Grand Committee
(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, in the event of a Division, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes. That is vanishingly unlikely.
NHS: Patients with Allergies
(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that patients with allergies receive timely and comprehensive care from the NHS.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to consider this challenging issue with noble Lords who have kindly put their name down for this debate. I am grateful to the staff of the House of Lords Library for their helpful briefing as well to those charitable organisations that have contacted me with a wealth of useful background information.
At the start, I want to explain where my close interest in this issue arises. My 16 year-old daughter was diagnosed with multiple allergies as a baby. Thankfully, she has grown out of most of them, and I will never forget the astonished smile on her face when, having grown out of her egg allergy, she had her first bite of chocolate cake. Unfortunately, her severe allergy to peanuts has continued, and her father and I have twice seen for ourselves the reality of anaphylaxis, watching helplessly as our daughter suffered. We are fortunate that in all other ways she is a fit and healthy teenager, but every time I read, as we all will have, about the death of a child or a young person from an allergic reaction, I weep for the parents.
We will all have been moved by the tragic story of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died at 15 after an allergic reaction to the sesame seeds hidden inside a baguette. It has been inspiring to see how Natasha’s parents set up a charity to improve the outlook for allergy sufferers in future. In fact, the findings of a pioneering Natasha clinic trial led by researchers at the University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton and Imperial College London are already transforming the lives of some children with severe milk and peanut allergies.
Allergy UK kindly briefed me about the scale of the problem across the country. More than 100,000 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis over the 20 years to 2018, which tells us that an otherwise completely healthy person is more likely than not to be admitted to hospital following an extremely frightening allergic reaction during the course of today’s short debate, and, most distressingly of all, the data shows that the next death from anaphylaxis is likely to happen in less than seven weeks from now. As noble Lords will understand, every such death strikes what I can only describe as terror in a parent’s heart. Noble Lords can imagine what I am feeling when I ask, “Have you got your EpiPens?” every single time my daughter leaves the house.
When my daughter was only a baby, her GP, who was concerned about her eczema, referred her to an allergy research study at Evelina London Children’s Hospital just across the river from here, part of the wonderful Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Both there, and at the trust’s paediatric allergy clinic, she received wonderful care over the next 15 years. I subsequently learned that the trust is a World Allergy Organization centre of excellence, as is Southampton, which demonstrates that England has some of the world’s pre-eminent specialist clinical and research allergy centres.
These specialist centres are few in number and are clustered in the south-east. A child like my daughter, living near to a renowned specialist centre, will have access to cutting-edge research, along with the clinical benefit, while others elsewhere will not have access to even basic specialist services. Even where, as at Guy’s and St Thomas’, children and young people have the chance to get the services that should be available to all, once they start to transition to adulthood, support largely disappears.
Services for adults are very limited indeed. I was amazed to learn that medical training includes only four hours on allergies—contrast that with 46 weeks on gynaecology for all doctors. I certainly do not want that reduced, of course, but I do want allergy training to match it. The amount of research into allergies is pitiful when compared to other health conditions. Wonderful though the work of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is, does it not rather shame us that Natasha’s parents had to persuade food retailers to pay for life-changing research?
I am delighted to learn that the new Government are working on a 10-year national allergy strategy, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to make sure that this is used to increase training and research significantly in future. However, my experience, both as a mother and as a non-executive director in the NHS for 20 years, has brought me to the realisation that there is a yawning gap in the way in which the NHS responds to the needs of those patients who are no longer children but not yet fully adults. The transition from one to the other is challenging in many ways. Teenagers develop independence by taking risks and learning to deal with the consequences. It is important for them to do so; indeed, their brains continue to mature until they are 25.
What does that mean for teenagers with severe allergies? In the absence of effective treatments—I go back to the shortage in both capacity and research—the only way to avoid anaphylactic shock is to minimise the risk: never leaving home without two EpiPens; never eating food that might, for example, have been cooked in peanut oil; and always checking the ingredients of everything that you eat, even—perhaps especially—at a party in someone’s house, where the alcohol may be flowing freely and the lights may be down low.
When my daughter was a young child, she had an anaphylactic shock in hospital as a result of the testing of her condition by the allergy specialist medical team. As her father and I watched on in horror, the consultant who led the team treating her with adrenaline and steroids asked, after she was over the emergency, whether he could borrow my phone for a moment. He calmly took photos of her, pale and silent and not moving on the hospital bed. When we later asked him what on earth he had been doing, he invited us to look ahead to her later, teenage years. When you transition from childhood to adulthood, you do take risks, but having a constant reminder on your phone of the reality of anaphylaxis might just save your life.
In preparing for today’s debate, I have been able to explore this issue with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and, through it, with Dr Claudia Gore at Imperial College Healthcare. As a tertiary allergy service, Imperial continues to treat many young people until they turn 18, but, elsewhere, young people are discharged or referred on to adult services at 16. In the words of the foundation, the result after that is a real “postcode lottery”. Many of the young people with whom Dr Gore works have other comorbidities, including, in many cases, mental health issues such as depression and anxiety and, in some cases, special educational needs and disabilities. These can make it much harder for them to navigate the world safely and manage their allergies appropriately.
This is on top of the fact that adolescence brings all manner of challenges, even without additional medical concerns. Having transition services that understand young people and the changes they are going through in that phase of their life, as well as the move towards independence, would be hugely beneficial in helping them navigate the world as someone with severe allergies. Dr Gore is clear: there is a real lack of age-specific life or support resources for adolescents. So, we need more people with expertise in allergy, but we also need more people experienced in transition as a specialism in and of itself, because helping young people navigate adulthood with a medical condition can play a big role in improving their outcomes.
The phrase that Dr Gore used, which stuck with me, was: “Transfer is an action; transition is a process”. In other words, young people need support to begin preparing for that transition in advance of the move up to adult services, and they continue to need to be supported. She made three other key points. First, there is a real pressure point here for the NHS because lots of young people are approaching the cut-off point at which they will transition into adult services, where specialist allergy care is sorely lacking. Where there is no specialist adult allergy service to discharge to, it typically ends up with GPs, many of whom lack training in allergies. Secondly, there is not enough expertise on healthcare transition and there is a lack of resource on helping young people with allergies with the key life skills that they will need. Thirdly, in view of how common allergy conditions are in the UK, integrated care boards need to have more allergy care in place, possibly operating in a similar way to how asthma care works currently.
So, just as important as more training and research for the new national allergy strategy is the development of an NHS service for patients transitioning from childhood to adulthood. The benefits of specialist health services for those between the ages of 16 and 24, say, could go well beyond sufferers of severe allergies, but where better to start than a condition whose treatment relies completely on persuading those afflicted by it to manage their healthcare and personal risks? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will commit to meeting me, along with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and expert medical advisers, to discuss the way forward.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate—with my horrible squeaky voice—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, on securing this debate today. My concern is not so much adolescents as children.
In my hotel room this week, I was interested to find a card explaining what to do in the case of anaphylactic shock. This suggests to me that the concern about, and the volume of cases of, serious reactions to allergies is on the up, as well as the seriousness with which the hotel group took its responsibility towards its guests. Indeed, that is borne out by the facts: an estimated 21 million people—just under one in three of us in the UK—live with one or more allergies. For most of us, this can be managed and is not severe, but for some it can be life-threatening, as the noble Baroness has said. In the UK, between 1998 and 2018, more than 100,000 people were admitted to hospital for anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. While the number of hospital admissions has increased in recent years, the number of deaths, I am glad to say, has decreased.
Allergy UK advocates three policies to improve NHS services for people who suffer from allergic reactions. The first is to have an allergy nurse and dietician at primary level for each UK health region. That does not seem a huge ask to me but, apparently, there is a postcode lottery for specialist allergy services. Secondly there should be a national register to consolidate patient data across the country and track allergy diagnoses. Clearly, this would enable the identifying of areas where additional services were needed. Thirdly, prescription costs should be removed for those living with allergies to address the additional costs people face when managing their allergies. The estimated total cost is £3,000 per year; I tried to quantify that but had to give up. Suffice it to say that removing at least the prescriptions costs would be a very reasonable thing, because people live with these conditions.
Earlier this week, there was a reception for people interested in allergies by the Benedict Blythe Foundation. Benedict, a little four year-old, collapsed at school and died from anaphylaxis. Helen, Benedict’s mum, whom I met this week, has been campaigning for all schools to have the recommended allergy safeguards in place. Teachers need to be able to manage the average one to two pupils with an allergy in each class, but many feel underprepared to be able to deal with a child experiencing an anaphylactic reaction. Every teacher should feel prepared. Every parent delivers their child to the care of the school every schoolday. Surely it is the duty of the school to take care of the health and well-being of that child above all else and to hand them back to the parent at the end of the day as fit and healthy as when they went in. After all, if an individual hotel room can have a notice explaining what to do in the case of an anaphylactic reaction, should not all teachers who care for the children of others have that basic knowledge too?
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Allergy.
Allergy can be a life sentence. There is an epidemic which is going unnoticed. An estimated one-third of the UK population live with allergies, but the number of people living with serious food allergies more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, with the largest increase seen in young children. Symptoms vary, but in the most serious cases reactions can be life-threatening and, in heartbreaking incidents, lead to death.
I commend the work of allergy charities which campaign to raise awareness and offer advice to those caring for and those living with this life-threatening condition. I support Anaphylaxis UK and champion Allergy UK in its call for an allergy nurse and dietician at the primary care level within every integrated care system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has already mentioned.
The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, which was set up by her parents following her tragic death, has campaigned for better food labelling and now plans to launch a new education programme which will provide free resources to nurseries and primary schools so that children with allergies are safe and can participate fully in the classroom. I congratulate the Times on choosing the foundation as part of its Christmas charity appeal.
There is growing concern about the safety of children with allergies in school, and the recent report sponsored by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, reveals that many schools still do not have an allergy policy in place, despite a legal requirement to do so. Almost half of schools do not hold their own life-saving medication, and too many staff remain untrained to administer them.
It cannot be left to charities alone to deal with the allergy crisis; the Government have a key role to play, and I want to turn to the recommendations in the report Meeting the Challenges of the National Allergy Crisis produced by our APPG and the National Allergy Strategy Group. These include an allergy tsar, or lead, who can ensure that the national allergy strategy is implemented across government. It has followed several other key reports in the last 20 years, and all have consistently highlighted how allergy remains poorly managed across the NHS due to a lack of training and expertise.
There is a need for significant improvement in specialist services, as well as improved knowledge and awareness in primary care. With 5 million people living with severe conditions requiring specialist care, hospital admissions due to allergies are rising, and prevalence rates for allergy in the UK are among the highest in the world, especially among the young, yet specialist services delivered by paediatric allergists are available to only a minority of those with serious disease. There is a postcode lottery of care. The complexity and severity of allergy is placing a huge strain on the NHS, made worse by the small number of consultants in adult and paediatric allergy and the lack of training for GPs, who remain the front-line service for children and adults suffering reactions. Can the Minister give an update on whether this is being addressed in the NHS workforce plan?
Our report proposed a minimum of 40 additional training posts for allergy, as well as a minimum of four consultant adult allergists and two paediatric allergists in every major teaching hospital and large conurbation. It also called for all GPs and healthcare professionals in primary care to have knowledge of allergic disease, both in initial training and ongoing professional appraisal. Each GP practice should have a health visitor and/or a practice nurse trained in allergy support. As most patients are still managed in primary care, this is where resources should be placed. Local health commissioners should understand the allergy needs of their population and ensure access to adult and paediatric consultants.
I was shocked to read in the Lancet this September that people from lower-income areas were least likely to be prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors. As a mother of an anaphylactic son, I know how vital it is to carry these life-saving devices. I welcome the Government’s commitment to allow the Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, established in 2023, to continue to identify priority areas for improving the quality of life of people with allergies. I look forward to the outcome of the National Allergy Strategy Group’s consultation to produce a much-needed 10-year strategy to address the issue of allergy in the UK.
In conclusion, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can give a positive reply to the many calls for the Government to appoint a national allergy lead this year.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath for this debate and for such an excellent introduction. I associate myself with every point made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and my noble friend Lady Healy. There is a strong view, from those who have some understanding of this matter, on the need to take significant action to upgrade where we are.
I state my interest, which is pretty similar to many others in that I am the father of two children who have allergies—one to a much more severe extent. I feel acutely that we were incredibly fortunate, when first finding out that one had a severe allergy, that we were in the unusual circumstance of having adequate medical care to support him. I always worry what would have happened if we were not in such a position at that stage, and I am sure that is the terror many parents experience when they first find out.
In this country, there has been a massive increase in allergies, for a variety of reasons, as research has shown. The extent to which this condition has increased—including hospital stays for severe incidents, which has gone up to 25,000 according to recent data—is a matter of not inconsiderable concern. Many points have been made, but I will say that, in relation to NHS provision, for anyone who has gone through this process, the system, in moving from children to adolescents to adults, is really not clear. More importantly, it is distorted around different parts of the country, as is the provision of specialist care, and it is extremely difficult for GPs to manage this. We have to rethink how we do that.
We also have to consider more carefully the situation with autoinjectors. It was only a short while ago that the UK was out of provision of the most significant autoinjector. We had to buy one which was not allowed in many other countries because it was ineffective. Even today it remains a very significant issue, in many circumstances, that the injectors either fail or are inadequate for the situation. That comes down on many occasions to needle size and the size of body that it has to go into. The Government really have not taken enough into consideration on what we should do on autoinjectors, and I urge them to do so.
It is important that the Government increase their work with industry. We saw in the tragic case of Natasha how Pret a Manger responded extremely well. There are willing partners out there and the Government could play a crucial role with them. There are many location-specific issues, such as the provision of autoinjectors on airlines and trains, and as illustrated by the Benedict Blythe Foundation, which has done tremendous work on this, the most significant location outside a home is school, so we need to make sure we have all the right provisions there.
On some of the treatments, desensitisation therapy can be effective, but we have woefully inadequate provision for it on the NHS, and, even then, it is geographically specific. There is still an awful lot yet to do. The work of some of the organisations, such as the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, in advocating for some of these courses has been groundbreaking, as has its research. I too am very pleased that it has been selected again for the Times this year.
Underlying that, the idea of introducing a tsar is essential and one the Government must give serious consideration to, simply because of the range of things that are needed through the entire journey that someone—and their parents—facing an allergy will go through. Having something that connects it is essential, and if there was one thing that I wish the Minister would take away from this discussion, it is understanding that piecemeal measures will be insufficient. We need something which will shepherd this as we face an ever-increasing demand on dealing with allergies across the NHS and, if something was to be done, then appointing a tsar would be an extremely welcome addition.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this short debate on this important subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath on obtaining the debate and on her excellent opening speech, and I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn.
