House of Lords

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Thursday 12 June 2025

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:05

Asked by

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commence the provisions in section 9 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to protect our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations. We are currently considering a series of policy interventions, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations. This will help enhance the protections of our system against potential risks. We plan to set out further details in our strategy for elections, which we expect to publish this summer.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, it is 16 years since Parliament passed the simple but powerful safeguard in Section 9, in response to a financial scandal over the origin of donations. Implementation does not require any time for primary legislation, nor for the Treasury to be asked for any money, but it would make our political finances that bit more transparent, ethical and trustworthy. So, what is the reason for the Minister not to go back to the department this afternoon and simply say to colleagues, “I’ve got a commencement clause. I think we should sort this”?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord has done a lot of research in this area, and we welcome that research. But, as I said in my previous Answer, we are committed to strengthening the rules around donations, improving our democracy and protecting our democracy from foreign interference. That will all be laid out in the summer and I am sure that, when it is, the noble Lord will be able to have a look, reflect and feed back into the whole process.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, in considering possible future changes, will the Government take account of political parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who received £2.4 million from a known and convicted fraudster, Michael Brown, and, 20 years on, have still to pay back that money to the people who were denied those resources?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot get involved in or discuss any individual donations, but I reassure him that we will ensure that we strengthen the law around political donations.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I know that, in my day, when I was party chairman—before I became independent—some of the biggest political donors were the trade unions. Does this review include the trade unions and the restrictions that could be placed on them?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, to the noble Lord’s question, your Lordships will have to wait until summer, when we will set out our strategy. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely keen, in her role as Secretary of State for MHCLG, to ensure that we have strong electoral reforms ready for the next election.

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

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if we are talking about motes and beams in different parties, will the Government now publish the redacted elements of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report on Russian money flowing into the Conservative Party? While I am on my feet, do the Government intend to simplify in any sense the great mess of electoral law, given that the Law Commission has done a lot of work on this and that electoral registration officers struggle with the various Acts—some of which are still extant, others of which have largely been expunged—in accordance with which they have to conduct their affairs?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can understand that I am not able to comment on any particular donations to parties. It is not for government to interfere with that. But he makes a very interesting point, so I will take a moment to let the House know that, as set out in our manifesto, we are committed to strengthening our democracy, widening participation and upholding the integrity of elections. This includes improving voter registration, extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, reviewing and addressing voter ID rules, and strengthening rules around donations to political parties. I can let noble Lords across the House know that we will be bringing an election Bill within this Parliament, hopefully in the very near future.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked a question on Monday about expenses incurred by Kent County Council in relation to DOGE investigations and the hiring of 12 accountants and systems engineers? Perhaps I might inform him that Kent County Council Conservatives will be writing to the leader of Kent County Council, a Reform councillor, to seek clarification on precisely what form the costs incurred by these people will take and whether they will be declared as donations or, alternatively, as costs on the council tax payer. They will, of course, copy the Minister and the Electoral Commission into any correspondence they both send and receive.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for informing me. I know that he has great depth of experience in this area. Any suspected violations of donation rules fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission has the authority to investigate breaches and impose civil penalties when necessary. As part of efforts to enhance the regulations surrounding donations, including donations in kind, we are reviewing whether adjustments to the regulator’s role and powers are needed to ensure effective enforcement across the political finance framework.

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

My Lords, if I am going to be pre-empted in a question by anyone, it has to be William Wallace, has it not? But he is absolutely right. Of all the disgraceful donations the Tory party has had, those it got from Russia are the worst. I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go back to the department and say that there is a strong view in the House of Lords that the report on donations from Russia should be made public as soon as possible.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could take this into account. I tried to give a donation to the Democratic campaign before the last election, but I was not able to because I do not have an American passport. Can the Minister ensure that we apply the same sort of control as regards money coming into this country?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an interesting point. I would not want to talk specifically about that example, but I can reassure him that the concern he shares with the House is a big focus area for making sure that those who donate are eligible to do so, have an interest in the UK and are tied to being part of the UK system, so their eligibility is absolutely legitimate.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recall that, before the last election, the Conservative Government—for reasons that slightly bewildered me and I think some others—decided to massively extend the franchise to people living abroad who had lived abroad for more than 15 years, many of whom had barely ever lived in the country and for whom it was almost impossible to establish even an address at which they were last resident in the United Kingdom? Now that we have had an election under these rules, can my noble friend at least publish for us the extent to which these newly enfranchised people exercised their vote at the last election, which could of course potentially have had an effect in individual constituencies, how much the system cost and whether there are any plans to revert to the previously very satisfactory situation?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Just to reassure him, part of our strategy in the summer will reflect on the very issues that he is talking about, and in it we will set out our strategy on wider electoral reform, including donations and the source of donations.

Post-16 Financial Education

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked by

[Baroness Sater]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that young people receive adequate financial education in post-16 education.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, financial education is delivered through the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 through citizenship education and the mathematics curriculum. Although it is not compulsory at key stage 5, our 16 to 19 study programmes guidance sets an expectation that students take part in “other non-qualification activity” to develop life skills, including “managing personal finances”. If a student post 16 is studying a level 2 maths qualification, the maths GCSE and functional skills qualifications support financial education as well.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. This week, many schools are taking part in Young Enterprise’s My Money Week campaign. However, despite best efforts, according to the Money and Pensions Service, over half of our young people reach the age of 18 having received no meaningful financial education. Therefore, at this crucial time between the ages of 16 and 18, when they could be receiving their first pay packet and accessing financial products and services, we have no meaningful education available. Will the Minister therefore consider a national programme to ensure that all young people aged 16 to 18 are ready and equipped to navigate the financial world and manage their money? Perhaps this could be a good deployment of the dormant assets scheme.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I also recognise the contribution that Young Enterprise plays, having been both a participant in it as a student and an organiser of it as a teacher of economics and business studies. I know that it does enormously important work, as do others, in supporting children, young people and adults in understanding financial education. We could possibly look to the Money and Pensions Service, which is under the auspices of the DWP and set out in January 2020 a 10-year framework to help UK citizens make the most of their money and pensions, with a focus on financial education for young people. With respect to the dormant assets scheme, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed earlier this year that there will continue to be funding from dormant assets for precisely the point that the noble Baroness makes, which is to challenge financial inclusion and support financial education.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Social Market Foundation reported last year—and this is very serious—that two in five young people, or 40%, are financially illiterate after they have been through school, so education in this field needs to start early. In the devolved nations, financial education is taught in primary schools. When will the Government start this in English primary schools? If they will not, why not?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

