary of State confirm what his budget will be? Does he even know? Has the Chancellor told him? Can he even tell the House when he might know? We do not even know when the spending review will be. He is probably as much in the dark as the rest of us.
What about the uncertainty on food security? We made commitments with the food security index, the annual farm to fork summit, the food security duty, the biggest ever grants payment, and the additional funding to deal with the wet weather that farmers had recently faced. What is the commitment from the Labour Government on food security? There is nothing in the King’s Speech about legislating for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether they intend to legislate and it was just an omission that they did not get around to, or is it something that he is now ruling out?
What about the uncertainty about just how much farmland will be lost as a result of this Government? We know what their 2030 environmental targets are—to triple solar, to increase onshore wind and to increase the pylons connecting to offshore wind—so can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will publish before the summer recess an impact assessment on how much farmland will be lost as a result of delivering his 2030 environmental targets? Does he even know?
Mr Holden
One cornerstone of the Conservative manifesto was for an underground-first approach to new electricity pylons. That is an important matter for my constituents in Basildon and Billericay. Will my right hon. Friend also highlight to the Government exactly how important that is and try to seek an answer on what their proposals are in this space?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue, because if a Government are promising change, they need to be able to say what the timelines are. They need to say what the budget is and what legislation they will pass to deliver that. On all those things, there is silence in this King’s Speech.
The Labour manifesto has lots of high-sounding things that are hard to disagree with. Labour wants more food security, and says that food security is national security, and we on the Opposition Benches agree. Labour says it wants to raise animal welfare, and we have done a huge amount to do so. That is fine. However, if the Government say they want to end the badger cull, when will they do that? There is nothing in the King’s Speech on that, so what are the timelines? Dairy farmers would like to know. Will the Secretary of State publish the analysis from the chief veterinary officer on what the impact of ending the cull would be on the trajectory? We know that the current approach has seen TB cases come down in England from 34,500 in 2018 to below 20,000. Certainly the advice that I had was that vaccinations would not be ready for some time. Will he publish the trajectory and tell us when the cull will end?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
You need to respect the science.
Steve Barclay
Of course we respect the science. The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, but I presume he will get the same science brief—in a way, he makes my point—that I got from the chief vet, which was that the vaccinations were not ready and the cull was being effective. In fact, we only need to look at Labour’s policy in Wales, where the opposite is happening, to see that. I hope that, as he represents Cambridge, he will follow the science, because the Government made a commitment that does not. Perhaps that is the sort of change they mean—a change from what they committed to in the manifesto. It did not take long.
Speaking of things at a high level that no one can disagree with, the Government talk about making more use of public sector procurement. Again, the Conservatives not only agree with that, but we have helped the Government with it. The former Member for Colchester did a fantastic review, the Quince review, looking at how that will be done, but the Government are silent on the funding for that. Will it be funded out of the budget of the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Defence, local government—or will it come out of the Secretary of State’s budget? It is difficult for him to say, because he does not even know what his budget will be.
The reality is that we have empty slogans from a party that does not care about the rural economy. The Government are not giving clarity to farming and fishing; they barely mentioned farming in their manifesto, and they did not even mention fishing. This King’s Speech does nothing for the farming and fishing communities. The decisions that we have seen so far take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry that we have heard so often in this House. I hope the Secretary of State will give the clarity that is sadly lacking in the King’s Speech on what the Government will do—and when—on the budget, on food procurement, and on dairy farmers and the badger cull, and will end the uncertainty that the president of the NFU and so many others in the farming and fishing community currently face.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
It is a huge honour, on my first opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State, to close today’s debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I welcome my predecessor, now the shadow Secretary of State, to his place and thank him for the way he has worked constructively with me. I look forward to that continuing, although I prefer it this way around.
It has been an honour to be present for maiden speeches from across the House. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go through their excellent comments in much detail, but I would like to mention my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Many of them represent rural constituencies, and they all showed what great assets they will be to this House and to the communities they represent.
I cannot respond to everyone who has spoken—I am sorry about that—but I will do my best to cover what I can in the limited time available. I will start with the subject of planning. This Government were elected on a mandate to get Britain building again. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, reforming the planning system is the key to unlocking our country’s economic growth. The existing planning system is too restrictive, slow and uncertain, which undermines investor confidence and means that the homes that we desperately need do not get built. We will overhaul the planning system to tackle the chronic shortage of homes and power up the economy.
Alongside that, we were elected on a platform to deliver for nature, and will take urgent action to meet the Environment Act targets that the previous Government missed. We will protect, create and improve spaces that increase climate resilience and promote nature’s recovery on land and at sea, recognising that ensuring a positive outcome for nature is fundamental to unlocking the housing and infrastructure that this country so urgently needs.
We must take tough action to tackle the housing emergency and build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament, but we remain committed to preserving the green belt. Our brownfield-first approach means that that authorities should prioritise brownfield sites. However, brownfield development alone will not be enough, so we will also transform lower-quality grey belt land, such as wasteland or old car parks, into housing, including affordable homes for those most in need.
Steve Reed
I am sorry, there is not enough time for me to give way. [Interruption.] Members should have spoken for less time.
Rural communities have been severely undermined by the previous Conservative Government. For a party that once claimed to be the party of the countryside, their track record is one of abject and absolute neglect. Voters in the countryside rejected their failure and embraced Labour’s positive vision. That is evident from the huge increase in Labour MPs representing rural constituencies, and the collapse in rural support for the Conservatives. Thanks to the Conservative party, transport links in many rural areas are now close to non-existent; there are more potholes in England’s roads than craters on the moon; schools cannot recruit enough teachers; GP surgeries are full; families cannot find an NHS dentist; thousands of rural businesses have collapsed; and rural crime goes unpunished. This is an abandonment of the countryside on a historic scale.
Yet instead of apologising for their failure, the Conservatives choose to deny the reasons why rural voters turned against them in their millions. They are at it again today. I take it from the comments the shadow Secretary of State was making just now that they are so out of touch that they do not understand that rural communities want more affordable homes, more dentists, more teachers, more GPs, better public transport, energy security, more digital connectivity, well-paid jobs, better access to the countryside all around them, and their rivers cleaned up, after the Tories left them swilling with raw, stinking toxic sewage. They are out of touch, out of ideas and now, thank goodness, out of office.
This week, Britain starts a new chapter. Rural communities will be central to our mission to rebuild Britain and fix the issues that make a real difference to people’s everyday lives, as we grow the economy, mend the NHS, fix our schools, tackle crime and address the cost of living crisis. Over a decade of national renewal, this Labour Government will serve the British public, wherever they live. The Prime Minister has been clear that this Government’s priority is to grow our economy. We will boost rural economies with our new deal for farmers; seek a veterinary agreement with the EU to get food exports moving again after the Tories locked them out; and stop farmers ever again being undercut by dodgy Tory trade deals that sell out Britain’s environmental and welfare standards, as they sell out Britain’s exporters and food producers. We will set up a new British infrastructure council to steer private investment, including for broadband roll-out, into rural areas neglected by the Tories, and reduce our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel prices, protecting farmers’ energy bills against future price shocks.
Steve Reed
I am very sorry, but there are only three minutes left and I need to cover the points that have been raised. [Interruption.] They had their time.
We will do that by switching on GB Energy as we make Britain a green energy superpower. We will speed up the building of flood defences to protect rural homes and farms, and rebuild our NHS with 40,000 more appointments every week, 8,500 more mental health professionals—[Interruption]—and a hub in every rural community to tackle loneliness and the mental health crisis. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Order. The right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) has behaved abominably.
Steve Reed
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
And that is not the end of the Tories’ failure. We will take back our streets from the criminals, with the first ever cross-Government rural crime strategy and more police patrols in rural towns and villages. We will break down barriers to opportunity in rural communities, so our children can realise their ambitions, wherever they grow up. They are the party of broken dreams; this is the party of aspiration.
Nature underpins all the Government’s missions. Without nature, there is no economy, no health, no food and no society. Nature is at crisis point. The Tories left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. A third of our bird and mammal species face extinction. Record levels of sewage are poisoning our rivers, lakes and seas. This catastrophe cannot be reversed overnight, but we have already turned the corner. This week we introduced our water special measures Bill to strengthen regulation and reverse the tide of sewage that is killing our waterways. Water bosses will no longer reward themselves with multimillion-pound bonuses—which the Tories allowed—while they oversee record levels of water pollution. If they refuse to clean up their toxic filth, they will face criminal charges. Last week, water companies signed up to my initial package of reforms, including ringfencing funding for vital infrastructure investment. If that money is not spent as it is intended to be, companies will refund their customers. It will no longer be diverted for bonuses or dividends, as the Tories allowed it to be.
The Tories had 14 years to take such action, but they failed absolutely. It took this Government less than one week. That is what change looks like with Labour. This Government are committed to the legally binding environmental targets set under the Environment Act 2021—targets that the Tories missed, but that this Government will meet by working in a new partnership with the nature non-governmental organisations.
I thank all Members who have taken part in this constructive and insightful debate for their perceptive contributions and their dedication to making progress on important matters. After 14 years of chaos, there is once again hope for our environment, hope for our countryside, and hope for our rural communities. I welcome the King’s Speech, and I commend it to this House. Change has come after 14 years of chaos and failure.
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Monday 22 July.
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna Turley.)
Written Statement
Schools and Teaching
(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am today announcing the launch of an independent expert-led curriculum and assessment review. The review will consider the existing national curriculum and statutory assessment system, and pathways for learners in 16-to-19 education, to drive high and rising standards for every young person. The review will be chaired by Professor Becky Francis CBE, an expert in education policy, including curriculum and education inequality.
The review will contribute to the Government’s missions to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child and young person at every stage, and to kick-start economic growth.
The review will build on the Government’s commitment to high standards in the curriculum in England, while ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility and that no child or young person is left behind. The review will seek to address the key problems and hard barriers to achievement in the curriculum and assessment system from key stage 1 to key stage 5.
Specifically, the review will seek to deliver:
An excellent foundation in core subjects of reading, writing and maths.
A broader curriculum, so that children and young people do not miss out on subjects such as music, art, sport and drama, as well as vocational subjects.
A curriculum that ensures children and young people leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work, building the knowledge, skills and attributes young people need to thrive. This includes embedding digital, oracy and life skills in their learning.
A curriculum that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring all children and young people are represented.
An assessment system that captures the strengths of every child and young person and the breadth of the curriculum, with the right balance of assessment methods, while maintaining the important role of examinations.
The review will be rigorously evidence-driven and will look closely at the barriers which hold children and young people back, particularly those who are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, have a special educational need or disability and/or are otherwise vulnerable.
The review will seek evolution not revolution, build on the existing relative strengths of a system with finite resources, and not add unnecessary burdens by seeking to fix things that are not broken.
The review will build on the hard work of teachers and staff across the system, and will be undertaken in close consultation with education professionals and other experts; parents; children and young people; and stakeholders such as employers, colleges, universities and trade unions.
The review will start this autumn with a call for evidence. The call for evidence will set out the areas where the review group would particularly welcome evidence and input from the sector and stakeholders, and will direct the focus of the engagement with the sector over the autumn term. The review group will publish an interim report in the new year setting out its interim findings and confirming the key areas for further work. We plan to publish the final review with recommendations in autumn 2025.
Alongside the review, the Department for Education will make legislative changes so that all state schools, including academies, will be required to teach the national curriculum. This will support the Government’s ambition for every child to receive a rich and broad curriculum taught by excellent teachers, wherever they are in the country, to set them up with the knowledge and skills to thrive in the future.
The review marks the Government’s first step towards an education system where background is no barrier and every young person leaves school or college with the best life chances.
[HCWS13]
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we resume the debate on the Motion for an humble Address, I thought it would be helpful to the House to remind all Back-Bench speakers that the advisory speaking time for today’s debate is five minutes. This means that, when the Clock has reached four minutes, noble Lords should start making their concluding remarks, and, at five minutes, their time is up. This shows respect and courtesy to the House and, by sticking to it, we will rise at around 3.30 pm today. I have asked the Whips on the Government Benches, if necessary—I hope that it will not be—to intervene if Members go over the allotted time.
King’s Speech
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an enormous honour to deliver my maiden speech in introducing today’s debate on creating opportunity through education and skills, early years, children’s social care and healthcare. When I first entered the other place, I determined to spend a considerable amount of time in the Chamber. My sudden and surprising appointment as a Minister last week, with my introduction only yesterday, means that I have not been able to absorb quite so much here. I can assure noble Lords that I have given it a go with the methods available to me, but I am in absolutely no doubt that YouTube, and even the excellent parliamentary TV, cannot possibly emulate the vivid reality that I am now experiencing. I look forward to learning quickly, not just about the ways of working in this place but also from the enormous range of experience that I know rests with your Lordships.
In my ministerial portfolio, however, I am blessed with some prior experience. It is 25 years, almost to the day, since I first entered the Department for Education as a Schools Minister. In that role, I could reflect on my previous teaching career of 11 years, in Worcestershire schools and at Worcester Sixth Form College, and on the experiences of those close to me. I am surrounded by educators: both my parents were teachers, my father being both a head teacher and the principal of an adult education college; my sister has just finished a distinguished teaching career, while my son is just starting his; and my partner is a senior university academic. Colleagues have told me that I can expect forensic and informed but civil challenge in this Chamber. As noble Lords can see, I also get that at home—just without the civil bit.
Of course, I will miss the other roles that I have played since my last ministerial career. I chaired the Jo Cox Foundation, where I am particularly grateful to the wonderful staff and the board as well as to both the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and my noble friend Lord Coaker, who chaired our Civility Commission to tackle the abuse and intimidation that blights our democracy. I also chaired the Sandwell Children’s Trust, where I worked with committed social workers and other staff safeguarding the most vulnerable children and families. Of course, there is also the “For The Many” podcast, which I have been doing with LBC’s Iain Dale for seven years—starting long before others jumped on the bandwagon of doing a podcast with two opposing political views.
As the former chair of two internationally recognised health trusts, in University Hospitals Birmingham and Barts Health, and of the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust—the most improved NHS trust last year—I will listen with interest to both my noble friend Lady Merron and other noble Lords, as we discuss the challenges for our healthcare and the commitment from this Government to mend a broken system.
Before I go further, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who has shown a tireless dedication to reducing the number of children in underperforming schools. I thank her for her work and wish her well.
We will create a new era of opportunity, especially for those who have seen nothing but dead ends and closed doors—like the parents who are struggling to pay for childcare; like the children whose life chances are damaged through persistent absence from school; or like the workers who are sidelined by technological whirlwinds that have left them wondering what has happened to their jobs. Whatever the source, we will work to break down these barriers to opportunity and deliver greater economic growth, better health and education excellence for everyone.
I will start with the most important people in society, the youngest and the most vulnerable: our children. A children’s well-being Bill will ensure that the first years of a child’s life give them the best start possible. We will ensure consistently high and rising standards across the whole education system. Early years are a vital period for children to flourish and they are not going to do that if they are not in school or able to concentrate when they get there. This is why we will introduce universal breakfast clubs in every primary school for all children. This will help children learn, help get them into school and into school on time. Funded breakfast clubs can help boost attendance, and we know that persistent absence can cripple a child’s learning and long-term life chances. It will also help their families cope with cost of living pressures. On that, families will be further supported to make ends meet by ensuring the affordability of school uniforms, building on the good work started by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett.
We want to see more children in school for more of the time but, wherever they are, children need to be kept safe and have the best chance of learning. So we will create registers of children not in school and expect local authorities to maintain them. We will also expect parents to do their bit by keeping local authorities informed. Your Lordships have already shared your thoughts on children not in school in the previous Schools Bill. It has greatly strengthened the work that we are doing now and I thank you. There will also be a duty on local authorities to provide support to families who choose to educate children at home. In this way, fewer children will slip under the radar when they are not in school and more children will reach their potential through suitable education.
We will make changes to the regulation and inspection of independent schools, including by providing Ofsted with stronger powers to investigate the offence of operating an unregistered school. We will move to enable serious teacher misconduct to be further investigated.
We are committed to the highest possible standards for every child, wherever they are or whatever their circumstances. This is especially important for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I know that there is a great deal of interest and expertise in this place, and I can assure you that I will be looking to harness your collective wisdom as we drive the change that is needed.
Many academy trusts have vastly improved school standards, particularly in the poorest-performing schools in the country. We want to work collaboratively with them to make decisions that best enable schools to support their pupils. In the case of the curriculum and qualified teachers, we think it is right that we require a high-quality national curriculum to be taught in all schools by qualified teachers. We will continue to explore other ways to raise school standards and improve fairness for every child. Today, we have delivered the Government’s commitment to an independent, expert-led review of curriculum and assessment to ensure high standards in the curriculum in England, greater attention to breadth and flexibility, and that no child or young person is left behind.
Our responsibility is greatest where children cannot depend on their own families for their safety and opportunity. We will extend the protections that exist for the most vulnerable children and those in care. I know from my recent experience chairing the Sandwell Children’s Trust that, despite the excellent work of our children’s social care workforce, we are not doing well enough for the most vulnerable children and families. In particular, it is difficult to find the right, loving places for children to live when they cannot stay with their family. This is devastating for children, but this market failure has also driven enormous cost for children’s social care. Profiteering in the children’s homes market is totally unacceptable and we will crack down on it. We will also strengthen the regulation of the sector and ensure that the people who are working so hard for children in care and those who need our protection get better support. This is part and parcel of making this a fairer society for everyone, where excellence is something for all, not just the most fortunate.
All our missions are driven by the need for economic growth, and it is no secret that growth and the opportunities that flow from it are being held back by a yawning skills gap. Growth and skills go hand in hand, which is why we are building a coherent, joined-up plan for the future. This will be a major focus for me personally: I have taken on the skills, further and higher education brief, and I will be working across government to make sure that we have the commitment and collaboration that we need to drive growth and secure opportunities for all. We will launch “Skills England”, which will drive forward the Government’s plans to tackle skills shortages and support sustained economic growth. It will unify the skills landscape, bringing together employers, trade unions and training providers to ensure that skills policies align with the broader economic ambitions set out in the Government’s industrial strategy. It will be able to identify where skills gaps exist now, what we need for the future and how we can plug those gaps.
Our university sector is one of this country’s greatest enablers. It provides opportunities for people to follow their passions and expand their horizons. Through research and teaching, it enables us to challenge our understanding and develop new ideas. In many communities, it provides a vital anchor for wider economic development. Our universities are vital engines for economic growth and opportunity for everybody throughout their lives. I am well aware that many of your Lordships are leaders within the higher education community, and I know how interested and concerned you will be that we have plans to safeguard it for future generations. I will not be shy about seeking your considerable wisdom as we work through our plans to deliver this.
On healthcare, healthy lives are the bedrock of opportunity throughout our lives, and we now have a considerable bank of evidence to guide us in the next steps to take. It is a terrifying thought that in just the time I have been speaking, around 16 people in England will have been admitted to hospital because of smoking. The strengthened tobacco and vapes Bill will be a landmark step in creating a smoke-free UK. It will introduce a progressive smoking ban, gradually ending the sale of tobacco products across the country. When I was last in government we raised the legal age at which people can be sold cigarettes and banned smoking in pubs and restaurants. We now have the chance to finish the job. Vapes have a key role to play in helping smokers to quit, but where vape manufacturers deliberately target and market vapes at children we will put a stop to such advertising.
Healthy habits that are built in childhood will pay dividends as children get older. Our children need protection and support for the best start in life. More than one in five children in reception class is currently overweight or obese. By year 6, that figure has shot up to one in three, with grave repercussions for their future health and for the NHS. Through the child health action plan, we will cut the amount of TV and online advertising of less healthy food to children and ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s. These measures will contribute to the Government’s commitment to raise the healthiest generation of children ever.
Poor mental health can be a massive barrier to opportunity and learning at any age. We are working hard to promote good mental health and well-being for everyone: from the earliest stages, with a specialist mental health professional in every school, and with young futures hubs, which will offer additional access to mental health support workers for young people at a time when they so desperately need that intervention, when they will have to wait too long for other mental health services.
It is a sad fact that rates of detention under the Mental Health Act have nearly doubled since it came into place in 1983, so the mental health Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act. It will give patients greater choice, autonomy, enhanced rights and support, to make sure that everybody is treated with dignity and respect during their treatment.
My professional life has been about ensuring opportunities for learning and for better, safer and healthier lives. I know that this mission is shared by this House. It is an enormous honour to now be able to work alongside your Lordships to ensure that this Government can translate our shared objective into opportunities for all to flourish, and so that all can succeed in their lives, regardless of where they start and the hurdles they need to overcome.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing today’s important debate on the humble Address. It was a privilege to be present to hear the second King’s Speech of the King’s reign in your Lordships’ House on Wednesday. It is good to see that he is making a good recovery from his recent illness.
I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, to her place at the Dispatch Box and congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech. She brings a wealth of experience to your Lordships’ House through her work as an economics teacher, a local authority councillor, a Member of Parliament, and an Education Minister—and, of course, she can be very proud of the fact that she became the first woman Home Secretary and the third woman to hold one of the great offices of state, after Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister and Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary. Finally, I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness is the first at the Dispatch Box to have appeared on “Strictly Come Dancing”. This will help her to be fleet of foot at the Dispatch Box, to pirouette around the departmental civil servants, and to get into the rhythm of this great place. For my side, I do hope I will not step on her toes.
We on this side of the House are proud of our track record while in government in relation to education. Our children are now the best readers in the West, ranked fourth globally in the PIRLS survey, and ninth in maths in the TIMSS survey—a marked improvement on the position in 2010. We have seen 90% of our schools judged to be good or outstanding by Ofsted, and our free schools programme delivered quality, innovation and great education for pupils, particularly in disadvantaged areas and for those with SEND.
It is so important to have stability in skills policy. Apprenticeships are unrecognisable now in their breadth and quality compared with 2010, a time when some people doing apprenticeships did not even know what they were. They are real engines of social mobility and directly address our skills shortage. We have real concerns about the Government’s proposals to reform the apprenticeship levy. First, we think that this approach risks diluting the focus on apprenticeships and halving the number of apprentices. Apprentices are key to addressing our skills gap in the economy, including in our public services. Secondly, there is a real risk that the state ends up funding skills training that employers would otherwise have funded themselves. How will the Government avoid this?
Finally, we were determined to support as many families as possible with access to high-quality, affordable childcare. This is why, in the 2023 Spring Budget, we announced major new investments, providing up to 30 hours of free childcare a week from the age of nine months by September 2025. This translates to over £4 billion of additional funding by 2027-28, and a total of over £8 billion of spending annually on free hours and early education. Will the noble Baroness reassure the House that there is a commitment to stick to our plan?
It gives me and my noble friend Lord Markham great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to her new role as Health and Social Care Minister—a just reward for her hard work and dedication serving on the Opposition Front Bench in your Lordships’ House, as Member of Parliament for Lincoln, as a Government Minister, and as chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. She is entering a challenging environment. We wish her luck and our constructive support—accompanied, of course, by constructive challenge.
We are pleased to see the continuation of many of our policies, such as the smoke-free Bill and the mental health Bill. I hope and trust that work will continue in other areas where there is broad agreement, such as the long-term workforce plan and implementation of the Cass recommendations. Will the Minister confirm that this is still the case? We hope the Government will continue the work on technology and see this as a major way to take the NHS into the 21st century. App usage is exploding and presents a real way for people to take control of their own health. Artificial intelligence can truly transform in ways we are only just beginning to understand. This will all be fuelled by our NHS data, which is unparalleled in the world and gives us the opportunity to be the Silicon Valley of AI tech here in the UK. Will the Government continue to prioritise these measures?
We will support the Government’s focus on waiting lists. We took a lot of action in this space and managed to bear down on some of the longest waiting lists post Covid, but it is a source of frustration that these efforts were hampered by the junior doctor strikes. We wish the Government well in the negotiations with junior doctors and hope that they can reach a settlement without breaking the bank.
Key to this, of course, is NHS productivity. Given the importance of the productivity plan, can the Minister assure us that this process will continue? Another area that is key to productivity and patient care is the capital programme, in particular the new hospital programme. While it is understandable that new Ministers will want to review the programme, it is essential that there is continuity and no loss of momentum. Can the Minister assure us that this review will be undertaken in a timely manner and tell us when we can expect the results?
We also note that very little was said about social care in the King’s Speech. We appreciate that this is a very difficult area, but one that I am sure we all agree is crucial to get right for the sake of patients and to free up beds in hospitals. The steps we took in government in providing a career structure and professional qualifications and training programmes are key to making it an attractive profession to work in, but we realise there are challenges around the cost and supply of social care. Given the hot potato this subject represents, a cross-party conversation might be the best way forward. I note that the £86,000 cap on social care is still due to be implemented. Do the Government intend to continue with this implementation?