It is a surprising fact that one in three people in the UK live with allergies—perhaps it will not surprise any of us in the Room now, having heard the opening speeches. I am one of those 21 million people, as I have a number of food allergies or intolerances, which have increased over the last 30 years. My allergies are not as serious as the ones that cause an anaphylactic reaction, but they do affect day-to-day living, as I have to avoid wheat gluten, rich dairy products and—at this time of year perhaps the most difficult exclusion—chocolate.
Avoiding allergens in products at home has become a little easier. Thirty years ago. it was very hard to avoid wheat, which is often in many products with ingredients labelled as starch but which is often wheat starch. I learned to cook with different flours, as I am sure every parent with a child with allergy learns to do, but they often had to be bought at health food shops. Now, large supermarkets have a section for “free from” or “made without” products and stock a range of gluten-free flours. At this point, it is worth explaining to those who are not in this world that these products are very expensive indeed. Small loaves cost more than £3, and many of the flour products are very expensive, so the point made about low-income families is very pertinent.
However, the most difficult aspect of day-to-day living with allergies is avoiding allergens in food when eating out, including at work and at school, buying food when travelling or on holiday and buying food from takeaways, because in that situation you have to rely on a shop selling food knowing which ingredients are in the products. It relies on chefs, kitchen staff, waiters and baristas playing their part in faithfully recording requests to avoid allergens and passing that information on to the staff preparing food or drinks, but that does not always happen.
An article in the Times highlighted that more than 50 young people, including a child of nine, have died in less than a decade as a result of severe allergic reactions to food or drinks bought in restaurants, cafés, shops or schools. We have heard in a number of colleagues’ speeches about Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who died aged 15 after eating a Pret a Manger sandwich which contained sesame. As we have heard, her parents have campaigned on the issues in her case and been told of many deaths of other young people—almost all of which, it seems, were avoidable. They were shocked to hear of so many avoidable deaths. Her father Nadim said:
“When Natasha was growing up we didn’t know any other parents whose children were food-allergic and she was the only one in her primary and secondary school … Then we received thousands of letters when it became public from people who said, ‘We fear every day what happened to your child will happen to ours’”.
He also said that the common themes in the stories they were told by parents included a lack of understanding among catering staff about allergies and how serious they can be, or a human error meaning that they were given the wrong food product.
As we have heard, Natasha’s parents’ campaigns have been focused on two areas: Natasha’s law, an important measure that came into force in 2021, tightening legislation to force outlets that package their own food products on-site to provide a full list of ingredients on the labels, with any of the top 14 allergens, including milk, nuts, eggs and sesame, highlighted; and, as we have heard, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is funding a £2.7 million immunotherapy trial across six hospitals that aims to gradually desensitise patients to their allergens through everyday foods. On the number of cases, it is worth saying that, as an MP, I had two local cases within one year of young people who tragically died after eating food containing allergens, despite in both cases the young person or their parents describing their allergies and being assured by waiters and serving staff that the food they were eating was safe for them.
Allergy UK tells us in its excellent briefing that 62% of people with allergies say it affects all aspects of their lives, and I am sure all of us who are contributing here can appreciate that, but among adults with anaphylaxis 40% experience post-traumatic stress disorder because, as my noble friend Lady Ramsey said earlier, it strikes terror in parents’ hearts. Allergy UK also tells us that, despite hospital admissions for people with allergies being 615% up in the last 20 years and rising sharply among children, we have only 40 specialist allergists in this country. As we have heard, specialist services are not well spread across the country; the pattern is distorted. The NHS underutilises preventive strategies such as early allergen introduction; and treatments like immunotherapy have been rejected due to perceptions of the high short-term cost, despite the fact that immunotherapy drastically reduces the high cost of future emergency admissions and hospitalisations.
I join Allergy UK in hoping that the Labour Government may be more receptive to preventive strategies, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on any possible new preventive strategies for allergies. I also ask my noble friend to look at the call from Allergy UK for the Government to introduce a specialist allergy nurse and dietician at primary care level within every integrated system. With 21 million people living with allergies and so many avoidable deaths of young people and hospitalisations due to allergens, I hope the Government can agree to look at the gaps in allergy management within primary care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for introducing this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, whom it is a pleasure to follow, for bringing this issue to life with personal stories that go beyond the statistics and bring home exactly what we are talking about today.
Allergy services in the UK are at a critical juncture. As my noble friend Lady Burt said, with more than 21 million people affected, allergies are no longer a niche issue. They represent a public health issue, from life-threatening anaphylaxis to chronic conditions such as allergic eczema. These conditions profoundly impact individuals, families and the NHS yet, despite this growing prevalence, the UK’s allergy care system remains inadequate. The Government must act to bridge these gaps and create a robust, equitable allergy care framework, with the Government and the NHS at the helm of these reforms.
Let us acknowledge the scale of the problem. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have increased by 615% in the past 20 years. As other noble Lords have said, shockingly, there are only 40 specialist allergists; that is one for every 525,000 patients. For patients, this translates into a postcode lottery of care, with many waiting more than 18 months for appointments. Primary care also faces significant challenges, with most GPs lacking adequate allergy training. This leads to unnecessary referrals, misdiagnosis and poorly managed conditions. The strain is particularly acute for children and young adults. Food allergies, which can be fatal, are rising sharply in children, yet there is a severe lack of specialist support during the critical transition from paediatric to adult services, as other noble Lords have said. What priority will the Government put on these transition services?
The gaps in care are not just a human tragedy; they are an economic burden as well. Allergy care costs the NHS more than £1 billion annually in emergency admissions, prescription costs and referrals. Addressing this crisis requires systematic change, not piecemeal change, with the Government and NHS having to play pivotal roles. I ask the Minister: what will the NHS do urgently to expand the workforce? This includes increasing the number of specialist allergists and immunologists, as well as training GPs and nurses in allergy management.
A promising model was demonstrated in a pilot project by Allergy UK, where nurse-led clinics reduced waiting times from 18 months to just four to eight weeks. Some 95% of cases were managed successfully in primary care, saving not just lives but costs. What is the Government’s view on this pilot being rolled out nationally? Additionally, the Government should allocate targeted funding to recruit and train more allergy specialists.
Investing in allergen immunotherapy services is also critical. Although they are costly up front, these treatments prevent severe reactions and reduce long-term healthcare expenses. As many other noble Lords have said, we need to appoint a national allergies tsar or clinical director to lead a co-ordinated strategy. This role would oversee data collection, resource allocation and policy implementation—and, to put it bluntly, it would knock heads together to make sure that action happens. What is the Government’s view on appointing such a clinical director, and is there a timeframe for doing that?
Empowering primary care is vital to reduce pressure on specialist services. This can be achieved by embedding allergy-trained nurses and dieticians in every integrated care system, as other noble Lords have said. These professionals would manage routine cases, leaving specialists to handle the more complex ones. Where will the move from hospital care to community care fit in within the 10-year plan?
The absence of robust reporting systems for allergic reactions is another glaring gap. A mandatory near-miss reporting system for anaphylaxis, akin to the system in place in Australia, would allow us to identify emerging risks and act upstream. Will the Government look at such a mandatory near-miss reporting system?
Lastly, we must focus on prevention. Early allergen introduction and proactive eczema management in children have been proven to reduce lifelong allergy risks, yet these strategies remain underutilised. Will the Government prioritise funding for education campaigns and preventive measures? Improving allergy services is not just about saving lives; it is about improving the quality of life for millions of people. By investing in specialist care, empowering primary care and adopting preventive strategies, we can take important steps to transform allergy care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for securing this important debate, as well as for having some discussions before the debate so that I could better understand the issue. I am also grateful to the House of Lords Library for its briefing and to others who have sent briefings.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, spoke passionately about their personal experiences as parents, and especially about the care that patients with allergies receive during the transition from childhood to being considered adults. I myself know family members whose children decided to go to a local university rather than go elsewhere because they knew that their local hospital had the best treatment and were not sure what the treatment would be like if they moved to another university town. Other noble Lords have alluded to a postcode lottery.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said that such stories bring the statistics to life, but it is really important for us to talk about numbers. I read one report, I think by ITN, which said that 44% of adults in the UK have at least one allergy, but that includes asthma; other noble Lords have said it is one in three. Whatever the figure, it is far too high. We have seen, as the medical journal the Lancet has found, that the rate of food allergies has increased over the past decade. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, also mentioned that.
Plenty of those with allergies can continue to live normal lives, but there are an ever-increasing number of people whose allergies are debilitating. They cannot eat certain foods, and they are unable to use certain medications. They must constantly scan the list of ingredients of the food they wish to eat, either by reading the small print on labels or accessing companies’ or third-party websites, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said, they have to pay more for gluten-free or other foods according to their dietary requirements.
This may seem obvious, but food is one of humankind’s basic needs. It is an integral part of our daily lives, and so it is only right that we take the necessary steps to help those with allergies. It was reassuring to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the advice that was in her hotel room should you encounter someone suffering a severe allergic reaction. The question is how we spread that from hotel rooms to schools and more places.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, spoke about the sad story of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who tragically died in 2019 due to anaphylactic shock. Her case led to the so-called Natasha’s law, requiring all foods to carry a list of ingredients. I am proud, and I am sure that noble Lords are grateful, that swift action was taken by the previous Government. Indeed, it is a measure that has since helped countless sufferers of allergies to understand the food that they are consuming and the harms that they may cause.
We know, however, that more needs to be done. It is therefore welcome that the new Government are developing an allergy strategy. But what of the National Health Service’s role? As noble Lords will be aware, before the general election, Allergy UK published a list of steps that it wanted the new Government to take. As the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, has said, one proposal was that there should be an allergen specialist or dietician at the primary care level—the rationale behind this being that it would allow those with allergies to access specialised care, no matter where they may live. This seems a common-sense proposal, since it would enable those living with serious allergies to seek help with managing their allergies early in the process of diagnosis so that they can have a better quality of life and are not unnecessarily constrained by their allergies.
Noble Lords will also understand that there are resource constraints and that the Government of the day have to consider carefully where they allocate taxpayers’ money, given competing demands. I want to reassure the Minister that I understand from my time as a Minister the difficulties due to resource constraints and, sometimes, the practicalities of implementation, but that does not stop noble Lords asking the questions. Is this a policy idea that has been discussed within her department and with the NHS to work out its feasibility? I would be grateful for her assurances.
Like other noble Lords, I too wonder what more can be done within existing NHS structures. Some of the information is there, but how do we spread it nationally from ICB to ICB? How do we get it into schools? How do we get it beyond the hotel rooms? How do we make more people aware, so that when it is announced on a flight that nuts will not be served on a flight because someone has an allergy we avoid the collective groan and hear more understanding of those who suffer from these conditions?
Can the Minister explain what plans there are for all clinicians, including in primary care, secondary care and accident and emergency departments, as well as for other hospital employees, to be suitably trained and made aware of how to deal with patients who have serious allergies, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, alluded to? Has any thought been given to an allergy tsar, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned? What safeguards are in place to ensure that no one with allergies slips through the net and is administered medication that contains ingredients they should not take? The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about preventative strategies. What explicit preventative strategies are the Government and the NHS considering?
I know that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for securing this important debate and we look forward to the Minister’s responses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Ramsey not only on securing this highly relevant debate but on shining a light on this important matter. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions, which were given through experience and with empathy.
As noble Lords have observed, there has been a significant rise in hospital admissions for anaphylaxis over the last two decades and it is clear how increasingly significant this matter is. That means that it is incumbent on us to lift our commitment to improving outcomes.
Anyone with an allergy, and anyone close to somebody with an allergy, knows only too well the considerable challenges and risks in everyday life, as we have heard. Very sadly, there are tragic cases of those who die from severe allergic reactions that could have been prevented. On behalf of all noble Lords, I give my heartfelt condolences to those who have lost a loved one because of a severe and sudden allergic reaction.
I thank my noble friends Lady Ramsey and Lord Mendelsohn for speaking about their children’s allergies and their experiences as parents. I also thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for making reference to her own experience. Noble Lords understand just how serious allergies can be, and the worry and anxiety, rooted in reality, that parents and loved ones feel. I too want to pay tribute to then outstanding charities that support people living with allergies in the UK, including Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. They all do vital work in raising awareness, providing information and support, and funding research.
Work is ongoing across government, the NHS, voluntary organisations and patient representative groups to consider how allergy care and support could be improved. Noble Lords made reference to the Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which was established last year, met again just last week and continues to bring together all key stakeholders in order to inform where we go next. I am most grateful to that group.
In addition, last year the MHRA launched a safety campaign to raise awareness of anaphylaxis and provide advice on the use of adrenaline autoinjectors, which have also been mentioned in the debate. A toolkit of resources for professionals to support the safe and effective use of AAIs has also been produced, along with new guidance on their use. The guidance clearly states that prescribers should prescribe two AAIs to ensure that patients always have a second dose available.
I am very pleased that Palforzia, a new treatment for peanut allergy, was approved by NICE in 2022 for those up to 17 years old to help reduce the severity of allergic reactions. The NHS is now legally required to fund this medication for eligible patients, in line with the recommendations of NICE. That means it is opening up a way for thousands of children and young people to access the medication through the NHS.
This Government are committed to improving care for people with allergies and ensuring that they get the care and support they need at the right time and access to the latest treatments. I am aware of the inequalities that my noble friend Lady Ramsey referred to in accessing allergy services. I very much acknowledge the points raised by noble Lords, particularly in respect of the workforce, delays to treatment and care, and lack of information and support that some patients have unfortunately experienced. I consider that to be a situation that cannot continue.
Noble Lords have referred today to the 10-year health plan to reform the NHS, and I am glad that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the move from treatment to prevention. It is also about moving healthcare from hospital to the community, as well as analogue to digital. A core and central part of our 10-year plan will be the workforce, as referenced correctly by my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, among others. In our work to prepare for the workforce that we need now and in future, it is vital that we train and get the right staff, technology and infrastructure in place. In acknowledging the points made, I absolutely recognise the need for a multidisciplinary-team approach in this area. That will be part of our considerations.
I remind the Committee that this Government have made a commitment that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment within the first term of this Government. That includes those waiting for allergy treatments. As a first step towards this, following the Budget, we will be delivering an additional 40,000 appointments this week to cover operations and scans and appointments themselves.