All primary schools in England teach many of the skills that are important for financial education as part of the maths curriculum. They also have non-statutory but important programmes of study for citizenship. Of course, from the age of 11, all students have compulsory financial education as part of their national curriculum entitlement to citizenship.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as a fellow teacher, does the Minister agree that, rather than having token PSHE-day education, practical financial education should be embedded in the maths curriculum throughout the key stages?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the way that financial education is delivered, for example, through citizenship, but he makes an important point. I have just mentioned, of course, that financial education and the skills necessary to understand your finances and the concepts around them are part of the national curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4, and of post-16 maths study.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important Question from the noble Baroness. One in four 18 to 24 year-olds is in some form of financial difficulty. Lacking knowledge of where to go for help or services that can help them, they are often pushed to illegal loan sharks. Does the Minister not think that we should run a young person’s public information campaign, which could be targeted in colleges, jobcentres and sixth forms?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, this is part of what the Money and Pensions Service strategy aims to do, as is the work I identified that is being supported by the dormant assets funding. We also need to work alongside the legitimate parts of the industry to make sure that the support and information that it is providing is made more broadly available to young people—and, in fact, to people throughout their lives. I suspect that those of us who did not have the opportunity to have even the type of financial education that children nowadays get have a continuing need to understand our finances well into our lives and, in particular, into our retirement.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister that many excellent examples exist in primary schools right across our country of financial literacy being taught to young people. Although I absolutely accept that, some urgent attention is required to ensure that children and parents are educated about their presence in the online world. Children as young as five years old are playing Roblox, and they need to extract money and card information that might be automatically available online. There is an urgent need for education very early on, but also among parents. Does she agree?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about the intersection of financial education and the need to ensure that our children have a good understanding about their online safety. Both those things, by the way, have been identified by the curriculum and assessment review that this Government set up as areas where it will want to say more when it reports in the autumn. As my noble friend says, parents have concerns as to whether there is sufficient space and direction in the school curriculum for these areas to be covered.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, we all know how important it is to manage our personal finances in adult life, and I am sure the Minister is aware that research shows that financial education makes young people more confident with money management and helps them to make better and more informed financial decisions. So, will the Government consider participating in the OECD PISA study of financial literacy, which could help identify gaps in current provision and allow better monitoring and benchmarking of progress towards every young person leaving education with a strong foundation of financial capability, which I am sure we all appreciate will be invaluable in their working lives?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have had some very good contacts with the OECD about the work that it is doing, not just in this area but more broadly. I cannot commit at this moment that we will take part in that study, but I will certainly undertake to go away and consider whether there are opportunities there.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, children leaving care are particularly disadvantaged in this area. Can the Minister say whether there will be special provision for children leaving care to be provided with financial advice for when they are really on their own?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point about the need to support young people leaving care. That, of course, is the reason for making personal advisers available to young people in that position. It is why, as we have been, and will be, debating in the Bill that comes later and more broadly in the Government’s reforms, we must be much clearer about the support available to care leavers and the offer that needs to be made available to them in all parts of the country.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about citizenship in schools. We had a brilliant committee last year on 11 to 16 education, which came out with amazing recommendations, all of which the Conservative Government turned down, so it would be very nice to know that the Labour Government will pick those up. Can she say what success we are having in recruiting citizenship teachers? This was one of the big difficulties when all this was put into citizenship.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that since citizenship was established—in fact, I had some responsibility for it the first time I was a Minister in the Department for Education—there has been enormous progress in the ability to deliver those sorts of skills to children in our schools, but also an ongoing challenge to make sure we recruit the specialist teachers in order to be able to do that. That is why the Government are determined to increase the numbers of specialist teachers by 6,500, and why we have put in place the financial and training support in order to encourage them into the profession and keep them in it.

Ethics and Integrity Commission

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:27

Asked by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Steps we have taken already to improve probity and transparency include the new Ministerial Code, the strengthened terms of reference for the independent adviser and the new monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality. On an ethics and integrity commission, Ministers are assessing all the options and we will update Parliament on decisions in due course.

While we are discussing processes related to ethics, integrity and standards in public life, I should declare that my husband is a member of the Committee on Standards in the other place.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness.

This was a clear pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and Liberal Democrats agree that it is essential to re-establishing public trust after the many unethical actions, and even corruption, that we saw particularly under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. On my shelves at home, I have a whole file of reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from outside commissions, think tanks et cetera, setting out the options on this. There are some very clear and simple choices. If I were asked to write the consultation paper, I think it would take me a weekend. Why have the Government delayed so much in doing so?

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

My Lords, we should discuss bookshelves. As for what we are doing, we have taken immediate action, but we want to make sure that, given how important ethics and integrity are in public life, and especially as—and I think the noble Lord agrees—one of the main ways in which we can challenge and counter the politics of populism is to make sure that people can genuinely trust their politicians, we need to make sure that the structures we put in place work and are right and effective. We are working on it, and I will update the House in due course.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, when this commission arrives, if it ever does, will His Majesty’s Government ensure there is no unprofitable overlap with the excellent work being done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life?

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

The noble Lord raises an excellent question. That is one of the reasons we have not rushed into it—to make sure that we are not replicating the organisations and entities that govern standards, integrity and ethics in public life, and that we can come forward with a proper, genuine response to what is needed. I assure the noble Lord that we are factoring in his question.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not also a deeper issue as to who is entitled to decide who sits—particularly in the elected House—to represent people? Fundamentally, should it not be for the criminal courts of this country and the electorate to decide both on the individual they are being asked to vote for and, indeed, collectively the Government?

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

My Lords, as we are the unelected House, I completely agree that it is for the electorate—I have faced them several times; they liked and then did not like me—to decide who they seek to represent them and to have an understanding of the values of those people. I thank my noble friend, but we have very clear processes in place to protect standards. It is important the general public has faith in them too.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a real danger that ethics and integrity considerations could seriously impede the working of the Government by forcing them to reclassify minor misdemeanours, such as the killing and dismemberment of a journalist in a friendly country, as gross abuse of human rights, as seen in other countries?

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

The noble Lord has an interesting take on the questions of ethics and integrity in public life. Obviously, the Government have to look at all issues in the round when considering issues of diplomacy and engagement with all our allies. The specific point raised is a matter for the FCDO.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, on 25 July last year, when asked about progress on establishing an ethics and integrity commission, the Government Minister in the other place said:

“this is always going to be about ‘show, not tell’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/24; col. 797.]

We have since had a year of the Government telling us there would be progress. Could the Minister tell the House what the timescale is for when the Government will be able to show us progress?

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

Well, I query the interpretation of what my honourable friend in the other place said. He said “show, and tell”. We have told: we have updated the Ministerial Code; we moved the Nolan principles into the Ministerial Code for the first time; we have added the concept of service, which is incredibly important to this Prime Minister; we have updated the terms of reference for the independent adviser, who can now act without the Prime Minister’s instigation; and we have introduced a new monthly register of guests and hospitality. We have both shown and told. In terms of establishing the commission, noble Lords will have to wait a little longer and I will update your Lordships’ House in the normal way.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, in July last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed in the other place that work had begun on the Government’s planned ethics and integrity commission. Obviously, the role of the chair of this commission will be very important. Can the Minister confirm that there will be proper oversight of the appointment of any future chair of the commission, that Parliament will have a role in the process and that the chair will remain democratically accountable to Parliament through Ministers in the usual way?

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

The noble Baroness tempts me to give details about what the commission will or will not look like. I am sure we will discuss this in your Lordships’ House when parliamentary time allows. With regards to the independence of the chair, the appointments to bodies and offices listed in the public appointments Order in Council are made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and so would the chair of any future commission.

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

My Lords, the Minister and most Members of this House will be aware that there have been a large number of examples of scandals and misdemeanours in Scotland by Scottish Ministers as well as Members of the Scottish Parliament. Will this commission cover the devolved authorities? I hope it will.

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

The noble Lord tempts me into areas that are not appropriate, but he is right that there has to be a trusted and valued ethics and standards process in each part of our nations and regions. With regard to the devolved Assemblies, that is wholly a matter for the devolved Governments, but I would hope that any changes that the UK Government made are also considered—because I am sure they will be best practice—by our devolved Governments.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, we have just had a round of local elections in England and many new councillors have taken up their responsibilities. Will this body be considering the local government dimension as far as ethics is concerned?

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

The noble Lord raises an excellent point, which I am just assured by my noble friend sitting to my right that we are working on in the English devolution Bill and that conversations are ongoing.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clearly involves considering a large number of bodies which are concerned with standards in government, Parliament and local government. Does the Minister consider that the process of establishing an ethics and integrity commission will require legislation, or can it be done through executive decisions?

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

My Lords, work is currently ongoing about what we will bring forward and how we will bring it forward. I will update the House as soon as I can.

Winter Fuel Payment

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:36

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to change the entitlement to the Winter Fuel Payment.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are extending eligibility so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the winter fuel payment. That means 9 million pensioners will now receive it—more than three-quarters of pensioners.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, since tabling this Question, we have had 40 minutes of exchanges on Tuesday. In fairness to the Minister, he addressed most of the questions, albeit at times provocatively. However, he did not answer the question from my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who asked why, when the Government needed to save money on the winter fuel allowance, they did not simply abolish it and then increase in November each individual’s entitlement to the state retirement pension by the same amount and recover it through the tax system. The Minister said:

“That may be one option, but it is not the option we have chosen”.—[Official Report, 10/6/25; col. 1224.]