Finally, and most importantly, we have all agreed for some time that we need to get up stream of the problem and shift resources from treatment in hospitals to investment in primary care and prevention. These are fine statements of intent, but making this happen is often far more difficult. It is often a gutsy move to move money away from hospitals and into primary care. Such moves require a grown-up conversation bolstered by cross-party support. In this vein, I offer our support in having such conversations and moving from statements of intent to firm action. We wish the noble Baroness all the best of British luck in her new position, and we look forward to working with her in the months and years ahead.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I too offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her maiden speech. I am sure that the portfolio she will be responsible for is in safe hands. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her time as Minister; if there was ever an example of service, I think she fits that bill. I am also looking forward to the valedictory speech from my noble friend Lady Jolly, who joined the Liberals back in 1984 in Devon and Cornwall and has had a distinguished career as our spokesperson on health, social care and defence, and outside interests on the Citizens Advice Bureau and Credit Union. She was on the board of the Diocesan Synod and was interested in regeneration organisations.
I congratulate Labour on its success, and my party looks forward to working with it. I think the things that it has said so far, both in its manifesto and in the King’s Speech, broadly accord with many of the things we have been pushing for over the last period. There are a few things missing, and we will highlight those in due course.
The general election created two records. The first record was not for us but, sadly, for the Conservatives, with the lowest share of the vote, at 24%. The second was for the governing party getting only 34% of the vote. I do not want to rub that in, but it shows that there has to be a consensual approach to the way we work. We do that in any case in the House of Lords, so hopefully that will not be a problem.
I will talk first about schools and about teachers. The Government have talked about recruiting an extra 6,500 teachers, which is fine. We need to be clear that these teachers are just for England. Currently there are 20,227 primary and secondary schools, so 6,500 teachers, if my maths is correct, means that they will get 3.1% of the schools.
We have a crisis in our teaching profession at all sorts of levels: we have the highest number of vacancies, the fewest number of people wanting to train as a teacher, and the highest number of teacher shortages in shortage subjects. Those issues need to be addressed urgently.
How do we address those issues? First, we have to make the training of teachers first class. I do not believe that you train a teacher by their doing a 10-week crash course. Does a 10-week crash course look, for example, at a primary teacher understanding child development? Does it look at how teachers can identify special educational needs? We also need to make sure that teachers are properly rewarded for the job—properly paid, properly rewarded, and properly inspected. Over the years, I have been sick to death of hearing the phrase “the workload of teachers”. We never seem to grasp that issue. Let us actually grasp the issue of workload, because that is a problem that teachers and schools face.
Finally, we talk about mental health in schools, and I want to come back to that, but there is also the mental health of teachers and non-teaching staff in schools themselves. Some of the things we do in schools aggravate that mental health issue, whether it is the pressure of SATs or of Ofsted, or of having to do that job with very poor funding.
I now turn to pupils. In many ways, schools are facing a crisis. We have the highest number of pupils missing from our schools, the highest number of pupils being home-educated, the highest number of pupils being unregistered, the highest number of pupils who have been suspended from school, and the highest number of pupils who are permanently suspended from school. What are we going to do about that? In my and my party’s view, no child or young person should go to an unregistered provider in any form. Why? Because unregistered providers are not inspected. Who knows what is going on? There are safeguarding issues. Home educators should be registered, supported by the local authority, and visited by their local authority.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I tease her a little when I say that it was a really apolitical maiden speech. I also extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on her appointment as Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care. I wish her well. I have no doubt that in days to come we will have many opportunities to interact and debate health issues.
In the brief time allocated to me today, I will confine my remarks mostly to issues related to health. I find myself much in support of the proposed areas of legislation that relate to health. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, with powers to implement it, will deliver huge health gains. More than 80,000 people a year die of diseases related to smoking, from 18 different types of cancers to cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, pregnancy-related disease, stillbirths and pre-term births. The measures will go a long way to reducing health inequalities. Figures show that there are more than 6 million smokers in the UK today, and more than 100,000 children take up smoking each year. The Government’s aim over the years to make the UK a smoke-free country is ambitious but, in my view, worthy.
The proposals to ban the advertising and promotion of vapes are good as far as they go. We will have to wait for details in the legislation. I hope the Government will be bold enough in time to ban vapes altogether. Scientific evidence already shows their high levels of nicotine, and children are taking up vaping; 5% of children now use vapes and 20% have tried vapes. Vapes should be banned as much as tobacco smoking.
At long last, we will now have a Bill to amend mental health. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will have much to say about that. For my part I welcome it. I hope that the legislation will have robust measures to protect and help particularly children and people with learning disabilities. Importantly, I hope that the legislation will include measures to monitor the impact of the proposed legislation, possibly through the appointment of a commissioner, without us having to amend the Bill. I also hope that the legislation will address funding issues in mental health.
The Government’s wish to deliver healthcare closer to home is one that I hope they will pursue with determination, but it cannot be done without the reform of primary and community care, including a greater share of funding going to primary care and community care. This, with legislation related to the devolution of powers more locally, has to be the way forward for providing more care closer to home. We can learn much from countries such as Denmark, where locally managed primary and community health centres deliver much of the healthcare, with 99% patient satisfaction. There will be much opposition from vested interests to develop such a model. I hope the Government will be bold.
I welcome the Government’s commitment in the proposed digital and smart data Bill to allow use of data for medical research. As I have mentioned previously, the lack of legislation to allow the use of health data for scientific research has hindered us in improving the delivery of healthcare, driving innovations, conducting clinical trials, developing new treatments and much more. I hope that the Bill will remedy this.
While all that I have mentioned is positive, we do not yet have plans for the provision of social care or, apart from a promise of more GPs and midwives, a health workforce plan—particularly for the nursing workforce—for a service that by 2035 is likely to employ nearly 10% of the working-age population. Nor is there yet a sustainable funding formula for a service that may well end up costing more than £250 billion by 2035. The NHS for far too long has been a political football subjected to ideologically driven reforms not in the best interests of patients. What we need is long-term political consensus, and I hope the Government might work towards that. Securing political consensus is important given the amount of public money spent on health and adult social care, and so is accountability. Periodic reviews, commissions, parliamentary inquiries et cetera are not the answer. What we need is an independent body, such as an independent office of health and care sustainability, that will hold the Government to account for their funding, plans and long-term use of money.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, it is an honour to respond to the gracious Speech. I welcome the Minister as she joins us in this House at the Dispatch Box. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her contribution to the House, not just on health and social care; those of us who are female priests and bishops thank her for her support.
I welcome many of the Government’s healthcare announcements, especially the two public health legislative measures. I too am glad to see the tobacco and vapes Bill continue. Smoking continues to be one of the leading causes of preventable deaths following the lines of inequality, so bringing forward this Bill will be a significant step forward in our public health agenda. The announcement that the Government will legislate to restrict the advertising of junk food to children and the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks is also welcome. As we have heard, obesity is one of the major health challenges that we face and, again, its impacts are hugely unequal.
The commitment to update the Mental Health Act is long overdue. Mind reminds us that black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people, and more than 11 times more likely to be the subject of a community treatment order. People living in areas of high deprivation are more than 3.5 times more likely to be detained than those living in least deprived areas. I hope that in reforming the Mental Health Act the Government will pay attention to these inequalities.
We now have a much better understanding of what contributes to health and well-being, so I welcome many of the announcements which will provide contributions to healthy lives for individuals, and for communities, such as for housing and education. The commitment to ban conversion practices is long overdue. The measures in the employment rights Bill, especially changes to the statutory sick pay system, are key. Taking time off when you are ill is vital to recovery and ongoing participation in the work in our communities.
I also hope that the Government will use the expanded scope of the national curriculum to promote key life skills, such as making financial education a component of PSHE at key stages 1 and 2, as recommended by many financial literacy charities.
My work inside and outside health has led me to believe with increasing certainty that, if we are to reduce health inequalities and the burden on the NHS, faith groups must be involved. Faith observance is highest in the most deprived areas. This means that faith leaders have the potential to provide vital insight and access to those communities least likely to access preventive healthcare. Faith leaders are trusted in their communities and are valuable partners for improving the health of their community. Ensuring that culturally competent services are available to everyone who requires them is vital if this Government are to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy. I hope that this Government will build on the work already undertaken in this area.
However, it is disappointing there is not a single mention of social care in the gracious Speech. The Government acknowledge that the sector is in need of deep reform. We have an ageing population that has more acute and complex needs. People with care and support needs are often unsupported in navigating the system. There are higher costs for councils at a time of restricted budgets. Unpaid carers provide care for their loved ones, sometimes at the expense of their own health, well-being and work. The Government’s manifesto commitment to create a national care service is laudable, but requires action. We need a long-term funding settlement for local authorities and a workforce plan for the sector. I fear that without these measures we will not achieve the positive vision of social care, because social care is never an end in itself but is a means by which we can live lives of joy, fulfilment and purpose and contribute to the economic recovery of this country.
I regret the absence of palliative care from the gracious Speech. Reliance on charitable donations means that end-of-life care and provision varies depending on how affluent an area is. The cost of care is not being met, and services are being reduced. In the middle of a growing conversation about alternative options at the end of life, it is imperative that we properly fund palliative care.
Finally, every person we talk about in this Chamber is immensely valuable. We all bear the image of God. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the Chamber to ensure that people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of inequalities and health inequalities are at the forefront of our thinking.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London from the spiritual security and shelter of these Benches. My real regret is that I cannot actually see our Front Bench, but I am very pleased that my noble friends are there and particularly welcome my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern. I had the pleasure of working with her many years ago, and know that she understands the role of this House. She made a brilliant maiden speech. I am also very sorry that we are losing the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who has made a real contribution to health and social care in this House.
The new Government have set a blistering place but, more importantly, have changed the tone of government. They have already begun the business of rebuilding trust and belief in public services. They have an audacious focus on the long term. What they demonstrate to me is the value that they put on the skills of the care economy, the invisible scaffolding that underpins the real economy and enables growth. The King’s Speech made an intergenerational commitment to child and adult health and social services that is about much more than money. It is about skills and investment in aspiration and well-being.
Taking the long view means addressing the failure of the past 14 years to recognise the structural faults in the care economy by valuing skills, whether in child or adult services, and putting training and careers in place. The King’s Speech does not duck the difficult issues. In 1945, women stayed at home and looked after families from children to adults, from cradle to grave. Nearly 80 years later we have an ageing and deeply unequal society. We now need a social contract between the generations and between the state, the family and the individual. We need to reset that social contract.
The King’s Speech and the announcements made alongside it signify that. The skills for England Bill, the children’s well-being Bill, the pledge to recreate the salary review for school support workers and, for me, above all, the commitment to a fair pay agreement for adult social care workers bring a new dimension to how we see the contribution as well as the aspiration of those who teach, support and care for the young and old. The children’s well-being Bill recognises that children cannot learn if they are hungry, have special needs, or if the curriculum and assessment system is not fit for their future. Breakfast clubs will make a huge difference to hungry children, but let us add enrichment and learning in that extra part of the day.
The appointment of Kevan Collins is a wonderful step forward. I hope this Government will enable him to realise his ambitions for the whole child, so damaged during the Covid years, that he was not able to put in place. I hope that will also signal a commitment to an out-of-school learning programme just like the one the last Labour Government put in place, which was such a success for children.
This debate is about change. People working in childcare settings and adult social care have been waiting years for it. These professions attract the best people, mostly women, but we know too well that they cannot recruit and retain staff. Early years providers are closing across the country because, despite the best efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, whom we all respected, the last Government did not address the reality of what rapid and unfunded expansion would mean. The children who lose out, as ever, are the poorest. Perhaps I might suggest that the Minister meets urgently with the Early Years Alliance to get its knowledge and experience of where the priorities should lie. There are still 150,000 vacancies in adult social care. Women’s jobs seem to be worth less, with the minimum wage or less, low status and no career. That is where change needs to start—and it will with an unequivocal commitment to a fair pay agreement for adult social care.
To build for the long term, on Wednesday the Skills for Care organisation produced a workforce plan for adult social care to match the NHS plan. It is different because it is coherent, it is owned by the whole sector and it allocates responsibilities. Let us act on that and let it develop the relational skills that are central to the best quality of care. Let us acknowledge and act on the strong value we get from unpaid carers, not least with an amnesty for those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen into the debt trap. If there is to be a royal commission, let it be swift; there is no reason why it cannot be.
We have the longest prescription and the best set of what we can do—and we have a brilliant new Minister in Stephen Kinnock, who knows from experience what care means and has the skills and energy. This is the King’s Speech we have been waiting a very long time for.
Baroness Jolly (LD) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, the last year has seen health and social care rise up the agenda of the country. Most of my professional life was spent in the far south-west of England. I taught maths for over 15 years and became an early champion of IT in schools. In 1997 I was appointed as a non-exec director of a NHS primary care trust. I was a lay inspector for the Commission for Health Improvement and I was proud to be first chair of the Committee for Community Nursing. In the 1990s I was appointed to the board of an NHS trust providing community services across north Cornwall.
Now we are fortunate to have both local authorities and the NHS working together to provide health and care. Despite legislation introduced in the last 15 years, we need to take a close look at the state of care for older people and for those with a learning disability. I undertook the role of chair of Hft, an organisation working all across England that cares for people with a learning disability. Of all the roles I have had, this was the most rewarding. I made many friends from the Hft board and I am grateful for the insight I had into the world of adults with a learning disability.
I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London: the challenges faced by the health services are extreme. Primary health services need much greater support than they currently receive. Emergency services are stretched beyond their limit, posing risks for those who need urgent care. We also need a much greater focus on community healthcare. I wish the Government the best as they begin to make these challenges. The health service is the heart of our nation, and it is imperative that we begin to solve some of these deep-rooted issues.
Moving to a safety issue, I am particularly proud of the role I had with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I was its president for some time and enjoyed working with its CEO, Errol Taylor. Working together and with many Members across this House, we set up legislation to embed the dimensions of stairs. Many were helpful in getting this done and will be grateful for this. British Standard 5395 is now embedded in the building regulations for new-build houses, and many lives will be saved. We needed the help of Ministers and businesses to get this done.
Finally, I offer my thanks to the staff of the House and Members across the House. I am extremely grateful for the support they have given me while I have been here. I know that those colleagues who remain will remain committed to the work we do here and getting legislation right. I am personally delighted that I leave when there is a newly enlarged group of 72 Lib Dem colleagues in the other place and I am especially pleased that this now includes a Liberal Democrat MP back where they belong in my home in north Cornwall.
I will miss this place and I will miss many good friends, but home and my family are in Cornwall, which is some long distance away. Do not fear; I will still be watching closely and I wish you all the very best.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I want to say how sorry I was to hear the valedictory address of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. She is a very familiar face in this House. I know she attends a lot, because I have watched her for years and listened to her speeches, which are always interesting. On behalf of the whole House, I wish her a happy, relaxed, peaceful and lengthy retirement. I say “lengthy” because, in my 90th year, valedictory addresses will be rather more regular events.
I also welcome back to office the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern. I gather from what she said that her parents were teachers, which is a very good start for an Education Minister. I may surprise her by saying that I entirely welcome all the proposals she put today to the House; I hope it is the beginning of a great reform in government. Endorsements by me of statements from the Department for Education over the past 14 years have been rather rare events, but I hope this is a very good start.
Labour’s manifesto said there is going to be an “expert-led” review of the curriculum and assessment. Well done, congratulations; I urged the last Government to do that again and again. Seven committees were set up that all urged that and said the Gove curriculum of EBacc and Progress 8 should be scrapped, along with GCSEs, which I introduced but which I think are now outmoded. I hope the Minister will be able to come back in September and tell us the membership of the committee. I am not applying, but I will give all the support of my charity to the setting up of successful technical schools, because we have a great deal of expertise and I will support that.
It is very important that we do this because, if you are going to achieve economic growth, you have to have students leaving at 18 with employability skills and there is a huge mismatch now between what industry and commerce want from the education system and what they are getting. By “employability skills” I mean things the Government already recognise, such as oracy and collective problem-solving. That is done when you work in teams. There is no teamwork at all in our existing schools today, but much of our lives when we leave school is about collaborative problem-solving. The Government have already said they are going to do that, so they are inevitably going to be a very reforming Government.
We are the only country in Europe that does not provide technical, cultural and vocational education below 16. All of them—Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland—do that, but Michael Gove did not support technical education. It is very important that that is done. We have to create a curriculum suitable for this century.
Over the last 15 years I have been developing university technical colleges and there are now 44 of them. They are for 14 to 18 year-olds, they are quite unique and they are very successful. As a matter of interest, 39 of the 44 are now in Labour-held seats, so on the whole we do not do schools for the leafy suburbs; we do them for towns and cities where unemployment is very high. Unemployment in our colleges is now 3%. Nationally it is 12%, while in the West Midlands and Newcastle it is as high as 20%, so we have to inject education and cultural studies into our schools as quickly as possible. I see the bishops nodding at that, and lots of other people are nodding as well.
Could I just say one thing? The last of those seven reports was a report by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, on 11 to 16 education. We recommended fundamental change and I am glad to see that it had all-party support, particularly as one of the members of that committee had been the head of a teachers’ union. I welcome that—the noble Baroness is nodding. She is a good egg. It really is very welcome that she was on the committee.
What we need are employability skills. We have 44 UTCs and two have been added. To build a new UTC is £20 million, like the cost of any school. Frankly, very few schools are going to be built in the next 10 years because we have student decline and the money that the Government have will need to be spent on repairing the actual schools, many in appalling conditions. We have produced an idea—which the previous Government were about to approve, I hope—of introducing into an ordinary 11 to 18 school a UTC sleeve from 14 to 18. There would be separate classrooms, workshops and specialist teachers, with a separate board for them of the local employers. They would do the curriculum of the UTC. It would mean that a 14 year-old starting it, for example, spends two days a week in a workshop or a computer room learning with his hands, or working on a project with a local company that is brought in.
This is all the expertise we have and I want to make all that available to the Government and to help them in what they are going to do. This is something the Government have to do to be successful. They will not win the next election if they do not get economic growth—they really will not; I can see they are nodding—so they have to change education effectively and make it suitable for this day and age.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who enabled the development of the University of Plymouth’s technical school when I was deputy vice-chancellor there. I also want to acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who has been so supportive to me since my appointment here. She will further reduce the representation of the far south-west by her move, but I wish her well.
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and to congratulate the newly appointed Government Ministers, who, I am aware, are committed to reducing child poverty, enhancing educational opportunity for young people and making access to healthcare, including dentistry, more timely as quickly as possible for our population. I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly as a non-executive director of NHS England.
It is intended to ensure that free breakfast clubs are set up in primary schools, so that every child can start the day ready to learn. Could the Government consider providing breakfasts for an accompanying adult at least once a week as part of this initiative? This would enable interactions between those caring for children at home with each other at school and model the benefits of a good breakfast, which many disadvantaged adults often do without. Parents would meet each other and form networks that could be advantageous for local communities. It would also enable regular contact with school staff, including mental health specialists. I would be pleased to explore this concept further, as a form of early years support for families, consistent with the agenda of cross-government action to enhance young families’ lives through investment in prevention and early intervention in the NHS.
I particularly welcome reform of the Mental Health Act, which is long overdue. The reform should result in a reduction in the inequalities in the current disproportionate use of detention which first emerge in childhood. An article in the Independent recently reported estimates that black and mixed-race children account for 36% of young people detained in acute mental health services, despite making up only 11% of the population. The Bill needs to prioritise fast access to community-based services as a right. This will involve significant investment in training staff to work in emergency situations to keep patients and service users safe, while maintaining their rights to independent advocates to assist in negotiating appropriate person-based treatment plans. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to ensure workforce planning in this domain as a matter of urgency, so that once the revised Act come into force there is no delay in implementation due to a lack of well-prepared community-based mental health workers?
I cannot overemphasise the need to ensure safe staffing in health and social care if the ambition to reduce NHS waiting lists and assist many people back into paid employment is to be achieved. The RCN reminds us in its excellent briefing that Ministers should have due regard to
“having enough staff to meet the health needs of the population”
and that numbers should be
“based on transparent assessments which address inequalities”
UCAS reports that applications to study nursing at university have fallen by 27% since 2021. We are also increasingly reliant on agency and bank nursing. A redirection of funds from, for example, agency nursing to uplift training bursaries and increase apprenticeship opportunities, and loan forgiveness for university fees following periods of NHS-funded care service work would assist significantly in retention and recruitment.
Central to the health of the nation is adequate housing for all, as recognised in the King’s Speech. It is impossible to study when living in a hotel room, perhaps with two younger siblings. It is also difficult to prepare adequate nutritious food in such circumstances. Can the Minister explain whether priority will continue to be given to families living in temporary accommodation as new homes are built for social rent? If so, what timetable are the Government setting for ensuring that no child in Britain today is uprooted in the middle of the school term and moved from one hotel or hostel to another, due to councils having such a dearth of available homes to place such families in?
There is much in the King’s Speech that is so positive about health and social care. However, time is of the essence. I urge that while there must be a focus on reducing waiting lists for NHS care, an equal regard should be given to promoting the nation’s health and preventing avoidable illness. For this reason, I end my contribution by congratulating the Government on their willingness to take forward public health interventions relating to smoking, vaping, junk food and energy drinks. The legislation proposed will result in a healthier population and an associated reduction in NHS costs in treating preventable disease. It will be a pleasure to contribute when the new legislation comes to the House.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to welcome my noble friend Lady Smith to our Bench and to say how pleased I am that I will be working with her again. It is more years than I would like to count since that last happened, but I am very pleased with the skills and experience she brings with her and optimistic about what she will contribute. I have got to know the Minister sitting next to her, my noble friend Lady Merron, better almost in the Lords than in the Commons. I congratulate her on her appointment and look forward to hearing about the changes that she is going to make.
I want to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I feel that I have spent a lot of my life over the last few years debating education with her in this Chamber on our opposite Benches. We have agreed quite a bit but when we have not, I have never doubted the noble Baroness’s commitment to children or their education for a better future. I thank her for the way in which she conducted herself in the role and look forward to further debates. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, as well and give my best wishes to her for her future.
This is a huge debate today and it is a huge King’s Speech, so I want to make a few comments on the schools aspect of this work. Two weeks in, I have nothing to complain about yet, so this is very good. I am very used to making speeches criticising Governments, so I am at a bit of a loss as to what to say. By way of transition, I want to welcome some things but ask some questions about what we might expect in future.
It seems to me that the early announcements fall into two groups. One is about trying to deal quickly with the immediate challenges facing schools; the second is to sow some seeds for more substantial change in the future. One of the main points I want to make is that there is a contradiction in describing what is happening in schools at the moment. I worry that there is a feeling within government broadly, and among society, that all is quite well in schools and not much needs to be done. If that is true, they will go to the bottom of the Government’s list of priorities and I do not want that to happen.
I do not think there is a crisis in schools; I think that schools are doing well and are better than they have ever been, partly because there have been 30 years of continuity in pedagogy and policy on the key issues of literacy and numeracy. When I go into schools, they are safe places. Children seem happy and many of them do well, although we are all aware of the gaps. But I am very conscious that the social context in which schools are working means that there is paddling below the surface.
Although children are doing well, there is a price to be paid in the system. That price is being paid by some vulnerable children who are pushed in the wrong direction, and by the workforce, to whom we owe a great deal because they keep the system going. If we are not careful, they will not be able to do that for much longer. I never want to use the language of “schools in crisis”, because I do not believe that is the case. They need attention, resources and ministerial interest, just as much as some of our public services that have been described as being in crisis. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that, and I would welcome some comments. So I welcome breakfast clubs, mental health checks and the 6,500 extra teachers as things that can happen now.
Will the Minister say something about special educational needs and disabilities—on both the immediate action needed, because it is difficult, and sowing seeds for long-term change? I have not heard a great deal yet on how we can support local authorities and schools to deal with the immediate problems of SEND. Some words on that might be welcome.
I want to raise a couple of issues on the seeds that have been sown for long-term change. I very much welcome the curriculum review announced today. My worry is that we have to decide whether we want a big or a little curriculum change. If we say that we just want more arts, creativity and life skills, I cannot see how that fits in to the existing curriculum model.
We also talk about evolution, not revolution. Our politics have never been revolutionary; they have always been evolutionary. But I worry that we will say to teachers, “You have to do art; you have to do this, that and the other”, without fundamentally looking at the curriculum model we have and seeing if that needs to be changed. I hope that the review has permission to say what it thinks needs doing and is not limited by the phrase “evolutionary, not revolutionary”.
My last point is on assessment. If I heard it right—I heard it this morning and have not read it, so I may be wrong—assurances have been given about the future of GCSEs, A-levels and T-levels. I wonder how that can happen when we have not done the curriculum review, because assessment follows curriculum. However, no comparable assurance has been given about BTECs. If we go into this review with a cast-iron guarantee that nothing will happen to T-levels, GCSEs and A-levels, but BTECs are still floating around, we will not solve the assessment problem we face. Maybe some assurances could be given on that.