With regard to the point about the national lead on allergy services, I understand that there is a need to do more, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, my noble friends Lord Mendelsohn and Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I am absolutely aware that there is no national lead with overall responsibility for allergy services, and of the reasons why noble Lords have raised it. My colleague Minister Gwynne is putting this under active consideration and I will certainly ensure that I raise not just this point, which has been made so regularly to him, but the other points raised in this debate. I will also raise with him the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to rolling out a pilot.
On the point about a meeting, raised by my noble friend Lady Ramsey, I am glad to say that Minister Gwynne met the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation just last week to discuss how care and support can be improved. The department is obviously working closely with Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director at NHS England, and, as I said, there is active consideration of the point about a national lead. I will alert my honourable friend Minister Gwynne to the point about further meetings.
Once diagnosed, and with a management strategy in place—my noble friend Lady Healy spoke to this point —patients with allergies may be able to be cared for through routine access to primary and secondary care. The Royal College of GPs has added allergy training to the new curriculum and, to support existing GPs, it has developed an allergy e-learning resource. As noble Lords will know, this Government seek to bring back the family doctor, especially for those who would benefit from seeing the same clinician regularly; obviously, that includes those with allergies.
On the transition from paediatric to adult services, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, I absolutely acknowledge the challenge there. NICE has published guidance on the transition that we are speaking about, including recommendations on transition planning, support both before and after the transfer, and the development of transition infrastructure.
I turn to some of the additional points made in the debate; I will be pleased to write to noble Lords on the ones that I do not answer. My noble friend Lady Ramsey mentioned research. Research into allergies is funded through NICE—no, it is not. It is funded through the NIHR; I am on it. It always welcomes funding applications. We have also invested in research infrastructure; for example, Southampton Hospital is participating in a three-year trial funded by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.
My noble friends Lady Ramsey and Lady Healy, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to a strategy on allergies. Let me clarify the situation: the National Allergy Strategy Group is developing a strategy, which will come to the department. We will consider it, and its recommendations, carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, mentioned appropriate provision in schools in order to protect children with allergies. The Department for Education recently reminded schools of their legal duties and highlighted the Schools Allergy Code. Regulations now allow schools to obtain and hold spare adrenaline autoinjectors, and there is guidance on that.
On the important matter of prevention, as noble Lords will know, we are committed to moving from treatment to prevention. Some research shows that feeding the most common allergy-causing foods to babies and infants before the age of 12 months may prevent or reduce the chance of them developing food allergies. We will continue to look at that.
I am most grateful for this debate, which has shone an important light on this issue. I can commit to us continuing to work on this matter to improve things for those who suffer from allergies and those who are near to them.
Prisons: Imprisonment for Public Protection
(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to reduce the size of the Imprisonment for Public Protection prison population following the publication on 15 November of the HMPPS Annual Report on the IPP Sentence.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise for my germy little self. I will try not to infect anybody else.
This is a bittersweet moment for me. It is great to see the measures that we fought for so hard for in the Bill come to fruition, but in my heart I know that it is all based on the faulty premise that all these prisoners could achieve release if they jumped through all the hoops and tried hard enough for long enough. Imagine an engine that was fundamentally flawed in its design, so much so that it was discontinued, and no more parts were made after 2012. For some reason, we are refusing to scrap that faulty engine, and many of the parts that might have worked initially are now falling apart or are irreparably damaged. If we were talking about a real engine, we would scrap it, but we are not talking about a real engine, are we? We are talking about human beings whom we have irreparably damaged by trying to fit them into the maw of a machine that has torn them apart in the process.
The $50,000 question is, if we are not going to do a resentencing exercise, what is the alternative? Further fiddling with a broken system is not going to do it. The prison system is, to extend the engine analogy, running dangerously hot at 97% capacity. Perhaps we should not expect too much until after the sentencing review and the introduction of a culture that is radically different from the “throw away the key” mentality.
I commend everyone who has worked so hard to produce this report, and the people who work tirelessly within the proverbial machine to keep it limping along. The report is seven months late. Even though it was completed in April this year, it was not released until November. Various reasons have been given, but with changes moving apace—we hope—it would be good to know what further progress has been made since April. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was particularly keen to ask this question had he been able to be here today.
There is a lot of information to digest, but also questions that, with hindsight, I wish I had asked before. On access to and the quality of the courses, I am still getting reports not just that prisoners cannot find the courses they need but that the courses are often not fit for purpose. I have been told that half of prisoners cannot access courses. With the system running at capacity, this is unsurprising, so my first question to the Minister is, what is the average waiting time for each course recommended for each prisoner? What work has been done to assess the effectiveness of these courses?
My next point concerns sex offenders. Four hundred and sixty-five IPP sex offenders have never been released, although some of the initial offences were fairly low level. I know that the Secretary of State before last had a policy of turning down every IPP prisoner sentenced for a sexual offence who had been deemed fit for parole by the Parole Board. Here, the Catch-22 of proving that you are not going to reoffend by doing something you have had no opportunity to do really kicks in. This will not do, but I do not know whether any special measures are being taken to fit sex offenders into whatever passes for acceptability for release. If the answer is obvious, and I did not read the report well enough, perhaps the Minister will write to me and not waste further time.
On reasons for recall, are there any figures available for this? From the report, it seems that the number of recalls has been pretty steady in the past six years or so. I would have hoped that the numbers would have decreased following discussions we have had with the Probation Service, which says that reasons such as turning up late for a probation meeting are now much more tolerantly treated, rather than simply returning IPP prisoners to prison. Is it fair to ask that question now when improvements are promised? Yet individuals and organisations have said that these reasons persist. The mean time on recall has more than doubled since 2015. One would hope that the new focus on IPPs will now cause that figure to drop dramatically.
On reconviction rates, this—of all figures—indicated to me what is wrong with the overly risk-averse approach to the IPP sentence and the treatment of IPP prisoners. Only 0.5% of IPP prisoners released were subsequently convicted of a serious further offence. I do not have access to this figure, so will the Minister say, from the current figures available to him, what percentage of “ordinary” prisoners convicted of a serious further offence were reoffenders? In other words, what percentage of normal prisoners—whatever a “normal” prisoner is—reoffended with a serious offence? I bet my bottom dollar it is more than 0.5%.
Is it not time to abandon this risk-averse approach and to change the culture that blames probation and parole services for failure and congratulate them on all the difficult work that they do? Nobody can get it right all the time, unless we keep every offender in prison—we are doing quite a good job of that at the moment. Do we not need a more realistic, balanced approach, a bit more like the one we give to ordinary prisoners today? The system works, to a degree, and, as far as can be managed without omnipotence, without locking up some people for life on the off chance that they might reoffend. There are prisoners dying of cancer, confined to wheelchairs, who are still serving an IPP sentence. Shall we build a bit of compassion into this wonky, dysfunctional machine of ours or, better still, design something else which is less likely to turn an IPP sentence into an actual life sentence? I welcome the PMB introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and I will strongly support it when it comes before the House. If not resentencing, we still need an alternative to the dysfunctional system that we have.
I look forward to the contributions of other noble and noble and learned Lords who know a lot more than I do and to the response of the Minister, who is very much put upon to deliver messages that we are not always minded always to hear.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real honour and privilege to follow the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and to speak in such an important debate. I thank the noble Baroness for asking the Government this key question and for never giving up on the fight for justice for the thousands of people serving IPPs.
The annual report, which we are dealing with now, and the action plan are worthy and well-considered documents; there is no doubt about that. But what is missing is any recognition that the IPP sentence itself is a form of torture—at least according to the United Nations. Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I believe that resentencing is the only way to end this torture.
The chair of the Justice Committee in the other place, Andy Slaughter MP, recently wrote to Ministers warning that
“the Government may have misunderstood the Committee’s original recommendation on resentencing”.
Ministers keep saying that resentencing would mean mass release with no supervision, but Mr Slaughter is clear that
“resentencing would not mean the automatic release of all IPP prisoners”.
Legislating for suitable supervision to manage risk will of course be necessary and indeed wanted by many of those in the system.
Mr Slaughter’s letter ends by encouraging Ministers, as we do, to consider again establishing an expert panel to explore options for IPP resentencing, balancing
“the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender”.
Despite the Prisons Minister’s concerns in last month’s debate, I do not believe that this would give “false hope” to IPP prisoners—not if the Government made clear that there was no commitment to resentencing at this stage but, instead, a commitment to consider the matter further. The expert advisory panel would be there to do just that by giving its expert advice to the Government on what a resentencing exercise, with public protection at its heart, could look like.
Ministers also claim that they are opposed to resentencing because they do not want to overrule or usurp the role of the Parole Board. That sounds reasonable at first, but, last week, an Answer to a Written Question submitted by Kim Johnson MP revealed that, since July, the new Government have refused to follow the Parole Board’s recommendations on the transfer or release of IPP prisoners more than 45% of the time. That is scandalous. Without wishing to sound cynical, some might say that the Government seem happy to hide behind the Parole Board when it suits them but to ignore its advice when it does not.
In finishing, I urge the Government to cut through the politics, to let Parliament solve the problem that Parliament itself created over 20 years ago, and to allow a free vote on resentencing in both Houses. This must be the fairest way to reduce the size of the IPP prison population, carefully balancing public protection with the principles of justice and mercy.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for bringing this Question to our attention. It is almost impossible to improve on the passion and commitment that she showed in her speech, despite her struggling with a cold.
There has been improvement in the last couple of years. These poor prisoners are receiving a great deal more attention than was the case a few years ago. There are no bad people involved in this problem: everybody involved in it is trying to make it better. That goes for Ministers, officials, the speakers in the Room, the Commons Justice Committee and so on. Everybody wants to make it better. I fully respect the commitment and seriousness of the officials, particularly at the MoJ, who are trying to make the action plan work. But, in the end, there is a failure to grasp politically that, for a plan to work, it needs an objective. What is lacking in this plan is a clear notion of what success would look like. What are we aiming to achieve?
As far as prisoners who are out on licence are concerned, the great advances made through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024—it received Royal Assent just before the Prorogation of Parliament—are now being implemented by the new Government. I hope that that will help to deal with the issue of prisoners who are out on licence and that, in a sense, that issue will start to go away over time.
The problem is IPP prisoners who are actually in prison and, in particular, those who have never been released. I would say that an action plan should have as its objective the reduction of that number to zero—it has to be a reduction of that number to zero. At the moment, 11 have not served their full tariff, so perhaps we should say that, today, success would look like reducing that number to 11, but that is not a target in the action plan—that is not what it aims at. I am not sure what the action plan does aim at, except to make the system, which is very clunky and difficult—the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to this—work somewhat more smoothly and to try to make it join up. It will always leave this dilemma that the Parole Board will act according to the same criteria that will apply in every case, as far as the protection of the public is concerned, but with no recognition of the injustice done to these prisoners.
There will be a number—possibly we would all agree that there will—who will probably never be safe to release. Do the Minister’s officials have an estimate of that number or of its scale? I have reason to think that they have made such an estimate, but it is for him to say. We are now coming to the point where we will have to grapple with that figure and those people, because as you move people out of prison, perhaps for the first time, it gets harder and harder to carry on doing so. You will come to the people who will not pass this test. Do we have an estimate of that number? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is very committed on this issue, but I have not yet heard senior Ministers in the Commons start to express, and say things about, that mindset that shows that they now regard these people as victims rather than offenders.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, at the election we were promised change, and we constantly hear that that is the mantra of the Government, but what is fascinating is that this Government have carried on the same approach to IPP as the last one. It was a small and mealy-mouthed attempt at a little measured movement, but actually nothing dynamic. The same sense of risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to persists with this so-called changed Government. What is the change that has taken place on IPP sentencing? It is a complicated and convoluted system of changed possible tariffs, but, as this report indicates, for those who can possibly understand what it means, it does not really work. As one who visits prisons at least three times a month, I can tell you, from talking to IPP prisoners, that they do not understand it. They do not get it and they feel a deep sense of despair.
We learned today, from reporting by both the BBC and Sky, that President Assad held 100,000 people in prison. Yesterday, this Government announced that they want to hold 109,000 people in prison. What does that say about us? Exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, it says that our inclination and the culture is to entrap people and, effectively, persecute them. At the moment, according to the House of Lords Library, two-thirds of those on IPP sentences have never been released for over 10 years. If any of us were put in the same position—held for a 10-year sentence and then another 10 years—would we be fit for training? Would we have the right approach? Would our minds be ready for release? We would be screwed up—and the Government want to pretend that this equals change. It does not; it equals sitting back and giving in to the panic of the public. In a way, the Minister needs to look to his army of civil servants around him, who I am sure are very wise but not very risky, because they are not inclined to meet real people and understand how they feel and deal with it.
Unlike the Secretary of State, who was pictured yesterday rushing around prisons with officers around her to protect her from meeting offenders, I really sit with them. What I hear from real offenders and real people is, “They don’t get it”. This report does not equal anything new; there is no hope in it and they feel great despair. Unfortunately, the culture is that if we can return people —the latest figure is 1,599 recalled to prison—it is basically saying their sentence does not exist any longer. We are no longer sending anybody down through the courts, but we are saying, “You did something terrible 15 years ago. Tap, tap—back you go”. What kind of mindset for change is that? It is not one.
I had a very interesting note from a prisoner—because I sit and talk with prisoners, and they write to me about their real lives—who went through in great detail what is wrong with the system. In his letter from an adult prison, he describes how, on the day of release, a young man was told to go and pick up his property, consisting of a phone, from a police station. Later, on the same day, his hostel room was searched by staff who found the phone in a sealed police bag. Not being allowed to have more than one phone, he was recalled. Six months then had to pass before he could be considered for an appeal. That is the culture of a probation service, a prison system, a ministerial system and civil servants who sit there pontificating about it, but do not meet and deal with human beings. For goodness’ sake, we need some sense of generosity of spirit—keep in the dangerous ones, but let out the majority.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I wish to concentrate on one aspect touched on by the noble Baroness, to whom I am grateful for this debate, and that is the way the recall system is working.
The problem is simple to state. The test for recall is, essentially, a low threshold and the test for release after recall is a high threshold. The result is that the mean time in custody after recall has risen to between 25 and 30 months, the equivalent of a five-year sentence of imprisonment.
The report refers to the result of a thematic inspection published in December 2023 and notes that the Government accepted each recommendation and published a revised IPP action plan. However, the base problem is not highlighted in the recommendations or the report, and the action plan does not grapple with it. I shall quickly make four points.