Would that not have been simpler?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question. We have to remember the circumstances in which we found ourselves back in the autumn. We had to take many difficult and urgent decisions, because we needed to find in-year savings due to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited. We had to come in and make urgent in-year decisions. We therefore had to put in place a system that was able to generate immediate savings. The system that the noble Lord describes was not able to generate those immediate savings. That is why we did what we did. We are now able to extend eligibility, as I have said. We are extending it so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the winter fuel payment.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks whether there is a plan. Can the Minister confirm that there is a plan, and whether, if it does not work, they will again have another plan? Things change so much. Is there a reserve plan for when this plan does not work?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure I entirely followed the noble Lord’s question. We have set out clearly what the policy is. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the support, as will all those on pension credit and certain other income-related benefits. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, will be made to all pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered by HMRC without the need for them to take action.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this week, when the Prime Minister was explaining the rationale for the Government’s change on the winter fuel payment, he said that because the economy was now growing as a result of the Government’s policies, they were now able to make this change. Given the news yesterday that the economy is no longer growing, but actually shrank in April, would the Minister like to have another go at explaining the reason for the reversal of policy, and perhaps be honest about the fact that it was just incredibly unpopular and very ill-thought-through in the first place?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

One thing that was ill-thought-through was the Liz Truss mini-Budget and the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which is why we had to take the action that we did. It might be nice if the noble Lord took some responsibility for what we inherited. As I said already, when we came into office, we had to take a number of very difficult and urgent decisions to put the public finances back on a firm footing. That involved difficult decisions on welfare, on tax and on spending, and one of those was means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have listened to the concerns about the level of the means test and we are now able—all the while still means-testing the winter fuel payment, because that is the right thing to do—to extend eligibility so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will receive it.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by wishing my noble friend the Minister best wishes for his birthday today. He has the special treat of an Urgent Question and a Statement on the spending review—what more could anyone ask for?

I very much welcome the decision to reintroduce the winter fuel payment. In answer to the Question, my noble friend said that anyone with income above £35,000 would not receive the payment. There is one problem with that, in that some forms of income are not taxed. Someone with a substantial cash ISA—I understand that there is a Member on the Liberal Benches who has £1 million in his ISA; he has made no secret of it, and presumably receives a very substantial income—with a taxable income of less than £35,000, would presumably still receive the winter fuel allowance, or is some step going to be taken to avoid that problem?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and for his birthday wishes—that was very kind of him. Obviously, we had to achieve the right balance between a simple system to administer and getting the support to those who need it most. The system that we have come up with sticks with the existing rules of the tax system and, I think, achieves the right balance, as I described.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, like other Peers, I welcome this decision. The other day, I asked the Minister something to which he did not respond, and I wonder if I might ask it again. Is one of the lessons learned from this for the Government that, should they be making further cuts in spending, they might not look to vulnerable or disabled people.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I am sure that all of us have lessons to learn in life. I believe that it is very important that we reform our welfare system; it is not working and it needs reform, and I think everyone agrees with that. We will do this on a principled basis—namely, that those who can work should work, that those who want to work should be supported so that they can do so, and that we protect those with the most severe disabilities who will never be able to work.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, I did not welcome this decision. Turning to principles, does he agree that cliff edges in the tax and benefits system are undesirable? Can he explain whether, when a pensioner’s income moves from £34,999 to £35,000, support will be tapered away, or whether £1 in extra income will result in a £300 loss of winter fuel allowance?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows much more about the tax and benefits system than I do, I suspect, having spent many more years working on it than me. The answer to his question is that it is the latter: it is up to and including £35,000, so it will be at £35,001 where that happens. At that point, they will lose the winter fuel payment in its entirety.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am glad of the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy birthday from these Benches.

We welcome the decision by the Government partially to reverse their decision on the winter fuel allowance. That will ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable citizens are better protected through the dark and cold of the winter months. However, when he answered questions before, the Minister did not adequately answer how this £1.25 billion reversal will be funded. Can he tell us today whether it will result in further tax rises, in departmental spending cuts or in increases in borrowing, and, if not, where the money will come from?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words. We are setting out these changes now to ensure that more pensioners are able to receive support this winter. That is important. As she knows, we have moved to just one fiscal event a year, so, as is now normal, these changes will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, which is the Budget in the autumn. This will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside a full forecast from the OBR—something that the previous Government did not do—and we will ensure that the fiscal rules are met at all times.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, following the reference to those on these Benches and ISAs, I should perhaps declare to the House that I do not have £1 million in my ISA—I wish.

The Minister said that all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would benefit from this. Where I live, in the Scottish Borders, he will be aware that there is a degree of uncertainty, because of the interaction with devolved responsibilities, and because the benefits and tax system is reserved. Can the Minister reassure those where I live, in the Scottish Borders, that they will indeed benefit from what the Government have announced?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that winter fuel payments are a devolved policy in Scotland. The Scottish Government will receive a mechanical uplift in their funding as a result of the change in England and Wales. The Minister for Pensions spoke to his counterpart in Scotland on the day that this policy was announced. We are very conscious of the need for sufficient lead-in time, and those discussions will continue.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

1st reading
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:47

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

Conduct Committee

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:48

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

That Tracey McDermott CBE and Sir David Steel KBE be appointed as external members of the Committee in place of Mark Castle OBE and Vanessa Davies.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. The first group of four external members was appointed in autumn 2019 for an initial three years, renewable for a further three years—in other words, until later this year. To help maintain continuity, two of the external members have kindly agreed to step down a few months early, and I thank them for their service to the committee. The appointment of their successors has followed an open competition. That process was delayed by the sad loss of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, kindly agreed to step in to chair the interviewing panel. She was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Prashar, and by one of the continuing external members, Cindy Butts.

I ask the House to approve the appointment of Sir David Steel and Tracey McDermott on the same terms as their predecessors: for three years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further term thereafter. Biographical details are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am confident that both will bring valuable experience and wisdom to the work of this important committee. The final two appointments will be made towards the end of the year. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, may I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a question? When we debated the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, there was an issue that there was a differential in the terms of office between the Peers who were appointed. He is suggesting that this appointment will be for three years, with the opportunity of renewal for another three years. Would that apply to Peers who are appointed to the committee?

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. To clarify, the rotation of Peer members is a matter that will be coming before the Procedure and Privileges Committee. My understanding is that it was originally not intended that Peer members should be subject to the three-year rotation rule for this committee. That appears at some time to have blended into the three-year rotation. This matter arose, as noble Lords will know, from the review. It will come before the Procedure and Privileges Committee for consideration and will obviously come back to the House for clarification. That is the position; we are going to look at the procedure to clarify what I think was an error some years ago about the term of the Peer members.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am grateful for that answer but it seems to suggest making an appointment for three years, with which I very much agree, and holding out the possibility of a further three-year term. Is the Senior Deputy Speaker not pre-empting the committee’s decision? Or is it the case that, should it decide that Peers appointed to the Conduct Committee should have only a three-year appointment, the offer of an extension would be withdrawn?

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I am seeking to say that it was originally not intended that the Conduct Committee membership should be subject to the three-year rotation rule. It appears that this needs to be resolved, and that is why it has come up for consideration by the Procedure Committee. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what the Procedure Committee or your Lordships may decide—I am very well aware of that—but I am setting out the parameters of what the Procedure Committee and the House may need to resolve so that the Peer members are not subject to the three-year rotation rule if that is what the House, and before that the Procedure Committee, should wish.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

It might assist the Senior Deputy Speaker and my noble friend if I add to what has been said. As a newly appointed member of the Conduct Committee and as one of the members who were part of the recruitment process, one of the things that has been important to me in the disparity between the appointment terms for Peers and non-Peer members is that there is no assumption that a non-Peer member, at the point of their appointment, will automatically get another three-year term at the end of their first term. That is important, because previously I had heard it being discussed that the non-Peer members were appointed for six years. That is the point that we need to get away from—the assumption that there will always be a second term.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

Without wishing to elongate this, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that. It primes that this is a matter for the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider. If there is further clarification, obviously it will come back before your Lordships.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

11:54

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.

In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.

The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.

In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.

I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?

12:00

On the issue of this being done jointly, I hope that does not mean that the needs of this House are going to be considered just by the House of Commons, the other place. I do not in any way attribute blame for this to the Leader of the House, who I know probably shares—although she is much more diplomatic than me—the same frustrations at the process. However, we are now being told that Peers cannot have access to the House of Commons Terrace, and that changes have been made to our ability to get tickets for guests for Prime Minister’s Questions, which we have had for years and years.

We need to have the House of Lords and the House of Commons working as one parliamentary team. Setting up organisations like this depends on there being a good working relationship, but in recent years that seems to have deteriorated. I accept that this is a good initiative by the commission, but it depends on co-operation and an understanding that the needs of this part-time House and of the other place are very different, and we need to work together.