On the whole, I am very excited about the optimism and energy, and I look forward to working with the team in the future.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to the gracious Speech. I refer to my registered interest as a trustee of the Tate gallery. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to her place as a Minister; she is an occasional sparring partner of mine on “Good Morning Britain”. She is a really welcome addition to the House, and I am sure she will do a fantastic job as a Minister. It is a huge privilege to be in the Chamber to mark the retirement of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who is part of the Lib Dem team that makes such a unique contribution to our Chamber, and to mark the service of my noble friend Lady Barran, who was such a distinguished education and arts Minister.
I crave the House’s indulgence, as today also marks the retirement of my father from this House 40 years ago. Unfortunately, on 19 July 1984 he died. He did not get a chance to make a retirement speech, but his last speech in this House was about the arts and the reform of the Arts Council. I am very pleased to say that he is with us here today because I have got a tattoo in his honour, so he will always be in this Chamber every time I speak. It is in a perfectly normal place, and I am willing to show any interested Peer in the Bishops’ Bar later what I have done to mark this important anniversary. I hope no one has a fit of the vapours at this extraordinary announcement; let us keep it between ourselves.
I want to use this opportunity to talk about the arts. I was not sure when the arts would get a run-out during the debates on the King’s Speech, but education seemed to be the obvious opportunity. It does upset me occasionally that the Conservatives get a very bad rap for their support for the arts. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the Conservatives brought in the National Lottery, which transformed the landscape for the arts, and most recently brought in tax credits for museums, exhibitions, orchestras and theatres, which have also provided huge support for the arts.
Nevertheless, arts policy is not particularly complex. There are very simple things that this Government and future Governments can do to secure the arts. First, it is worth remembering that we are very good at the arts. We do not spend enough time in this country recognising that. We are recognised for it all over the world, but not in the UK. It is very important that Ministers pay attention to the arts. I welcome the new Secretary of State, who seems to be leaning into her new role and responsibilities.
Secondly—this is obviously completely the wrong time to mention this—secure funding for the arts is also extremely important. The more I reflect on this, the more I realise it is a very straightforward matter of giving our national, and indeed our regional, museums and performing arts organisations secure funding from the centre going forward. It is simply a rounding error on a government budget, and it would make such a transformative difference.
My third point about the arts, and where it fits into this debate, is that the arts play a role in every sector of policy and society. They are not going to cure prison overcrowding, but they will make a difference to prisoner rehabilitation. Indeed, the new prisons Minister was a trustee with me at the Tate, and he recognises that. They make a huge difference to our soft power. They are not going to cure cancer, but the National Academy for Social Prescribing is a very welcome recognition that the arts can play a key role, particularly in mental health, an issue mentioned by the Minister.
It goes without saying that the arts play a crucial role in education. In the last Administration we were good in parts. I worked with Michael Gove to secure music funding for local authorities. It is administered by the Arts Council but comes out of the Department for Education’s budget. I urge Ministers to go and see schemes such as In Harmony, which makes such a huge difference to Children’s self-confidence by helping people transform their education experience, and to listen to the calls—which may sound frivolous—to bring in a national singing strategy for schools.
The arts also have to be accessible to everyone. That includes, obviously, engaging young people and children in the arts as early as possible in a variety of ways. The arts sit at the centre of and are an important element of our education policy. When we came to power in 2010, we abandoned the previous Government’s scheme, Creative Partnerships, which used the arts to enhance learning. On reflection, that was probably a mistake, but we did do good things in securing music education. I hope this Government will look very carefully—I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said earlier—at how we can reintegrate arts and cultural education into our schools’ curriculum.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I join the rest of the House in welcoming the Minister, congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and noting the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, over the last Parliament. I also declare my registered interests.
Wicked problems required joined-up thinking, so it is encouraging to see cross-departmental working underpinning delivery of the mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The poverty strategy is one example of this; the children’s well-being Bill is another. Children born into poverty have the odds stacked against them from the start, with early disadvantage impacting through the years on educational outcomes, employment prospects, career progression and earnings potential. Measures to tackle this, such as early years investment, free breakfast clubs and “not in school” registers, are very welcome.
Education should be the great equaliser, but when 6% of children attend schools where the spend on education is three times higher than for the other 94%, it can have the opposite effect. I therefore support the Government’s intention to rebalance investment through measures on VAT, but I hope there will be nuance in implementation. SEND provision has already been raised. I ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact on specialist performing arts schools and, by extension, on the future diversity of the workforce?
Success in the performing arts requires 10 years of daily practice under expert tuition—10 years that take place before puberty sets in if you are to develop the extreme flexibility, speed and accuracy that characterise the world-class skills of a Kanneh-Mason or a Darcey Bussell. This type of professional training is not available in the state sector, so parents like mine have no choice but to enter a fee-paying school. Further cost increases for specialist performing arts schools will have the opposite effect to that which government intends, reducing access to talent for less affluent families. Unless talent has access to the best training at the right age, it will not be competitive in a global marketplace—as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, we are very good at the arts; let us make sure we continue.
I turn to curriculum reform. Speaking in March, the now Prime Minister promised to undo
“14 years of arts subjects being diminished and devalued”,
and so the curriculum review announced today is warmly welcome, as is the expert leadership of Becky Francis. However, cultural and creative education does not happen only in the curriculum. It takes place in theatres, galleries, museums and libraries, in partnership with arts, heritage and youth organisations, charities, local authorities, trusts and foundations, and faith bodies.
This networked delivery model has benefits, in that it enables local and culturally relevant experiences and encourages place-based partnerships across multiple agencies. Sunderland’s Culture Start is one example, aiming through culture to mitigate the impacts of growing up in poverty—Ministers should note this in relation to the poverty strategy. However, networked delivery also presents challenges. First and foremost, the disintegration of structures such as creative partnerships for join-up over the last decade makes it difficult for commissioners to know what is available and providers to know what is needed. Music education has a series of hubs to do this connecting, funded to the tune of £101 million in 2024-25. The other art forms share nothing. Government has announced an additional national music education network, but I ask the Minister whether her department will fund similar services for dance, drama and other art forms.
There is also lack of clarity on the aims for cultural education, making it difficult for multiple providers to target programmes towards agreed outcomes. Different regimes have espoused different reasons: pathways to creative careers; understanding cultural heritage; or a lifelong love for the arts.
With this Government comes a welcome return of the core justification for universal provision of cultural and creative learning: the well-evidenced personal, social, learning and employability skills it engenders—problem solving, curiosity, communication and confidence. I hope this review will articulate a clear set of outcomes for cultural learning that shifts ambition from a tick-box list of things pupils should do or see towards measurable change in the child—change that might equally be achieved through engagement with dance, drama, literature or music. I look forward to this review and its recommendations. I hope it will take account of the contribution of these multiple partners, as well as the needs of the army of freelancers vital to the delivery jigsaw.
The Prime Minister has put his personal commitment behind creative and cultural learning, promising
“from day one … to make sure arts count”.
If this Government turn promise into policy, they will have my full support.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, let me start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Smith on her maiden speech. It was great, and I am absolutely delighted that is she is back; we have missed her. I am also excited to see my great and noble friend Lady Merron in office, and look forward to supporting her on the mental health Bill. I want to take a moment also to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her diligent work as a Minister. She modelled the behaviours of public service that we now want to see across the new Government.
I should remind the House of my education interests in the register: in the context of this debate, my membership of the Pearson qualifications committee and chairing the board of STEM Learning are particularly relevant. I want to focus today on skills more than schools.
I am excited, if a little daunted, by the scale and ambition of this legislative programme in the King’s Speech, particularly in the context of the opportunity mission. Some believe that we create opportunity by keeping government out of people’s way. We now have a Government with a lived experience who know that swathes of people are denied opportunity by obstacles that government must actively address and then support people to get on. This is government more as a gardener planting seeds and supporting growth rather than as an absentee landlord.
This is how I see Skills England. Economic growth is dependent on more private enterprise, investors, products and consumers, but we cannot just leave them to it and hope that something turns up. The volume of skills-shortage vacancies doubled in the five years to 2022. We need a new, powerful organisation that brings together employers and unions, combined authorities and national government to ensure that the economy has the skills we need to grow, and in the places and sectors we most need, using the new, more flexible growth and skills levy.
How else, for example, will we develop the skills to fuel green growth? Young people, especially girls, care deeply about green issues, but, according to Prince’s Trust research, are turned off by green jobs, so we need to start in schools with shifting perception and experience of STEM subjects and skills, and then creating coherent pathways from there.
Thirty years ago, 90% of children studied design and technology to 16. This is the subject in the national curriculum to excite young people about applied learning from science and maths, yet we now have less than a fifth studying it in key stage 4. Many schools no longer have the teachers or the facilities for D&T. This has to change if we are to give young people opportunities in the future economy.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to urgently review both T-levels and apprenticeships, and in the meantime fund current qualifications such as BTECs, which more than 150,000 young people are studying with success. My noble friend started the development of 14-19 diplomas. I took over from her and was appalled that they were then cancelled in 2010. We should not do the same to T-levels, but, at present, they are bloated to study and assess, and need trimming before they will be taken up at scale.
For adults, we must build on the delegation of skills funding to combined mayoral authorities so that they can work on their more local industrial strategies with confidence. But that must all be in the context of national standards, growth plans and qualifications set by Skills England.
Finally, I want briefly to touch on issues of workforce and technology. In both health and education, we have systems that are broken but have been sustained by the commitment and dedication of wonderful professional staff. On Monday, I checked with my wife’s oncologist on how she felt when the Secretary of State was quoted as saying the NHS was broken. She replied that it was difficult. We must ensure that the change that people voted for on 4 July reflects the values of the public sector workforce, carries them with us and is at a manageable pace.
Staff can also be helped by technology—despite what is going on today with the Windows update. My wife is through the curative and now in the preventive treatment for breast cancer. Her whole patient experience is shared on an app, but while the data is shared with us, it is not shared with her GP or the local A&E at Lewisham. Our experience at the local hospital when my wife had sepsis was the most scared I have ever been. The danger she was in could have been largely prevented if our NHS systems talked to each other at a basic level of data sharing.
The same is true in education. The measures in the children’s well-being Bill will help, but so will the measures in the digital information and smart data Bill to allow better integration of public service data so that teachers can get a clearer picture of the complexity of the lives of the children they serve.
I am excited by the new Government, who face a daunting task. This legislative programme is ambitious, but I am excited for us to get stuck into it and help rebuild our public services, funded by a growing economy.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, before I offer congratulations, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in wishing Lady Knight a swift recovery from her treatment.
I wish to congratulate the noble Baronesses on their appointments to their ministerial roles and to recognise the amazing contribution of my noble friend Lady Barran —if you are going to get reshuffled, you should get reshuffled to a friend who does a wonderful job.
I am pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has within her specific responsibilities mental health reform. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill in the last Parliament, I was pleased to see the Bill in the King’s Speech.
In 1983, the Act was probably envisaged to apply only to children within the criminal justice system, but it is needed more and more to detain children to treat them for mental health illnesses. Many families with children with eating disorders, mainly girls, are actually desperate to have them detained—it is a lifesaver. In 2022-23, according to NHS Digital, there were 997 detentions of children and young people.
As the report of the Joint Committee advised, it is vital that the interplay between any reformed mental health legislation and parental responsibility under the Children Act is fully understood. While I had the pleasure of working with excellent officials at the DfE, it seemed that the implications for the Children Act of immigration changes and mental health reform had not been grasped. I am not sure that we got to the bottom of who had parental responsibility for young people accommodated by the Home Office.
In addition to a report, being on a committee gives you a sense of the relative strengths and weaknesses of civil society groups regarding the issues before you. This reform was instituted by the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May, because of racial disproportionality in the use of the Mental Health Act. The bold recommendation of the committee to abolish community treatment orders—the right reverend Prelate related the statistics on those—hardly registered. I know that the noble Baroness is an experienced Minister, but I would be grateful if she would not only meet with the members of the Joint Committee but ensure that those whose resources do not match the wonderful work of the National Autistic Society are also heard. Realising who is not in the room is as important as those who are before you.
I also note the return of the register of children not in school. I hope that the doughty campaigner on this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Soley, who retired from your Lordships’ House last year, has seen this. I wonder whether it will be successful even with a thumping majority in the other place, as it has been a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons, a Private Member’s Bill more than once in your Lordships’ House and government legislation—but I do wish it well. With many parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities resorting to home education not out of choice, a light-touch approach to the requirements for such families will be essential. I hope that the Bill will mean there is a standard offering of tutoring hours, regardless of your postcode in England, to children who have fallen outside mainstream schooling—hopefully only for a period of time—due to their special educational needs and disabilities not being accommodated in the mainstream system.
I conclude—on time, according to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—with the excellent work that Ofsted does in ensuring that children are educated or accommodated in places such as children’s homes with proper safeguarding processes and cultures in place. The enormous number of institutions that Ofsted inspects for safeguarding purposes means that it is the expert. Yes, I am saying an unfashionable thing. Inappropriate people seeking to gain access to children is not historic. Evil is wily and hard to spot. People do not come to an interview in a Halloween costume. More than 80,000 adults are currently on the DBS barred from working with children list. While the unions, quite properly, in their role represent teachers, Ofsted is there for parents and children.
Last week saw a report issued—seven years late—by the Charity Commission into a prestigious public school, Ampleforth. Despite the Charity Commission taking over safeguarding functions, despite a lengthy report by the child sex abuse inquiry into the school, and despite numerous ISI inspections, they now have a safe school where the board of governors is acting appropriately. Ofsted inspectors’ safeguarding expertise, sent in on a no-notice basis by former Secretary of State for Education Gavin Williamson, means that it is now a safe school—I recognise that this is another unfashionable commendation.
I am not immune to Ofsted’s problems since the sad death of head teacher Ruth Perry and the training that has needed to take place, but we need to ensure that the professional accountability of Ofsted remains rigorous with regard to safeguarding. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her positive tone in relation to the expansion of its powers. I have no vested interest, save that when I was a Minister, knowing that we had in our pocket the ability to inspect a school at no notice was vital to keeping our children safe in school.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the new Ministers and express appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her valedictory speech. There is much to commend in the gracious Speech.
A few weeks ago, Pope Francis addressed the leaders of the G7 on the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Francis spoke of the way in which AI arises from God-given human potential. He spoke of the excitement at the possibilities that these powerful tools bring, of the risks of greater inequalities and impersonation, and of the need for deep and humane wisdom and ethics and the right political leadership. I encourage noble Lords to read his address but also, if they have a moment, to watch the 10 minutes before his address. Pope Francis demonstrated a deep humanity, not only in his words but in the way he went right around the room, embracing each of the G7 leaders and lightening for a moment the heavy burdens that each carried.
My encouragement to the Government is to hold together these very significant developments in technology with deep insights into our humanity: what it means to live well, to build flourishing societies and to enable the well-being of all. We must equip our young people to be masters of technology, not slaves to algorithms—able to put the science to good use but not allow its creations to distort our humanity or society. The deep ethical questions raised by the sciences will run across every part of this Government’s legislative programme, but I will focus on three themes.
The first is the intersection of work and technology. An increasing number of people now work for and with algorithms. The quantity and quality of work is changing. Work is not just economic productivity; it is fundamental to human flourishing. The new skills and employment Bills must have regard to the question of satisfying and rewarding work in respect of not simply income but agency, autonomy and creativity and the ability to create safe and humane workplaces for the flourishing of all.
The second theme is the opportunity and risks of data: the need to ensure that every citizen derives maximum benefit from the secure use of data—as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, powerfully underlined—and that every citizen is protected from exploitation by individuals or corporations, whether in health or education and skills. What will be the Government’s approach to risk in terms of the deployment of untried technologies that have the capacity to cause harm? Will security extend to the security of data? This seems a vital question given global events today.
The third theme is to urge that the well-being of children and the vulnerable remains at the heart of the Government’s approach to technology. Any society will be judged by its care for the young. We have seen two decades of unregulated exploitation of children for commercial gain by social media companies. I welcome very much the resolve of the Secretary of State to further strengthen and enhance the Online Safety Act. We do not yet fully understand what makes for a good digital childhood. It seems that many children’s lives are being ruined through overexposure to technology, with a consequent effect on mental health. I urge the Government to be bold when it comes to the protection of children online.
Every development in science and technology reveals a little more clearly the wonder of what it is to be human and invites us to mine the deep treasures of wisdom in faith and our common humanity. Will the Government, across their programme, dare to hold in tension both knowledge and deep wisdom for the sake of the flourishing of all?
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I join others in warmly welcoming the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Merron, to the Government Front Bench. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said in her excellent maiden speech, if the UK economy is to grow, productivity must significantly improve. As she noted, a major engine in this will be our higher education institutions. I declare an interest as a member of council at University College London.
Our universities make a huge contribution to life in the UK. The 2023 London Economics report estimated that their activities contributed well over £100 billion to the economy. They not only educate and train many thousands of young and not so young people but do so across many sectors and all regions. In many places, our universities are critical to the local economy. They play a huge role in supporting SMEs, which are vital to employment in all regions. Our universities are a great and successful national asset. We have 20 in the world top 50 and three in the world top 10.
Our universities now face very severe financial problems, however. The Labour Government are well aware of this; the FT reported in May that “universities going under” was fourth on Sue Gray’s alleged list of key problems. It is not hard to see why. PwC published earlier this year a report on the financial stability of UK higher education, which pointed out that fee income from domestic students had lost a third of its value since 2012 and that by the academic year of 2026-27 international student fees are forecast to become two-thirds of all course fee income. Many of these international students are currently and are predicted to be from China, with the obvious geopolitical uncertainties involved. Disturbingly, 40% of UUK members forecast a deficit in 2023-24, the academic year just ending. There may also be signs of a slowdown in overseas students generally.
In response to all this, more than 50 universities are already making job and budget cuts. Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think tank, was quoted in last Saturday’s Guardian as saying:
“When this many universities are projected to be in deficit, you can’t say: ‘This is a market and some institutions will have to go,’ because there is a serious risk of a domino effect”.
The funding model for our universities is not fit for purpose, is getting worse and needs urgent revision. The Labour Party manifesto explicitly recognises this:
“The current higher education funding settlement does not work for the taxpayer, universities, staff, or students. Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK. We will work with universities to deliver for students and our economy”.
We need to know rather urgently how that will be done. We welcome the Minister’s invitation to input to that.
While we wait for a plan to deal with the funding settlement, some immediate measures could significantly help the sector. The first is to be more supportive of international students, particularly through the graduate visa route. We should correct any impression created by the previous Government that the UK is not welcoming to overseas students and their families and we should, as Members of this House have frequently proposed, disaggregate student numbers from the total immigration figures and report them separately. We could also look at the full economic cost of government research grants, which has now declined to about 70%. We also need a plan in place for emergency support should institutions encounter even graver financial difficulties.
There is one other thing. The Minister may know that I have been campaigning for 10 years for the introduction of sharia-compliant student finance. Progress on this had been glacially slow until the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the Minister’s predecessor, took charge; I am glad to see her in her place, as it gives me the opportunity to thank her for all her hard work in driving forward alternative student finance. Will the Minister agree to meet our campaign group to discuss progress? We would be grateful if we could resume our helpful conversations about this long-delayed and critical reform.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Ministers on their appointments. I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her maiden speech, that skills are central to economic growth. Skills are also central to opportunity, not just for young people but, critically, for adults. People should find it easy throughout their lives to learn and to update their skills. We are pretty good already at identifying skill needs and shortages, but if we do not improve opportunities and access then nothing good will happen to supply.
I emphasise to the Minister and the House the enormous importance of further education colleges, which did not figure in the King’s Speech—although I grant that he had only so much time. Their funding has suffered very badly recently, falling further and further behind schools on a per-head basis. This means that they are increasingly unable to provide the training we need for core shortage areas such as engineering and construction—we cannot build without builders. More generally, we are failing to realise colleges’ potential as a core part of any tertiary and higher education system geared to growth and opportunity.
North America has a lot to teach us here. In the United States, community colleges make part-time advanced adult study available across the country. Meanwhile in the UK—not just England—this has gone into disastrous decline, with ongoing falls in college-based higher education courses. In Canada, colleges supply an increasing amount of short, specific and high-level vocational training, often to recent graduates. Here, bizarrely, our higher education funding policy intentionally prevented this for decades.
Arrangements for the lifelong learning entitlement, passed into English law last year with, happily, cross-party support—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her valiant work in this House, which was not at all confined to this area—give us an opportunity to build far more flexibility and adult participation into our skills system and get rid of our crazy barriers to upskilling. It was also always intended to bring colleges and universities much closer together, in something approaching a single system. When does the Department for Education expect to reschedule and restart its consultative roadshows with the sector on the LLE? Will the Government ensure that colleges and college-based courses are fully incorporated into their planning and development?
I recommend to the Minister’s attention the Open University’s current collaboration with colleges in education cold spots. She will be aware that the creation of the Open University was one of the finest achievements—perhaps the finest—of the first Wilson Government, but she may not be aware that its original remit covered technical and refresher courses, not just degrees. If this country is serious about skills, it must look seriously beyond full degrees and not just pay lip service to a more nuanced system.
Finally, the Government have very good reason to reform the apprenticeship levy. Anyone involved with apprenticeship policy knows that the current funding system has had major unintended and undesirable consequences. Opportunities for young people have plummeted, especially in more deprived areas. Many young people who would like an apprenticeship cannot obtain one. We have been doing some research at King’s—I declare an interest as a member of its academic staff—on the way in which lower-achieving young people transition into the workplace. We are talking not about the bottom 20%, but about the 50% or 60% who do not go straight into university. We find that, for every one who gets an apprenticeship, three have tried very hard and failed to find one. The Government’s own figures show that only 20% of apprenticeship starts are in skill-shortage occupations.
I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that the review will be thorough and incorporate the needs of SMEs, young people and the entire country, and not just the desire of levy-paying employers for more ways to spend their levy.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak again from the Government Benches in this debate, as I did in my first 13 years in your Lordships’ House. I warmly welcome the new Ministers to their posts. However, in the spirit of graciousness which distinguishes our politics, I also want to thank the previous government Ministers, including the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Kamall and Lord Markham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, with whom I worked—especially on issues concerning unpaid carers. They did not always give me what I wanted, but they were always courteous and sympathetic. I too will miss the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
First, as others have noticed, there was a big omission in the King’s Speech: anything to do with social care. I know that Ministers understand the urgency of tackling it, and that no reform of health services can be truly effective unless linked with reform of social care, as the Covid inquiry this week has reminded us. It is, though, very welcome news that there is to be an important Bill on mental health, and the mention of prevention in the gracious Speech when it comes to the NHS will be greeted with relief and pleasure. We cannot tackle the ongoing problems of ill health caused by lifestyle unless we address those challenges robustly. The restrictions on smoking and the attacks on fast and ultra-processed foods, especially advertising to children, will be most welcome to those of us serving on the Select Committee on diet and obesity, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In a visit to Blackpool, we were shocked to discover that two-thirds of children starting secondary school there are already clinically obese.
As well as prevention, our reforms of the NHS must also focus on integration. I was privileged to chair one of your Lordships’ House’s special inquiries into integration last year, and it was not a comforting picture. Clearly, people are not getting the right care in the right place at the right time. Our recommendations focused on improving structures and organisation which currently limit integration, on revising contracts and funding which limit, or even disincentivise, integration and on devolving far more money away from hospitals towards community-based care. The inadequacy of digital connectivity was a huge source of frustration for our witnesses, and guidance is needed to clarify responsibilities. We saw, for example, people putting the same data into three separate computers because the computers did not talk to each other.
A major barrier to integration is staff shortages and professional divides which indicate that one set of workers, like those from a local authority, are somehow of less value than another, like those from the NHS. I am hopeful that measures in the planned employment rights Bill to increase social care pay and scrap exploitative zero-hours contracts will help retain and attract more staff. It is possible. On Monday this week, I was in Southampton with my 104 year-old aunt. While I was there, four different people visited her: a local authority worker, an OT, a district nurse and a private care company. All of them knew about each other, they all had the same data regarding my aunt and they were all working to the same end. I could not see the joins between them. They were helping a 104 year-old lady to live peacefully, and probably die peacefully, in her own home. We should take these examples and learn from them.
I have not thus far mentioned unpaid carers, which is so often the subject of my interventions in your Lordships’ House. I hope the employment rights Bill, however, will encourage the Government to move more quickly to deliver their review of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and to introduce enabling provisions to ensure a right to paid carer’s leave can be introduced during the passage of the Bill. Of course, a commitment by the Government to a national strategy for carers would be welcomed by 6 million people.
In conclusion, I repeat my disappointment thus far that nothing in the gracious Speech will lead us to a reform of social care, but I know that Ministers and others are extremely aware of the urgency of the need and that we shall hear announcements as soon as possible.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former general secretary to the Independent Schools Council, and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies whose 670 member schools make up a substantial proportion of the council’s total of 1,400 schools.