First, the test for recall requires the person making the decision to demonstrate a “causal link” in the current behaviour to that which was exhibited at the time of the index offence. Many of the recalls are because the person on licence has been late in returning to approved accommodation—I met one such recently at HMP Wormwood Scrubs. I simply do not understand how we can go on using this recall test for people who have been at least 12 years in prison under an IPP sentence. Surely, we need a properly focused test that takes into account the realities of IPP. Can we have that, please?
Secondly, while the test remains, the decision on recall should set out the evidence for the causal link. It should be written, like all good decisions, before the decision is promulgated, to ensure that the reasoning justifies the recall—that is called good decision-making. Given the extremely serious consequences of recall on the liberty of a subject, this practice of good decision-making should be required. I ask that that be done.
Thirdly, a review of such decisions is needed before this lengthy process before the Parole Board gets fully under way. If the IPP prisoner had been sentenced in a court, he would have had a right of appeal and the case heard by the Court of Appeal, if leave was given, in about five and a half to six months. Does a senior civil servant review the recall, both for the evidence and its proportionality? After all, the Secretary of State is responsible and accountable, and the knowledge of a review by someone directly accountable to her improves decision-making. Certainly, that is the experience of every tribunal—that if you have a review, it works to improve decision-making.
Fourthly, if recall is properly evidence-based and proportionate, what can be done to speed up the process of release, given what the thematic report says about the effect on mental health? Has the Parole Board got enough resources?
I have three quick points on unreleased IPPs. First, about 16% have tariffs of less than two years. That injustice is palpable, as they had the misfortune to be sentenced before the tariff was raised to at least two years. Secondly, as at March 2024, 32 IPPs who were sentenced when they were under 18 have never been released. Thirdly, as of June 2024, there were 37 who were 70 and had never been released. They will have served the equivalent of a 24-year sentence. There can be no doubt that we must look again at the way the release test works, and the extent to which the responsibility of the state for this stain on English justice is taken into account. The Howard League has established a panel to look at such issues, and we intend to report before April 2025.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, from whom I have learned a great deal since I have been in your Lordships’ House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on securing this debate and acknowledge and applaud her work in this area over years. I am grateful to the organisations that have sent in briefings to inform me generally and inform my contribution. Of course, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson, in his absence for giving of his time to discuss this most vexed of issues. Despite assurances that progress is being made and despite the number of prisoners serving IPPs declining, it is an exceptionally slow rate of decline. The numbers of recalls and their duration has increased, as we have just heard.
We have rehearsed in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions the damage caused by this sentence to prisoners’ mental and emotional health and of the self-harm engendered, as well as ultimately prisoners taking their own lives, as nine did in 2023. It bears repeating the nature of the initial crimes that gave rise to these sentences. Thomas White was given a two-year minimum sentence for stealing a mobile phone but has served 12 years. John Wright, then 17, was given a two-year tariff for headbutting a younger child and stealing his bike—a very unpleasant crime, but he has served 17 years. Martin Myers received a 20-month tariff for the attempted robbery of a cigarette. I am not even sure that that can be accurate, but I am assured that it is, and Martin has served 18 years.
My own MP, Andy Slaughter, who is now, as we have heard, the chair of the Justice Select Committee, has apparently understood rather better than others what a resentencing exercise would mean. He is very clear that it does not mean automatic and immediate releases. I hope that we can pursue this further when time is found for my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Bill to be in Committee.
The action plan is of course welcome, but UNGRIPP asks: having given itself 12 months to see a change by using the action plan, what will happen if there has been insufficient progress in those 12 months? As there are no clear and measurable targets, what are the Government actually aiming for? In this, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. What are the strategic ways of monitoring progress?
I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us that the use of language such as “in a timely manner” is not being used to obfuscate, rather than clarify what the plan is intended to do. I accept, as others do, that some prisoners have been so damaged by what the state has done to them that release for them is trickier. But endless incarceration cannot be the answer: we must find more and better ways to move forward for these prisoners.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, what a powerful debate this is turning into.
I shall focus on the part of the HMPPS report dealing with self-inflicted deaths, another symptom of this cruel sentence. The report shows that nine IPP prisoners took their lives while in custody in 2023. Action 8 of the action plan sets out some of the commendable steps being taken to support IPPs at risk of self-harm and suicide in custody. There is reference to prisoners being managed and supported under procedures with the rather convoluted title “assessment, care in custody and teamwork’’ or ACCT, yet of the 19 self-inflicted deaths in custody reviewed by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for his 2023 learning lessons bulletin, only five of the individuals were on ACCT monitoring at the time of their death. This indicates that much more needs to be done to recognise a prisoner’s IPP status as a potential risk factor and to identify the triggers for suicide and self-harm that are associated with this sentence.
This is particularly the case given the expert evidence, heard by the Justice Committee for its third report, that the psychological harm caused by this sentence leads to greatly increased risks of suicide and self-harm and can even prevent release because of the perceived risks of reoffending. Being refused release because of the harm caused by the sentence itself offends every sense of what is fair and therefore increases, in turn, the risk of suicide and self-harm. What a vicious circle that is.
It is not even just about the risks of suicide and self-harm arising for those who have never been released. Even in the case of prisoners who have been released, the effect of several recalls, or even the mere possibility of recall, creates its own risks. This is again clear from the ombudsman’s report where he recounts a case in which an IPP prisoner was recalled on numerous occasions, even though he had not committed an offence. He was traumatised and left without hope that he would ever see the end of his apparently endless sentence and was found hanged in his cell, even though he had again been directed for release by the Parole Board.
Earlier this year, during Committee on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the truly tragic case of Matthew Price was mentioned. He took his own life last year while on licence from an IPP sentence because of the anxieties he felt about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. It is indeed shocking when one is told that he had been on licence for nearly 10 years. That is the invidious reach of this cruel sentence.
What this teaches us is that whatever an IPP prisoner’s circumstances, whether they have never been released, have been released and recalled, or have been released and are on licence, they are never free from the sentence’s psychological grip. I do not get the sense from the action plan that the psychological damage caused by the IPP sentence, whether it is being served in custody or in the community, is given sufficient weight. Indeed, the action plan deals with prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm only while in custody. It does not expressly cover those in the community or therefore show an adequate appreciation of the need to view this sentence holistically. if one is ever to stand a chance of reducing these self-inflicted deaths. The action plan could be significantly improved by doing so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Burt for this short debate and all who have spoken in it so far. We should remind ourselves, as she did, that the work we are doing here is subsequent to the abolition of IPP in 2012. We are dealing with the cases of people who were sentenced between 2005 and 2012. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just outlined, tremendous hurt has been done to those people. There are now some 240 IPP prisoners in mental health institutions, and the hopelessness of this regime has led to 86 prisoners taking their own lives. We, the state, are responsible for this inhumane treatment. In many cases, it is psychological torture. Basically, this is an unjust system; that is now agreed across all parts of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, but the solutions to the problem are proving more difficult to grasp.
Action plans in the past were criticised because they did not have clear strategic priority, ownership, detail, timeframes and performance measures. The scheme as we see it now, refreshed, has led to reductions in the numbers serving sentences but the new plan will not mean an end to these sentences altogether, and the timeframe for the reduction in numbers is still slow. That is, in great part, as a result of resource implications and issues.
As my noble friend Lady Burt has said, there is limited scope for proper preparation for reintegration into society more generally. A member of the Parole Board who has served on it for 12 years said that he had
“seen the difficulties that hopelessness and the lack of opportunity to reform brings to people—some people have got worse in prison because of that”.
Lack of hope due to a limited light at the end of the tunnel is causing these problems.
It is very difficult for IPP offenders to engage in rehabilitation opportunities. This is made worse by the capacity issues in prisons, as my noble friend Lady Burt pointed out. On recall, both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed to the dramatic increase in the recall procedure to show that it is not getting better quickly.
Members have raised numerous questions on the current action plan, as has the Prison Reform Trust. I can sum up those questions in two that encompass what the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan said. What do the Government believe will be the measure of success with the current action plan? What will the numbers and expectations of successful outcomes look like? We need an answer to those questions. We need to find the resource for progression panels inside the institutions, so that we can work properly to give people a route out.
I know that I have only a few minutes to touch on resentencing. In that time, I will refer to the letter the Government received from the Justice Committee which points out that they never committed to introducing measures that would lead to people being released who were dangerous to the community. It lists in some detail what the proposals were. Will the Government commit in this Parliament to looking afresh at this matter, in light of the view of the Justice Committee and that letter? Will they, as a minimum, seek advice from an expert group as recommended in the committee’s letter?
We in this Parliament are useful in developing legislation. The Government may be concerned about bringing forward further legislation but, if there is a genuine concern, I assure the Minister that we on these Benches will support him to deal with this matter. Any resulting legislation would bring this miserable problem to a satisfactory end.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. It follows a very good debate on the Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and we can focus on this important issue again. I spoke in that debate at some length but I have limited time today, so I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not repeat the points I made then.
We know the essential points. It is a long-standing issue and a real injustice. As has been said by a number of people, it is a stain on our justice system. Improvements have been made, yes, but more needs to be done. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, we all want to make things better, especially the officials, and a lot of work has been done. I have to say, though, I am not convinced. I recognise the passion and commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, on this but I am not persuaded that comparisons with President Assad will necessarily advance the debate.
I hope the coughs we can hear are medical and not Whips’ coughs at this point. HMPPS’s report, which came out on 15 November, is very interesting. I would like to pick up a few points and I should make clear that because of pressure on my time I have not been able to give the Minister advance notice of these points. I am happy to have a letter in response and do not expect a detailed oral response.
On page three of the report, it says that HMPPS expects to see, as we all want, the number of IPP prisoners
“in prisons and the community”
—those on licence—reduced. Well, yes, but it is a little more complex than that. Do we want to reduce the numbers in prison, even if that also means increasing the numbers on licence in the community? Again, yes, so we may see the numbers on licence go up as a consequence of numbers in prison going down. Equally, we do not want to reduce the number of those in the community if they have been recalled to prison. We need to look at these figures carefully and not just in totality.
As my noble friend Lord Moylan asked, what is our aim here? What are we trying to do? I suggest that there must be an irreducible number of IPP prisoners, no doubt because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, the state’s actions have, I am afraid, probably made some of these people un-releasable. I will not get into the resentencing debate today but we have seen in the data a significant decrease in oral review hearings before the Parole Board: there were 1,317 of them in 2018-19 but only 792 in 2022-23. That is a drop of 40%. The rate of release at those hearings has remained constant, so one of the reasons why we are getting fewer prisoners out is that we are having fewer hearings. Why is that? Is it because prisoners with difficult cases are not being brought forward, or is there some other reason?
The second point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was about the number of re-releases following a recall. Prisoners are now spending nearly two and a half years in prison after a recall; I am concerned that that makes them very hard to release thereafter, once they are back in the prison system. Is this because there are fewer review hearings taking place? Are those two points connected? I suspect that they might be.
In the 30 seconds I have before the coughing starts, I want to make one last point; it concerns the number of IPP prisoners later convicted of a serious further offence. The report says that this is rare—less than 0.5%—but those are the prisoners out on licence. I am interested in the number of prisoners reoffending after their licence is terminated. We know that the reoffending rate in our criminal justice system generally is significant. I would be interested to receive—I have asked for this before but I still have not had it—a comparison between the general reoffending rate and the reoffending rate among IPP prisoners on release after their licence period. For comparison, I would also like to know the reoffending rate among prisoners whom the Government were happy to release early in the August scheme. Comparing those three points of data would be interesting.
To stave off any further coughs, I shall conclude my remarks at this point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this has undoubtedly been a powerful debate, with views expressed passionately. I have in front of me a reasonably lengthy speech in which I will address most of the points made today; if I do not answer of the questions asked, I will of course write to noble Lords.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her opening remarks and for securing this debate. The issue of the IPP sentence is one that continues to generate immense debate across the whole House; indeed, many of the noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate have been pivotal in ensuring some of the significant steps forward that have been taken already. The Government recognise the obstacles still faced by those serving IPP sentences, especially the 2,694 prisoners who, as at the end of September, remain in prison.
It is pleasing—and, as I say, to the great credit of many in the House—that the first phase of the changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have now been implemented. As noble Lords will know, the introduction of the automatic licence termination period has led to the end of the IPP sentence for 1,742 people who were on licence in the community up until commencement on 1 November this year; I well remember working with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on those amendments when the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, was in the opposite chair, if I can put it like that. The Government recognise, however, that this does not immediately change the circumstances for those still serving the IPP sentence in prison, and that there is more still to do in order to support these offenders to take the necessary steps towards being cleared as safe for release by the independent Parole Board.
Before I go any further, I am aware that many noble Lords will be familiar with the IPP sentence; however, some may not, including some listening from outside, so I will provide a brief overview before turning to the question at hand. The IPP sentence was first introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as a means of managing high-risk individuals who had been convicted of serious specified violent or sexual offences. The Act was amended in 2008 to give the courts discretion to impose an IPP sentence provided the tariff was at least two years, or the offender was convicted, at any time, of an offence under Schedule 15A of the Act—top-end violent and sexual offences were incorporated within that.
The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and we are determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders to finish their sentences. At the time of abolition, there were more than 6,000 offenders serving an IPP sentence in custody. Since then, a substantial number have been released on licence. As of September this year, 1,095 IPP prisoners are in prison having never been released, and a further 1,599 are in prison having been recalled to custody as their risk could not be safely managed in the community. It is right that the release of any IPP prisoner is subject to a thorough risk assessment and that the prisoner will be released only when the independent Parole Board determines that the prisoner’s risk is now capable of being effectively managed in the community on licence.
Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the Government are not prepared to countenance for any IPP prisoner through any partial resentencing.
The IPP annual report, published on 15 November, covers the period up to the end of March this year but also includes the latest version of the HMPPS IPP action plan for this current financial year. The plan puts a greater emphasis on effective front-line delivery in our prisons, challenging HMPPS operational leaders to ensure that each IPP prisoner has the right sentence plan and access to the right interventions, programmes or rehabilitative services to reduce their risk of reoffending. This is the best way to move them closer to being deemed safe to be released by the Parole Board.
Where these core fundamentals are in place, IPP prisoners can make progress towards release, provided they continue to engage fully with HMPPS staff working with them. The Government are determined to achieve this, including ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. As things stand, around 30% of IPP prisoners are not in a prison that can deliver the requirements of their sentence plans. The action plan, and particularly the effective delivery of the workstream that focuses on operational delivery on the ground, are the vehicle through which this situation must and will improve. Let me be very clear that we believe that these key actions will be the bedrock of significant improvements to the support and prospects of IPP prisoners. These are: the right plan, the right place, the right service and the right support for each offender.