The people who will be spending huge sums of money, hundreds of millions of pounds, need to have a good commercial understanding and to recognise the importance of bringing this House with us. A new phrase has entered our discussions: we hear that “the administration thinks” this, that and the other. This is a self-regulating House, and the administration needs to take account of its needs and anxieties. Although I could highlight other examples, I have highlighted the front door because it is a classic example. If people had listened to what Members on all sides of this House were saying, we would not have wasted so much public money—I hope the noble Baroness the Leader will tell us exactly how much we have wasted—or embarked on a system that was untried and untested, with catastrophic results for not just our security but our ability to bring people to this House in the way that we all wish.

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

I am not going to continue on the saga of the front door, although I agree completely with what the noble Lord has just said. Even I am considered occasionally a bit more diplomatic than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He is right that there are now a number of areas for which there is joint responsibility, and one of them is security. I have been conscious of the fact that the House of Commons seems to dominate decision-making. Wherever it comes from, whether it is the Speaker, the House of Commons Commission, the Services Committee or whatever, they always get their own way and the interests of this House are not properly considered.

Neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are blaming the Leader of the House, who does everything she can, as do the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Lord Speaker, but we should back them up and say that where it is sensible to have Joint Committees, we should have them. There should be more joint working on catering, for example; it seems crazy that we have two completely separate catering departments. There are whole areas like that which could be brought more closely together, but, in doing so, the interests of this House must not be forgotten. I say that having been a Member of the other place and recognising its pre-eminence regarding legislation; but in terms of this Building, the use of it and our own interests, we are just as important as the House of Commons.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that all those individuals—and I mean individuals rather than collective groups of people—who sign contracts on behalf of this House have professional indemnity insurance? Can she explain to the House what that level of cover is and what decisions were made in determining how much it should be?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

To follow up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my colleague on this lovely front door, I have good information that it is the first time that such a design has been used. Why should we be guinea pigs? We believe in precedent here for a large number of different things, but not in being a guinea pig for a kind of door that clearly does not work. Portcullis House has doors that seem to work all right—did no one test it first?

On the question of professional indemnity, is anyone going to be found to be at fault here? I imagine not, but we have to make sure it does not happen again.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about use of the Commons Terrace. I have been a Member of this House for very many years and occasionally have used the Commons Terrace. About a year ago I had one of my grandsons here for lunch in the Commons canteen, and I wanted to take him on to the Terrace but was told I was not allowed to. I found that deeply shocking. The Terrace that we have at this end is very small compared to the one at the other end. There is usually masses of room at the other end, particularly in the area reserved for Members, so I ask that representations be made to the Speaker of the House of Commons on restoring the use of the Terrace to Members of this House.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the report and what the Leader of the House has said. Some very important points have been made. As a member of the commission, I know that it is well versed in and very involved in discussions on these matters.

This is undoubtedly the right way forward. We are served in this House by some excellent and dedicated people, through all levels of service. We are going to see more joint working. Since I took over as chairman of the Services Committee, carrying on the excellent work done by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, we have looked at having some joint meetings with the Commons Administration Committee, which will be taking place later this year. I want the Leader to think about the way in which that joint directorate is in future going to be accountable to both Houses through its membership—not just the commission, though the commission is important. A lot of business goes to the commission, and sometimes there is not always time available to us as a commission to apply the kind of in-depth knowledge and attention that is sometimes needed to the various issues that come along.

I hope that the Leader will address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which I know is in her mind. We must ensure that the governance of any joint working body is seen to be clearly accountable to both Houses, and that it involves the memberships of both Houses. That said, I very much welcome the report.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

A number of Peers present at the moment, and indeed the Clerk of the Parliaments, went home rather late last night. As we did so—the door was conveniently left open for us to go through at our liberty—I noticed a large number of heavy-duty lorries outside, parked across the bus stop. This morning, as I came in, I noticed that fencing has been erected in front of the doorway. It looks to me like a bit of an eyesore, if I am honest, and I cannot understand why we have allowed this to happen.

In connection with last night’s debate, I wonder whether it is intended that Victoria Tower Gardens should be similarly surrounded by fencing of a similar nature. I think we should be told. It seems to have happened without much consultation, under the heading of “security”, and I think it is regrettable.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I want to add just one thing about what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. The dominance of the position of the House of Commons certainly resulted in the death of one Member of this House. Many years ago, when I came in, I fought for four years to get a defibrillator established in this place, because repeatedly a number of Members of the House collapsed after speaking. Most of the time this was innocent but, once or twice, we had cardiac arrests and people were taken to St Thomas’s Hospital.

When I finally tried to raise this with the officials of this House, I was given a meeting with officials in the other place and told very firmly that the House of Commons would not accept this. One of the things that was said to me was, “What would we do if a member of the public collapsed in the Gallery? Would it be our responsibility?” Interestingly, the medical advice in this House was not considered sufficient for the medical advice in the lower House.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Perhaps I might briefly add to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, focusing in particular on the door. There are many other points that could be made. I think it seems very sensible to do things jointly, although I am concerned this will lead to even less accountability. The important thing is to find out who is accountable. It is alleged that the door was going to cost £2 million and may have cost £11 million or £12 million. If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked. If it is true, we need answers and somebody, on every decision that is made, needs to be accountable.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.

I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.

On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.

There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.

12:15

I remember the days when there were no gates outside Downing Street, and I still think they look awful. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, laughs at me, but it is my age; I do remember. I have a photograph outside the Downing Street door that was taken when I was a teenager.

It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of noble Lords that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased—plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.

That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. That is a huge frustration to everybody. One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs.

The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. If it will not, other decisions have to be resolved and that has to be something that is done very quickly. I hate to use the word “review”, because it sounds like long grass, but work is going on now to do that. I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective noble Lords may wish to use.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer.

So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs.

On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that.

On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong.

The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements.

I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.

On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.

Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.

12:30

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.

Motion agreed.

Chinese Embassy Development

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

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

“This Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. The process includes a role for planning Ministers in deciding on called-in planning applications and recovered appeals, so I hope that the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the Dispatch Box. That said, it may be helpful to Members if I set out the process that these cases follow.

The application referred to by the right honourable Member was considered to meet the published call-in policy set out in the October 2012 Written Ministerial Statement, so it will be determined by Ministers. The application is not yet with the department. All decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation and sets out their full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to contain a wide variety of material planning considerations; in this case, those are likely to include safety and national security.

A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. Should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, they will also be taken into account. At all times, the decision will be dealt with in line with the published propriety guidance on planning casework decisions. The right honourable Member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry. That will be taken into account, alongside all other relevant matters. Once the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, the case will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations”.

12:34

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s own cybersecurity experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the city of London from the embassy. Even the Government of the United States and the Dutch Parliament have raised concerns about the presence of sensitive telecommunications infrastructure, especially cables, beneath the Royal Mint Court. Given the well-documented history of cyber-related and infrastructure-related intrusions linked to the Chinese state, does the Minister agree that planning permission should never have been granted to a Chinese embassy, for many reasons, including that the Royal Mint Court is adjacent to the Wapping Telephone Exchange, and it carries highly sensitive information?

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

My Lords, before I answer the specific question from the noble Baroness, may I update the House? The inspector’s report was received on 10 June by the department. Parties have been notified a decision will be made on or before 9 September 2025. As the report has just been received, we have not yet begun to assess the case. The inspector’s report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it. Until that point, neither the recommendation nor the report will be made public. I hope that update is helpful to noble Lords.

Turning to the noble Baroness’s question, because we now have the report and we will be considering it, it would not be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised in the application while it is under active consideration by the department. However, all decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, setting out full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national policy, which is likely to include a wide variety of material planning matters that may include safety and national security.

On the specific issue of cybersecurity, as I have said, no decision has been made on the case. Ministers will come to a decision based on the material planning considerations I have referred to, in line with the established process that these cases follow.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

That update from the Minister is most helpful.

We know from public warnings from the director-general of MI5 that China has been operating on an “epic scale” in its attempts to obtain political influence in the United Kingdom through educational arrangements and the use of state funds. That is why these Benches are disappointed that the Conservative Opposition have agreed this week with the Government to exempt China from the foreign influence registration scheme in respect of educational arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds.