From that declaration stems my principal purpose in this debate: to impress on the Government the deep concern that has been created by its proposal to slap VAT on independent school fees. The concern is not confined to families who have children in independent schools or those who run the schools. There is great apprehension everywhere about the inevitable consequence: the need for additional places in the state sector for pupils whose independent schools will be unable to remain in existence.
It seems to be the Labour Party’s contention that independent schools will not need to pass the VAT charge on to parents; they will be able to absorb it. This is not so. Only a handful have the endowments or reserves that would enable them to pay it themselves. The overwhelming majority of independent schools are small schools, with some 300 pupils on average, which rely on each year’s income to meet their costs. They will, with great reluctance, have to pass on the new VAT burden to parents—and in many cases parents will be unable to pay the increased fees.
The new Government have the wholly laudable aim of recruiting the additional teachers we need so badly. It is far from certain, however, that the imposition of VAT on fees will assist them significantly, if at all, in meeting that objective. The additional resources that state schools will need to teach more pupils could absorb much of the revenue gained from the VAT charge, and perhaps even exceed it.
It is on this absolutely central point that we need the independent assessment that the Office for Budget Responsibility will be providing. I hope the Government will publish the OBR’s advice in full at the earliest opportunity. It should form a key part of the discussions that they will need to have with the Independent Schools Council on the implications of the policy, particularly where special needs pupils are concerned. Some 90,000 of them could be forced out of independent schools, which teach them so well.
Make no mistake: the council will want to work with the Government to help raise standards, train teachers, extend opportunities for our young people. How vividly I remember my years at the council at the start of the last Labour Government when so much invaluable co-operation developed with the education department, particularly when the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, was a Minister, and how much I enjoyed our association. One enduring result was the creation of joint state and independent school partnership projects. They have grown and grown over the years. Music, drama, arts and the teaching of shortage subjects are just some of the many beneficiaries of the great work that state and independent schools are doing together to their mutual benefit—I stress mutual benefit. It must not be jeopardised.
One of the consistent themes of health debates in the last Parliament was the Government's lamentable failure to make the extremely modest investment necessary to ensure universal access to fracture liaison services in England. It is vital to tackle the scourge of late-diagnosed osteoporosis, the fourth leading cause of disability and premature death, as my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who cannot be in his place today, has frequently pointed out, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.
The heavy price of that failure was thousands of lives lost, innumerable people living in unnecessary pain and countless numbers of both sufferers and their carers taken out of the workforce at a time when they are badly needed. Thanks to the success of the Better Bones campaign, spearheaded by the Royal Osteoporosis Society, we now have a commitment from the new Government to achieve full coverage of FLS across England by 2030.
To ensure that government action in this area is as effective as possible, two initiatives are needed. The first is a transformation fund, foreshadowed under the last Government but never delivered, to pump-prime new and improved FLS until they break even within two years. Could the Minister confirm that the work undertaken by officials in the last Parliament will be taken forward to establish such a fund? The second initiative is the appointment of a national specialty adviser to ensure strong, specialist leadership across departments and agencies, and to spread best practice. Could the Minister tell us when we might see such a vital appointment, which will be crucial in turning well-intentioned commitments into tangible results to the great benefit of our country?
I end by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, well and of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, too.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Merron, on their appointments. We will all miss the wisdom, experience and kindness of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. I declare that I chair the Bevan Commission in Wales, was a governor of Howell’s School, Llandaff, and president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, and my palliative care roles.
I welcome the focus in the gracious Speech on prevention in healthcare, its crossover to the well-being of children, and how rehabilitation can prevent further problems when disease or injury strikes. Our previous tobacco control legislation did not go far enough; we never anticipated the advent of addictive vapes. Last year, one in five children used a vape. More than 7.5% of children are current users, mostly of disposable vapes from shops, so new controls are welcome and long overdue.
Some 2.5 million children in England are overweight or obese, setting a lifetime of problems. Good nutrition starts with breastfeeding and support to new mothers in the early years, but despite tackling junk food the gracious Speech failed to mention the addictive calorie-laden product, alcohol, which is closely linked to violence and anti-social behaviours. Will the Government support my Private Member’s Bill on alcoholic beverage labelling?
Yes, the NHS needs transformation. Only yesterday, I encountered an ICB whose risk-averse policies are inhibiting community hospice carers from meeting patients’ analgesic needs. We must shed silly rules and wasted duplication of effort, free staff to care with initiative, and support innovation. A funding formula for palliative care is long overdue.
Rehabilitation is critical to prevention. It reduces pressure on acute and emergency services, reduces social care need, and supports those who want to and can go back into work. Today, one in three people’s health conditions would benefit from rehabilitation, and more than a million emergency department attendances a year could be avoided. Improving cardiac rehabilitation from its current 50% level to 85% could prevent 50,000 admissions in England alone. Each year, 120,000 patients survive critical illness, but 98% of those develop post-intensive care syndrome, with impaired physical, cognitive and psychological functioning and loss of independence, and a third remain care-dependent with major impacts on their families, especially their children.
Specialist rehabilitation programmes starting in ICU are cost effective. There is, for example, a lifetime saving of about £700,000 per patient with traumatic brain injury. Patients can even get back to work, but sadly few such programmes exist. For those who do not survive and who are dying, integrated palliative care can be transformative. Reliance on charity donations is invidious.
For children with serious conditions, rapid early diagnosis and intervention can move them from a life of dependency to a life of independence, yet more than a quarter of a million children are waiting for community health services, with 22% of them waiting over a year. Some 21% of A&E attendances overall are in children from nought to 14 years, and for 40% of those continuity would be better had they been seen in the community.
Finally, I turn to schooling for children with difficulties. Overall, there are 90,000 children with special educational needs in private schools, as well as children who have been seriously bullied, are refusing school, and whose parents or grandparents do without for the child’s supported education. Independent schools estimate that they save £4.4 billion from the education budget. I wonder what will happen to service families whose children have to board. Will we risk the income to the country, already experienced by universities, if we lose many of our 63,000 international schoolchildren? In Wales, if 19 of the 69 independent schools have to close, the Welsh Government will face an £80 million funding gap. Can the Minister reassure us that Wales will receive its proportion of the estimated increased revenue from VAT, in line with Barnett differentials? I hope so.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to be speaking from these Benches again. In doing so, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a member of Middlesex Learning Trust, a patron of the Artis Foundation, and an adviser to the Backstage Trust.
I congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench today, and all their colleagues, on their new appointments, and I wish them well as they take forward the ambitious programme outlined in the gracious Speech. I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern on her excellent maiden speech. Like others, I am sad that we are losing the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly—this was all unexpected—but I am very glad that we have not lost the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, whose work in office has been so deservedly praised. I hope she is glowing from that praise as this debate continues.
Concision is the order of the day, so I will make my points concisely. First, as another member of the pre-legislative committee that looked at the previous Government’s draft mental health Bill in 2022-23, I am glad to see that a new Bill is planned that will incorporate a lot of what that committee recommended. It will be challenging to find the necessary resources, financial and human, but the proposed changes to current legislation are long overdue and much needed.
I welcome the inclusion of the children’s well-being Bill. In taking forward the proposed review of curriculum and assessment, I hope that despite warnings from my noble friend Lady Morris the Government will make good on their declared intention to restore arts subjects to their proper place in the curriculum. I also support everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on how engagement with the arts outside the formal curriculum can contribute to the well-being of all students from early years to A-level.
Much of the arts sector is already extensively involved with education—just look at what is being achieved by the RSC and many other organisations, large and small—but it is doing so in an increasingly precarious funding environment. The recent successful championing by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay—he is not in his place today—of tax reliefs for the performing arts is one of the few bright spots on a darkening horizon for the sector, and I hope my noble friend can confirm that they will be maintained. However, the current crisis in many local authorities, and the reduction in support for Arts Council England over the past decade, has already done serious damage. This is another problem that will not be easy to solve when there are so many calls on scarce resources, but we ignore it at our peril.
The plan to increase teacher numbers is also welcome. Recruitment and retention remain critical issues, but there is also huge pressure on school budgets, partly as a result of the underfunding, or non-funding, of recent pay awards, which is resulting in staff reductions in some schools. This needs urgent attention, which I hope it will get from my noble friends.
Finally, I hope that we can now look forward to a less adversarial relationship between government and the education sector. Over the past few years there has been too much hostile rhetoric, although never, I hasten to add, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We should, of course, have high expectations of our schools and their leaders, and they must be held to account. But let us also trust them, support them and acknowledge what it takes to do what they do.
In the gracious Speech, the Government have set out a bold programme that I am proud to support. Delivering it will require courage and determination, because, despite recent appearances to the contrary, politics is not actually a branch of the entertainment industry, entertaining though it can sometimes be. It is a complex, contradictory, unpredictable and deeply serious business within which setbacks and even occasional failures are inevitable. However, in the words of that great master of concision, the playwright Samuel Beckett:
“No matter. Fail again. Fail better.”
Onwards and upwards, my Lords.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Public speaking and debating are not my natural territories. My career has been in retail, not politics—although, as my husband pointed out, there are similarities: the voter, like the customer, is always right. This is an overwhelming honour. What has struck me in my short time in this House has been the courtesy and kindness on both sides. I have been made to feel welcome, and my vast areas of ignorance on the workings of this place, and many other things besides, have been tactfully dealt with.
I thank my supporters, the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Laming—who has given me so much wise advice over the years—as well as my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for her encouragement and support, and Black Rod for her pertinent advice. I thank also the clerks and doorkeepers, not just for all they have done for me—instructions on protocol and dealing with my lamentable lack of direction—but for their warm welcome to my daughter, Domenica, who has Down’s syndrome, when she came to this House for my introduction. She, or rather the charity that I started in her name, is one of the reasons that I am in this House.
My father, a hereditary Peer, was a proud Member of this place. He was a career soldier, and his last posting was as chief of staff of the British Army of the Rhine. He was also an Arabist, and he brought this expertise to the relevant committees and sat as a Cross-Bencher. However, his manifesto, in a bid to stay in this House, was not successful—“all cats to be muzzled outside to stop the agonising torture of mice and small birds” did not quite cut it. His sister, my aunt, Valerie Goulding, was an inspiration to me. She started the Central Remedial Clinic in Ireland, which devotes itself to children and adults with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and muscular dystrophy. She was made a member of the Senate by the Taoiseach for her charitable work. The author of Under the Eye of the Clock, Christopher Nolan, was one of Valerie’s patients, and it was her fierce commitment to his potential that enabled him to become an author. He wrote that he owed his success
“to Lady Goulding and her harbour of hope”.
In his gracious Speech, His Majesty made reference to breaking down barriers to opportunities. That is exactly what we do at Team Domenica for young adults with learning disabilities. Our aim is to get them into paid employment, and we have an 81% paid employment rate, against a national average of 4.8%. People with learning disabilities are the most forgotten in our society, and I feel passionately that they should have the same chances as everyone else. The world is theirs just as much as it is ours.
However, in education, the mainstreaming of children with learning disabilities is not always appropriate. My daughter spent several hours sitting in a corridor because “it was maths” or because “it was science”. What is was actually was isolating, and the silence of Domenica’s loneliness was deafening. I suggest to the Minister that the remaining schools for those with moderate learning difficulties are vital for families whose children are not confident enough to cope with mainstream education. We must not become so blinded by ideology that we no longer see or understand the individual needs of the vulnerable people in our care.
In concentrating on education and in building self-confidence, we can make a life-changing difference. If someone believes in you, you start to believe in yourself. I have seen this time and again with our young adults at Team Domenica, who have got paid jobs with the wonderful businesses in Brighton and Hove which support us so well. I have seen the transformation in Domenica’s confidence too, through belonging and being more like her sister—although she has some way to go before matching the supreme self-confidence of her late grandfather, known to his children as Jampa, but probably more familiar to your Lordships’ House as Lord Lawson of Blaby.
We need to remember that a lifelong learning disability is exactly that: lifelong. Education and support need to continue, and the process of getting an education, health and care plan needs to be much less stressful. Like others who have spoken before me today, I worry about what the effect would be of a 20% education tax on the parents of the almost 100,000 children in the independent sector who do not have an EHCP but who have special needs. Will the unintended consequence be many more parents trying to get an EHCP in a system that is already at breaking point?
I look forward to raising my voice with others in your Lordships’ House to speak up for the voiceless, and to standing up for parents, siblings and carers. No one can know where the limits of love lie—nor should we ever judge those who are sometimes struggling to cope; I have been there myself—but we need to know where the limits of state responsibility begin and end. We must ensure, at least, that it does not make the lives of parents and their children more difficult than they already are.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour and pleasure to follow the wonderful maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Monckton. With her sparkling business experience—bringing Tiffany’s to the UK and her continued involvement in fine jewellery—we are fortunate indeed to have such a gem of a Baroness on our Benches. Much more important and pertinent to our debate today is her experience with Team Domenica and her passion to enable people with learning disabilities to thrive in life and feel included in society, which I know will make such a difference to this House. I know that, like me, noble Lords will look forward to many future contributions from my noble friend.
I add my voice to the congratulations to the new Government, and welcome the new Ministers to their place on the Benches opposite. I sincerely wish them well and will support them if the measures they introduce are
“based upon the principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all”.
I also add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—who has been at the end of a query or a WhatsApp message whenever—for her openness, diligence and service.
However, I must confess my disappointment that there was not much on adult social care in the gracious Speech. I was on the Adult Social Care Committee of your Lordship’s House, so wonderfully chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. One of our fellow members was the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who I did not realise was retiring—I wish her a very happy and long retirement. I commend the committee’s report to Ministers. Can they give some serious consideration to how they can support some of the recommendations that do not really need more Bills—for example, by reinforcing the provisions of the Care Act 2014?
I too am concerned by the blanket statement in the gracious Speech about measures being brought forward to remove the exemption from VAT for private school fees. Following on from my noble friend’s speech, can the Minister clarify today that this will not apply to fees that are paid to independent schools for pupils with EHC plans? Even if they are exempt, as my noble friend said, those plans can take many years to be put in place, leaving out children with recognised special educational needs whom the state system cannot support and who currently rely on independent schools. Many of these schools are registered charities, and for generations the provision of education has sat firmly in the definition of “public benefit” for charities. Schools are subject to increased staff costs, pensions, utilities and other inflationary pressures. Even when placements are funded largely by local authorities, significant additional fundraising for these organisations is required to subsidise services—there is no fat in the model.
In Scotland—which I always like to mention—independent schools have been subject to more scrutiny than any other part of the charitable sector. In 2022, the Scottish Government removed business rates tax relief for schools with charitable status. Significantly, they excluded specialist schools for children with educational needs.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I am really concerned about the devastating impact this policy is having on specialist performing arts schools at this very moment. The Labour Party manifesto committed to
“support children to study a creative or vocational subject”
up to the age of 16. The essential requirement outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for early specialist performing arts training has been recognised by successive Governments through the Department for Education Music and Dance Scheme for school pupils and the Dance and Drama Award for students. These are means-tested grants that enable talented students to access the best music and dance training at the best specialist schools—I declare an interest as an alumnus of Tring Park, one of the schools on the dance scheme. The majority of pupils at schools such as Tring Park, or the Royal Ballet School, would not otherwise attend an independent school. Yet the Department for Education cannot guarantee the future of any bursaries in either scheme for the next academic year, this September. This uncertainty, together with the fear of being asked to pay VAT on fees, is causing potential pupils to not even take up places, which is an immediate threat to the sustainability of the training pipeline for our world-class performing arts sector.
The Government’s blanket announcement threatens future Darcey Bussells—or indeed Baroness Bulls—and it could force these schools to accept only the children of the very wealthy. Fundraising and full-fee-paying students subsidise bursaries and make it possible to offer talented young people places. Given the Government’s proudly expressed support for the performing arts, I can surmise only that this is an unintended consequence, and I just hope it is something that can be rectified before these schools are forced to take drastic measures.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure not just to be back on the Government Benches but to welcome my noble friend Lady Smith—another one—to our team and to congratulate both her and my noble friend Lady Merron on their appointment as Ministers. It is also a pleasure to be able to refer to “the last Labour Government”—although I will not do so today—without fearing that it might have a double meaning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I had many exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes. We rarely agreed, but I think that we did so in good humour. It is not easy to go from the Government Benches in that direction; I commend her for doing so and I look forward to seeing how she adopts the persona of poacher rather than gamekeeper.
Early years and education is a vital area in which the Government can shift the dial. The lack of proper investment by their predecessors, which shifted the sector’s focus away from early education and towards childcare, was driven by the imperative of getting women back into the workforce. Of course, that is important, but it is not as important as ensuring that every child’s first 1,000 days contain high-quality early years education and development, particularly for those from a disadvantaged background.
I welcome the introduction of Skills England because providing our young people with the skills that both they and the economy will need in the years ahead is essential. It was the skills Act that saw many a robust debate in your Lordships’ House on the effects of introducing T-levels, a qualification that I want to see become embedded and succeed. However, that has not yet happened, and I very much share the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lady Morris and Lord Knight following today’s announcement of the curriculum review and what that might mean for the defunding of many applied general qualifications, including BTECs, which would leave young people who are not academically able to complete a T-level without any suitable alternative. That cannot be allowed to happen. So can my noble friend confirm that the pause and review of this rushed plan promised by the new Secretary of State when she was in opposition will indeed be undertaken, and within what timescale?
With kickstarting economic growth the central mission of the new Government, skills development is about much more than school leavers. Flexible ways to support people to upskill or reskill will be needed now more than ever, and it is essential that the skills offer is inclusive—for all ages and at all levels of post-18 education.The Open University’s model, for instance, enables people to earn while they learn—over 70% of its students are in work. Can my noble friend say what funding and policy levers the Government intend to prioritise to support more flexible and lifelong learning? Will we see the lifelong learning entitlement, as previously debated at length in your Lordships’ House, built on and soon?
The mantra of our election campaign was “change”, and already it is being translated into delivery. One area where I particularly hope to see change concerns our schools. The 6,500 new teachers will have a dramatic effect, although of course that will take time. For the past 14 years there has been a ministerial obsession with academisation, rather too enthusiastically implemented by DfE officials. Yet, despite a flat-out effort to drive academisation—at the expense of the maintained sector—the DfE’s own figures published as recently as May show that after almost a decade and a half, just 50.1% of all state-funded schools in England are now academies.
A feature of academisation has been the double standards that have developed; for example, on the need to follow the national curriculum, for which you would think the clue was in the title, the requirement to employ qualified teachers—should we really expect our children to be taught by well-meaning amateurs?—or on academies’ right to be their own admission authorities. Thankfully, the children’s well-being Bill will end all those anomalies.
However, how will that be achieved? Falling school rolls are forcing local authorities to close schools but they lack the power to close academies. The supporting document to the King’s Speech says, in relation to the children’s well-being Bill, that all schools will be required
“to cooperate with the local authority on school admissions, SEND inclusion, and place planning, by giving local authorities greater powers to … ensure admissions decisions account for the needs of communities”.
Can my noble friend say whether this means that the local authority would be the admission authority for all schools in its area, or at least that it will be able to require changes to individual school admission criteria? Equally, will local authorities have the same powers to place individual vulnerable pupils in academies as in maintained schools, and to enforce adherence to fair access protocols?
I apologise for presenting my noble friend with so many questions just two weeks into her role. I would be happy to receive a response in writing if that is more convenient, but I very much look forward to working with her in the weeks and months ahead.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, to this House and congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech—likewise, my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. Both clearly bring great and valuable experience to this debate and to your Lordships’ House.
I take this opportunity to express deep concern at the proposal in His Majesty’s gracious Speech for a Bill to ban conversion therapy. I should make it clear that, of course, no one should be subject to abuse or coercion. But if independent lawyers have concluded that there really are gaps in the law against abuse and coercion, we should be shown their advice and those gaps should be filled. But that seems doubtful. Research commissioned by the previous Government showed that the evidence base for a new law is weak.
My main fear is that a criminal law against conversion therapy would have unintended consequences for children and young people expressing distress over what gets called gender identity but which in reality is gender dysphoria. The Cass review made it very clear that children should be able to access help to explore in a genuinely open way their experiences of gender dysphoria, and that this is not conversion practice. But banning conversion practices risks scaring into silence precisely those professionals who have young people’s best interests at heart.
Dr Cass has spoken about how clinicians who work in child gender services have told her that they are already afraid of being accused of “conversion therapy” if they follow a questioning or—in the proper professional sense of the world—critical approach. She is also clear that such an approach is absolutely the right one to take for anyone who looks after children. Actually, she says in her report that a mere
“‘informed consent’ model of care”
is incompatible with good safeguarding of children and young people. Professionals have to do much better than simply giving young people the medical interventions they think they want, especially if they think they want them only because they have spent too much time watching YouTube videos telling them that transitioning is some kind of magic solution to all their problems.
As I have said in this Chamber before, there are increasing numbers of detransitioners such as Keira Bell, who I have met and spoken to, who heavily regret their decision to transition, and for whom the only advice they received from so-called health professionals when they were young was one of affirmation of their early and ill-informed wish to change their gender.
Clinicians and others are right not just to take a young person’s word for it when they say that they are another gender; there can be serious safeguarding issues that need to be investigated. A doctor might believe that a young person’s desire to be another gender stems from trauma. They might believe that they do not comprehend the risks and consequences well enough to make an informed decision.
If a doctor recommends a watchful waiting approach to a child, but that young person disagrees and insists that they need medical intervention, is that doctor guilty of conversion therapy? Would they be guilty, in the language of conversion therapy laws that we have seen, of “supressing” or “inhibiting” that young person’s gender identity? Even if they are ultimately found not guilty, finding themselves on the wrong end of a police investigation for conversion therapy as a result of the child making a complaint would exert a massive chilling effect on good medical practice.
The pledge in the Labour manifesto was to protect an individual’s ability to
“explore their sexual orientation and gender identity”,
but that is not good enough. Any law on conversion therapy must comprehensively protect the professional integrity of doctors, teachers and others who work with children—people who put those children’s best interests first—even if that means not giving them what they think they want. They must not be chilled into silence.
Those who truly and deeply care about the well-being of the children and young people in their care should not be at risk of criminalisation. The Government must take heed of Dr Cass’s exhortation to “take inordinate care”—that is the phrase she used- with this. We need to slow down and engage in serious consultation with a full range of stakeholders, not just those who want the Bill.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, the theme of today’s debate is about creating opportunities. Nothing could be more important for that than education and skills policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, made clear, none of the aims set out in the King’s Speech and in the Labour manifesto can be achieved without the right skills, and education has an essential role in developing those skills.
I welcome what we know so far about the Government’s plans, and what we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in her fine maiden speech. I also take the opportunity to echo the appreciation expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her work and commitment over the years, including giving me occasional help with my mathematics.
Many of the plans we know about are encouraging, if as yet somewhat incomplete—as might be expected, given the difficulty of adjusting the course of the tanker that is education policy, especially during these cash-strapped times.
The need to recruit, train and retain good teachers is rightly recognised with the commitment to recruit 6,500 new teachers, funded by ending the current VAT exemption for private school fees. While I recognise the difficulty of finding new sources of funds, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, in her excellent maiden speech, that this may produce unintended and undesirable consequences, and may generate less net income than the Government expect or hope for.
There is anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey pointed out, the much wider challenge of reinvigorating and remotivating teachers, many of whom feel not just underpaid and underappreciated but unduly constrained by an overprescriptive, over-rigid and overdemanding curriculum and assessment system. In passing, I wonder whether this Government might consider restoring the funding recently withdrawn from Now Teach, which does such excellent work bringing successful and committed late-career people into teaching.
The current system is failing to deliver consistently the broad and balanced curriculum to which it aspires. There is an imbalance between knowledge-based learning and the acquisition of practical life skills, such as listening, speaking, problem-solving, creativity and teamwork. The needs of many young people who do not aspire to university but whose goals are more work-centred, leading to careers as technicians or tradespeople or entrepreneurs, are not adequately met. I am delighted and encouraged that the promised review of curriculum and assessment was launched yesterday under the leadership of Professor Becky Francis, and I hope that it will come up with a plan to improve the balance of the curriculum and enhance the motivation of both students and teachers.
The manifesto recognises the importance of access to arts, music and sport, and specifically promises a new national music education network. How do the Government see this as helping to narrow the shocking gap between state and private schools in the quality of music, arts and cultural education that they offer?
The manifesto makes no mention of building on recent improvements in careers education so that all young people receive high-quality personal guidance. The engagement of employers, including smaller and more local employers, is another key to opening young people’s eyes to world of work in all its range and variety. I hope the Government will seek to encourage more employers to be involved in this way.