The Government are determined to make the necessary progress on this issue. My noble friend Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, has met many key stakeholders and is building a deeper understanding of HMPPS governance for overseeing the delivery of the plan. Just last week, he attended the external stakeholder challenge group, and he knows that stakeholders will continue to hold HMPPS and the Government to account. My noble friend remains passionate about this work and will be attending the IPP Progression Board next week to engage with the senior leaders at HMPPS who are responsible for delivery of the action plan. He has already spent significant time with staff across HMPPS, and I know that he is extremely positive about the high quality of leaders and staff, both operationally and centrally, and their huge commitment to deliver effective work to better the prospects of offenders.
The refreshed plan is made up of nine workstreams covering required actions relating to operational delivery, policy and analysis. This includes important policies, such as a new one on progressive prison transfers for indeterminate sentence prisoners, published on 14 November, which provides, for the first time, a formal set of requirements designed to ensure the smooth progress of prisoners to access the required interventions they need. This is important, as it means that where an identified next step is agreed with the prisoner and those who manage their case, the necessary actions to transfer them to the new location can happen swiftly and with care about the inevitable disruption such moves can create for individual offenders.
The refreshed plan also includes the expansion of psychology services through the prison gate for some of the more complex cases. This means additional support for both the offender, for example, through bespoke one-to-one support sessions, and the probation officer in their management of the case. This level of continuity from the prison into the community is important in providing effective support during those often challenging early stages for offenders following release.
The refreshed plan includes a quarterly review of progress for all detention for public protection cases in prison who were convicted prior to their 18th birthday. This review ensures that the offender’s progress remains on track, which means that they have an up-to-date plan and are engaging with it in the right prison. Where there are any concerns identified, appropriate action is taken to try to address them. The refreshed plan includes continuous improvement of the internal IPP data dashboard, which gives HMPPS operational leaders important information about the progress of their specific cohorts. It includes prioritising IPP prisoners for important regular keywork sessions and sentence management activity in times of high resource demand pressure across our prisons.
Health plays a vital role and, sadly, we see some cases where health or mental health issues can impede a person’s ability to progress. These issues must be treated, and I am pleased that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to the Lord Chancellor’s request to consider the IPP sentence as part of his independent review of offender health. This will help us better to understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and enable us to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.
HMPPS is taking the IPP issue very seriously at every level of the service, notwithstanding that we are making progress against a backdrop of well-known prison capacity issues and the huge strain on staff resources to implement the necessary measures to tackle it. It is important that we allow the action plan, and particularly the front-line-facing operational delivery plans, a chance to bed in before we review their progress in March next year. I assure noble Lords that if at any point it is clear that more needs to be done, we will review all options to enhance the level and type of support delivered to IPP prisoners even further and take decisive action to deliver any which we believe will make a difference.
Finally, it is important that this review of progress also leads to the setting up of clear measures of success in the next version of the action plan. We will use the review of the current plan early next year to identify those measures and benchmarks against which we can all gauge future progress. These will be shared as part of the next annual report and updated action plan, which will be laid in Parliament before the Summer Recess.
The Government’s priority continues to be the protection of the public, but I hope that noble Lords can see that we also remain fully committed to doing all we can to support the safe progression of those serving IPP sentences. I look forward to updating the House on the progress that I am confident the action plan will achieve in the next IPP annual report next year.
Let me repeat my gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and address some of the points made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked how many IPP prisoners will never be released. Obviously, I cannot give him a number for that, but I can say that we apply a red, amber, green rating to prisoners currently on an IPP sentence and, at present, around one-quarter have a red rating, which means they are not engaging with services within prison at all. I think that answers his question. I shall sit down now and will write to noble Lords on any questions I have failed to answer.
Homes: Existing Communities
(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the supply and improve the quality of the homes people want, in the places they want to live, whilst ensuring that development does not adversely affect existing communities.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how much I appreciate the opportunity of debating this subject in Grand Committee today. I pay tribute to the collective wisdom of the House; I know many Members have spoken before on this subject. I has taken me a year to get to this point, so I am very excited to be here at last.
One statistic tells us everything we need to know about the debilitating effect of our planning system: in the south-east of England, one acre of agricultural land without planning permission is worth around £15,000. That same land with planning permission is worth a minimum of £1.5 million. At a time of anaemic growth in our economy, the Government literally have the ability to create billions of pounds’ worth of value at the stroke of a pen. Of course, the effects of our planning system are not just economic. The UK’s housing market is socially divisive and deeply regressive and transfers wealth from young to old, poor to rich, north to south.
The sky-high cost of building land has one other perverse effect: it means that money that should be invested in quality, design, space and parkland is instead spent on acquiring land and getting planning permission. It should therefore be no surprise to us that new buildings are unattractive, always overpriced and, most importantly, unpopular. There is a vicious circle. We have created an anti-building system that makes building unpopular, so the Prime Minister’s ambitious and courageous efforts to build new homes should be applauded, as should the Deputy Prime Minister’s determination to release a fraction of London’s green belt, an area that is more than twice the size of London, for the homes that London desperately needs. I am encouraged by their enthusiasm, but I worry that these initiatives will have little or no impact. They certainly will not deliver high-quality homes in the places people want to live at a price they can afford.
It is instructive that in his recent article in the Times the PM exhorts,
“Whitehall, housebuilders, councils and everyone else to stretch ourselves to the max to meet the scale of the challenge we face”.
We have to ask ourselves why are all these disparate groups —bureaucrats, developers, Whitehall and communities —so obstructive? No other market in the UK requires the Prime Minister to urge all the actors involved to do better. The Prime Minister does not need to cajole the food, clothing, electronics or furniture markets into delivering better quality. I was encouraged by the Statement by the Housing Minister today. It was a positive step, but does it not strike noble Lords as strange that the Government are planning to spend £3 billion to help private housebuilders build houses at a time when the system is locking up so much value in unnecessarily expensive land? It is like the person who is wounding you offering you free plasters at the same time.
We seem to forget that the rules against which the Prime Minister believes we should all be stretching ourselves to the max are rules of our own making. We are being urged to fight a system of our own creation. There is a very simple and powerful reason why, since its introduction in 1947, planning has consistently produced fewer, smaller, denser, uglier, less desirable homes than we want. Every reform has begun with the implicit assumption that development needs to be planned by government. We have created a system that controls the supply of land and dictates where we live, what type of houses we live in and where we work and shop. However, government, at every level, national or local, simply does not have the requisite knowledge, incentives or resources to do that effectively. No guiding mind ever could.
That planned economies do not work seems to be a lesson the world never tires of learning. We plod through the standard list of excuses for failure: blame the plan, blame the planners, the developers and the blockers, blame everybody you can. The problem is not the people involved but the system that they have to operate within. Those excuses are symptoms of a deeper truth: planned economies do not deliver, and the UK’s housing market is no exception.
To use a building analogy, our system of building control is built on the wrong foundations, so changing the wallpaper and putting in a new kitchen will not suffice. The 1947 Act needs to be demolished and rebuilt on better principles, ones that achieve the aims which we all, ultimately, want planning to achieve: to have better quality, more spacious and functional homes in the places we want to live, surrounded by the land that we enjoy living in. I suggest that we need to start with an entirely different presumption: a system that starts by presuming that all land is developable but, crucially, subjects building to strict principle-based rules and regulations that protect the legitimate interests of existing communities and the natural environment. At one stroke, such a system would release millions of acres of land for development, dramatically reducing its cost while increasing the numbers of houses built and their quality, along with reducing costs to consumers.
Some people might assume that such a reform—the abolition of top-down planning—would be a free for all. Unsurprisingly, and perhaps fairly, such a suggestion conjures up images of a dystopian race to the bottom, with a nation covered in concrete. But there is a middle ground between top-down planning and a free for all: the same type of system that regulates virtually every other successful economic activity in the world, from food to cars, computing to clothing and chemicals to crops. It is having carefully regulated free markets, with systems that permit growth but prevent the sort of development that undermines the value of existing homes.
A new system of pro-economic, pro-quality building control will take time to formulate. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I do not have the time to go into the detail of what that system would look like, but let me start with three principles that should be at the heart of any new regulatory system we might consider.
First, and most importantly, there is the “love thy neighbour” principle. This simply insists that development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses—a principle that goes right to the heart of what people fear most about new development, and one that would incentivise the building of high-quality homes that look nice and therefore do not devalue the property around them. Not only do they not do so, but good developments actually enhance the value of incumbent properties.
Secondly, there is the “carry your weight” principle. This would require all new development quite simply to leave the infrastructure that it finds—roads, drainage, rail networks and more—in the state in which it was found or better.
Finally, there is the recognition that a great deal of land in the country is of communal value. It has special value to communities, so local councils should have the ability to designate that land as having outstanding community value, and that land would have the sorts of restrictions that we currently apply to all land. However, we would not need those restrictions because there would be so much other good land around that there would be no need to destroy areas of natural beauty. That is another great problem of the scarcity that we create in this country: it encourages the building of homes in places where people least want them.
One might justly think that these three principles are already embodied in our planning system, but that would miss the point. The system I am proposing is fundamentally different: it starts at the other end of the telescope. Rather than government seeking to force, cajole and plan the development of good building, it would instead focus on preventing bad building and leave the vast resource we have at our disposal as a nation—the creative energy, intelligence, initiative, capital and innovation of the nation—to deliver the great buildings that we desire.
Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today. Let us have the courage to start afresh, release the vast store of wealth tied up in land that we currently squander, put more trust in each other, love the future as much as we love the past and return this nation to another age of great building of which we can be proud.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a shareholder in Next plc. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, because he has just shown himself, as ever, to be a very big thinker. He is certainly the most gifted and capable business leader of our generation, but his speech also showed that he has big thoughts and a real view about how these things can be delivered as well, which will be one of my themes. I hope the Minister will consider what the noble Lord said very carefully and will invite him in: I would have been more than happy had this turned into an “hour for short lecture” for the noble Lord to outline all his plans, but I am happy to hear the contributions of others as well, as well as to make some very elementary points that I feel are important.
The first is that I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, makes an important point about the impact of housing developments on others. In the communities that we are looking to build, we have to be absolutely clear that the infrastructure is there. It is not just about the economic incentives, which I think are absolutely clear and were outlined very well in the last speech, over the nature of the planning system and the level of costs that it brings, but many of the challenges we face in social cohesion and belief in fairness have all played to the problems caused by development not having the critical infrastructure that is necessary to accompany the extension of wider housing opportunities—GPs, schools and other critical services. Those things have to be planned as well, not just the construction of housing but creating the right incentives for other forms of structure to be there.
Certainly, the Government have done a good job in trying to set the direction on increasing housing supply. They have a significant housing target, a muscular approach to land usage and are putting pressure on local authorities, but it is not enough, because housing targets are huge: 1.5 million over three years is a very significant number, and my concern is that it would be more reasonable to suggest that we could do 3 million over 10 years. It is very hard to deliver 1.5 million over five years for a number of reasons, not least the employment situation in the construction industry and the skills that are necessary to reach that sort of level. Not only that, but we have a huge balance of public sector versus private sector-led development to be able to wash out, and we do not yet have the economics to do that. The private sector is key to this, as is making sure that the private sector has the right incentives to do it.
Here, the planning system is critical. The data says that there were 15,000 planning officers in 2010 and 12,000 in 2020. I, for one, do not feel that this adequately reflects the problems in planning departments. It may well be that there was a drop of only 3,000 but, from my experience of planning issues, it is very significant to see that the length of time in which people are planning officers, where they are brought in and where they are from has changed substantially. I suspect that that involves a huge amount of churn, because the number of full-time planning officers in planning departments that I have dealt with has dropped much more markedly, which makes planning much more complex.
Any plan we have to massively increase housing supply will have to have a real sense about the timings and synchronicity of the plan, the delivery adjacencies, the people challenges and whether we can get the agencies and the role of the state in the right place, and there will be a price to pay, which unfortunately the Government will have to make sure that they can meet. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, extends the point by saying that if we were to have some very strong advanced principles in this, that would certainly also set the right direction for the future.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for initiating this short and very timely debate. I will refer in a moment to a speech that he made on 29 February on a similar theme, but he will not mind my saying that he is not one of the usual suspects who turns up to our debates on housing. However, his insight is invaluable, because he comes from a successful commercial background, providing consumers with what they need, which we have manifestly failed to do in housing, and he brings a clarity of purpose—and also a sense of impatience and frustration about the current system, with which I very much sympathise. Who could argue that where we are today is the right place on housing and planning? There was a very perceptive article by Paul Johnson in the Times on Monday.
Having read my noble friend’s speech on 29 February, I have some reservations about part of his approach. He proposed two simple principles to the world of housing, and what he said then bears remarkable similarity to what he has just said:
“I have time to suggest just two … It simply insists that all new development does nothing to materially devalue neighbouring homes and businesses. The second, the ‘carry your weight’ principle, requires all new development to leave infrastructure in the state in which it found it or better. Before 1947, such a free market system existed in broad terms; it delivered the architecture, streets, cities and towns that we love and cherish today”.—[Official Report, 29/2/24; col. GC 158.]
It also delivered some pretty terrible stuff that no planning system would permit.
I have difficulty with those principles, and I am one of the guilty party; I was Housing Minister for about nine years and Planning Minister for four. The trouble with the first principle is that it risks denying the country the new homes that it needs. After 41 years in another place—with those four years as Minister for Planning—I know that there are many people out there who will argue that any new development, however well designed, will materially devalue their homes or businesses. We have need of development, however. We need new pylons —who is going to welcome those?—we need new prison capacity to deal with overcrowding, and we need 1.5 million new homes to meet the Government’s target.
What we in fact need is a system that weighs the material devaluation to a few people against the wider benefit to society as a whole. That is what a planning system does and what a free market simply cannot do. A free market, for example, will not deliver the new towns that were delivered after the war and which we will need again. It would not have tolerated the compulsory purchase of land, nor would it have delivered the regeneration of Docklands by the 1979 Conservative Government.
Even if a market-led approach delivered the houses, what about everything else—the schools, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, or the medical centres and so on that need to go with it? What about minimising the impact of climate change by promoting development near, for example, existing transport interchanges? How would we develop social housing—now delivered through Section 106 agreements—without a planning system imposing conditions? The planning system captures the difference between the £15,000 per acre and the £1.5 million by obliging the developer to provide the infrastructure and the social housing. I am not sure how the free market that my noble friend referred to would do that.