We also know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal activities in the UK but who have bounties on their head. I shall not ask the Minister about any technical planning or security considerations, but what statutory provision can there be in the embassy to prevent foreign influence from the Chinese embassy on our political processes, and to help prohibit transnational repression of those living in this country?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

National security is, of course, the first duty of government more generally. On the specifics of the case, the inspector’s report will consider the application against all the national, local and regional issues, according to planning policy. Safety and national security will be taken into consideration to make sure that we have considered fully all the issues that may relate to this planning application.

It is difficult to answer general questions about the relationship with China in the same space as a planning decision, which has to be taken according to a fixed process. But noble Lords should be assured that we very strongly consider national security to be our first duty.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is hard to imagine that, if in 1980 the former Soviet Union had asked for a prime site for a new mega-embassy, we in Parliament would have agreed. It is even harder for me to understand why we are doing this for a regime accused by the House of Commons of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, one which has incarcerated over a thousand pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, including a British national Jimmy Lai, sanctions parliamentarians of both Houses—including me—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has just said, places bounties on heads of activists, including a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on the head of a young girl, Chloe Cheung, who lives in the United Kingdom. Why, in comparison with what we would have done in 1980, are we doing this now?

In the Commons, the Minister there said that the Government is open to further representations. To whom should they be made? How will they be considered? Given that the conditions set by the Government around the consolidation of Chinese consulate premises and access to the Cistercian abbey ruins on the site have both been rejected by the Chinese, how do the Government intend to address the rejection of those conditions?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of points and I have heard him speak many times on these issues to my colleagues from the FCDO. The Government stand firm on human rights, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Members of the Government have raised human rights with President Xi and members of the Chinese Government. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account.

On the issue of Jimmy Lai, I know this question has been answered before in your Lordships’ House, but we continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20, and the Foreign Secretary raised it most recently with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in April. The Prime Minister is following Jimmy Lai’s trial closely, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific remains in regular contact with Mr Lai’s son and last met him on 28 April.

In relation to the noble Lord’s question, which I believe was about representations, representations can be made in the normal way to the Secretary of State or the planning casework unit in MHCLG. All material planning considerations will be taken into account in determining the case. If any noble Lords wish to do so, they should be directed to the Secretary of State or the planning casework team.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has rightly outlined some of the concerns regarding the Chinese Communist regime and the way that it treats its nationals, let alone its international activities. However, international relations between states have never implied approval of those states, or indeed of their domestic regimes. They are about relations between states and that implies embassies as well. The fact is that big states have big embassies—for example, look at the US embassy south of the river. China is a big state; that is a fact. Can we dial down the rhetoric a bit?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure that was really a question, but I say to the noble Lord that the Government take a consistent long-term and strategic approach to managing the United Kingdom’s relations with China, which are firmly rooted in our national interest.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I had not intended to make any points on this, as I tread with care regarding accusations levelled at all Members of Parliament and community leaders who support people of Chinese heritage with whom many of us have long-standing relationships. However, following my noble friend’s question, the fallout from some of our high rhetoric and tension has an impact on the community outside. In my local area, I live alongside a large community of Hong Kong Chinese and I have had associations for 50 years with the Chinese community in Tower Hamlets and Newham, who have contributed hugely to the whole community. Will the Minister agree that, whatever the relationship is Government to Government, we must not make the communities the fifth column? I say this as someone who is Muslim and has experienced in the community the reverberations of the rhetoric in public discourse. Does the Minister agree that we need to make sure that we are extremely cautious in any condemnation of states and consider the fallout that may be experienced by the local communities?

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

I did ask my question.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is important to reiterate that this is a planning issue and will be considered on planning grounds. However, the noble Baroness raised concerns about the Hong Kong community. In January, the Foreign Secretary and Minister West met those who were recently targeted with arrest warrants and bounties by the Hong Kong police and, in June, the Security Minister and Minister West met those recently targeted by Hong Kong police with arrest warrants. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, as Labour pledged to do in our manifesto. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. The UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.

I reiterate that this is a planning matter and the issues will be considered by planning Ministers against the criteria, including national security and other security issues. A decision will be taken on or by 9 September.

Spending Review 2025

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 11 June.

“My driving purpose since I became Chancellor is to make working people in all parts of our country better off, to rebuild our schools and our hospitals, and to invest in our economy so that everyone has the opportunity to succeed after 14 years of mismanagement and decline by the party opposite, culminating in a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That was the Conservatives’ legacy, and the first job I faced as Chancellor was to set it right. So at the Budget last October and again in the spring, I made the choices necessary to fix the foundations of our economy. We wasted no time in removing the barriers to growth: the biggest overhaul of our planning system in a generation; launching Britain’s first National Wealth Fund; and reforming our pensions system to unlock billions of pounds of investment into our economy.

We are starting to see the results. The stability we have provided has helped support four cuts in interest rates, saving hundreds of pounds a year for families with a mortgage. Real wages have grown by more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. And the latest figures show that we are the fastest growing economy in the G7. Countries around the world are lining up to do business with Britain again, with new trade deals with India, the United States and the European Union.

We are renewing Britain, but I know that too many people in too many parts of our country are yet to feel it. This Government’s task, my task as Chancellor, and the purpose of this spending review is to change that—to ensure that renewal is felt in people’s everyday lives, in their jobs, and on their high streets. The priorities of this spending review are the priorities of working people: to invest in Britain’s security and Britain’s health and to grow Britain’s economy so that working people are better off.

Today, I am allocating the envelope I set out in the spring. I am enormously grateful to my excellent team of officials at the Treasury and to my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his tireless work throughout this process, crunching the numbers and looking at the assets and liabilities. On that note, I thank all my Cabinet colleagues for their contribution to this process—they are all assets to this Labour Government.

In this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms. Compare that to the Conservatives’ choice of austerity. In contrast to our increase of 2.3%, they cut spending by 2.9% a year in 2010. Let us be clear: austerity was a destructive choice for both the fabric of our society and our economy, choking off investment and demand and creating a lost decade for growth, wages and living standards. That is their legacy.

My choices are different. My choices are Labour choices—the choices in this spending review that are possible only because of my commitment to economic stability and the decisions this Government have made. The Conservatives’ fiscal rules guaranteed neither stability nor investment, and that is why I changed them. My fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and they are the foundation for stability and investment.

My first rule is for stability: day-to-day government spending should be paid for through tax receipts. That is the sound economic choice. It also the fair choice, because it is not right to expect our children and future generations to pay for the services we rely on today. This first rule allows me, as I set out in the Budget, to allocate £190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services over the course of this spending review compared with the previous Government’s plans.

My second fiscal rule enables me to invest in Britain’s economic renewal while getting public debt on a downward path. This rule allowed me to increase public investment by more than £100 billion in the autumn and a further £13 billion in the spring. That is investment to rebuild our transport networks, our defence capability and our energy security—in short, to grow our economy.

I have made my choices: tough decisions for stability and changing Britain’s fiscal rules for investment. Today, I am delivering that investment for the renewal of Britain. Now, it is time for the parties opposite to make their choices. The spending plans I am setting out today are possible only because of the decisions I took in the autumn to raise taxes and the changes to our fiscal rules, every one of which was opposed by the parties opposite. Today, they can make an honest choice and oppose these spending plans as they opposed every penny I raised to fund them, or they can make the same choice as Liz Truss: spend more and borrow more, with no regard for the consequences.

In their clamour to cut taxes for the richest, the Conservatives crashed our economy, sent mortgage rates spiralling and put our pensions in peril. I will never take those risks. Yet Reform is itching to do the same thing all over again. The honourable Member for Clacton, Nigel Farage, may be playing the friend of the workers now, but some of us are old enough to remember when he described the disastrous Liz Truss Budget as ‘the best Conservative Budget’ since the 1980s—after the damage is done, he still nods along. Reform has learned nothing. His party has been in Parliament for less than a year, yet it has already racked up £80 billion of unfunded commitments. Reform is simply not serious. Every day it becomes clearer that it is Labour—and only Labour—that has a credible plan for the renewal of Britain.