A central proposal for skills policy is to establish Skills England, with a remit to create a long-overdue skills strategy, aligned with the proposed industrial strategy, which will hopefully bring together skills policy activities across the UK to produce a coherent understanding of current and future skills needs and shortages, and ways of addressing them locally, regionally, nationally and sectorally. I look forward to hearing more about how Skills England will work, and I hope that its membership will include proper representation of independent training providers, which deliver two-thirds of all apprenticeships.
On that subject, the idea of turning the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy will be welcomed by the many employers who complain about the inflexibility of the current system. I will be interested to hear what form this will take, how it will work and how it will be funded.
I am conscious that transforming education and skills policies, as the manifesto aims, is a long-term incremental process, so it would be wrong to express any impatience at this stage that the many promising measures proposed in the Speech and the manifesto may seem smaller than the high ambition of the goals that the Government have set themselves. I hope that as the initiatives get under way we will be able to discern a clearer vision of where policy is heading—a vision ambitious enough to motivate and inspire teachers, students, parents, training providers, employers and all of us whose future depends on an education and skills system that truly creates opportunities for all.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice of congratulation to my noble friend the Minister not only on her appointment but on the fact that she has made her maiden speech. I look forward to the punchy and forthright way in which policies that have been delivered and proposals that have been fleshed out in the King’s Speech turn themselves into pieces of law that will give us a different sense of direction, and possibly, when implemented, a sense of accomplishment too. So congratulations and thank you for that good start.
I refer to the mention in the King’s Speech of a general term, “raise educational standards”, and to “children’s wellbeing”, and I wish to focus my little intervention there. I look forward to seeing how those things spell out.
I have been reading the recent Better Schools—The Future of the Country report by an educationalist called Tim Clark, in which he focuses down on pupils with SEND—specialist educational needs and disabilities. He writes as follows:
“Particularly concerning is that pupils with SEND are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds and ‘that the discrepancies between and advantaged backgrounds have increased 2010-2020’”.
A variant of that remark, regretting the gap between the haves and the have-nots, appears again and again in one report after another, and has indeed been part of a speech before mine in this debate. There is a bigger battle to be fought than we have time for here today about what to do about the social tendencies that are forcing people away from each other and dividing our communities, and causing those who are disadvantaged to suffer disproportionately. I thought that was worth mentioning, although it is a little tangential to the thrust of the debate.
This debate is taking place while the first report from the Covid inquiry is filling our newspapers. In that report, it is correctly pointed out that 235,000 people died from Covid. All of us regret the particularly high number of people whose deaths occurred in care homes and in the care sector, but we simply have to mention alongside that—as future reports certainly will—the effect of the pandemic on those who lost so much in our schools throughout that period.
I was involved for 20 years with two high schools in inner London, one in Islington and the other in Tower Hamlets, and I spent 12 years as chair of the trustees for those two schools. We noted with great regret how teachers left because Covid had so struck the atmosphere and the possibilities. Ever since, levels of truancy have risen, as the noble Lord on the Lib Dem Benches said, and we continue to witness higher levels of bad behaviour in our classrooms. My question simply has to be this: how do we keep that in focus and not simply think that that was then? There are young people who will be blighted by those years for the rest of their lives and who deserve our attention.
How is it that the charitable foundation that underwrites some of the costs of the schools with which I have been involved spends 12.5% of its distributable income on schools in the state sector, and 65% on the three prestigious public schools that are part of the same foundation? I think it proper to note the economic consequences of some of this Government’s proposals on those in the private sector, but we must not forget that there is tons of charitable money out there that is simply not getting to the poorest people, even when the charities were set up to focus on the poorest people in their own age.
So, with 14 seconds left and the good will of my Chief Whip, which it is very necessary for me to retain, I draw my remarks to a close. There were other things I wanted to say—there were rich things I wanted to say—but, at this stage, the smile on the Minister’s face suffices for my present needs.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I join in the welcome to the Minister and wish her success in this role. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for being a listening Minister and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on an excellent and moving maiden speech.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Jolly. We served together as Government Whips and Ministers in those heady days of the coalition Government. I pay tribute to her skills, knowledge and camaraderie. She deserves a break from the commute from Cornwall, but she will be much missed, particularly on these Benches.
At this stage of the debate, much of what I would have said has been said. I shall try not to be repetitive and try to stick to my five minutes, even if I have to speak very quickly.
Reference has already been made to our committee report on 11-to-16 education, which requires improvement. The previous Government rejected nearly all our findings, which came from evidence from all parts of the school sector: teachers; headteachers; students; Ofsted; unions; think tanks; and awarding bodies. They all told us that GCSEs were not fit for purpose and did not equip young people for life and work. The knowledge-rich syllabus bashes facts into young minds for them to regurgitate—then promptly forget. Our recommendations were based on promoting skills, practical achievement and preparation for the future. My mantra, as a one-time teacher, was that learning should be fun. Young people should enjoy what they are learning. We look forward to the review and hope that our committee will feed into it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Fraser, we Lib Dems do not believe that taxing education is right. The imposition of VAT on independent schools will not affect the Etons and Winchesters of this world but will, as has already been said, affect the many small independent schools where parents of limited means try to do their best for children who struggle in state schools. If this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and forces them to move their children into the state sector, it will be an added cost to the state and will certainly not release the amount of money that the Government hope for state teachers. This seems to be the politics of envy rather than clear thinking.
Can the Minister say whether there will there be an impact assessment on SEND children, on the arts, as was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on small faith schools and on military families? My own children, with an RAF father, faced multiple schools until they had continuity with a boarding school.
We all wish to see the 7% of independent students not taking so many top posts and more state-educated students breaking through possible nepotism to become leaders in worlds that they may understand rather better than the perceived cosseted minority. However, as the product of an independent school myself, I assure noble Lords that I never felt cosseted, that it was not all fun and that many, particularly of my generation, have the scars to prove it.
The answer is surely to improve the state sector, as our committee recommended, to ensure that state pupils have the chance to achieve across the board and to learn public speaking and presentation, creativity—as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—leadership skills and self-confidence. They must be given opportunities to achieve wherever their talents take them. These are features of the best independent schools and should be the benchmarks of good state schools, too.
My final ask of the noble Baroness is in connection with my personal passion—vocational education. We must, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, set out, support further education colleges in the wide-ranging transformative work that they do. But T-levels are a new and untested product; BTECs have a track record of encouraging young people into work-based paths, but with respect from universities to study for degrees, too. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to stop funding BTECs in the forlorn hope that T-levels will provide answers to prayers. I entirely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on their appeal not to defund BTECs.
I worked for City & Guilds for 20 years and have many more years’ experience of the value of work-based qualifications, which are needed more than ever as we seek industrial growth for our economy. Please do not cut off proven qualifications in the forlorn search for something better. We need to strive for esteem for practical qualifications equal to the academic qualifications that the last Government prized so heavily.
If the ambitious industrial strategy is to stand a chance, it will need the practical skills and commitments of our young people. Giving their success the kitemark of valued qualifications will be an essential part of that. I wish the Government every success in their ambitions. We are very happy to support where we can and to offer advice where we are unable to agree on their proposals.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in commenting on the gracious Speech. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness the Minister, whose maiden speech was wonderful and enthralling. I thoroughly enjoyed it, thank her and ask her to pass on my congratulations.
The Minister remarked on the need to reduce inequality of provision in the Mental Health Act, for example. I wonder whether she might like my thoughts and those of my colleagues outside this Chamber on the need to reduce the need for mental health services at all. In other words, we have a rising number of mental health requirements and I believe that that could be tackled before anything else. Reducing inequalities is imperative, but it is more important to reduce the need for mental health provision—in other words, to strengthen the mental health of our total population.
This is particularly important for children, and perhaps that is where I might be able to offer something. We now know that musical training affects cognitive development quite dramatically. There are now studies, which some of my team have participated in internationally, as part of their charitable work. They make it very clear that the plasticity and growth of the brain are affected by music studies. Such evidence has not been available before.
The charity I chair, the AMAR International Charitable Foundation, has access to such evidence because we have been working with the neediest of the needy: victims of genocide. The cultural group in this case is the Yazidis, but it does not really matter which one it is, simply because the musical training we have offered has very clearly had an impact on the brain. By “the brain” I mean, in this context, the mental health of those who have suffered what the United Nations says is the worst crime against humanity of all. After a decade of training, which is imperative inside the camps themselves and with the victims, we have firm proof of the difference that it makes to mental health. Indeed, we have had a tour of the Yazidi choir we formed in Oxford University and in the Jerusalem Chamber, and also in other places in Windsor and Oxford. I hope to bring it back another time before too long, if I can find some funding, because the mental health impact of coming here has been dramatic as well.
Of course, that is not the only example I can offer. As a former student of the Royal Academy and of the Royal College of Music and a graduate in teaching there, I was an early board member of the Nordoff and Robbins charity, which, as your Lordships may know, is one of the most powerful and important international music therapy charities of all. I was lucky enough to be on its board in the very early days. I had to stop after a while because I moved into computer programming, which was non-conducive to the timing of the charity’s board meetings. None the less, I will give your Lordships one example of how music training can impact on physically badly developed people.
A small boy who was a long-term patient in a hospital had only one movement, which was his right arm. He could not control it. It was the only piece of his body that moved at all. It went up and down erratically, all day and all night. The lead music therapist, who was an ancient lady at the time and was very experienced indeed, was asked to have a look. She went into the hospital and sat at the far end of the ward—at that time it was in wards—so the boy did not notice her, and she watched his arm. After a week or two, she steadily moved nearer and nearer to his bed. By the time she was sitting beside him, he did not realise that he was being scrutinised, because she was then a familiar figure on the ward. Her instrument was a very small drum, which she used with her fingers. Sitting by the bed, she watched this erratic arm. After a little while she started tapping the drum in line, as far as she possibly could, with his erratic movements. After about a week, she felt she had mastered the erratic movements and then, the week after that, she taught him to follow her. Six months later, for the first time in his life, this teenage boy was feeding himself.
I say again that the plasticity of the brain is impacted by music training. We now have this information. I therefore ask the Minister to think hard about music in all schools—not music hubs but actual practical music in schools—and about looking at music as a therapy and health tool rather than just as something enjoyable.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I share your Lordships’ appreciation of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Jolly, and I welcome the appointment of our new Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will know as much as I do about Lincolnshire and that, particularly in its coastal towns and rural areas, Lincolnshire suffers from intergenerational poverty, which has a very direct impact on children. I think your Lordships’ House has received two reports in the last 15 years about the poverty in our coastal towns, but nothing much has changed. If I have heard the Government correctly, I am glad to hear them express their intention to pay more attention to rural and coastal poverty, which is often hidden away when it is not in our big cities.
Therefore, I also particularly look forward to the progress of the children’s well-being Bill and the work of the newly announced child poverty unit. In moving forward in this area, how do His Majesty’s Government plan to involve faith communities in addressing these needs, particularly considering the concentration of faith communities in areas of poverty and deprivation, as my right reverend friend the Bishop of London referred to earlier?
I follow other Members of this House, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, in drawing attention to children with special educational needs and the Government’s intention in relation to what has already been said in the gracious Speech, requiring all schools to co-operate with the local authority on school admissions, SEND inclusion and place planning by giving local authorities greater powers to help them deliver their functions on school admissions and ensure that those admissions account for the needs of communities. The challenges facing provision for children and young people with special needs cross all sectors, and the Government can assist by tackling the long delays and ongoing bottleneck in assessments, and by increasing the support offered to schools. The current system has created a shortage of school places in specialist schools, as has been said, and insufficient resources are provided in mainstream schools to offer support for children’s needs.
This all has a real impact on children’s mental health, especially in relation to poverty as an additional burden. I applaud the work and ambition of the Children’s Society, which intends to create a whole series of mental health hubs for children and young people in Newham and the rest of the country.
I hope that we will continue to tackle poverty by joining up all sorts of agencies and bodies within government and beyond, as expressed in the letter recently issued to all Members of this House. On the bus to school when I was a teenager, the conductor regularly told the passengers to hurry up and take our time. I know the Minister will agree that there is a real urgency to the task group’s work, the fruits of which will need to be seen in sustained investment and action to support schools, children and young people in the long term. We need justice for each one of those 700,000 children who need to be lifted out of poverty.
Lord Bird (CB)
I welcome the new Government. It is a great relief, I have to say. We all need a change, and we hope the change will lead to the kind of delivery that we need socially in this country.
But I have a problem. My problem is that over the years I have dealt with many Governments who have come in with many promises, and most of them leave not as new brooms but as old brooms. Therefore, I worry and will really engage in trying to guide the new Government into doing things that people do not normally do when there is a crisis.
In 1940 we had a crisis. We did not know whether Great Britain was going to survive, but at that very moment in the beginning and the middle of the crisis, Beveridge was dug out of retirement and laid the foundations for the 1942 report that led to the creation of the welfare state in 1948. While we were in a crisis, we did not just work on the basis of responding to the crisis.
There is a crisis around children. We know that many children are in poverty and are inheriting poverty from their family. There is the crisis of our prisons. On Monday this week the Guardian announced this enormous crisis in prisons, and the new Government did not know it was going to be so bad. I do not blame them, but that crisis in the prisons is largely because 90% of those people in prisons failed at school and 90% of them inherited poverty. So when are we going to address poverty? When will we move away from a situation in which the NHS spends 50% of its money on people suffering from food poverty? When will we stop leaving police officers to sort out poverty, because they largely deal with people who come from poverty? When will we move away from teachers having to cope with poverty? All we are doing is weighing down government departments that have no skills or ability to tackle poverty.
I do not think anybody in government really knows. It is not just this Government; it is the previous Government and the Government before. They do not know because they do not converge their energies around poverty. They do not concatenate and bring together. Eight government departments deal with poverty. That is why the NHS, the DWP and the Prison Service all suffer from the weight of poverty which they are not trained to address. If you go to a doctor and say, “I’m very ill”, the doctor is not going to say, “You’re suffering from poverty, so I’m going to get you out of poverty”. That is not the doctor’s job. I hope that the Government will look carefully at my Private Member’s Bill, which is about a ministry of poverty prevention. Let us bring together all the examples of people who have broken through poverty and the government departments that actually do some interesting work. Let us have an audit of what works. Let us have a government department that will help us dismantle poverty in the same way as in 1940 we said, “We are in the middle of a crisis, but we are not going to simply keep dealing with the effects. We are not going to deal with the crisis continuously; we are going to try to turn the tap off”. In my opinion, that is the best thing that this Government could do. It may mean standing back and saying, “We’re not quite sure what to do”, but that is not a bad place to be because then they can start to create the thinking that will bring about change.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friends to their important new ministerial roles, and our Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. A fundamental barrier, as recognised, is poverty, especially child poverty. That is closely linked to women’s poverty and is part of the intersecting inequalities which, as the Fairness Foundation argues convincingly, will if untackled prevent the achievement of the Government’s missions generally. It is clear from a growing body of research that progress on education and health requires progress on child poverty, the risk and depth of which grew to shocking levels under the previous Government. I thus applaud the promise of free breakfast clubs in primary schools and the regulation of school uniforms in the wonderfully titled children’s well-being Bill, although I hope we can in time look also to the extension of free school meals.
The manifesto commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy is crucial to the achievement of the opportunity and other missions. The swift establishment of a child poverty task force and a new child poverty unit was music to my ears. The task force will rightly work with a range of stakeholders, which I hope will include the voices of those experiencing poverty. We can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the Scottish and Welsh strategies, including the need for a clear action plan with targets. The targets set by the previous Labour Government, subsequently scrapped, helped to galvanise action at national and local levels. I also emphasise the need for the strategy to include children in migrant families, highlighted by the recent joint inquiry of the APPGs on poverty and migration into the effects on poverty of immigration, asylum and refugee policies, in which I was involved. A cross-government strategy will of course include the early years and good work, but repair of the social security system, badly damaged since 2010, has to be a central plank, as argued by charities in the field that see the impact of social security cuts on children and their families.
The opportunities mission plan states that it will:
“Make security the foundation of opportunity”.
It is therefore puzzling that it makes no mention of social security, the primary purpose of which is to guarantee financial security through social means. Shredded by post-2010 Governments, it no longer fulfils that purpose, so now is the time to put the security back into social security, to provide the foundation for opportunity. As the manifesto states:
“Delivering opportunities for all means that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity”.
That includes social security recipients and the language used when talking about them. Please let there be no talk of handouts. Social security is a human right.
Inevitably it will take time to repair the damage done but, following the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and many others, I urge the immediate abolition of the two-child limit, which currently affects 1.6 million children, otherwise I am afraid we will be developing a child poverty strategy with one hand tied behind our back. Together with the benefit cap, which also needs reviewing, it most hurts larger families, including some minority-ethnic families.
The implications for the opportunities mission of retaining the limit were brought out in a recent study by the CPAG—of which I am honorary president—the Church of England and others. Here is an example: a lone parent with three children told how her 12 year-old son had been off school for over one and a half weeks because she could not afford to replace his ripped school shoes, and the school threatened isolation all day if he wore black trainers. She said:
“My son is embarrassed for not being able to go to school and wasn’t even able to tell his friends why”.
Can we really not find the necessary money and investment in children? As Gordon Brown points out, we need to factor in the cost of not acting—for instance, in terms of children taken into care and the NHS.
Alongside the cuts directed at children are years of freezes and real-value cuts in benefit rates that have left them totally inadequate to meet basic needs, as evidence to the recent Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into benefit levels demonstrated. I hope the Government will conduct the kind of review called for by its report. I hope they will also heed its recommendation to extend the local authority household support fund. Even if it is a sticking plaster, filling some of the gaping holes in the social security system, it is a vital local lifeline. Due to expire in September, it would leave only the discretionary welfare assistance that replaced the Social Fund that many local authorities no longer provide. A temporary extension would provide stability, prevent even greater reliance on food banks and allow for consultation on a longer-term statutory local crisis support scheme.
In conclusion, to cite Gordon Brown again,
“we need a clear commitment from the current government to rebuild a social security system that will genuinely protect people”.
That was directed to the last Government, but I hope it will now fall on the more sympathetic ears of a Government who promise security and demolition of the barriers to opportunity, including the overwhelming barrier of child poverty.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to participate in this debate on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Smith, on their excellent maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, is a leading force in her work for children with disabilities, and I am sure they will both make extremely valuable contributions to your Lordships’ House.
The premise of my desire to speak in this debate is that I truly believe we can create life-changing opportunities for all families through simple and inexpensive tweaks to the education system, with the desired knock-on effect into healthcare. The children’s well-being Bill will require free breakfast clubs in primary schools. The phrases “You are what you eat” and “Healthy body, healthy mind” ring true. Food education is critical, so if we can teach children from a young age the necessity of eating well and enjoying a balanced nutritional diet, that will be the cornerstone for them to reach their full potential in every aspect of their lives.
While it is essential for children to have breakfast, they must also learn the difference between what is good and bad for them. Ultra-processed foods currently account for around 80% of calories in packed lunches and 65% of calories in school meals, so providing children with more ultra-processed food at breakfast must be avoided at all costs.
The manifesto also refers to the national curriculum and flags
“protecting time for physical education”.
This is a welcome commitment, as currently only 47% of children and young people are meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s time guidelines for taking part in sport and physical activity, despite every set of medical research proving that the benefits of exercise are huge.
The children’s well-being Bill also refers to one in four children living in poverty, which is a shocking and unacceptable statistic for a developed economy. Generational poverty can be solved. Basic financial education would help and demonstrate that just £6 per week invested from the age of 18 at a 7% annualised return would produce a tax-free lump sum of £135,000 by the age of 68, which could then fund the stability of a home purchase for the next generation.
On healthcare, the Secretary of State has correctly said that the health of the nation and the health of the economy are inextricably linked. If we put into place the right plans for food education, physical education and financial education, the NHS crisis will be over and gross domestic product will increase incrementally.
So I ask the Minister: who will run these breakfast clubs and how can we ensure that the breakfast offered is nutritionally excellent and not high in sugar? Can the current daily mile programme in schools become the daily three miles and made compulsory for every school in the country as part of the curriculum? It would ensure that all schoolchildren meet the Chief Medical Officer’s guideline of 60 minutes of exercise per day. What steps will the Government take to ensure that there is an appropriate element of investment in financial education in the curriculum?
From a healthcare perspective, for both physical and mental health, prevention is better than cure. If we can instil in our schoolchildren a love of good food, a love of exercise or team sport and the desire to invest for their and their families’ future, the majority of issues that people have to deal with on a regular basis disappear.
I will leave noble Lords with a statistic: a 20% reduction in the six major disease categories that keep people out of work could raise GDP by £26 billion annually within 10 years and produce fiscal savings from increased tax revenues and reduced benefits payments of £13 billion annually, again within 10 years. That is £39 billion saved every year.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, like other speakers in your Lordships’ debate today, I would like to extend the warmest of welcomes to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern and to congratulate her on her quite excellent maiden speech from the Front Bench. I should just say that it is particularly gratifying to us in Worcestershire that she has included “of Malvern” in her title.
I am also delighted to see my noble friend Lady Merron in her place as the Health Minister in your Lordships’ House. She was a brilliant shadow Minister and her appointment is wholly deserved. She has always been a great supporter of the health issue that has been closest to my heart in the 25 years that I have been here and which happily featured in the gracious Speech on Wednesday. I refer of course to the Government’s decision to go ahead with legislation based on the previous Administration’s Bill eventually to phase out tobacco smoking completely. This will do more to deliver Labour’s manifesto commitment to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England. Smoking is responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in society, with smoking rates among those working in routine and manual jobs almost three times higher than rates for those in managerial and professional roles. Tackling this inequality will alleviate a major health and economic burden on regions and nations across the United Kingdom.
In addition to preventing the next generation becoming addicted to smoking, we must also ensure that the 6 million existing smokers get the support they need to quit and are not left behind as we move towards a smoke-free future. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government will publish a road map to a smoke-free Britain, as was committed to in Labour’s health mission last year? A new strategy is urgently needed to set out the measures necessary to end smoking for every group in society.
My noble friend will be aware of the powerful open letter sent to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health published in the BMJ on 8 July. It pointed out:
“The last Labour government launched Smoking Kills, the first cross-government tobacco control plan, a year after coming to power in 1997. This drove substantial declines in smoking among adults and children after two decades when little or no progress had been made”.
Labour cannot achieve its manifesto commitment to halve differences in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions unless it prioritises the ending of smoking.
While most smokers start as children, every day 350 young adults start smoking, risking a lifetime of addiction, disease and premature death. Smoking puts pressure on our NHS and social care system, but the greatest financial impact is due to lost productivity. The estimated cost to the UK economy in 2023 was £55 billion, made up of £2.2 billion to the NHS, £18 billion in social care costs and £34 billion in lost productivity.
Labour backed the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in Opposition and in its manifesto. Indeed, phasing out smoking was a policy put forward by Labour before the Conservative Prime Minister introduced the legislation. Measures to prevent vapes being marketed to children, which will be part of the Bill, are urgently needed. I do not doubt for one minute the sincerity of the Health Ministers who served in the previous Administration in tackling the scourge of smoking, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Kamall, who of course were always urged on by the indefatigable noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
I always had the feeling, however, that far too much attention was being paid to the lobbying of the tobacco industry, which spotted early on that vapes offered a lucrative alternative means of getting its customers addicted to nicotine. Big tobacco killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and is on track to kill 1 billion in the 21st, mainly in low and middle-income countries. The UK now has the chance to lead the world in phasing out smoking. The new Government must seize it with both hands and I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of a tobacco and vapes Bill in the gracious Speech.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Merron, on their new posts on the Front Bench. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Barran for her excellent and diligent work over the years.
I too was surprised to hear about the reappearance of the ban on conversion therapy in the King’s Speech. It is a very complex issue which needs further consideration and risks reigniting the culture wars that the Government want to end. The barbaric methods used in the 1950s are now illegal, but activists argue that new legislation is necessary to address more subtle forms of psychological and emotional coercion not currently covered. While these concerns are relevant, such a ban would also conflict with fundamental rights such as freedom of thought and religion, freedom of expression and the right to a private life. In view of these contradictions, can the Minister tell this House what legal definitions would apply to such a ban?
My greatest fear, as the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, mentioned earlier, is the unintended consequences such a ban could inflict on children who are struggling with gender identity. Medical interventions have permanent and devastating effects. Many teenagers who have undergone treatment for gender dysphoria now regret being transitioned. I and other noble Lords have shared Keira Bell’s story in this House before and we will keep sharing it if it helps prevent other children falling into the same trap.
As a teenager, Keira Bell was put on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. At the age of 20, she underwent a double mastectomy. These treatments gave her masculine features, such as facial and body hair and a deep voice but, as she transitioned, she realised that it was not what she needed. I quote her:
“As I matured, I recognized that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause”.
At 22, she decided to detransition, but to this day she is still suffering from irreversible consequences. My heart bleeds for her. What Keira needed, and what others like her need, is space and support to thoroughly explore their thoughts, not life-altering medication and surgery. As she puts it, “If only someone had provided me with therapy and thoroughly explored my thoughts when I was a teenager—I could have been spared the trauma and I could now be living a much happier and fulfilling life”.