I also have a problem with the second principle of leaving the infrastructure in the state it was found or better. My concern is that the “or better” would not be provided were it not for the planning system—either through Section 106 or infrastructure levies—which insists that the person building the houses also provides the infrastructure. If that is not done by the developer, by capturing the land value, the burden would simply fall on the taxpayer, which is not a good option.
Where I agree with my noble friend is that we need to have a system that ensures that there is greater certainty about where development will take place and to have a construction industry that delivers. I am sorry if I have sounded very negative about my noble friend but, having tried over the past 30 or 40 years to do what he wants to do, there are some real issues that I am not sure the free market, or the commercial approach that has inspired his career, would address.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, for his very stimulating speech and for initiating this debate. I want to pursue the question of who is going to deliver the quality and quantity of the homes we need, whether that is exactly 1.5 million over five years or any other target. Is it likely that the current system, which involves the vast majority of new homes being built by a handful of so-called volume housebuilders, will produce what is really needed, at the right quality, in the right locations, with the engagement of the surrounding communities?
The current system depends upon private developers bringing forward their own propositions for the market they believe to be most profitable. They will build out at the speed that suits them without having to reduce their prices. Moreover, having paid eye-watering sums for the land, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, noted, developers frequently argue that they cannot achieve their yardstick profit of 20% unless they reduce the contributions they previously promised in cash or kind.
In the Letwin review of 2018, an alternative model was proposed, that of development corporations created by local authorities, but at arm’s length, which could acquire the land at a price that reflects the reality that obligations to the wider community are not negotiable. Quality place-making—the green spaces, the schools, doctors’ surgeries, sustainable drainage and the rest—would all be spelled out in a masterplan. Individual sites can be parcelled out to, yes, the major housebuilders, but also to the SME builders, housing associations, providers of student accommodation, older people’s housing and more. Then, instead of the development dragging on for decades, the build-out rate would be hugely accelerated by the mix of uses all being constructed at the same time. The previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 paved the way for the creation of the development corporations that could act in this way, perhaps based on combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Use of compulsory purchase powers to buy sites where values cannot be agreed represents an integral part of the equation. Some have argued that this requires further legislation because, since the Land Compensation Act 1961, speculative “hope value”—the unfettered market price devoid of any obligations—can be used to justify a huge price tag. Others maintain that a valuation that fully reflects the public-good ingredients can now be used. Can the Minister shed any light on the current legal position in respect of CPO powers for land acquisition?
The opening up of grey-belt opportunities presents a special chance for private, but not for profit and publicly accountable, development corporations to step in and undertake high-quality development without the current dependency on the volume housebuilder. Will the Minister comment on the idea of support for the setting-up of new development corporations, perhaps through Homes England start-up grants? Let us take back control of housebuilding.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, for securing this debate, not least in light of the longevity of his interest in this matter, and his role in securing interest in this for the commonweal. I declare an interest in that he endowed the Wolfson Economics Prize with Policy Exchange, the thinktank for which I work. The last one he endowed was on the quality of our hospitals, not least their architectural and urban environment aspects, and I pay tribute to him for that.
I am also grateful for the range of experience of other noble Lords. It is always a concern, when one is further down the batting order in any debate, that people will already have said what one wants to say, so I am relieved to say that there is one dimension which has not been discussed so far and is an underrated aspect in public policy terms. At the forefront of the agenda of this Government, and what they have not done, is the issue of beauty and the shift in the policy on the very word “beauty”. Unless we build homes that create liveable places in rich neighbourhoods, reflect communities and aspire towards beauty, not only will we be making an error of historical proportions but we will be betraying the aspirations and values of future generations by saddling them with the recycled versions of the same housing crisis and the depressing quality of too much of our post-war housing that has afflicted so much of the post-war era.
As I say, I have been involved in this argument for some years. The late Sir Roger Scruton was involved with Policy Exchange as a leading advocate of the pioneering Building Beautiful programme. We played a part in recommending the previous Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, which Sir Roger chaired. We have spearheaded moves to reinstate beauty in Britain’s policy lexicon and to ensure that it becomes an intrinsic part of our urban fabric once again. This is not an exercise in aesthetic cultivation or political partisanship. Beauty should not be the preserve of any one side of the political divide; rather, it is an essential element in defusing local opposition to new housing, thereby ensuring that the additional housing supply Britain so desperately needs is finally delivered.
There is, as I say, an idea that beauty is for Conservatives only. Of course, we all know that, for William Morris and Ruskin, the great socialist and progressive thinkers of the past, beauty was absolutely integral to their interest. That is why it is a source of disappointment to me and to others that the new Government have dropped the beauty criteria in their ideas—not because it was the policy of the previous Government but also because, as I say, the present Secretary of State for MHCLG had made clear that it would be part of an incoming Labour Government’s proposals. So my question for the Minister is: why the change? Why has beauty been dropped?
On the wider international front, I was privileged, a few years ago, to be able to welcome Marwa al-Sabouni here to London. She is a noted Syrian architect and the author of a book called The Battle for Home. One of the things in Syria that she most eloquently described was the destruction of the urban space by the now-fallen Baathist regime. It destroyed the urban fabric but also, therefore, destroyed the relationship between communities in Syria with tragic effect; that was not the only reason for it but, as she describes so movingly in her memoir, that was part of it. In a wider sense, the importance of an agreed urban space in forging community cohesion is, of course, another further aspect of the present responsibilities of MHCLG. Why have the Government departed from this, and what will they do to ensure that the spiritual and aesthetic benefits of beauty are once again restored to our national discourse?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, when I listened to the Government’s announcement this morning, I was hoping to hear much more courage than I did. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise points out, courage and change are what is needed here. We know that the current situation will not do. The longer it persists, the more damage it does. Reversing out of it is a big thing: it will have big consequences, and it will need some big thinking to do it right. I really hope that this Government discover their mojo on that.
As my noble friend said, artificial scarcity over a long period has created house prices that are out of people’s reach. It is not resulting in good patterns of community building. It is not resulting in beautiful buildings. All sorts of things are going wrong. We need a different way of facing. I am attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested as one of the ways out of this: development corporations could help take existing communities onwards and also build new towns.
We have different requirements of towns these days. We want them to support a really good public transport network; we do not want them to be car dependent. A lot of that comes into how we want communities to evolve. Where we have villages, we want them to have sufficient houses so that they can support the local services they need. However, when it comes to towns, they need to be big enough too: they need to support good medical facilities, good sixth forms and other services. There are lots of things that should go into deciding what we want our communities to look like; we then need to find a way of expressing that, through the planning system, in what gets done.
I think that the concept of the green belt has had its day. What we want is communities with embedded green space so that people find green space and nature on their doorstep, something that is easy to access and part of their everyday life. What we want outside towns is spaces that we dedicate to nature, places that are preserved but are accessible by a bus route so that people can get out there to see something and enjoy it, but which are frozen so that we can look after nature in them and are part of the funding system to do with where people live so that they are not cast out on their own, dependent for ever on handouts from Defra or whoever, and are part of the integral economy of the urban centres. We need to rethink the concept of green space completely.
We also need to look at the regulations that we have imposed on existing communities. We can afford to let these places get denser. By using permitted development rights allow people to extend the houses they have, use the spaces between houses and add another floor or two. A bit of variety never spoiled a streetscape unless it was designed like the Royal Crescent in Bath which you might want to preserve. Most places can take variety. I have a Private Member’s Bill on this subject coming in the new year, and I very much hope the Government will support it. Beyond anything else, I am with my noble friend Lord Godson: we want beauty because living among beauty is one of the most healthful, well-being inducing things that you can offer to people and communities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this debate took a turn that I was not expecting which has made me entirely rethink what I am going say. I ought to declare from the outset my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the north of England. I do not think anyone else in the Room is from the north. We look at things rather differently perhaps from what we have heard so far today.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a speech turning all our ideas upside down. I understand why people get frustrated with the planning system, and I am not one who says that the planning system is entirely right, does everything as it should and produces the housing and infrastructure that we as a country and as communities want and need. However, a more free market approach to housebuilding—all I have heard is of housebuilding—puts more power into the hands of those who are already powerful: those with land to sell, who are, in our current system, powerful operators; and those who are going to build those homes, who are already powerful operators in the system. It omits the one element in the planning system that gives influence, rather than power, to people in that community and that place to help them think about how they want their place to be.
A free market approach, without giving power and influence to the third element of the equation, is not one I want to be part of. That is because, having been in local government for a long time, I know that developers do not have the best interests of local places in their hearts when they start building. They are interested in acting exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, described: as a free market, building what they want, where they want to build it, without cognisance of the places around them.
There are many examples of developers who have taken liberties with the planning system and have not left the infrastructure as we would like it. In fact, they do not leave infrastructure at all; they do not build it. One of the main reasons you need a planning system is to put a rein around those whose objective is to see housing as a retail offer—or sale—and not as a place that shapes part of our communities.
I am mindful, having been made to think by the noble Lord, that I have not said any of the things that I had written down. One question that comes to mind, though, is: under that system who would build the million homes for social rent that this country and its people desperately need? It would not be as profitable, so who would do it? That is a key question for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. How do you then balance housebuilding and all the other interests local people have, such as the environment, infrastructure, public transport and avoiding flooding? How does that fit in? I cannot see it, and that is why we have a planning system. A plan-based system, even though it is not working as well as it should, is one that I hope we stick with.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise for tabling this important debate and coming up with a provocative presentation that makes us think. In planning, we always need to think. The temptation is always to carry on doing what you are doing, which tends to mean you get the same result.
I think we all agree that we have a housing crisis, and the current planning system is not working as it should. Two important points were raised. First, how do we build houses where people want to live? Secondly, how do we extract a planning gain that is in many, but not all, areas for the benefit of residents not landowners?
I will focus on building the right houses in the right places with the right soft and hard infrastructure. The greatest need for housing in many parts of the country is in urban areas. That is also where there is the best infrastructure. I note that, in London, we are shutting schools because there are not enough pupils; in Bedfordshire, we are building schools because there are not enough schools. Should we not be having more children in London—that is, houses?
That is one of the issues: it is incredibly hard to build on brownfield sites. This is why the previous Government came up with the proposal—I was involved in it—that there should be a strong presumption in building on brownfield land. I am quite disappointed that the current Government are moving away from that and suggesting that we should build on the grey belt. There may be a need to build on the grey belt but we should do everything in our power to build on brownfield first. We should also regenerate on brownfield and regenerate some of our older housing estates in many of our urban areas with gentle densification.
I add that, if we compare some of our major cities—for instance, London—to others, Madrid and Barcelona are four times as dense as London. Paris is nearly twice as dense. That gives a whole number of advantages: as well as being able to use not as much greenfield land, it means that your transport system is much better and that people have much better access to local services. This really is a very important issue.
I want to come on to some of the issues with the planning system and the one-size-fits-all approach. By way of example, in Central Bedfordshire, we were inundated with speculative applications because there was a big uplift in land value. They were all supported by highly paid barristers challenging our planning system. I talked to some of my colleagues in areas with lower land value; they were not facing that issue. Their problem was that they did not have viable land, particularly where they were seeking to regenerate brownfield land, so they had a different problem. I then talked to developers who told me how hard it is to develop in certain urban areas.
What we need is a planning system that gives local authorities clear guidance on what objectives are to be achieved then provides them with the tools to deliver those objectives. It needs to be a coherent and consistent planning system—something that I fear we do not have. I welcome the new NPPPF proposals and what is said on the outside of the tin, so to speak. My concern is that, with planning, the detail is always the problem. Although we all superficially want better houses, more brownfield and better infrastructure, it is the detail that really matters—what is inside the tin—and it genuinely worries me that we will continue to get this wrong.
Finally, several noble Lords mentioned the Building Beautiful programme. The previous Government had the Office for Place, a department responsible for creating beautiful, successful and enduring places. I am very disappointed that it is not being continued. I ask the Minister: do this Government intend to build as many houses as quickly as possible, regardless of their appearance and impact on the local community? We must focus on building as many new homes on brownfield sites as possible and, where they are not on such sites, on ensuring that they have the right infrastructure and that the community is taken into account. We need to increase urban density gently and do so in combination with regenerating communities, such that we end up building homes and communities that people want to live in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond for the Government on this important topic. What an interesting debate it has been. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for leading on the debate and for the ideas he expressed. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will take our best wishes back to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill; I hope that things are better for her over the weekend.
Our country is in the midst of a housing crisis after decades of not building enough homes. The impacts of this undersupply of homes can be seen in rising rents and housing costs, placing the dream of home ownership out of reach for too many and increasing homelessness, overcrowding and poverty. We have a crisis of affordability, making it harder for people to live and work where they want to and hampering economic growth across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to the thorny issue of hope value. I thank him for his positive response to our targets and share his frustration about the system. In fact, the CMA report on housebuilding set out clearly that the market has not worked for housing. Leaving it to the market just has not worked—but if Next built homes, perhaps, who knows? To address the housing crisis, we need historic levels of housebuilding, but it is vital that the homes we deliver are well designed and contribute to strong and healthy communities where people can work and thrive.
I will respond thematically first then cover the issues that were raised with me. On housebuilding, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for his comments. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been clear that delivering 1.5 million homes over the Parliament is stretching. We know that it is a challenge but we make no apology for the scale of our ambition. We need to pull every lever to deliver the homes that this country desperately needs. To do so, we will make more land with planning permission available and reform the market so that it is more competitive and delivers more homes faster.
We will not achieve our aims if we remain reliant on a speculative model of development that fosters slow build-out and poor competition. Next year, we will set out our vision for a reformed, more diverse housebuilding system in a long-term housing strategy. At the heart of our ambition is delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. That is why we have made a down payment on this through our £500 million investment in the affordable homes programme in order to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes, taking its annual budget to more than £3 billion next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned the development opportunities in releasing grey-belt land and supporting communities through our planning golden rules. That is how we will unlock some of this development. We are taking the important step of reviewing the post-war green-belt policy to make sure that it better meets the needs of present and future generations. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, may have misunderstood the policy. We have made it completely clear that development must look to brownfield first. I totally agree with him about the density of building but we know that brownfield alone will never be enough to meet our needs, even if we provide the brownfield passports we have been talking about. This is why we are introducing reforms that will make it clear that local authorities otherwise unable to meet their development needs should review their green belt in order to identify opportunities to create affordable, sustainable, green and well-designed developments. In doing so, low-quality brownfield and grey-belt sites in the green belt should be prioritised as opportunities for development before we even look at proper green-belt sites.