As I said in my Spring Statement, the world is changing before our eyes. Since the spring, the challenges that we face have become even more acute. The signs of our age of insecurity are everywhere, so we are acting on the promise in our plan for change: building renewal on the foundations of national security, border security and economic security. As the Prime Minister said earlier this month:

‘A new era in the threats that we face demands a new era for defence and security’.

That is why we took the decision to prioritise our defence spending by reducing overseas development aid. Defence spending will now rise to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027, including the contribution of our intelligence agencies. That uplift provides funding for my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary, with an £11 billion increase in defence spending and a £600 million uplift for our security and intelligence agencies. That investment will deliver not only security, but renewal in Aldermaston and Lincoln; in Portsmouth and Filton; on the Clyde and in Rosyth. Investment in Scotland, jobs in Scotland, and defence for the United Kingdom—opposed by the Scottish National Party; delivered by this Labour Government.

Investing in our Armed Forces, our military technology and our supply chains also brings huge opportunities: £4.5 billion of investment in munitions, made in factories from Glasgow to Glascoed, Stevenage to Radway Green; and over £6 billion to upgrade our nuclear submarine production, supporting thousands of jobs across Barrow, Derby and Sheffield. We will make Britain a defence industrial superpower, with the jobs, the skills and the pride that come with that.

A more unstable world presents new challenges at our borders too. Conflict has opened the way for organised criminal gangs. The British people rightly expect us to have control of who comes into our country. The Conservatives said that they would ‘take back control’. Well, Mr Speaker, they lost control. With one failed policy after another, there was no control and no security. In contrast, in the Budget last year I announced £150 million to establish the new Border Security Command, and today, to support the integrity of our borders, I can announce that that funding will increase, with up to £280 million more per year by the end of the spending review period for our new Border Security Command.

Alongside that, we are tackling the asylum backlog. The Conservative Party left behind a broken system: billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels, leaving people in limbo and shunting the cost of failure on to local communities. We will not let that stand. I can confirm today that, led by the work of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, we will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament. Funding that I have provided today, including from the transformation fund, will cut the asylum backlog; allow more appeal cases to be heard; and return people who have no right to be here, saving the taxpayer £1 billion per year. That is my choice, that is Labour’s choice, that is the choice of the British people.

If we want national security in a dangerous world, that does not stop at the strength of our armed forces or at our borders. I have long spoken about what I call ‘securonomics’—the basic insight that, in an age of insecurity, government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy. Put simply: where things are made, and who makes them, matters.

Take energy: the Tories neglected our nuclear and renewables sectors and closed our gas storage facilities, leaving us exposed to hikes in energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine, and it was working people who paid the price for their mistakes. Labour understands that energy security is national security. Because it is the right choice for bills, jobs and growth, this Government are investing in the biggest rollout of nuclear power for half a century, with a £30 billion commitment to our nuclear-powered future.

Yesterday my right honourable friend the Energy Secretary and I announced £14 billion for Sizewell C, which will produce energy to power 6 million homes and support more than 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships, in order to build the nuclear workforce of tomorrow. That is not all. We are investing over £2.5 billion in a new small modular reactor programme. Our preferred partner is Rolls-Royce—a great British company based in Derby. This investment is just one step towards our ambition for a full fleet of small modular reactors, and it provides a route for private sector-led advanced modular reactor projects to be deployed across the UK.

Alongside these actions, we are making nuclear-approved land available in Sellafield to attract private investment and create thousands more jobs. I thank my honourable friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington, Josh MacAlister, for his work in this area. To strengthen Britain’s position at the forefront of a global race for new nuclear technologies—a cause championed by Mayor of the East Midlands Claire Ward and my honourable friend the Member for Bassetlaw, Jo White—and to support pioneering work taking place in West Burton in Nottinghamshire, we are investing over £2.5 billion in our nuclear future.

To back British industries, pioneering work in carbon capture, usage and storage will take place. Last year we announced funding for two sites, one on Merseyside and one in Teesside, where we are building the world’s first commercial-scale CCUS plant. Today I can announce support for the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire to support Scotland’s transition from oil and gas to low-carbon technology—a challenge and an opportunity well understood by the leader of Scottish Labour Anas Sarwar and my right honourable friend the Scotland Secretary. We are also backing the Viking project in Humberside—a cause long supported by my honourable friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Melanie Onn.

Because I am determined to ensure that the energy technologies of the future are built here and owned here and that jobs come to Britain, this spending review invests in the wholly publicly owned Great British Energy, headquartered in Scotland. These investments will ensure that the towns and cities that powered the last Industrial Revolution play their part in our next industrial revolution. Reducing our reliance on overseas oil and gas, protecting working families from price shocks, and a new generation of energy industries for a renewed Britain—that is my choice, that is Labour’s choice, that is the choice of the British people.

Economic security relies on our ability to buy, make and sell more here in Britain. In April, this Government faced a choice: to let British Steel in Scunthorpe go under or to intervene—that choice was a choice not of the metal trader but of this Labour Government. We heard representations from workers, trade unions and my honourable friend the Member for Scunthorpe, Sir Nicholas Dakin. My right honourable friend the Business Secretary and I were not prepared to tolerate a situation in which Britain’s steel capacity was fatally undermined. We were not prepared to see another working-class community lose the pride, prosperity and dignity that industry provides, so we did intervene to save British Steel and the jobs that come with it, and I am proud of that decision.

The Government will invest in Scunthorpe’s long-term future and the future of steelworks across our great country. In a vote of confidence in our homegrown steel, Heathrow Airport, where we are backing London by backing a third runway, has signed the UK steel charter—a multibillion-pound airport expansion backed by Labour and built with British steel.

Building our train and tram lines, our military hardware and our new power stations will mean orders for steel made in Britain at Sheffield Forgemasters, where we are investing in nuclear-grade steel, and in Port Talbot, where the spending review confirms the £500 million grant to Tata Steel. A future for British-made steel and a proud future for Britain’s steel communities. Things built to last, built here in Britain—that is my choice, that is Labour’s choice, that is the choice of the British people.

This Labour Government are backing British business. There will be more to come in the weeks ahead with our 10-year infrastructure strategy and our modern industrial strategy: a plan drawn up in partnership with businesses and trade unions. When I speak to businesspeople and entrepreneurs about what they need to succeed, they say that they need the chance to innovate, they need access to finance and they need a deep pool of talent. We have heard that message, and today we are taking action.

First, on innovation, which is a great British strength. Our universities are world-leading, and we are proud of them. We want our high-tech industries in Britain to continue to lead the world in years to come in car production, in aerospace and in life sciences, so we are backing our innovators, backing our researchers and backing our entrepreneurs with research and development funding rising to a record high of £22 billion a year by the end of the spending review. Because homegrown artificial intelligence has the potential to solve diverse and daunting challenges, as well as the opportunity for good jobs and investment here in Britain, I am announcing £2 billion to back the Government’s AI action plan overseen by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Secondly, to champion those small businesses seeking access to finance as they look to grow, I am increasing the financial firepower of the British Business Bank with a two-thirds increase in its investments, increasing its overall financial capacity to £25.6 billion to help pioneering businesses to start up and scale up, backing Britain’s entrepreneurs and backing Britain’s wealth creators.

Thirdly, as we invest, if we are to thrive in the industries of the future, we must give our young people the skills they need to contribute to our national success as scientists, engineers and designers, and as builders, welders and electricians. I know the ambition, the drive and the potential of our young people; it cannot be right that too often those ambitions and that potential are stifled. Young people who want training find courses are oversubscribed and are turned away at the door, forcing growing businesses, eager to recruit that talent, to look elsewhere—potential wasted and enterprise frustrated. So today I am providing record investment for training and upskilling with £1.2 billion a year by the end of the spending review to support over a million young people into training and apprenticeships so that their potential, their drive and their ambition is frustrated no longer.

On the subject of skills, we should all recognise the Leader of the Opposition’s own commitment to lifelong learning. At the weekend, she promised to learn and ‘get better’ on the job. I am sure that Opposition Members will be supporting her in that endeavour. Good luck with that.