A conversion therapy ban must not follow in these disastrous footsteps. The Cass Review raised significant concerns about the potential criminalisation of clinicians under new conversion therapy bans. She pointed out that such legislation could create an environment of fear among therapists, making them anxious about conducting appropriate exploratory conversations with young patients. Similarly, parents should be free to have open and honest discussions with their gender-confused children, without fear of prosecution, so legislation requires a careful balancing of safeguarding to address potential risks and ensure the well-being of all affected parties, particularly children.
The Government say that a ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment or non-directive counselling and that it must respect the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation. Can the Minister tell this House how they will legislate to ban one type of therapy while respecting these safeguards? Furthermore, can she tell us which groups the Government will be consulting before pushing such legislation?
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
My Lords, as a neuroscientist I welcome consideration of mental health in the gracious Speech. I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, Neuro-Bio Ltd, where we are striving towards a novel and effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. I was therefore sadly disappointed that no measure was made in the gracious Speech of the urgent issues relating to such a devastating health problem.
Why must the Government make dementia a priority? Almost 1 million people are living with the condition in the UK, and we expect this to rise to 1.4 million by 2040, due to our ageing population. Dementia costs the UK £42 billion a year, rising to more than £90 billion by 2040. One in three people born today will develop dementia, and it is a leading cause of death.
As things stand, dementia presents us with three broad challenges. The first is social care, an issue that many noble Lords have already touched on as a clear omission in the gracious Speech. Seventy per cent of residents in older-age care homes in England have dementia, while only 45% of care staff are currently recorded as having any level of appropriate training, so what could be the solution? A long-term workforce strategy: social care staff should be required to undertake dementia training, mapped to the Dementia Training Standards Framework or equivalent.
Secondly, there should be a sustainable funding model for quality personalised care, which pools the risk of care costs and is centred on achieving affordable care for everyone living with dementia.
The next challenge is diagnosis. More than one in three people living with dementia in England are currently undiagnosed. There is a significant regional variation in diagnosis rates, moreover, by more than 40%. What could be the solution? A target for a more ambitious dementia diagnosis rate should be a government priority. Secondly, there should be a commitment to better training for healthcare professionals. Thirdly, there should be funding for public awareness campaigns. Fourthly, there should be increasing quality and quantity of diagnosis, data collection and publication.
The final challenge is treatment. There are drugs that, for the first time, can slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the earliest stages of diagnosis. Tens of thousands of UK citizens could potentially benefit from these drugs if they were approved. However, the healthcare system is not yet ready to deliver such treatments, due to the lack of early diagnosis and specialist diagnostics. What could be the solution? First, a satisfactory plan should be developed by NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care to be thoroughly prepared and ready to start to deliver these new treatments for dementia. Secondly, the current drugs being assessed are just the beginning. Though welcome, they do not halt the neurodegeneration process; they only slow it down. However, there is the very real prospect—still at the research stage, admittedly—of innovative treatments that could do far more and be much more effective, perhaps even halting cell death altogether. The biggest barrier to progressing such game-changing therapy at pace is, quite simply and inevitably, inadequate funding.
To conclude, dementia is the biggest unmet clinical need of our time and, as such, it surely should have been a high priority in government plans in the gracious Speech. While diseases such as cancer are serious, often disabling and frequently terminal, you can still reminisce over old photographs and still spend meaningful and precious time with your grandchildren. These life-enhancing moments are gradually closed off for an individual with dementia, and it is a spectre that haunts us all. We need to invest funds immediately in rising to the three challenges of social care, diagnosis and, above all, innovative and effective treatment, so that we could finally offer, perhaps, the prospect of our grandchildren one day asking, as we did in the past for smallpox and polio, “Was Alzheimer’s ever a problem?”
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in the gracious Speech, and I look forward to working with our new Front Bench to try to move forward every single aspect of it. Before I move into my main remarks, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We very often did not agree, but we did that in a very agreeable fashion—and sometimes we did agree, which was always quite helpful.
I begin with the review of the curriculum and assessment. It is an exciting prospect, and the National Education Union has said that we need a broader vision for education that supports well-being, allows all students to learn effectively and uses a variety of formats to capture all that students achieve and contribute. The current curriculum is too narrow and constrained. As the NEU and others have repeatedly pointed out, arts, music, dance and drama need to have a greater place in every student’s education, but so too do all the skills listed by the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Aberdare. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, we really need to look at the curriculum model: boldness is required here.
On assessment, it goes without saying that assessment should be fit for purpose at all key stages. Key stage 2 SATs have a distorting effect on the educational experience of years 5 and 6 pupils and contribute nothing valuable to their educational journey. A different approach is needed. Many academics and the NEU have much to contribute on this. At secondary level, there is widespread support for re-examining why we persist with GCSEs at 16-plus and very deep concern about the defunding of BTECs. I hope all these aspects will be given proper consideration, especially in the light of ongoing critical reports, not the least just this week, about the role and value of T-levels, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Knight. I know there are very many in the academic community and those with a great concern for education who will want to give the best of counsel to Becky Francis, and I hope she will be given the opportunity to take the widest possible view.
Ensuring that all schools will have to co-operate with their local authority on school admissions—rather than academies just going their own sweet way—on SEND inclusion and on place planning is particularly welcome. I echo all the questions on this from my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and I look forward to hearing the answers.
As we all know, the school workforce is composed not just of teachers—who will once again be required to have qualified teacher status, which is a very good decision—but the essential school support staff, who will enjoy a seat at the national table on pay and conditions with the reinstatement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. It is a pity, though, that there is not yet a proposal for such a national structure for collective bargaining for teachers. I earnestly hope that that can follow in short order. We continue to face significant problems with recruitment and retention of teachers, so while the reinstatement of QTS is a welcome signal from the Government about the status of teachers, it will not help with paying the rent or the mortgage. Significant improvement in teachers’ pay is needed. I hope the profession will not be disappointed when the Government announce the outcome of and their response to the STRB report.
Breakfast clubs are very welcome, as they will help the one in four children—according to 2023 figures—living in poverty. However, as so many anti-poverty organisations and campaigners have said, removing the two-child benefit cap would help so many families now. A task force may be a good long-term idea, but lifting the cap now is what is called for. Further steps must also be taken on school food. The NEU suggests that there are economic benefits as well as educational, social and nutritional ones to making sure that children receive free school meals.
I welcome the bringing of multi-academy trusts into the inspection system, but note that Ofsted is not held in high regard by the profession or many parents. Better ways of evaluating the work of schools and multi-academy trusts exist and function in other jurisdictions. I very much hope that the Government, in their welcome ambition for education, will soon give consideration to them.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in today’s debate on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. I sincerely wish the Minister and His Majesty’s Government success with their legislative programme.
I will focus on the importance of sport in the context of this debate. I would have liked to have seen more reference in the gracious Speech to sport and its vital importance as a guiding force in people’s lives, especially for young people. As I hope all noble Lords appreciate, sport is the most practical way to learn many life skills, from its benefits to a person’s mental health and well-being to being able to deal with healthy competition in a positive environment. I must declare an interest in that I have had and continue to have various roles in sport governance, as set out in the register of interests.
I want to interrogate the matter of sport following on from the mention of the children’s well-being Bill. Can the Minister give more information about how sport will feature in this Bill? How do His Majesty’s Government plan to increase participation in grass-roots sports and back the commitment to the “Get Active” campaign, which set a target to get 3.5 million more people classed as active by 2030?
In the gracious Speech, there is also a proposed Bill on football governance. I genuinely welcome this. Football is almost part of our national psyche, and some might even suggest a religion—I beg forgiveness from the Lords spiritual. Football often acts as a gateway for children to take an interest in sports and keeping active, not to mention the huge community and economic benefits that flow from that. We have only to look at last weekend to see the incredibly positive effect that football and sport can have—and it did not even come home.
It is incredible how diverse our nation’s sport that we all rally behind is, from tennis, cricket and golf to all the Olympic and Paralympic sports that will be on show over the coming days and weeks in Paris, as well as field hockey, netball, volleyball and even ice hockey—I declare an interest as chair of Ice Hockey UK. I strongly believe that the wider we cast our net and embrace some of these maybe less well known or glamorous sports, rather than focus so intensely on mainstream sports, the richer, more diverse and more active a population we will have.
In my roles in sport I see first hand how, across all communities, young and old alike benefit from all sports. In the UK, we host an increasing number of major international sporting events for the nation to pull together and embrace our nation’s top sporting teams and athletes. That can only be a wonderful thing for the nation and our great nation’s citizens.
I am chair of Ice Hockey UK, which has been asked by our international federation to bid for the world championships in 2029. We are on UK Sport’s preferred major and mega events hosting list, but due to the event’s size and prestige it would require DCMS support. However, we are caught in no man’s land, before there is a fiscal event of this Government. Will the Minister please kindly and urgently take this up with her colleagues so we can submit a letter of intent to the international federation by 1 September?
If we were to miss out on this incredible opportunity, we as a nation would lose out on over 300,000 visitors to the UK, a projected direct economic impact of £36 million and an indirect impact of £57 million—all for a modest £1 million to £1.5 million of investment. This investment would see the growth of a truly global sport in the UK and showcase what the UK has to offer to our existing and potential future international partners.
We have a small window of opportunity to submit our bid to host the world championship before other more established nations in the sport start bidding again. The National Hockey League, better known as the NHL, is the biggest professional ice hockey league in the world and the fifth top professional sports league in the world by market value. It sits just behind our own football Premier League at over $6.4 billion. I can see a day when the NHL comes to the UK. Please can the Minister look at this matter urgently before the deadline runs out on 1 September?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on her retirement and wish her well; she has been a great Member of our House. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on her maiden speech. I particularly want to welcome to the Front Bench my noble friend Lady Merron, who is going to listen to my pleas in few seconds, and my very good, noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern. I think we served together in the Cabinet for about 16 years—gosh, how time flies and things change over 16 years. Her maiden speech was brilliant, and I wish her well in her new job.
Like my noble friend, I was a teacher—though long before her—and it was a great privilege to be one. I am glad we are concentrating on education and music today, because I want briefly to talk about what has happened to the arts and education. Over the last two decades, including when I was in government, we simply did not spend enough on the arts, and it has been frozen. The result of that over the last 15 to 20 years is serious underfunding. Only this very day, the Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama has announced the closure of its outreach drama and music programmes for young people in Wales. Some years ago, I chaired a review into the college, and those outreach programmes were wonderful and brilliant, but they have gone because there is no money left. The college is one of the best in our country—it produced Anthony Hopkins and Richard Burton. To see those outreach programmes go is very sad and disappointing.
In the time I have left, I will mention the crisis facing opera in our country. It too has been seriously underfunded over the last 15 to 20 years. The Arts Councils, particularly the English Arts Council—I may be a Welshman but I follow what it does—has made some rather daft decisions on opera over the last year or so. The English National Opera, for example, is being forced out of this city in a very artificial way. Believe it or not, much of the funding for the Welsh National Opera comes from the English Arts Council because of the touring it does. It is in deep, serious trouble. Opera North is facing difficulties. The only opera company still operating relatively straightforwardly is the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden.
That is a national disgrace. If we compare ourselves with European countries, Germany has 59 opera companies, France has 17, and every other major European country outclasses us in the provision of opera. The answer sometimes is that opera is elitist and that only wealthy people can go and watch this great art form. That is nonsense. You pay far more for a ticket to a football match than to watch a great opera. The problem is that if we continue to be in a situation where, in effect, four opera houses become one and touring disappears, it will become even more elitist as the years go by.
It may seem a rather niche thing to talk about today amid the wide, huge issues that we are debating, but it is important. How we gauge our society is how we deal with the arts as well, including opera. I would hate to see that there are no opera companies left in England and Wales in a few years’ time, other than those that go to great houses and charge huge amounts of money to go and see it.
I make a plea for my noble friends the new Ministers to talk to their colleagues. I would like to talk to my colleagues in Wales but I cannot find a Minister there at the moment—they have all gone. When they return to ministerial government in Cardiff, I will certainly approach the new Culture Minister. In the meantime, we have brand new DCMS Ministers in our Government. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench can plead the case with their colleagues and perhaps even give me an opportunity to do exactly the same thing.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jolly, with a sense of sadness. She is someone who arrived, went straight into the hard work and has stayed there for such a long period of time. We will miss her at all levels, and I hope that her retirement in north Cornwall is fun—fun should come first, she deserves that—and also that she does not gloat too publicly about it.
When it comes to maiden speeches today, there is of course the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I congratulate her both on her role and a very good speech. With her track record, what else did we expect? I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, as well. Both speeches were linked by the emphasis on education, and it is there that I would like to put most of my efforts, although the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, just spoke about the football Bill. I will be having a good look at that, about whether we can get something for sport in general out of that bit of administrative mess. Let us wait and see.
When it comes to education, I will concentrate on the area where I have to declare interests. I am chairman of Microlink PC, an assistive technology company, president of the British Dyslexia Association, and I am severely dyslexic myself—that is, apparently, the official definition.
When I look at the current state of special educational needs in this country, I know why these things were done. The road to hell is paved with good intentions: we may not be in hell yet, but we are certainly at about the third stage of purgatory. We have a system which has encouraged specialist law firms to form, to make sure that parents can get the help that they are legally entitled to. If that is not a definition of failure, I do not know what is.
Other Ministers have helped to put some sanity into this system. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, probably deserves some credit for making small changes there as much as she could. As a Minister, she did not need to have assistive technology explained to her—the first I had ever come across. We must have a saner approach to how we deal with this. The idea that you have a £6,000 budget for every child with special educational needs to come out of a school is a fiction. It just does not happen, because that £6,000 is taken away from the school and every other pupil. It would be infinitely saner to start investing some of that fictional spend on specialism and better awareness within the school. You will take the pressure off, and many people can be dealt with like that.
Certain things scare local authorities—which are another big factor here; they are at war. How many years ago did we break the £100 million barrier, with local authorities contesting EHC plans and then losing 90% of the time? It is ridiculous. Can we do something so that the schools are better placed to handle this? Many more people can be helped in the school by a proper, trained person—and be given some actual incentive to do so. The system is frightened of itself. The lawyers come in, and the articulate and informed parents get the help that they need—but those who are not articulate and informed do not. We have to change that.
I realise that I am running out of time. Can we also have certain other things that are needed, such as flexibility? Dyslexia is only one condition. Systematic synthetic phonics is a great phonic tradition for learning to read, but it overloads the short-term memory of dyslexics and other people who have problems reading. The best defence I ever heard from a civil servant on that approach was, “Well, some dyslexics learn with it”. Oh, so some do not? Can we bring back a system where flexibility is taken a must-have when dealing with special educational needs? If we get only more central guidance on how the whole school should conduct itself, we will have more failure. I plead with the Minister to take on board the fact that she will have to address things by individual need not by diktat.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. What an impressive maiden speech. It is great to see her appointed to a ministerial position and I know that she will do a great job.
The gracious Speech was a breath of fresh air and a very public affirmation to our nation of the Government’s clear intent: a laser-like focus on growing the economy, coupled with a raft of legislation that will change lives for the better. In recent weeks, like so many in this Chamber, I have listened on doorsteps across the country to so many people—people whose lives have been put on hold; people facing insecure futures, who are despondent and untrusting; and people with little hope that things can get better. That is why the King’s Speech is so important: it offers a ray of hope that things not only can change but will change.
It is only right that the drive to grow the economy takes centre stage. Affordable housing, the skills agenda and the new deal for working people are all essential cogs in that drive for growth—but they are not the only essential cogs. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was right in stating that the new Government will retain the founding principle on which our NHS was born—free at the point of need—and to have a government mission to rebuild an NHS fit for the future. It is an ambitious programme, especially when so many parts of our health services are under pressure or in crisis.
Six million people in England are on consultant-led waiting lists. Reports from the ONS say that it could be as high as 10 million—well over 10% of the population of England waiting for treatment. Procedures are cancelled; referrals are delayed or simply refused. Public satisfaction has slumped to an all-time low. So many people are waiting and unable to work, on sick leave. That is why the new Government’s pledge to reduce waiting lists is so important to grow the economy.
Illness and poor health are a serious challenge for the economy, society and the new Government, who must address it. It is right that a new generation of ideas drive that reform. There will be no going back to the future. Too often in the past, public service workers have seen themselves as victims of change, not part of the solution. This Government are committed to working with the health unions to ensure that the workforce is brought on board.
To do that, it is essential that the NHS long-term workforce plan to train, retain and reform is implemented, and that a similar one is developed for the social care sector. It is essential to take steps to deal with the 130,000 vacant posts across all NHS functions, which put an unbearable burden on staff covering for those vacancies.
In January 2024, 5.5% of the NHS workforce was on sick leave. The Nuffield Trust stated that, in 2022, the reported sickness rates were equivalent to over 74,000 full-time jobs. The main cause of the recorded sickness was anxiety, stress and depression. We will build an NHS for the future only if these workforce issues in both the NHS and social care are tackled.
In the few moments I have left, I will stand up for a Cinderella public service—early years and nurseries. If ever its economic importance is discussed, it is often only in the context of getting parents into work. This is despite childcare being an important contributor to the fundamental economy and the creation of local jobs. It has the potential to boost regional economies. The Secretary of State for Education is right in seeking to revitalise early years provision but, as with the social care sector, early years has a predominantly female workforce, who are very low paid with little career progression. Many are on state benefits, there is a high staff turnover, and worsening staff to child ratios are simply imposed on them.
The gracious Speech is so important. It is a game-changer instilling hope into our nation, from an ambitious Government literally on a mission. We in this Chamber must play our part.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on her new role as a Minister and her excellent maiden speech. I also come from a family of teachers, although I managed to escape and become an engineer. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest for her excellent maiden speech. I need to declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
Yesterday, we debated planning and place, which is a key role for local government. This Government have said that their priority is growth. However, the pressures of children and adult social care are overwhelming local government and removing the bandwidth and resources for it to develop great places to live and work. This will also be one of the key long-term contributors to addressing social care, with short-term pressures overriding what is best in the long term.
I welcome the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which pre-empted some of my comments on SEND—the major topic of my speech. The current SEND system is not fit for purpose: it is hugely expensive yet delivers poor outcomes. While the 2014 educational reforms were largely positive for mainstream education, they appear to have had unintended negative consequences for SEND.
Since 2014, we have seen a more than doubling of children with EHC plans to over half a million. Costs have increased at an even faster rate, yet there has been no discernible improvement in outcomes. If anything, they have got worse, with the achievement of level 2 of pupils with SEND declining faster than the average and with no improvement in employment outcomes.
We have moved to an exclusive rather than inclusive system, with more pupils attending specialist schools—often some distance from where they live—increasing numbers of specialist placements and more home education with bespoke packages. Schools find themselves lacking resources and specialist support for SEND pupils, hence are incentivised to seek an EHC plan to get more resources or offload high-resource pupils. Parents seeking support for their child find that this is not available and can be achieved only through an EHC plan. Local authorities have the responsibility but neither the resources nor the levers to support SEND pupils, leading to rationing. There is a lack of capacity in mental health support. We lack educational psychiatrists, speech and language therapists to deliver what is needed. We have a legal framework that encourages an adversarial and legally based approach, rather than one focused on children and collaboration. In short, we have a system with perverse incentives that is leading to a vicious circle.
Things can be done differently, as happens in a few parts of the country where the current system has not yet broken down. There are many examples in Europe. We need a system where inclusion is the norm for the majority of parents; where schools do not need an EHC plan to get the support that they need; where local authorities have not just the responsibility but the resources and the levers to deliver; and where there is a clear understanding from all parties on what support to expect and what will be delivered. We need a system that does not require resorting to a legal process and has a clear focus on delivering outcomes. This will not be easy, not because it is technically and financially difficult but because there has been a complete breakdown in trust in the system. Everyone is seeking to protect what they have because they do not trust the system. This mould needs to be broken, on a cross-party basis.
I welcome the proposals in the gracious Speech to require all schools to co-operate with local authorities on school admissions, SEND inclusion and pupil planning. I welcome that there will be specialist mental health support in all schools. However, this is not enough. I urge the new Government to move forward with the proposals in the previous Government’s SEND review. I also urge the new Government to engage seriously with local government. The Local Government Association and the County Councils Network are shortly to publish a report on SEND and have written to the Secretary of State for Education with a number of very sensible recommendations. Those should be taken up because, without change, we will fail children and bankrupt councils.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, my contribution will be to the education side of this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will reply to the debate, I hope that the Education Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who is most welcome to this House—might be kind enough to meet me soon to follow up on what I shall highlight. I declare my interests in languages, as set out in the register.
Much needs to be done to reverse the damaging decline in the UK’s language skills but, in the short time I have today, I shall flag up just one of the barriers to the teaching and learning of languages: the viability of educational trips and exchanges. Some 50% of schools are now cutting them, with that figure rising to 68% in deprived areas, but the good news is that this can be fixed, and quickly—a perfect early win for an incoming Government committed both to tackling regional and other inequalities and to creating opportunities.
The new Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has already said that he is determined to do more to champion school and student exchanges as a vital part of resetting the UK’s relations with our European allies. He told his German opposite number that he hopes
“we can fix that school visits issue”,
and he appeared willing to consider the EU’s proposal to establish a youth mobility scheme for 18 to 30 year-olds to study and work, in welcome contrast to the immediate dismissal of this idea by both Labour and the then Government before the election.
One of the problems is the lack of co-ordination between the three relevant departments: the DfE, the FCDO and the Home Office. We know that the FCDO is alive to the issue, and the Minister knows all about the Home Office, so I hope she will feel happy to take the initiative to create the cross-departmental leadership for the dismantling of the barriers that are short-changing our young people.
A plan of action was submitted by the All-Party Group on Modern Languages to the then Schools Minister in February, so I hope the new Government will support this and start notching up some early changes and successes, knowing that the benefit of trips and exchanges not only applies to the take-up of languages but enhances many other areas of the curriculum, including geography, history, STEM subjects, art and sports. There is also an important positive impact of reciprocal mobility schemes on the supply chain for MFL teachers, and we know from DfE figures that we are looking at a chronic shortage there, second only to maths.
Teachers have told us that the problem is a combination of post-Brexit paperwork for travel and border checks, the burden of DBS checks, missing or conflicting official guidance, and access to opportunity and funding. The paperwork and costs must be reviewed, including bringing back the list of travellers scheme and the group passport scheme. At the moment, trips can face being aborted or delayed at the border because a coachload of children must have their passports individually checked, and coach drivers can reach legal drive time limits. One school I know missed its ferry home two years running because officials insisted on every child getting off the coach to be checked. One year they did not arrive home until 3 am. That was a school in London; it would have been a lot later for a school further away from Dover. Many trips go well, of course, but teachers are acutely aware of the potential for things going wrong.
Where passports are necessary, the cost must be reduced; £53.50 for under-16s is just too much for many families. Then we need clear and consistent guidance to help teachers plan. FCDO travel entry information needs to cover school groups that include both UK and non-UK nationals. Discrepancies between advice to schools from local authorities and from the FCDO must be ironed out. All this could and should be done cost-free and is quickly achievable. DBS checks are now less onerous but the changes are not yet common knowledge in schools, so much more needs to be done to communicate them. That is another quick and cost-free fix.
Finally, I urge the Minister to review the Turing Scheme. The more streamlined application process is welcome but schools have told us that they want a multiyear funding cycle, because a single-year cycle is impractical for many schools and colleges, and for their international partnerships. We also know that reciprocity helps the future MFL teacher supply chain. The easiest way of doing this, of course, would be to rejoin Erasmus+ as a non-EU associate country. I implore the Minister to reopen negotiations on this out of sheer enlightened self-interest for the UK. I look forward to an early opportunity to discuss all this with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern’s expert maiden speech, and I was very moved by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton. I declare my interest as in the register. I hugely welcome the Government’s commitment to promoting children’s well-being. This is such a vital issue for so many children across our country but can be rather a nebulous concept: what does well-being really mean? I will bring it to life by reference to the work of two charities that I have helped govern in recent years.
Until yesterday I was chair of Young Epilepsy, a role I had the honour to fulfil for eight years. I have seen for myself, through countless conversations with youngsters suffering from epilepsy, just how significant the challenge is for the 100,000 and more children and young people in the UK with this condition. One in three children with epilepsy is currently not getting the support they need to participate fully at school. Their seizures are either missed or mistaken for not paying attention. School staff are unaware of what to do when a seizure happens, and children are unnecessarily excluded from learning, sports and trips. Here are some of the voices of children themselves:
“I wasn’t allowed to do any PE or the like all year even though given the okay by the doctors … I wasn’t allowed to participate in school trips due to the risk of having a seizure, even on small local trips”.