I turn to the important topic of housing quality. Noble Lords have made a number of points on this; I will come to them in a moment. It is essential that people’s homes are safe and secure. We will consult early next year on an updated decent homes standard, which will apply to both the private and social rented sectors; this will ensure that safe, secure housing is the standard that residents can expect in both tenures. It will complement our consultations on introducing minimum energy efficiency standards to the rented sectors and will help both to give people warmer homes that are affordable to heat and to tackle damp and mould.
We will also apply Awaab’s law across both rented sectors, setting clear legal expectations about timeframes. This will ensure that all renters in England are empowered to challenge dangerous conditions. Together—this is the point I want to stress—these measures will ensure that homes are safe, secure and hazard free, tackling the blight of some of the poor-quality homes that we have seen.
On communities, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Government are committed to the plan-making system. It is the right way to plan for growth, by bringing local authorities and communities together to agree the futures of their areas. That is the important thing about plan-making: this is what it is intended to do. This will ensure that local communities get the houses they need in the right place at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Local plans provide the stability and certainty that local people and developers want to see the planning system deliver, which is why it is very important to us that we see universal coverage of ambitious plans as soon as possible. That has not been the case in the past. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it quite clear that, where plans do not appear, she will exercise her powers to make them come through.
The Government recognise that providing homes and jobs alone is not sufficient to create sustainable, healthy places. Our communities also need to be supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities. The proposals in the recent government consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework include changes intended to support the provision of public infrastructure and to create sustainable, healthy communities. They include changes to ensure that the planning system supports the increased provision and modernisation of key public services infrastructure, as well as the availability of a sufficient choice of early years and post-16 education places. Alongside this work, we are committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions in order to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and infrastructure.
I turn now to some of noble Lords’ comments, and pick up on those by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the three principles. I love, in principle, the “love thy neighbour” principle; unfortunately, my long experience of planning—I was a councillor for 27 years—means that I know that the harm that developments can cause is often quite a subjective issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. The principle is good in principle, but I need to think about how we might employ it in practice.
On the “carrying weight” principle, infrastructure should be available in all developments through Section 106 or the community infrastructure levy. That does not always happen as it should, and we are looking at that system to see whether we can improve it. Land of community value can already be designated in local plans, noticeably where there are national parks and habitat sites, but the point of a local plan is that such areas can be designated locally.
The noble Lord spoke about pre-1947 as though it was a golden era. It certainly was for my town because it was designated in 1946. I do not think that the people then thought it was perfect because when John Silkin came to announce the development of the new town, he was shouted at in the town hall and people put “Silkingrad” up across the railway station sign. I do not think that people were that happy about planning in those days. I also wonder about how the people of Aspley Guise reacted when Milton Keynes was proposed almost on their doorstep. Yet, now, it is one of our most successful new towns. We have to think about how time moves on in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about ensuring that our new towns are built to high standards. We are committed to ensuring that the new towns we are looking at deliver attractive places where people actually want to live. New towns will be governed by a new towns prospectus developed in partnership with the New Towns Taskforce. Developers will be required to meet theoe standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Godson, referred to beauty and design in planning. The Government are committed to taking steps to ensure that we build more homes and places that are high quality, well designed and sustainable. When we did the consultation on this, consultees raised concerns about the additional references to “beauty”, which they viewed as subjective in nature and difficult to define and thought might lead to inconsistencies in decision-making. It is possible to set standards for design quality that reflect the context and character of an area and address layout, nature, heritage, public space, street design, active travel and so on, as outlined in the National Design Guide, all of which, when considered together, can contribute to well-designed places.
Land value was referred to by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Wolfson. We have implemented the reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of compulsory purchase orders where there is justification in the public interest. We will bring forward further reforms in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn talked about construction skills. I have commented on this a number of times in the Chamber. We were very grateful for an investment of £140 million from the industry to help us with capacity in the building sector. We will have more trainees and increase capacity. We have invested in increasing the capacity of local planning authorities and in helping the market to thrive by supporting SME developers. We take all those issues on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to CPO powers. As I said, they are coming forward. We are committed to making sure that we expand the powers that local authorities have, particularly for new towns, but also to generate the development that they want to see.
I reiterate my thanks to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for a particularly interesting and important debate. I have listened very carefully to the points made, and I hope that I have set out the vision with which our Government will deliver the right types of home in the right places and that work with communities rather than against them. This Government will get Britain building again to unlock economic growth and ensure that our country delivers for its people. The reforms discussed today in the National Planning Policy Framework and the further detail will be set out in the long-term housing strategy. We will deliver change for our communities and kick-start the decade of renewal that our country needs.
Ukraine: Humanitarian Assistance
(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for enhanced humanitarian assistance for the people of Ukraine this winter, and in particular for mental health, energy and housing provision.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, we have recently had two major debates on the current situation in Ukraine. They concentrated mainly on the geopolitics of the conflict, the scale of NATO and EU strategic defence capabilities, the provision of weapons and resources to Ukraine, sanctions and the imminent return of President-elect Trump to the White House. In recent weeks, we have heard reports of offensives and counter-offensives on the front line, a rush to seize territory before any negotiations take place, the prospects of a ceasefire and a diplomatic settlement to the war and the need for strong security guarantees for Ukraine. While all this continues to rage, the number of fatalities and casualties grows ever higher.
My debate today is designed to draw attention to the scale of the humanitarian disaster unfolding before our eyes and focus our energies on what more can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people of Ukraine this winter, including what assistance can be given by the UK Government and civil society. Ever since Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have faced almost unimaginable challenges, but this winter threatens to be particularly severe, with the deliberate targeting of power stations leaving many Ukrainians once again with no power or heating in the freezing winter months ahead.
A few weeks ago, I, along with other UK parliamentarians, met a group of inspirational female Ukrainian MPs. It was organised by the Ukraine-UK interparliamentary friendship group. Their suffering and, above all, their courage were humbling. I was particularly struck by what they said about the impact on children, so often the forgotten victims of war. They talked about the psychological impact on young children of constant air raid sirens, drone attacks, sleeplessness and periods of no power or heating, as well as the impact on their education and the adverse effects on their mental health.
They also shared harrowing figures estimating that almost 600 children have been killed and 1,700 wounded. Other estimates suggest that nearly 700,000 children have been deported to Russia, often resulting in citizenship changes, forced adoption and children placed under temporary guardianship—as it is called in Russia—effectively seeking to stamp out their Ukrainian identity. I am very grateful to the Library for its excellent research briefing, which highlighted that, according to UN agencies, since the full-scale invasion began, 5 million refugees from Ukraine have been recorded globally, more than 3.5 million people are estimated to be displaced inside Ukraine and—this is of key importance today—more than 14.6 million people inside Ukraine are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance.
I want to spell out in a bit more detail what that means. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the humanitarian situation in Ukraine worsened in August and September due to intensified attacks. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports that in September more than 1,400 deaths and injuries were verified, the highest number since the start of the full-scale invasion. Homes, hospitals and schools have been damaged, in addition to the disruption of other essential services, including water and electricity. The escalation of hostilities has significantly increased humanitarian needs near the front line. The World Health Organization has verified 66 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine. This represents more than one-third of such attacks globally. Under constant shelling and with limited access to critical services, shops, pharmacies and banks, people remaining close to the front line need shelter repairs, hygiene products, clean water and food.
Damage to energy infrastructure is expected to worsen the challenges civilians will face in the coming months, which are forecast to be the toughest winter since 2022. The impact of the continued Russian large-scale aerial attacks targeted on Ukrainian energy infrastructure and the power supply is disrupting essential services such as water, gas and heating in Ukraine, particularly in front-line communities.
The UN World Food Programme estimates that more than 2 million people in Ukraine are suffering from insufficient food consumption, including 20% to 30% of people in the Kherson area. Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that Russia was using drones to attack Ukrainian civilian targets in Kherson, including ambulances, police cars, fire engines and humanitarian convoys. Russian drone operatives were also reported to be targeting civilians at markets, petrol stations, cafes, post offices and aid centres, as well as dropping explosives in streets, playgrounds and public squares in non-occupied areas, injuring more than 500 civilians.
Turning to housing, the Council of Europe Development Bank noted earlier this year that housing continues to be one of the sectors most affected by the war, with more than 10% of the total housing stock in the country either damaged or destroyed, and close to 2 million households thought to be affected. Many thousands in Ukraine have been forced to leave their homes and are now homeless. While post-war reconstruction may be the only long-term answer to the housing crisis, urgent help is needed to provide services for people sleeping rough, including temporary accommodation and better housing support for people leaving the military, hospitals and prisons.
I shall now focus on mental health. The conflict continues to have profound effects on the mental health of those affected, including refugees, internally displaced people and those on the front line. According to the Ukrainian Health Ministry, the number of patients reporting mental health problems in 2024 has doubled since a year ago, with particular consequences for children’s mental health. A recent Save the Children report found that, for children, the psychological impact and emotional distress of the ongoing conflict remained at high levels across the country, regardless of whether children were displaced, returnees or residents who have not fled. Save the Children is working with a local partner in Ukraine to fund social workers to go into communities affected by the conflict to provide mental health support among other essential items. UNICEF anticipates that more than 2.2 million children need to access mental health and psychosocial support. It points to problems such as depression, insomnia and anxiety linked to children spending thousands of hours in shelters while alarms are sounding.
It is inspiring to hear about the many organisations and individuals who are doing their best to help, and I will mention a couple. UK-Med, a frontline humanitarian NGO which describes itself as “born of the NHS”, maintains a register of NHS medics who travel to global crisis areas and work alongside local staff. The organisation has sent more than 200 NHS and international medics to Ukraine to deliver services including mental health support via mobile medical units and by training civilians and local health workers in mental health support. Psychologists at the University of Manchester have created leaflets for Ukrainian parents, developed from the experiences of displaced Syrian parents living through the country’s civil war.
I have focused on children, but there is also a crying need to support veterans. It is encouraging to hear that the British Army Medical Corps has been providing training to Ukrainian armed forces medics, including psychologists, and that two-way exchange visits have been made. Whatever happens in the coming months, there will be a crying need to support veterans of the conflict with mental health problems.
Finally, I turn to the role of the UK Government. The Government’s assistance, particularly financial assistance, tends to be channelled through international organisations, such as the International Red Cross, which has used it to provide psychological support services for Ukrainian refugees in Poland, Romania and Moldova. It is welcome that, in September, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that bilateral funding for 2024-25 included £100 million specifically earmarked for humanitarian aid. Can the Minister give any breakdown of how this will be used and what proportion is going to support mental health? Has there been any follow-up to the First Lady Madame Zelenska’s very welcome visit in March, when she met children’s mental health services in London to discuss post-war mental health recovery in Ukraine, particularly how best to build community mental health services for children from front-line territories who are dealing with trauma?
Specifically on this point, we have a well-developed, if obviously overstretched, children’s mental health sector in this country, both in the NHS and the voluntary sector. As well as that sector helping displaced children and young people with mental health problems it could, I feel, help share expertise and knowhow, with a little help from government, and provide training for those in the frontline of providing such support in Ukraine. Are the Government actively considering that, and would the Minister meet me to discuss it? I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, very much for having arranged this debate today. It could not come at a more important time in the history of Ukraine, given the pressure on it from Russia and the change in policy in America. The Minister may not be able to do so today, but perhaps he could make a Statement in a few months’ time about how that will affect Ukraine, our relationship and so on.
I speak today to address the critical challenges facing the people of Ukraine as they endure another harsh winter—we think we have harsh winters, but theirs are something else—amid ongoing conflict. Despite their extraordinary resilience, millions of Ukrainians face many crises exacerbated by the unrelenting attacks on essential infrastructure. It is absolutely awful knowing that their hospitals, children’s homes, buses, police cars and so on are being attacked.
Last winter revealed the vulnerabilities of Ukraine’s energy and housing system, leaving millions without heating, electricity or clean water. We know that without clean water it is impossible to cook vegetables or to look after children, and what diseases dirty water brings. The attacks on infrastructure have disrupted basic services, with 85% of Ukraine’s energy production capacity destroyed and rolling blackouts implemented to save energy. It must be very difficult not knowing when those blackouts are going to come. Over 1.4 million homes have been damaged or destroyed since the escalation of the war: 10% of all homes in the country. These realities underline the necessity for immediate, targeted interventions to repair homes, restore power systems, and deliver essential supplies such as solid fuels and heating appliances.
The UK must align with Ukraine’s efforts to support frontline regions, including providing hospitals and clinics with generators, mobile boilers and repair materials and, if possible, somebody to come and help them who knows how to use the materials. Although those in Ukraine are very capable, as we know from those who work here, it would be great if we could get some infrastructure from us to help, when it is safe, or from local volunteers or the military. These measures are safeguarding the lives of the most vulnerable population, including older persons, children and those with disabilities.
The psychological toll of the war cannot be overstated. Prolonged exposure to violence, displacement and insecurity has left millions of Ukrainians grappling with mental health challenges. The number of parents reporting mental health problems in 2024 has doubled since a year earlier. We can understand that, as children are now being taught in schools underground. I have seen some films and talked to some people who are working there. It is very difficult because the children are afraid. They are going down to safety for their education, but do not quite know what it will be like when they come back out. This has real difficulties for the children, those who are teaching them and their families. For those who have sought shelter underground for extended periods or witnessed the destruction of their homes, the trauma is profound. To be in darkness indefinitely is not good for anyone’s health, with no air or light.
Today I met an organisation I work quite closely with, Education For Employment, which goes to schools to encourage children about the jobs that are around—not just party planners or nurses. Children know about people’s jobs because of those who come to their house or what their mothers or grannies do. It has been approached by the OECD to come to help with work in the long term, and over video, to show children what their future can be and how it can help them to look to that. It has worked in these sorts of areas before.
The World Health Organization has reported over 2,000 attacks on healthcare facilities, further straining Ukraine’s capacity to address mental and physical health needs. I urge His Majesty’s Government to enhance the support for mental health services, including training for healthcare professionals if that is possible. Perhaps they could come here, or there could be a safe place where they train or have extra training.
The international community, including the United Kingdom, has a moral responsibility to act decisively. Last year, the UN and its partners launched an appeal for $435 million to assist over 1.7 million people through the winter, and we cannot let the Ukrainians down this year. The European Union has committed €40 million for winter preparedness, focusing on water systems, heating infrastructure and emergency repairs. The United Kingdom should complement those efforts, leveraging its resources to close the gaps in humanitarian assistance. I commend the Government’s pledge of over £100 million in additional humanitarian support for 2024-25 and their ongoing support for Ukraine. I urge continued action to provide immediate and meaningful relief.