As we build a strong, secure and resilient economy, working people must feel the benefits. That starts with the security of a proper home. Our planning reforms have opened up the opportunity to build. Now, we must act to make the most of those opportunities, and a plan to match the scale of the housing crisis must include social housing, which has been neglected for too many decades, but not by this Labour Government. So, led by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we are taking action. I am proud to announce the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years with a new affordable homes programme in which I am investing £39 billion over the next decade—direct government funding that will support housebuilding, especially for social rent. I am pleased to report that towns and cities including Blackpool, Preston, Sheffield and Swindon already have plans to bring forward bids to build those homes in their communities.

I have gone further. Last autumn, I enabled greater use of financial transactions to support investments in our infrastructure alongside strict guardrails that ensure that money is spent wisely through our public financial institutions. So, in line with that commitment, I am providing an additional £10 billion for financial investments, including to be delivered through Homes England, to crowd in private investment and unlock hundreds of thousands more homes. Homes built by a Labour Government; homes built for working people.

But it is no good investing in new skills, new jobs and new homes if they are not properly connected. That is why last week, with the support of my right honourable friend the Transport Secretary, I announced £15 billion of investment to connect our cities and our towns—the biggest ever investment of its kind—with investments in buses in Rochdale, train stations in Merseyside and Middlesbrough, mass transit in West Yorkshire and metro extensions in Birmingham, Tyne and Wear and Stockport. Alongside that, we are backing Doncaster airport.

Today, I am announcing a four-year settlement for Transport for London to provide certainty and stability for our largest local transport network to plan for the future. For other regions in the UK, I am today providing for a fourfold increase in local transport grants by the end of this Parliament to make the improvements put off for far too long, to improve the journeys that people make every day.

To unlock the potential of all parts of Britain, we are going further by investing in major rail projects to connect our towns and cities. In October, I announced funding for the trans-Pennine route upgrade—the backbone of rail travel in the north, linking York, Leeds and Manchester—with a quarter of that route expected to be electrified by this summer. I know the commitment of my honourable friends the Members for Huddersfield, Harpreet Uppal, for York Outer, Mr Charters, and for Colne Valley, Paul Davies, to this issue, and today I can announce a further £3.5 billion of investment for that route. But my ambition, and the ambition of people across the north, is greater still, so in the coming weeks I will set out the Government’s plan to take forward our ambitions for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

I have also heard the representations of my honourable friends the Members for Milton Keynes North, Chris Curtis, for Milton Keynes Central, Emily Darlington, and for Buckingham and Bletchley, Callum Anderson, and I can tell the House today that to connect Oxford and Cambridge and to back Milton Keynes’s leading tech sector I am providing a further £2.5 billion for the continued delivery of East West Rail. On a matter that I know is of great importance to my honourable friends the Members for Lichfield, Dave Robertson, for Birmingham Northfield, Laurence Turner, and for Birmingham Erdington, Paulette Hamilton, I can announce today that I am providing funding for the Midlands rail hub: the region’s biggest and most ambitious rail improvement scheme for generations, strengthening connections from Birmingham across the West Midlands and into Wales, too.

For 14 years, the Conservatives failed the people of Wales. Those days are over. Following representations from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the First Minister of Wales, and Welsh Labour MPs, today I am pleased to announce £445 million for railways in Wales over 10 years, including new funding for Padeswood sidings and Cardiff West junction. That is the difference made by two Labour Governments, working together to undo a generation of underfunding and neglect.

This Government take seriously their commitment to investment, jobs and growth in every part of the UK. I have heard the concerns of my honourable friends the Members for Mid Cheshire, Andrew Cooper, and for Rossendale and Darwen, Andy MacNae, and the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, that past Governments have underinvested in towns and cities outside London and the south-east. They are right, so today I am publishing the conclusion of the review of the Treasury Green Book, which is the Government’s manual for assessing value for money. Our new Green Book will support place-based business cases, and make sure that no region has Treasury guidance wielded against it. I said that we would do things differently, and that we wanted growth in all parts of Britain, and I meant it.

Backing our nations and regions means backing our devolved Governments, and this spending review provides the largest settlement in real terms since devolution was introduced, with £52 billion for Scotland, £20 billion for Northern Ireland by the end of the spending review period, and £23 billion for Wales. Having heard representations from many Welsh Labour colleagues, and because I know the obligation that we owe to our industrial communities, I am providing a multi-year settlement of £118 million to keep coal tips safe in Wales.

I know what pride people feel in their communities—I see it everywhere I go—but I also know that, for too many people, there is a sense that something has been lost as high streets have declined, community spaces have closed, and jobs and opportunity have gone elsewhere. The renewal of Britain must be felt everywhere. Today I am pleased to announce additional funding to support up to 350 communities, especially those in the most deprived areas—funding to improve parks, youth facilities, swimming pools and libraries, and to support councils in fighting back against graffiti and fly-tipping, including in Blackpool South, Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Swindon North, and Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.

And there is more. Job creation and community assets are vital to our growth mission, but too often, regeneration projects are held back, gathering dust in bureaucratic limbo. We are changing that. We will establish a growth mission fund to expedite local projects that are important for growth—projects such as Southport pier, an iconic symbol of coastal heritage that has stood empty since 2022; Kirkcaldy’s seafront and high street, where investment would create jobs and new business opportunities; and plans for Peterborough’s new sports quarter, to drive activity and community cohesion. People deserve a Government who share their ambition for their communities, and who deliver renewal, growth, and opportunity, and that is what you get with a Labour Government.

If people are to feel pride in their community, enjoy their public spaces, and spend time on their high streets, they must feel safe when they do so—safe in the knowledge that when people break the law, they feel the full force of the law. The Conservative party left our prisons overflowing and on the brink of collapse, and left it to us to deal with the consequences. We are taking the necessary action, so my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary and I have announced that we are investing £7 billion to fund 14,000 new prison places, and putting up to £700 million per year into reform of the probation system. Today, I will do more. I am increasing police spending power by an average 2.3% per year in real terms over the spending review period, to protect our people, our homes and our streets. That is more than £2 billion, supporting us to meet our plan for change commitment of putting 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles across England and Wales.

I am determined that every family, as well as every place, should feel the benefits of Britain’s renewal. Falling interest rates, supported by our commitment to economic stability, are already saving many families hundreds of pounds a month on their mortgage. I have accepted pay review body recommendations for our Armed Forces, nurses, teachers and prison officers, giving public sector workers the fair pay rises that they deserve. In autumn, I increased the national living wage—a pay rise for around 3 million hard-working people. This Government are doing more: we are banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, strengthening statutory sick pay, and ending the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices. Those are my choices; those are Labour choices.

I know that for many people the cost of living remains a constant challenge. That is why we are capping the cost of school uniforms. I can tell the House today that I am extending the £3 bus fare cap until at least March 2027. Earlier this week, we announced that over three-quarters of pensioners will receive the winter fuel payment this year. And there is more: to get bills down, not just this winter but in winters to come, we have expanded the warm homes plan to support thousands more of the UK’s poorest households. That includes providing £7 million to homes in Bradford, £11 million to homes in Rugby, and £30 million to homes in Blackpool. Today I can announce that I will deliver in full our manifesto commitment to upgrading millions of homes, saving families and pensioners across the country up to £600 off their bills, each and every year. I am determined to do everything in my power to put more money in people’s pockets, to give people security and control in their lives, to make working people better off, and to show them that this Labour Government are on their side.

Taxpayers work hard for their money, and they expect their Government to spend their money with care. For the first time in 18 years, this Government have run a zero-based review, and made a line-by-line assessment of what the Government spend—something that the Tories did not bother to do in 14 years. As a result of that work, and our wider drive for efficiencies, led by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in this spending review I have found savings from the closure and sale of government buildings and land, from cutting back-office costs, and from reducing consultancy spend—all of which the previous Government failed to do. Those reforms will make public services more efficient, more productive, and more focused on the user. I have been relentless in driving out inefficiencies, and I will be relentless in cutting out waste, with every single penny reinvested in our public services.

I joined the Labour party almost 30 years ago because I knew, growing up, that the Conservative party did not care much about schools like mine, or the kids I grew up with. I joined because I believed that every young person should have an equal chance to succeed, no matter where they come from or what their parents do. I believe that just as strongly today as I did then. That is why, at the Budget last autumn, I ended the tax loophole that exempted private schools from VAT and business rates. I put that money where it belongs: into helping the 93% of children in our state schools. The Conservatives opposed money for their local state schools, but I will always prioritise those schools. That was my choice; that is the Labour choice.