A huge step forward could be achieved if schools were required to put in place an individual healthcare plan for every child with epilepsy, helping school staff understand each child’s epilepsy, ensuring their safety and paving the way for full inclusion in every school activity. With the necessary support from a Labour Government genuinely committed to all children’s well-being, this is within our reach.
But as so often for our children and young people, real progress requires the contribution of both health and education working in partnership. Only half of children with epilepsy are seen by a paediatrician with the necessary expertise within the required two weeks of referral after their first seizure. Children with complex epilepsy face additional challenges: only half are accessing the specialist support they need, and only one in three of those who could benefit from epilepsy surgery is referred to have this treatment even considered.
It is not simply a matter of physical health. Children with epilepsy are four times more likely to experience a mental health problem than their peers, but only one in five epilepsy clinics includes mental health support. Again, if we listen to the youngsters themselves, their stories can be heartbreaking. So the commitment in the King’s Speech to reduce waiting times, focus on prevention and improve mental health provision for young people could not be more timely.
The second children’s charity I have been delighted to be able to support in recent years, as a member of the board, is AET, a large multi-academy trust that brings together a family of nearly 60 primary, secondary and special schools right across the country. Time is against me today, so let me just reference the wonderful work of one of its primaries, in Birmingham, not far from where I grew up. More than two-thirds of its pupils get free school meals, but this year’s results show that this certainly does not stand in the way of exceptionally strong academic performance: 93% of them achieved success in the SATs they sat at the end of their primary school years.
Noble Lords might be wondering how the school does it and could be forgiven for imagining that this focus on English and maths must be at the expense of everything else, but not so. What is so striking about the school is the huge programme of personal development and the promotion of health and well-being activities of the sort referenced this morning on the news by our new Secretary of State for Education. In fact, the rigour and focus the school brings to the three Rs are just as evident in the approach it takes to children’s well-being through sports clubs, social skills training, critical thinking, community involvement, dance and drama workshops, public speaking and so much more. The school believes that academic standards and health and well-being need to reinforce each other, not be in competition, and its example is a beacon that shows what can be done.
We all know, unfortunately, that this is the exception that proves the rule and that far too many of our children and young people do not get the broad curriculum and extracurricular activities so evident in the example I have just given. That is because the accountability and funding regime that the new Government have inherited does nothing to promote it, leaving individual heads to do the best they can, often in challenging circumstances, and far too often our children are the ones who suffer as a result.
Our new Government’s commitment to a comprehensive review of the school curriculum and accountability system could not be more timely. It provides a wonderful opportunity to harness the commitment and expertise of head teachers up and down the country to turn the exception I have talked about today into the rule for all our children.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath. I welcome the constructive tone of the debate today as we begin our work in this new Parliament. It is also a pleasure to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest for her thoughtful and excellent maiden speech and, likewise, to the Minister for her maiden speech. I associate myself too with the comments made about the valedictory remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
I congratulate Ministers opposite on their appointment, because the weight and responsibility of government now sit with the Labour Party. I know what it is like to work in government as a policy adviser, so I wish them the very best as they begin to feel the pressure to deliver.
There is no shortage of complexity in the issues before your Lordships’ House, but I want in my remarks to zoom out slightly and remind ourselves of the title of today’s debate, to ensure that it is properly scrutinised. On our Order Paper it says:
“Creating Opportunities: Education, Early Years and Health Care”.
If noble Lords will forgive me, I will use a phrase that is familiar to millennials like me—I think it originates from the television programme “The Simpsons”. There is a concept on that programme called “saying the quiet part out loud”. I wonder whether with the prefix to the title to this debate we may be guilty of saying the quiet part out loud—that is, by using the phrase “creating opportunities”, the Government may be suggesting subconsciously that somehow government creates the opportunities in education, early years and health.
Of course, we know that that is not fully right, because life does not work that way. As we have heard in the debate already today, many Members of your Lordships’ House are outstanding leaders of charities and in the voluntary sector. It is those organisations, and the wonderful people at the heart of them, that really create opportunities for those most in need in our country, enabling them to access the advice, support and practical training that really turns lives around. Many noble Lords are luminaries from businesses large and small; we know that it is entrepreneurs who create the chance for people to secure good jobs and provide for their families, having positive impacts on education and health outcomes. Indeed, families, faith groups and social enterprises of all kinds are the vital machinery of opportunity, whether in education, healthcare, early years, or otherwise. So I hope the Minister may reassure me that, if the Government wish to create opportunity in health, education and early years, Ministers will prevent themselves falling into the trap of believing that they can do so best from Whitehall—that they may reach out to pull levers that simply do not exist.
There are some elements of the gracious Speech that, in that vein, give me cause for concern, as has already been expressed on many sides of your Lordships’ House today. At the top of that list I would put the plan to impose VAT on independent school fees. I did not benefit from a private education but I passionately believe that we cannot create opportunity by simply narrowing or attacking the opportunities that are already enjoyed by others. If we do so, we will be failing to follow the evidence that we have to hand, and may risk wasting our time. Does the Minister really believe that we will create opportunity with this policy, which could force many fee-paying schools to reduce and even abolish their scholarship programmes, which are enjoyed by so many disadvantaged pupils—the very programmes that fund access to these excellent schools for those from less-advantaged backgrounds? Is it right to think that forcing independent schools out of business will improve access across the country to sport, music and artistic opportunities?
As I said, I believe we must instead find ways to widen existing opportunities to all. I wish the Government well in their important tasks, and with their bulging in-tray. I hope they will be a Government who focus on the priorities of people across the country, not on politics, and who seek to extend the ladder of opportunity, rather than in some ways begin to pull it up.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, I join all those across the House who have welcomed my noble friends Lady Merron and Lady Smith of Malvern to the Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on her maiden speech, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern—what a barnstorming speech; it is so good to have her back. I also say how sorry I am that we heard a valedictory speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly—what a lovely contribution to finish on.
It is 13 years since I last spoke from the Labour Benches, and even longer since I spoke from the Government Benches. I put on record my thanks to my colleagues on the Cross Benches for giving me such a welcome home during that time, while I served as chief executive of the breast cancer charity Breast Cancer Now. I may have retired from that position as a charity leader, but I still am hugely concerned about the provision of services for patients with cancer. I agree with my noble friend Lord Knight that it is very hard for patients to hear the analysis of the Secretary of State for Health that the NHS is broken, because of course patients rely on the NHS for hope. Despite the tireless efforts of NHS staff, waiting times for cancer patients are woeful. We punch well below our weight in terms of survival rates in this country, and health inequalities and that old postcode lottery are playing out across the country. I welcome the ambitions set out in the King’s Speech to improve the NHS for all, tackle waiting times, focus on prevention and improve mental health provision, particularly for young people.
I would like to flag a particular issue which is an exemplar of the challenges facing our life sciences industry and the medical research world that I have come from. Breast cancer is one of the UK’s most common cancers. It is a significant health challenge: 55,000 women and 400 men are diagnosed each year. Despite amazing progress over the last couple of decades, we still see 11,500 women and 90 men die from incurable breast cancer every year; often, this form of breast cancer is referred to as secondary breast cancer. As we know, behind these statistics are real women’s lives. Breast cancer has not only a devastating impact on their lives but a real and measurable impact on our economy, as the work of Demos and Breast Cancer Now has shown.
With this new Labour Government coming in, we have the opportunity to truly transform the outcomes for people living with breast cancer, through promoting improved screening uptake, faster diagnosis and fairer, faster access to treatments and new innovation. That is so important. Ensuring that new, clinically effective drugs reach patients as quickly as possible is vital for improving cancer outcomes. It is also vital for our life sciences industry and for the medical research ecosystem that our universities are such an important part of. That new innovations reach patients as quickly as possible, at a price that the NHS can afford, is absolutely vital for a thriving economy and for people’s well-being in the future. An agile process for drug approvals in this country is therefore absolutely vital.
However, thousands of women are waiting with a particular type of incurable breast cancer, called HER2-low secondary breast cancer. They are missing out on a new drug called Enhertu. It is the first licensed treatment for their type of cancer and offers real hope for them; it is a life-extending treatment. In March, Enhertu was provisionally rejected by NICE for use on the NHS in England, impacting on these women’s lives and putting them on hold. We know that seven months before, in December, the Scottish Medicines Consortium approved this drug for use on the NHS, creating this sorry lottery. As a matter of urgency, will the Minister consider talking to NICE, which has a new process that is being adopted here for the first time, NHS England and the drug companies involved—Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca—to see whether a solution can be found? NICE has put on pause its process, which is a highly unusual move and very welcome. I believe that this is an example of something on which we really need to press forward with urgency.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the Government’s intentions on health and care.
Your Lordships will be aware of the focus of my party’s general election campaign on social care. Despite its importance—it affects the lives of millions and the ability of the NHS to pick itself up—there was nothing in the King’s Speech about it. It is true that you cannot fix the health service without fixing social care, yet we have not heard what the Government intend to do. Like others who have spoken in this debate, I hope that the Minister winding will reverse that. However, I was pleased to hear reference to children’s well-being and mental health, and particularly pleased to read of the new Secretary of State’s focus on spreading best practice and the prevention of ill health.
This year, I have been able to focus on prevention as the chair of the Lords special inquiry into food, diet and obesity. The remit of the committee, which will publish its report in November, is to look at
“the role of foods, such as ‘ultra-processed foods’, and foods high in fat, salt and sugar, on obesity and a healthy diet”.
The reasons why the Liaison Committee chose this topic are obvious and uncontested. Poor diet is second only to smoking as a preventable cause of disease and death. Despite the best intentions of successive Governments, obesity rates have continued to rise. We are one of the fattest countries in the western world. Two-thirds of children are exceeding the recommended salt intake and 19 out of 20 children exceed the recommended sugar intake. Almost one-third of 11 year-olds are overweight and more than 60% of adults are either overweight or obese. This situation leads to a high risk of preventable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and many cancers.
All this adds up to human misery and an inability to go to work and contribute to the economy. Obesity alone costs taxpayers almost £100 billion a year by some calculations, including a vast amount of the NHS budget. It was these facts that caused the Liaison Committee to ask my committee to look into the factors causing this dreadful situation and make recommendations. Of course, I am unable to reveal the committee’s findings yet. However, what I can do is roll the pitch a little in the hope that the new Government will look, eventually, at our report as an opportunity to respond positively to this urgent and costly food crisis.
In mentioning some of the areas our witnesses covered, I should say that a 10-month inquiry with a general election in the middle did not allow us to consider the treatment of obesity or the environmental issues. We focus on the preventative power of a good diet and the harmful effects of a bad one. Here I would like to pay tribute to the late Dr Michael Mosley, who died so tragically a few weeks ago. Although we were not able to invite him to give evidence, there has been nobody in public life who has done more to help people focus on factors which contribute to their health than Michael Mosley. Many of his highly accessible broadcasts and books focused on diet, and since his untimely death many people have said that his work changed their life and health. I will be delighted if our report has a fraction of the life-changing effect of his work.
We heard from a wide range of experts and members of the public, and certain themes emerged. First, we were urged to be bold and to recommend a range of government actions which amount to a cohesive strategy. Small actions here and there have not worked. There have been 14 obesity strategies over the past 30 years, yet the nation is still getting fatter. Lives have shortened and the pressure on the NHS and the economy has grown.
Secondly, we were urged to recommend measures which do not just rely on people taking personal responsibility, because of the pressures of what has been called the obesogenic environment.
Thirdly, we were urged to focus on children’s health, given that it is more difficult to become a healthy adult if you are overweight as a child. Finally, we have reached out to people with lived experience of the issues, and from them we have received some of the most compelling evidence of the need for action. It is on their behalf that I ask the Minister to ensure that the new Government respond positively to our report when it comes out, with actions that will contribute vastly to the future health and happiness of our population and the health of the economy.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will concentrate my remarks on arts and arts education. I declare an interest as a visual artist. I am heartened by the change in language, particularly around arts education. I am sorry we do not have a specific category for the arts in this debate on the gracious Speech. The arts are an essential aspect of our democracy and this needs to be better recognised at all levels of government within the UK.
Over the last 14 years we have seen the progressive downgrading of the arts in our school education. According to research by the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, only one in 12 people working in film and TV is from a working class background. Both the EBacc and Progress 8 were introduced specifically to sideline the arts. Both should go. They are accountability measures, not part of the curriculum. We do not need a review for this.
A good proportion of the 6,500 new teachers should be arts teachers, including dedicated teachers in arts subjects at primary school level. Will the Government improve ITT bursaries for art and design, and music, so that they are on a par with the sciences? The arts offer in state schools needs to be brought up to the same high level as exists in many private schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said.
I trust that the rhetoric around so-called “low-value” courses in higher education has ceased and that changes made at the Office for Students reflect a different culture. More importantly, will the Government make it a priority to help to prevent more closures of arts courses threatened at universities?
The educational community would cheer to the rafters if the Government were to negotiate rejoining Erasmus+. Turing is better than nothing, but is a pale imitation of what Erasmus as a reciprocal programme achieves, and much more. Will they do so?
After years of cuts to local authority and Arts Council funding, what the arts need most is substantial state reinvestment. Do the Government agree? In terms of overall government spending, the moneys concerned are a drop in the ocean, yet the benefits accrued, including financial rewards, far outweigh such modest expenditure. It is embarrassing that one single city in Germany—Berlin—gets more state funding than the whole of the UK.
The Arts Council is overloaded, taking on much of what used to be funded by local authorities. There are instances where funding is urgently needed. I will give two examples. At the smaller scale is a brilliant museum located in a deprived area of a town in Buckinghamshire whose council funding is threatened to be cut off and the building and the attached gardens, used by local people, sold off. On that point, will the Government take steps to halt the sale of our precious public buildings and spaces, many used for the arts and other community activities?
Secondly, at the other end of the scale, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will the Government urgently address the concerns around Welsh National Opera—an opera started originally by miners and teachers, and a company that through touring benefits both Wales and England? Emergency funding is required to stop musicians going part-time, but in the longer term England and Wales together need to review the current Transform funding model that so clearly penalises WNO.
There should be space for classical music and community projects, and the other arts including theatre and the visual arts, which often get overlooked. I ask the Government to take a look at the recommendations in the visual arts manifesto led by the Design and Artists Copyright Society. One recommendation is the appointment of a freelance commissioner for the arts to look at their rights and levels of pay. It is good that the Government are addressing workers’ rights—this should be a part of that.
In April, the Guardian reported that 74% fewer UK bands now tour Europe post Brexit, and that this affects their ability to tour America. The clear desire by the Government to address music touring is encouraging, but I also urge the Government to look at the effect of Brexit on all the creative industries, including the visual arts, craft and fashion. There is a growing sense that we will not regain the former pre-eminent position our creative industries had not just in Europe but across the world until we rejoin the single market.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my interests, particularly a professorship at King’s College London and a role at the University of Southampton. I also welcome both our new Ministers to their roles. We very much look forward to engaging with them in the months and years ahead.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton on her excellent maiden speech. In her reference to her grandfather, she might have put the muzzling of cats on the political agenda. It sounds like a cause that this House might embrace.
I would also like to say how much my noble friend Lady Barran contributed to our debates on education with her extraordinary courtesy. Her speeches were always so well informed and long may she continue in a Front-Bench role.
I would like to focus on higher education, because it is crucial to the priorities the Government have set out in the King’s Speech and it is very important for opportunity. Higher education is the one stage of education where kids from disadvantaged backgrounds outperform. It is also key for growth. A lot of vocational and technical training happens in higher education. We should not have an old-fashioned picture of our education whereby that is not part of the role of universities, when it is.
Of course, higher education institutions can transform places. The journey from starting off as a mechanics institute or a teacher training college, becoming a big, ambitious FE college and then a university is often associated with the transformation and growth of a city. Worcester, if I may say so, is a vivid example of that process. Universities are one of the most powerful mechanisms we have, therefore, for spreading opportunity to some of the cold spots in the UK.
Higher education cannot do this, however, if its resources are as constrained as they are at the moment. Universities are under serious financial pressure. We all lose out but, above all, students lose out if the real resource behind their education and their university experience is being cut. I therefore very much hope that we will now see action to tackle this crisis before a university goes bust. Many are under financial pressure; some are in real danger of going bust.
We do not need another big review of our entire higher education system. All three of the main parties represented here in this Chamber, when faced with the responsibilities of office, have essentially operated the same system: a graduate repayment system. There is no fantasy alternative model that gets rid of all the imperfections of the current model. We therefore do not need to waste time on some massive review; we need instead simply to focus on improving the current system, getting across the crucial message, of course, that students do not pay up front. For students, the main issue is the cash they have to live on while they are at university. That is the pressure point threatening access, not misconceptions about the cost of fees.
There is—if I may use a rather crude term in this elevated debate—a deal to be done. Of course, Ministers and the Government will have pressures that they want to meet, so the deal must involve some increase in fees, so that universities are better funded. It should also involve more initiatives on access. BTECs are a very important part of access to university. The new Minister will notice that there is a dangerous cabal of ex-Ministers around. When I see the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lord Baker debating, it is a bit like veterans Wimbledon: you can come here and see the education debates of 20 years ago going on. However, when they make common cause on BTECs—others here also associate ourselves with that—I hope that Ministers will listen. As part of the deal, there also needs to be pressure to ensure that education standards are rising in universities and that students get a fair deal.
All that can be done and should be done as a matter of urgency. The demographic backdrop is very important as well. Because of the surge in the birth rate, reaching a peak in 2012-13, we now face a decline in the number of young people in nurseries and primary schools. The number of young people in secondary education has peaked; the next five years will see a surge in the number of people over 18. They should benefit from a reformed apprenticeship levy, high-quality further education and a properly resourced and effective higher education system.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I extend a warm welcome to my noble friend Lady Smith and congratulate her on a great maiden speech. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Merron on her appointment, and wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, a long and happy retirement and thank her for her services and companionship.
On the Opposition Front Bench, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his kindness in dealing with the topics I raised with him. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her help. We tried to get the quality of children’s school meals changed. We had private conversations, but we did not quite make it. And wow, now we have change—we hope. We have a different Government, and I am hoping that some of the issues raised today will see change actually taking place.
I have come up as 50th in the speaking order, so I have torn up my speech. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, covered much of my ground. I declare an interest as a member of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. She said much of what I was intending to say. There is one topic, which is a bit different, that I wish to draw to the House’s attention and in particular to the attention of my colleague the Minister, to see if I can persuade her fairly quickly to take action.
As the Minister knows, I have been concerned for a long time about sugar, obesity and children. I have been doing quite a lot of work privately on sugar and how we might seek to engage those in the industry that produces our food and drinks. Many of them are demonised for what they do; they are making profits and producing, in effect, rubbish and poison, and they are harming us. But they will continue to produce that food and those drinks. We need to engage—like it or not—with people who do things we do not like. Within those groups, there are people who might have a good heart, and who see that change is needed, that we now have a new government, and are perhaps willing to start exploring whether we can have a different approach.
I tried to persuade the previous Government that we should look at alternatives to sugar and the reformulation of food, and that we should look at more fibre going into food. Their view was that it should be left to the private sector—to industry—to initiate change. Well, the changes have not come. I have been talking to a number of people. I have been in correspondence with companies such as Marks & Spencer. I met Tate and Lyle yesterday, which I met previously to talk about these issues. If we are prepared to invite them in, we might start to get discussions around the table that might lead to a different approach to the previous one.
This country has been falling behind. If you look at what Europe has been doing and the conversations that have taken place with food and drink manufacturers, there has been much more co-operation than we have been experiencing here. They are looking to change legislation and to effect moves that will lead to better quality food. Similar changes are taking place in the United States, which has a great problem with obesity.
I am hoping I might be able to persuade the new Minister for public health and our new Minister here to have a conversation with me about the opportunities for change, which I sense is around. A group of manufacturers is happy to come in and start a conversation. This might lead, with good will on both sides, to getting industry itself to reformulate. Perhaps the companies will need incentives, such as subsidies, rather than simply talking about taxing them. This may be a way they can get involved, so we can truly start to deliver on the big change we need to reduce the growth of obesity in our society.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to the gracious Speech and to have had a chance to hear inspired contributions from so many noble Lords. In particular, I applaud the valedictory speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who will be hugely missed. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on her wonderful maiden speech. I add my welcome to the new Ministers here today and congratulate the new Government on their commitment to give equal attention to mental health as to physical health.
Equal attention means investing equally in the workforce and the NHS estate. It means addressing waiting lists and delayed discharges in mental health services. It means investing in research, in prevention and in the availability of evidence-based therapies. It also means attending to wider societal influences on the mental health and well-being of everyone. That includes an education that prepares each child for their future lives. It includes having a meaningful occupation, a purpose and a sense of truly belonging.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, that believing in people helps them to believe in themselves. I also note the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about employability skills, teamwork, communication skills and the ability to take initiative and responsibility. I would add knowing how to take care of one’s health and well-being. That includes being able to safely manage social media, which is such a huge threat to the mental health of young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, spoke about the importance of protection and support for children, to ensure their best start in life. The roots of good mental health are established in infancy. We know that adverse childhood experiences affect both physical and mental health; ACEs are associated with obesity and mental illness, and having five or more ACEs is associated with a significantly reduced life expectancy, perhaps by as much as 20 years.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill in the last Parliament. I must emphasise the injustices that too many autistic people and people with a learning disability currently experience, often because of wider system failures. NHS data shows that 92% of people with a learning disability and/or autistic people who are in mental health hospitals are detained there, under the Mental Health Act, for an average length of stay of nearly five years. Last year I reported on the lack of a therapeutic environment and on the high levels of restrictions that people may be subjected to, and the traumatic impact of these.
None of the ambitions laid out around improving health outcomes will be achievable without the transformation of social care. We could learn from neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany and Denmark. We could learn from pilots here at home in Tower Hamlets and the Black Country. We could commit to continuing evidence-based programmes such as the national HOPE(S) programme, a person-centred human rights and practice leadership programme whose funding runs out early next year. Since 2022, HOPE(S) has enabled 64 autistic people and people with learning disabilities to leave confinement in a psychiatric hospital, some of whom have been locked in sensory and socially deprived spaces for more than seven years. One in six of those now lives in their own homes in the community. Beyond the human benefits, return-on-investment analysis for HOPE(S) shows that people can be treated with respect and dignity for less money. I hope the Minister will look into the funding needed to continue the national funding for HOPE(S).
The point is that legislation alone is not enough. Investment in culture change programmes such as HOPE(S) and in developing the right community support is essential. Given that, will the Minister outline to the House what plans the Government have to invest in community-based care, including the right social care provision and suitable housing, so that we do not end up with good legislation being hindered by a lack of adequate community support? I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, during the progress of the Bill, and I live in hope.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I too shall underline the role of further education. I declare an interest as a past chair and current fellow of the Working Men’s College and a former chair of the Department for Education stakeholders’ group for the education of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people. May I also say, after my new noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern’s inspiring maiden speech, how good it is to see her in Parliament again, and in one of her many areas of expertise: education?
The nation has voted for change. Adult and further education are essential to change. Closing the substantial gap in our level and spread of skills would go far to achieve the improvement in productivity that we need to fund services, security and well-being. Of course we need investment in technology itself but we need, crucially, investment in people. It is no coincidence that our competitors have better productivity, together with higher status and capacity for technical education. I welcome the comprehensive strategy for post-16 education in the Labour Party manifesto, referred to in the gracious Speech.
The British neglect of technical education is long-standing. Changing it requires a new mindset: parity of esteem in engineering, for instance, valuing design and all the skills which require problem-solving, collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches far more highly, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, noted. We were good at this when our great 18th and 19th-century inventors flourished—though, interestingly, few of them had an elite education—and we remain good at high-level scientific education, invention and discovery. But where technical education kept pace with scholarship on the mainland of Europe, here it lagged, perhaps outgunned by the prestige of classical public school education and ideas about the needs of governing an empire.
In further education, so we have inherited confusion, a welter of qualifications and a failing apprenticeship system. The new comprehensive approach should rely on destination data to monitor that it is getting people into the jobs we need for a modern, high-skill economy.
The personal satisfaction of worthwhile work, cited by our Prime Minister, is also a force for social cohesion. When I was chair of the Working Men’s College, the sense of achievement among students who were retraining, repairing the gaps in their secondary education, or bringing the motivation which moved them to emigrate to the United Kingdom to inspire qualifying for work, brought home how precious personal fulfilment is. Women who had never finished school were able to provide for their families; young men whose school education had left them apathetic and unconfident found their feet in society.
But education think tanks have estimated that a missing third never get on to the skills ladder. Further education can return them to the path to worthwhile work. For that, what goes on in secondary schools is crucial; early careers guidance for all, steering towards examination subjects, the essential ensuring of basic literacy and numeracy to gain entrance to the next stage, bringing back the children who have dropped out—all these are passports to personal fulfilment and economic contribution for the missing third. Can my noble friend assure me that the path to further education will start in schools?