I also hope that those cases being dealt with by the Home Office will be looked on favourably before anybody is returned, or at least that people are given a period of time, not a day, if they have to go back for some reason or other. Many people do want to go back to Ukraine and rebuild their country once it is safe—many of those I have spoken to do not want to stay here indefinitely—but at present it is very difficult.
The people of Ukraine have shown immense courage in the face of unimaginable adversity. Let us ensure that our support reflects the scale of their need and the depth of our commitment to their future.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who feels very passionately about these issues. I too welcome this short debate and congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler on her powerful and comprehensive opening speech. As my noble friend said, there have been many debates on Ukraine recently but inevitably, and correctly, they have concentrated primarily on defence and geopolitical issues. It is all too easy for war to become about statistics and to lose sight of the life or family behind each statistic that is shattered by the divisions of war.
More than a thousand days since Russia invaded Ukraine, it is welcome that there remains a united front across all mainstream UK political parties in support of Ukraine. There is a general recognition that Ukraine’s future is our future. We should be proud of the support we continue to give to Ukraine, but sometimes it is good to stop and remind ourselves of the impact that war has had on individual lives—the impact of having had your home destroyed by a missile, having no power, heat or light, and the inevitable impact on well-being and mental health.
I refer noble Lords to my register of interests and the various projects I have worked on in Ukraine since 2017, including as an ambassador for the homelessness charity Depaul International and as a trustee of the John Smith Trust. I thank the trust’s fellows in Ukraine for their suggestions and ideas for this speech.
Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 changed people’s lives in an instant. Personal plans, careers and studies were all put on hold. In March 2022, just after the Russian invasion began, I went to the Polish border with Ukraine at Przemyśl. Seeing the young children sitting on their little suitcases with their soft toys and pets in cages on their laps, and the elderly looking so disorientated, shocked and bewildered, was an overwhelming experience that I shall never forget.
The first thing that struck me when I saw the crowds outside Przemyśl railway station was that there were only women, children and the elderly. There were no young men; they had had to stay behind to fight. People had had to grab what possessions they could and flee for their lives.
We are now in the third winter of this war and all my Ukrainian friends fear it will be the worst yet. A Ukrainian colleague said to me this week:
“We are a critical juncture—not just for Ukraine, but for the whole democratic world. The war in Ukraine is not merely a regional conflict. It is a battle between democracy and tyranny. Supporting Ukraine’s energy independence, whether through renewable energy solutions, flexible backup systems, alternative routes, or timely repairs to existing infrastructure, is about more than just keeping the lights on. It is about ensuring Ukraine’s survival this winter and securing the future of democracy itself”.
In terms of Ukraine’s energy supplies, the war did not start in 2022, or even in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. The seeds were sown long before, with Russia’s gas wars in 2005-06. Even then, Putin’s intentions were clear: using energy as a weapon to undermine Ukraine. Building pipelines to bypass Ukraine was just one piece of his broader strategy.
Ukraine’s energy infrastructure system is currently under tremendous strain. Frequent equipment failures, compounded by ongoing missile and drone attacks, threaten its ability to function. These challenges are made worse by the system’s outdated infrastructure and bureaucratic barriers that complicate efforts to secure vital equipment. I appreciate that we have already given considerable financial resource to Ukraine’s energy sector, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more in his concluding remarks about our plans to assist the energy sector this winter.
In particular, I have heard from colleagues in Ukraine that they urgently need critical equipment such as valves, gas cleaning and drying installations, regulating fittings and pipelines. These items, whether unused, decommissioned or donated, are essential to maintaining operations. I am told that bureaucratic obstacles, both on a domestic and international level, are currently slowing down the provision of such equipment. I suspect that, like me, the Minister is not an expert in these matters, but I would be grateful if he or the relevant Minister could reply in more detail about these energy matters in writing.
Supporting Ukraine’s energy sector and gas supply companies is going to be absolutely key this winter. That is something that President Putin is very well aware of, which is precisely why he is so cynically targeting Ukrainian power stations. Nothing saps morale like the icy cold and the dark and, as someone who used to work in Ukraine, I can testify to quite how cold it gets in the winter. I believe the UK can play a vital role in this. Working with our European partners, we must be able to find creative ways around any barriers to ensure uninterrupted heating and electricity supplies for millions of Ukrainian households this coming winter.
According to a recent report commissioned by Depaul—the homelessness charity that has been doing amazing and very important work in Ukraine for many years, but most especially since the war—3.5 million people are now internally displaced and the homes of 2 million households have been destroyed or damaged. Almost a quarter—22%—of people sleeping rough or in emergency shelters are displaced because of the war. The United Nations has described conflict as a “systematic driver” of homelessness.
To be clear, housing and homelessness were already issues in Ukraine before the war. In 2017, I worked on a public health project to raise awareness of tuberculosis in Odesa. During that project, I met many homeless people who were living with TB. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the difficult transition years following independence, Ukraine was already facing many social issues. But the invasion of 2022 has served to make so many of these issues so very much worse in Ukraine. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about specific support that we can give this winter to provide shelters and rebuild homes, as well as support the most vulnerable.
Living in Broadstairs, Kent, I have had the privilege, over the last few years, of being involved with an excellent organisation called Canterbury for Ukraine. Through it, I have been able to get to know many of the Ukrainians currently living and seeking shelter in Kent. I am proud of the warmth of so many people in the UK who have opened their homes to Ukrainian families. Understandably, many Ukrainians have chosen to stay in Ukraine; however difficult the situation becomes, it remains their home.
As other noble Lords have said, I know that the UK has committed to giving £100 million in humanitarian assistance in 2024-25, but can the Minister give reassurances that a sizeable proportion of this funding will be targeted towards measures for long-term programmes for internal resettlement to safer regions in Ukraine? It is also key that we continue to give support to vulnerable groups, including pensioners, low-income families and people with disabilities. This will not only help people survive the winter but lay the groundwork for sustainable social reforms, keeping Ukrainian citizens connected to their country.
My second issue is that of displaced children. More than 2.5 million Ukrainian children are now displaced; many face broken family ties, psychological trauma and limited access to education. Some 30% of the children who left Ukraine with one parent have completely lost contact with the other parent who remains in Ukraine. Some 80% of children whose parents are serving in the armed forces of Ukraine have minimal or no contact with them. The provision of professional psychological rehabilitation centres, training programmes for social workers and comprehensive family law reforms will be vital in the future, and the UK is well placed to give assistance in this regard.
To conclude, I stress once again, as I have in previous debates, that whatever happens geopolitically in the months ahead and as a result of the Trump presidency, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future. All my Ukrainian friends and contacts are hugely grateful for the tremendous support that the UK continues to give, both militarily and through humanitarian support, but in this most difficult of winters ahead it is more important than ever that we keep up this support.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for securing this important discussion. We all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to update the House on the progress of UK support for Ukraine.
Over the past few weeks, as we move into winter, the people of Ukraine have continued to suffer greatly. Putin’s war machine is trying new and insidious tactics to break the spirits of those brave people. On the morning of 26 August alone, Russia fired more than 200 missiles and drones in one of the largest aerial attacks on Ukraine. The main targets were the country’s energy infrastructure, in the most cynical attempt to freeze the country into submission—no military targets were targeted in that bombardment. As other noble Lords observed, around 8 million households, hospitals and schools were hit without warning. The capital, Kyiv, experienced its first unscheduled blackout since November 2022. According to the International Energy Agency, Ukraine’s energy system has been the subject of regular targeting by Russia since its first full-scale invasion in 2022, with attacks intensifying since the spring of this year.
On 28 November, after Russia’s 11th mass attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, President Putin threatened to strike again with new ballistic missiles, this time having nuclear capabilities. We are aware that he has made these threats fairly regularly. Thankfully, none of them has borne fruit yet, but we should bear in mind that someday they might. Furthermore, Ukraine is having to import increasing amounts of electricity from Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Moldova.
According to the BBC, on the subject of housing, at least 12 million people have fled their homes in Ukraine since Russia’s first invasion. It estimates that 5 million have left the country and 7 million are still internally displaced in Ukraine. The Council of Europe Development Bank noted earlier this year that housing continued to be one of the sectors most impacted by the war, with over 10% of the total housing stock in the country either damaged or destroyed.
I am proud of the record of the previous Government. We launched the highly successful Homes for Ukraine scheme, with the latest figures showing that since the scheme was set up in March 2022 around 131,000 Ukrainians have been successfully supported to arrive in the UK, with £2.1 billion of funding provided. I am sure that work is continuing, and would be grateful for an update from the noble Lord when he sums up.
It is truly tragic that so many Ukrainians have lost their homes and I commend all the Government Ministers, civil servants and most of all the volunteer families who have helped to provide sanctuary for Ukrainians and welcomed them into their homes. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could update us on progress and on whether the Government intend to extend this scheme. Furthermore, many of the visas issued under this scheme are set to expire after three years, with many expiring early next year. Again, can the Minister update the Committee on whether those Ukrainians will be able to have their visas extended?
Finally, the conflict has obviously had a severe impact on the mental health of the Ukrainian people. According to the Ukrainian health ministry, the number of patients reporting mental health problems in 2024 had doubled since a year earlier. In addition, a study published in the Lancet earlier this year suggested that over 50% of surveyed non-displaced persons, 55% of internally displaced persons and 62% of refugees all met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. I can imagine nothing more traumatic than living in a war zone, whether as a soldier fighting the illegal occupation or as a civilian just doing your best to even survive. We have to highlight, as we do constantly—but we should never be afraid to say it—the sheer brutality of Russian’s campaign in Ukraine, targeting markets, petrol stations, cafés, post offices and humanitarian aid centres, and targeting the civilian population in playgrounds and public squares in many non-occupied areas of Kherson. None of these is a military target. With such distressing stories, we must continue to do all we can to support Ukraine. I know that the Government are doing that and we support them fully.
When the noble Lord summarises the debate, I hope that he will be able to update the Committee on what steps the Government are taking. As we move into the new year, we are all waiting with some trepidation for the incoming American President and the effect of any policy changes on Ukraine. I am sure that the Government are using all the diplomatic sources at our disposal to try and influence the new Administration. Some of the appointments that incoming President Trump has announced give me a little more hope; some of the statements from the likes of Marco Rubio and others on Ukraine have been slightly more encouraging. This really is an existential conflict for us in Europe. I argue that it is also an existential conflict for the US. We have to continue to supply the crucial support to Ukraine in its battle for survival. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. I think the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are absolutely correct. Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine poses a direct threat to European security. His comments reflect is that we are united in supporting Ukraine in its fight against this illegal invasion. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, highlighted the humanitarian situation as being dire. It certainly is. September saw the highest number of recorded civilian casualties since the invasion, and the numbers continue to grow. As much as 40% of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance this year. Over the past month Russia has intensified its air strikes, primarily targeting energy infrastructure, causing blackouts in several regions, as all noble Lords have highlighted. Its continuing assault has led to Ukraine losing over two-thirds of its power generation, leaving it to manage an energy deficit this winter—a very difficult winter.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, further attacks and low temperatures risk making access to power, water and heating intermittent, further aggravating the humanitarian situation on the ground. As ever, it will be the vulnerable who suffer, leaving millions without heating, electricity, clean water and medical care.
Let me explain how the United Kingdom is helping. We remain a leading bilateral donor and will provide over £240 million this year for humanitarian support, energy and recovery reconstruction programmes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked me, I will give a breakdown of this support. First, on humanitarian support: when the Foreign Secretary visited Kyiv alongside US Secretary of State Blinken in September—the first such joint visit to any country in over a decade—he announced that the United Kingdom would provide at least £100 million in humanitarian support this year. The allocation is still to be determined, but this will bring the United Kingdom’s humanitarian aid to £457 million. This support is helping people, especially the most vulnerable, cope with the endless onslaught of the war, including by providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed out, mental health and psychosocial support. Again, this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
The Ukrainian Red Cross Society—funded by UK assistance channelled through the British Red Cross—provides that psychosocial support to about 1,500 vulnerable children and adults in the front-line oblast regions in Ukraine. In practical terms, that means providing child-friendly spaces and support sessions for adults and older people. We will have given £9.5 million to the Red Cross to achieve this. We also support the Kyiv burns unit and train Ukrainian Red Cross staff and volunteers. As asked by my noble friend Lady Goudie, we also enable the WHO to rehabilitate professionals through stress management training. This helps to reduce the psychological distress and increase referrals for specialised care among healthcare workers and patients.
I move now to our energy support—another issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The UK has been working closely with Ukrainian officials and international donors to fund repairs and provide back-up power generation during the colder months, while also supporting efforts to ensure that civilians have access to warm places. During his visit in September, the Foreign Secretary also announced £20 million for emergency energy needs. Our funds, worth over £60 million, are bolstering the Ukraine energy support fund, helping to protect energy infrastructure.
When it comes to long-term recovery, we are supporting innovations across both countries to develop new technologies that can rebuild a greener and more resilient energy grid. Finally, we are also providing essential fuel to nuclear power plants to ensure that Ukraine does not have to rely on Russian fuel.
To turn to UK support for recovery and reconstruction, our non-military support is helping address immediate needs, including public services, while also funding rebuilding efforts in Ukraine. That is why we are supporting investments now and developing a pipeline of early recovery projects with partners to build local capacity to prioritise, plan and deliver these initiatives. It is why we are working with industry and development partners to improve access to finance for firms in Ukraine and extend war risk insurance cover to investors in Ukraine.
Finally, we are helping the UN refugee agency to prepare safe places for internally displaced persons. It has helped to host over 100,000 people in temporary accommodation across Ukraine. The noble Lord asked about Homes for Ukraine in the UK; it is a Home Office lead, but I will ensure that we write to him on that question.
An area that every noble Lord highlighted is the scale of destruction caused by Russia. That is why we are in no doubt that it must pay for the damage. The G7 will provide Ukraine with up to $50 billion as part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. These loans will be repaid using the extraordinary profits generated on immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The UK’s contribution of £2.26 billion is earmarked for additional military support for Ukraine.
We are also holding Russia accountable by supporting Ukrainian investigations, pursuing an international register of damages and joining the core group with our international partners on the crime of aggression. We will continue to help the International Criminal Court increase its capacity to collect evidence and support survivors. We will not let Russia get away with its crimes.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom will do whatever it takes to support Ukraine’s self-defence. The alternative would be to confirm the worst claims—that international law is merely a paper tiger and that aggressors can do what they want. The suffering in Ukraine cannot be ignored. It is our collective responsibility to act decisively to end this war and work towards a future where a just and lasting peace can prevail.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, can I just ask the Minister whether he will meet me in the new year to discuss the particular support for mental health?