Finally, a shameful reason for dropout is the alienation which comes from discrimination and prejudice. The proportions of some black and minority-ethnic groups who enter and complete further education are far below the numbers of their populations. This is starkly obvious for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support for efforts to tackle their disadvantage. I have been working with the Association of Colleges on a campaign to widen access to all black and minority-ethnic people. Since April, 40 colleges have pledged action, which we shall celebrate in Parliament on 9 September. Will my noble friend join with me in congratulating those colleges and the association on a project which will improve lives and help to power our economy?
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will direct my comments towards the healthcare aspects of today’s debate.
I welcome the mental health Bill, as it is vital and overdue to provide greater needs-based patient care, but I am disappointed that it is the only reference in the gracious Speech to change in the NHS. More reform is required. The reality is that our wonderful NHS is badly broken. While the Labour manifesto promised to build the NHS for the future, there is little sign of that in the gracious Speech. Have the Government abandoned this challenge? I hope not. The NHS model desperately needs cost-saving reform. As we have heard, its huge cost is projected to grow quickly to an astonishing sum, yet it remains short-staffed and with IT systems at breaking point.
There is a list of unnecessary expense items. Health tourism is a good example, blocking beds and filling the diaries of specialists simply to look after those who come from abroad for a short stay to enjoy our world-class standard of medical provision and the fact that it is free at the point of delivery. The “Lagos shuttle”, as many will know, is the aptly named people trafficking equivalent organising medical travel arrangements from west Africa. Yet the NHS seems to do nothing. Hospitals have tried, and some use volunteers, but where is the initiative from senior management across the sector?
Missed appointments are another glaring opportunity. There are thousands of them every week that lengthen delays, yet there appears to be no attempt to penalise those who simply cannot be bothered to turn up. In France, a recent Act of Parliament penalises those who fail to turn up. We could do the same.
Hospital administrators could manage the process of confirming eligibility for free care as a British citizen, yet to us this seems unthinkable—even offensive— whereas most other countries with a national health service manage the process perfectly well. We should make strenuous efforts to prevent such waste.
My comments do not focus on the delivery of service that we as patients receive. The doctors, nurses and all the staff are not at fault. We still enjoy the wonderful level of care and compassion for which the NHS is so famous. Staff at all levels are heroes, but the BMA has referred to staff burnout, junior doctors have taken the last resort of strike action and morale appears to be low.
I conclude with a request to the Minister. The provision of healthcare for those suffering with Huntington’s disease is woefully lacking. It is a neurological condition like motor neurone disease, but unlike MND it has nothing like the profile and public awareness that leads to improved fundraising, research and wider clinical provision. Those suffering from Huntington’s are in a particularly tragic place, as it directly impacts the lives of their children. It is a genetically transferable condition which creates terrible anxiety for those children, who can establish whether they in turn will suffer from it only by testing. The decision whether or not to test is traumatic and immensely stressful. We have centres of excellence, but they are few and far between. There should be a positive drive to replicate this best practice throughout the UK. I ask the Minister to do what she can to improve these facilities.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, as this debate draws to an end, I warmly welcome the newly appointed Ministers to their important new roles. I thank the outgoing Ministers, and commend the two excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today. I particularly commend my noble friend Lady Jolly for her excellent valedictory speech and pay tribute to her outstanding contribution as a Government Whip during the coalition and as a party spokesperson, and in particular the work she does for people with learning disabilities. She will be sorely missed on these Benches and beyond.
Like so many others today, I welcome many of the measures in the gracious Speech and look forward to scrutinising legislation when it comes to this House. There are areas where the measures do not go far or fast enough, and there are some key omissions that I will highlight. My noble friends Lord Storey, Lord Sharkey, Lord Addington and Lady Garden have all talked about education with great expertise. I will focus on health.
I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to improve the NHS, specifically the urgent need to reduce waiting times, focus on prevention and improve mental health provision. I wholeheartedly agree that there is an urgent need for a more preventive model of care, with investment moved upstream; it is crucial if we are to lower waiting times, improve access and reduce health inequalities.
The answer to overcrowded hospitals is not simply more hospitals: the health and care system must be radically refocused to put primary and community care at its core if it is to be effective and sustainable. In my view, this should include new patient-centric integrated services, such as walk-in clinics, diagnostic centres and polyclinics, to improve speedy access, give patients more control, and take the weight off overburdened GPs and hospitals. We also need to use existing hospitals more efficiently. We know that valuable NHS equipment and operating theatres too often stand idle in the evenings and at weekends. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to address this and whether they include bringing in independent clinical teams from outside the NHS?
A more radical shift to a preventive model of care was one of the key findings of the integrated care Select Committee, so expertly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on which I had the privilege to sit. I hope Ministers will take heed of that excellent report and what it recommended. We really do not want to end up reinventing the wheel.
Like my noble friend Lady Walmsley, perhaps my biggest disappointment is the silence on social care. We all know that the current problems in accessing healthcare will never be resolved until social care is fundamentally reformed. There has been talk recently of a royal commission, but no mention of it in the gracious Speech. I wonder whether a royal commission, however well-intentioned, is what we need; I worry that it will simply kick the issue into the long grass. In the last decade, we have seen countless reports, reviews and commissions into social care, but, to the huge frustration of those in the sector and beyond, nothing ever happens. In short, the political will simply evaporates. We know what the problems are and, broadly, we know what needs to happen; we just need to start moving on what will inevitably be a gradual path.
The Government have pledged to establish a fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector and improve working conditions. I welcome that, given that there are over 130,000 vacancies in adult social care. It is certainly to be hoped that measures in the planned employment rights Bill to increase pay and scrap exploitative zero-hours contracts will help to attract and retain more staff, but that will happen only if they are accompanied by commensurate local government funding increases. Will the Government commit to a social care workforce plan to complement the NHS workforce plan?
I turn now to the critical issue of unpaid carers, echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay, published in May, included a commitment to review the implementation of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and examine all the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave. However, the background briefing to the employment rights Bill, published on Wednesday, contained no mention of this. There is a real opportunity here for the Government to move quickly to deliver this review and introduce enabling provisions to ensure that a new right to paid carer’s leave is introduced as part of the Bill. What specific plans are in place to deliver that review and to introduce these enabling provisions?
I greatly welcome the commitment to ensure that mental health is given the same attention and focus as physical health and to modernise the Mental Health Act. To say it is grossly overdue is an understatement, and I understand the scepticism of some in the sector who have heard all these promises many times before, only for nothing to happen. For too long the Mental Health Act has failed people who require mental health care. Racial inequalities in the use of detention, high levels of restraint and the removal of patient autonomy are just some of the problems of the current Act. Introducing a new mental health Bill to reform that Act provides a crucial opportunity to enhance patients’ rights, to strengthen safeguards for those admitted to mental health hospitals, particularly for children placed in inappropriate settings and on adult wards, and to rebalance the system to one that prioritises and promotes the patient’s voice and choice in their treatment.
It is welcome to see the tobacco and vapes Bill reintroduced. We should not forget that, of those people suffering from mental health conditions, more than 40% smoke, compared to just over 12% of the general population.
I declare an interest here as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission, which has not had a mention yet today. Too many people experiencing mental health problems also suffer from financial and digital exclusion. That is why I was so delighted that the Liberal Democrat manifesto included a commitment to introduce a national financial inclusion strategy, including measures such as promoting access to cash, particularly in remote areas, and supporting banking hubs and vulnerable consumers. Could the Minister say what plans the Government have to introduce a comprehensive financial inclusion strategy?
I turn now to children’s mental health. As we have debated so often before, those accepted into child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS, as we know it—are often left waiting for many months, if not years, for treatment, during which time their mental health often deteriorates. It is estimated that only around a third of children with a probable mental health problem are able to access treatment, showing how far away from the parity of esteem with physical health we really are. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans in this area.
I welcome the children’s well-being Bill, particularly the pledge to introduce free breakfast clubs in all primary schools, but I would also like to see an equal focus on promoting children’s mental health at primary school age. The gracious Speech contained a pledge to improve mental health provision for young people, which I very much support, and the Labour Party manifesto committed to providing specialist mental health support for every school, mirroring my recent Private Member’s Bill. Could the Minister confirm whether this will include primary schools, as my recent Private Member’s Bill did? Sadly, it narrowly missed its Third Reading, because the election was called. Leaving it until secondary school is simply too late. Could the Minister say when we can expect to see action on introducing open-access mental health hubs for children and young people in every community?
Finally, I turn to child poverty. We have had some powerful interventions here. I was proud that the Liberal Democrat manifesto contained a pledge to abolish the iniquitous two-child benefit cap. I wish there had been more focus on this and on other elements of our ambitious anti-poverty strategy during the campaign. We have heard the figures today of those in child poverty and the fact that it is going up and that many of those families suffering have had at least one parent in work. We welcome the Prime Minister’s very recent announcement of a child poverty task force, but it is quite clear that the two-child benefit cap is the principal policy contributing to this alarming rise. Could the Minister set out the timetable for the task force reporting and say how quickly we can expect to see action taken on the two-child limit?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I open my remarks with a warm welcome to all noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. The speech of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest was striking both for her modesty about her skills in public speaking and for her very evident compassion and extraordinary achievements through Team Domenica. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her moving valedictory speech, which I gather got her to almost 600 contributions in Hansard in your Lordships’ House.
In particular, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on her maiden speech. She brings not only a lot of experience but relevant experience to your Lordships’ House, and I know that this will be valued by all of us. She and I share some things. Her work with the Jo Cox Foundation focused on loneliness, and I had the privilege to cover that in DCMS. Sadly, there is one important divide between us which I am not sure we will be able to bridge: the noble Baroness clearly has great skills on the dance floor. My ballet report at the end of my first term, aged four, said “Diana has no natural talent”.
I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to her place, and I wish her and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, every success in their new roles. My noble friend Lord Howe once said to me that there are two departments to which every person in the country wants to succeed: one is health and the other is education. They have very special roles.
It struck me, when I looked back over many years at speeches from both the Opposition and the Government in these debates, and at election results, how much commonality of aspiration there has been between different parties on all sides of the House on the issues that we are debating, although we may differ on the ways of achieving those aspirations. That is in part reflected by the legislation in the King’s Speech, as several Bills in this area were part of the previous Government’s legislative plans.
Before I go on to talk about the substance of the King’s Speech and the Government’s proposals, I will make my round of personal thank yous. I am very touched by all the thank yous I have received from your Lordships today, but I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Twycross and Lady Wilcox of Newport, who generated just the right level of anxiety for me, every time I was on the Front Bench, to keep me on my non-dancing toes.
I turn to the legislation, starting with the health Bills. On this side of the House we welcome the decision to progress with the reform of the Mental Health Act. The previous Government undertook very thorough pre-legislative scrutiny and worked hard with families, the mental health voluntary sector, practitioners and parliamentarians to make sure that the legislation would genuinely result in better decisions when someone needs to be detained under the Mental Health Act, in particular—as we heard from a number of your Lordships—when that detention relates to a child. I would be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the noble Baroness could reassure the House that the substance of the Government’s new Bill will reflect the previous Government’s commitments in this area. Understandably, the Government have said that implementation will take place in phases, when there is sufficient skilled workforce to deliver the reforms. When will the Government set out their timetable for implementation?
We also welcome the decision to proceed with a tobacco and vapes Bill, and we agree with many of your Lordships’ comments about the important contribution that this can make to the health and well-being of our nation.
I think I am right in saying that there was an announcement this morning that the Government will proceed with a royal commission on social care. There have been multiple reviews of social care, so it would help the House if the noble Baroness could explain which unanswered questions a new royal commission would focus on and what its timescale is.
On education, there are elements of the children’s well-being Bill that we on this side of the House welcome. In particular, we are pleased to see plans to set up a register for children not in school, which is something that we had wanted to do and spent many hours debating in this Chamber—as my noble friend Lady Berridge said—often ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Soley. We also worked hard behind the scenes to reconcile some strongly felt views in this field, by both home-educating parents and local authorities, as demonstrated by the consultation on elective home education guidance, which closed in January this year and which I hope will prove useful to the new Government as they work on this area.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government intend to look at unregulated settings, but are there plans to look also at the quality of the education children educated at home receive? The scale of that issue has changed out of all recognition since Covid, and of course, every child has the right to a decent education.
Turning to the proposed multi-academy trust inspections, we also recognise the need to return to the basic principle that has underpinned so much of the success of schools in England: that accountability and autonomy are aligned and require high levels of transparency. The growth of multi-academy trusts has meant that, in some cases, accountability via Ofsted inspections has been at a school level while autonomy has been at a trust level. Rightly or wrongly, that has contributed to a sense of unfairness in our inspection system. The previous Government had begun work on this area, and we will offer constructive scrutiny of the new Government’s plans. While the principle of MAT accountability might be clear and simple, the implementation will certainly be complex, with implications for school inspections—which the Government are also proposing to change—for intervention powers and policies, and, not least, for the skill set that will be required of Ofsted to deliver that. Indeed, there is a valid question about whether inspection is the only or best route to achieve accountability.
More broadly, it is hard for us to discern the new Government’s vision for our schools from this Bill. We are genuinely puzzled by the focus on requiring all academies to adhere to the national curriculum: not only is this already the case for the vast majority but, even for the small number who do not adhere to it, the rigour of the Ofsted inspection regime assures the quality of the curriculum being taught in all our schools. Similarly, with close to 100% of teachers holding qualified teacher status, we are puzzled as to why this is a priority and what problem it really seeks to solve.
These measures, together with the duty to co-operate on school admissions and the insistence on annual safeguarding checks, leave us with a sense of a Government who, ironically, trust school teachers and leaders less than their predecessors. Our programme of reform was built on the premise that school and trust leaders were the real experts and that the route to quality, innovation and better outcomes for children was to trust them and give them agency. I fear that the proposed measures in this Bill may constrain some of that.
Turning to skills, the King’s Speech also included the Skills England Bill, which commits, if I have understood it correctly, to replace IfATE with a new body, Skills England. Again, I ask the Minister: what problem are the Government trying to solve with this change? IfATE played a very important—and, we believe, effective—role in putting employers at the heart of skills development. I look forward to hearing in future debates more about how the Government expect their wider reforms of the apprenticeship levy to unfold.
Returning to schools, it will not surprise the Minister that we on this side of the House have real concerns about the proposals to require independent schools to charge VAT on their fees. I would be grateful if she could confirm whether her Government will guarantee funding for all the areas where she has committed to invest the proceeds of the VAT on independent schools, even if it is not raised in full. Also, have the Government analysed the impact on every region of the availability of places in state-funded schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities whose parents can no longer afford private education?
One thing has not changed by moving sides: I have run out of time. I tried in my speech to focus on the legislation that the new Government are bring forward, but there are so many things that I have not had time to cover, including important issues such as teacher recruitment and retention; children with special educational needs and disabilities; the proposed changes to Ofsted; the curriculum; the new Government’s commitment to our capital programmes—particularly for schools affected by RAAC and by the Caledonian Modular problems—the future of the lifelong learning entitlement; and university funding.
We know that many of these issues are interlocking. Changes to the curriculum have implications for inspection, assessment and exams, and changes to the inspection regime have implications for intervention in underperforming schools. So great care will be needed with implementation. That is where the House in general, and these Benches in particular, come in. We will be constructive and always aim to bring fair challenge based on evidence. I hope the Minister recognises the achievements of the last Government, particularly in the area of education, and sees the new Government’s role as one of evolution rather than revolution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a tremendous honour to be closing today’s debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I extend my thanks to His Majesty for his gracious Speech, and to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and questions. On behalf of myself and my noble friend Lady Smith—this one, of Malvern—I also say how much we have appreciated such generous words of welcome and encouragement from across the House. I assure your Lordships’ House that we will always do our best. My noble friend Lady Smith made a fine maiden speech, exhibiting her characteristic intelligence, warmth and skill, which the House will continue to see in her new position on the Front Bench. I served in the other place with my noble friend—it does feel rather like we are getting the band back together.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Markham. He was unfailingly collegiate, professional and caring. I know that I, and all other noble Lords, really valued that. It is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in their places. I have never doubted their commitment to making things better for people. I share in the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that she has indeed earned herself a gold star.
I was glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in his place. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and give special thanks from these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for being such a constructive colleague.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on her maiden speech, and I know that we very much look forward to hearing more from her with her great life experience, as well as her business experience. To the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, we will certainly miss her wisdom and experience, and I wish her and her family many years of happiness and good health.
When I closed this debate the last time on behalf of the Official Opposition, I said:
“I can only hope that the next gracious Speech will be different and will grasp every opportunity for change”.—[Official Report, 9/11/23; cols. 253-55.]
Well, different it is and change there will be. All that we speak of today is against the backdrop of the most challenging circumstances since the Second World War. With no time to waste, therefore, the Chancellor is carrying out an urgent assessment of our spending inheritance and will be presenting the results to Parliament before the Summer Recess, so that the findings can inform every spending decision we make.
It is, like for many others, some 14 years since I served as a Health Minister in the other place. In that time, the challenges before us have widened and deepened. We now have the highest waiting lists and the lowest patient satisfaction, and we have an education system struggling to cope and employers struggling to find the skills they need. All of this is despite the best efforts of the workforce, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. This gracious Speech gives the hope and the means that the next generation will be healthier and better educated than any that has come before.
This has been a debate rich in constructive proposals and comment. It was absolutely marked by the amount of good will towards this new Government from across the Chamber, as people want to see change. Although I am buoyed up by that—in fact, I am rather touched by it—I must say to noble Lords that I promise I will not get used to it. I have also heard the points about what more could be done and what was not in the gracious Speech; I have heard the many valuable questions and challenges. I will reflect on those. Even though I will be unable to refer to all the points in my response today, I hope noble Lords will understand that that nevertheless means that I take their points extremely seriously.
Turning to the two health Bills, like many noble Lords, I am delighted that we are bringing forward a Bill to modernise the Mental Health Act. Through it, patients will be given greater choice, autonomy, enhanced rights and support and we will ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. As the gracious Speech confirmed and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, highlighted, we will ensure that mental health is given the same attention and focus as physical health. Let me tell your Lordships’ House that this was music to the ears of the service users, campaigners and advocates with whom I met and spoke in my first few days in post.
Since the Mental Health Act was introduced in 1983, rates of detention have nearly doubled. Black people are three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Act, while four in 10 people with a learning disability who are cared for in hospital could be cared for in the community. This Act has been languishing on a 40-year waiting list, shaping the lives of people decades after it became law. So I commend the detailed work of the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee, as well as the invaluable contributions by many noble Lords and others to develop this Bill through both the independent review and their absolute persistence and focus. Reform of the Act is long overdue, and we want to legislate as soon as possible while getting the details right.
The tobacco and vapes Bill will give a once-in-a-generation opportunity to end the vicious cycle of addiction to tobacco, which is the number one cause of death, disability and ill health. We will save the next generation from becoming hooked on tobacco and nicotine. Through this legislation, we will introduce a progressive smoking ban to gradually end the sale of tobacco products to those currently aged 15 and below. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that our primary focus will be protecting our children by banning vapes being deliberately branded for and targeted at them.
I turn to the education and skills Bills in the gracious Speech. As my noble friend Lady Smith said, we will transform the life chances for millions of children through not just the health measures in the gracious Speech but the children’s well-being Bill, which will raise school standards and open the doors of opportunity to every child. In bringing free breakfast clubs to every primary school, we want to see hungry minds, not hungry bellies. Breakfast clubs and school meals are about so much more than just food: I have seen them be a magnet for children to play and to learn, including learning how to be with others.
Barriers have stood in the way of young people achieving their potential, holding back individuals, society and economic growth. Skills shortage vacancies have more than doubled between 2017 and 2022 to more than 500,000, and the number of work visas granted increased by almost 80% between March 2022 and March 2024. Setting up Skills England will help us to close both these gaps. Uniting businesses, unions, combined authorities and government will make sure that training programmes are well designed and properly delivered to simplify the skills landscape for businesses and learners alike, ensuring that programmes can deliver the skills that businesses need to drive that all-important economic growth that so many noble Lords referred to. It will also create a formal link between migration data and skills policy, so that we can develop a homegrown, highly skilled workforce and reduce our reliance on migration.
A number of noble Lords raised several questions about T-levels and, more broadly, how we will support the many young people who leave education without the qualifications they may need to get on in life. To my noble friends Lord Knight, Lord Watson and Lady Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I say that qualifications are needed to deliver our mission to boost opportunity for everyone and to make sure that there are no glass ceilings holding back young people in our country. Our priority is to ensure that there are high-quality, accessible qualifications for all young people. T-levels provide a respected qualification for many, and we support their development, but we will be saying more about that soon and about how we will ensure that, where T-levels do not currently provide the necessary access, we do not leave leavers with no viable option.
On the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Aberdare, the Government have indeed already established an independent review of the curriculum. That will seek to ensure that the curriculum provides an excellent foundation, including those necessary digital, oracy and life skills that noble Lords referred to in this debate. It will ensure that it is a broad curriculum, with access to music, art, sport and drama, as well as vocational subjects.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton, Lady Fraser and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, along with other noble Lords, raised the question of support for children, including those with special educational needs, and related that to ending tax breaks for private schools. We are committed to making VAT apply to school fees and ending charitable business rates relief for private schools. These changes will not impact those with a necessary place at an independent school that is funded by a local authority to meet a special educational need. I add that all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and the department will ensure that the state-funded sector has the resources it needs to manage any impact of these tax changes affecting independent schools.
It is important that I remind your Lordships’ House that, in our view, these changes are important to enable investment in the public sector, including for 6,500 more teachers and improved nursery provision. I know that both of those are very much in the hearts and minds of noble Lords across your Lordships’ House. We will engage constructively with the independent schools sector, and we want to see it thrive in this new context. We will work with the Treasury, and I can say to noble Lords that there will be further details in due course.
Turning to the points raised on health and social care, let me openly acknowledge the feeling expressed by this House, including by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Evans, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Tyler, who all spoke of the need to address the challenges in adult social care and asked that it be given the priority it requires. They made the point well that after decades of neglect, these challenges are significant and urgent. We will work with the sector to build consensus on the longer-term reforms needed to create a sustainable national care service. We will make a start by delivering a long-overdue new deal for care workers, ending the constant churn in social care and recruitment challenges. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, and other noble Lords will be pleased to know that we will engage with workers and trade unions to develop the first ever fair pay agreement for care professionals, taking lessons from other countries where that already operates successfully.
On charging reforms, noble Lords will be aware of the commitment that this Government inherit to implement these reforms in October 2025. It has become clear that the health and care systems are going through a more severe crisis than we first thought. The Health Secretary has asked officials to report to him on progress against this as a key priority. I look forward to keeping your Lordships House updated.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on palliative care, I can give the assurance that this Government understand the vital role of hospices and we will ensure that palliative care is both considered and prioritised.
When it comes to the issue of puberty blockers, the decisions this Government take will always be based on evidence and not on politics. The Cass review made it categorically clear that there is not enough evidence about the long-term effects of using puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or beneficial. In response to the Cass review, we are acting to ensure that evidence and safety come first, and that puberty blockers and drugs are available only to those for whom they have been proven to be medically necessary. To ensure that safety is prioritised, we will launch with NIHR and NHS England a clinical trial to ensure that we fully understand the effects of puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence.
I thank noble Lords for their words and their thoughtfulness in emphasising the support that must be provided to individuals who are struggling, and reiterate the sentiment that we must protect safety and act according to the evidence. I also acknowledge that several questions were raised on the conversion therapy ban by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. I can say that a draft Bill will be brought forward to deliver on our manifesto commitment and we will consult all relevant groups.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, my noble friend Lord Brooke and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, rightly highlighted the urgent need to tackle obesity. I can certainly assure my noble friend Lord Brooke that our Government’s approach will be very much about bringing key players around the table to make progress. We know that the NHS spends £11.5 billion every year on illnesses caused by obesity, while costing our society a staggering £74 billion. It is a particular scourge on the poorest in our society and holds back the life chances of children from deprived communities. We will bring forward restrictions on TV and online advertising of unhealthy food to children and we will ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s.
This alone could bring down the number of children living with obesity by some 20,000 and I very much welcome the focus of noble Lords on ensuring we have a preventive approach to obesity. We will ensure that schools can provide a range of different sports and activities in addition to PE lessons, to help more pupils meet the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines of 60 minutes of physical activity per day.
The gracious Speech marks the beginning of a decade of national renewal. It will break the pernicious link between background and success that has defined this country for far too long, so that the next generation can grow up in a Britain where chances in life are defined not by where you have come from but by the possibilities you can receive. The road to get there will be long and doubtless bumpy, but this is a journey on which I hope noble Lords will join us, with their expertise and insight, to improve the quality of people’s lives. In my view, the gracious Speech marks a turning point. I hope we can embrace it and bring about the change we seek.