Because of decisions that we made in this spending review, last week, this Government, working with my right honourable friend the Education Secretary, announced that free school meals will be extended to over half a million more children. That policy alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty—children in schools from Tower Hamlets to Sunderland, and from Swansea to Bridgend.

Last year, at the Labour party conference, I was proud to announce the first steps in our plan to deliver breakfast clubs for every child, with an initial rollout to the first 750 schools. We will continue with that national rollout as part of our manifesto commitment, so that no child goes hungry, and every child can have the best chance of thriving and succeeding. I know that a good start in life does not start at school, so I can also announce £370 million for school-based nurseries, to put us firmly on track to meet our plan for change commitment to a record number of children being school-ready. On children’s social care, to break the dangerous cycle of late intervention and low-quality care, I am providing £555 million of transformation funding over the spending review period, so that children do not needlessly go into care when they could stay at home, and so that, where state intervention is necessary, there is better care, and there are better outcomes.

Last week, I was pleased to announce, with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, that more than £130 million from the dormant assets scheme, run with the financial services sector, will be allocated to funding facilities for our young people, to give every child the chance to take part in music, sport and drama, and to fund libraries in our schools, so that the confidence and opportunities that those resources open up are no longer the preserve of the privileged few. Those are my choices, those are Labour choices, and those are the choices of the British people.

Overall, I am providing a cash uplift of over £4.5 billion a year in additional funding for the core schools budget by the end of the spending review, backing our teachers and our kids. People who went to ordinary comprehensives in the 1980s and 1990s are all too familiar with the experience of being taught in temporary classrooms. The previous Conservative Government oversaw another generation of kids being herded into cold and damp buildings as school roofs literally crumbled. It was not acceptable when I was at school, and it is not acceptable now. I am therefore providing investment, rising to nearly £2.3 billion per year, to fix our crumbling classrooms, in addition to £2.4 billion per year to continue our programme to rebuild 500 schools, including Chace Community School in Enfield, Woodkirk Academy in Leeds and Budmouth Academy in Weymouth. Investing in our young people, investing in Britain’s future and investing in opportunity for all: that is Labour’s choice.

Finally, let me turn to our National Health Service. It is our most treasured public service, and people rightly expect an NHS that is there when they need it; that an ambulance will come when they call one; that a GP appointment will be available when they need one; and that a scan will be performed when they are referred for one. I am hugely grateful to our nurses, our doctors, our paramedics and other healthcare professionals for everything that they do.

If we want a strong economy where working people can fulfil their potential, we must have a strong NHS—not, as the Reform Party has called for, an insurance-based system. We believe in a publicly funded National Health Service, free at the point of use. Perhaps the honourable Member for Clacton should spend more time focusing on the priorities of the British people, and less time in the Westminster Arms—although, after this week, perhaps the Two Chairmen pub might be a better fit.

At the Budget, I took the decisions necessary to provide an immediate injection of funding to get the NHS back on its feet. I commend my right honourable friend the Health Secretary for all the progress that he has already made. In less than a year, this Government have recruited 1,700 new GPs, delivered 3.5 million extra appointments and cut waiting lists by more than 200,000. Fixing our NHS also means delivering fundamental reform across social care, so we are backing the first ever fair pay agreement for that sector. I am also increasing the NHS technology budget by almost 50%, and we are investing £10 billion to bring our analogue health system into the digital age, including through the NHS app, so patients can manage their prescriptions, get their test results and book appointments all in one place.

We are shifting care back to the community and providing more funding to support the training of thousands more GPs to deliver millions more appointments. We are investing more in prevention, to meet our manifesto commitment of providing mental health support teams in all schools in England by the end of this Parliament. Those investments will enable the delivery of our upcoming 10-year plan for health and will put the NHS firmly back on the path to renewal.

To support that plan, to back the doctors and nurses we rely on, and to make sure that the NHS is there whenever we need it, I am proud to announce today that this Labour Government are making a record cash investment in our National Health Service, increasing real-terms, day-to-day spending by 3% per year for every single year of this spending review—an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of our health service. That is what the British people voted for and that is what we will deliver: more appointments, more doctors and more scanners. The National Health Service: created by a Labour Government, protected by a Labour Government and renewed by this Labour Government.

This is a spending review to deliver the priorities of the British people: security, with a strong Britain in a changing world; economic growth, powered by investment and opportunity in every part of Britain; and our nation’s health, with an NHS fit for the future. I have made my choices. In place of chaos, I choose stability; in place of decline, I choose investment; and in place of pessimism, division and defeatism, I choose national renewal. These are my choices, these are Labour choices, and these are the choices of the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:45

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the spending review Statement, delivered by the Chancellor in the other place yesterday, made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Treasury has lost authority in determining how the Government spend taxpayers’ money. How else can the Treasury explain a spending review in which the Government will add another £140 billion to the national bill in extra borrowing, forecast over the period set out by the Chancellor? How else can the Treasury explain a cost burden so substantially increased that the Government are unable to rule out tax rises in the autumn? How else can the Treasury explain why it is subsidising tax reductions in Mauritius, but making decisions which will limit domestic economic growth?

Ministers are lauding a spending review which does not address the fundamental issues which we have raised in your Lordships’ House many times. Only a few weeks ago, we had an excellent debate on the crisis we face in light of the scale of our national debt. This situation has been made worse as a direct consequence of the spending review. Ensuring value for money in public expenditure—another issue we have raised time and again—has been virtually ignored.

However, I thank the Minister for the long overdue investment in nuclear at Sizewell C, on small modular reactors with Rolls-Royce and on the nuclear fusion prototype in Nottinghamshire. I just hope these will not take too long. They are essential to an energy balance, so we avoid the sort of problems we have seen in Spain.

Following on from our discussions last week on the transport package, I also welcome the extension of the £3 cap on bus fares, albeit only until 2027. London-based politicians do not understand how important buses are to so many of the less well-off in this country, especially in rural areas which are bearing the brunt of this Government’s policies in other ways. The introduction of a five-year planning cycle for capital is also positive.

However, I am very concerned at the way the Chancellor has hit police spending and defence to find yet more money for the NHS. Police chiefs are very anxious, and there is still no plan to reach the 3% we need on defence. The NHS is one of the major winners from the spending review, claiming over £29 billion per year in additional funding. But unlike our Conservative record, this new money from the Labour Government has come with no productivity conditions and no demands that services be improved or patient outcomes bettered. This is a major problem. In recent years, we have seen record levels of spending poured into the health service, yet productivity has not kept pace. According to the Office for National Statistics, NHS productivity still remains below pre-pandemic levels. We have an inverse ratio: the more money the Government give the NHS, the worse it functions.

What we are witnessing is a shortage not of funding but of effective reform. The NAO and other independent bodies have highlighted how much of this new funding has been absorbed by rising costs and staff pay.

I am grateful to the Government for allowing an extra 20 minutes for Back-Benchers to ask the many questions they will have on the detail of this Statement. To be honest, I would have preferred a full debate on this, as it sets the scene on expenditure choices for the rest of the Parliament.

Moreover, in the round, the Statement is a cause for concern. As the shadow Chancellor put it succinctly, “Spend now, tax later”. The fiscal rules have been loosened so the Government can borrow more and lay out a succession of goodies in a £190 billion spending spree.

There should have been much more focus on the nearly £100 billion of interest we are now paying on our national debt and on how to get that down—a debate on how we balance the nation’s books. Investment is separated out under the fiscal rules, but I am afraid it still has to be paid for. Is this investment being wisely invested?

To mention one angle, the promised new Green Book is not a new book but the findings of a review. It concludes—as I expected, given the changes that the Conservative Government made—that the current methodology is not biased towards certain regions. However, I was surprised to read that the existing Green Book puts too much emphasis on cost-benefit ratios and that a ratio of less than one might be fine. I am really worried about this as an encouragement to the approval of white elephants.

This, of course, is against a troubling economic background. Unemployment has hit a four-year high of 4.6%. A first estimate for May showed a 109,000 decline in jobs, which, if confirmed, would be the worst month since the height of the pandemic in April 2020. Since the Spring Statement, persistently higher gilt yields have blown a £5 billion hole in the Chancellor’s £9.9 billion buffer. Productivity was 0.2% lower in the first quarter of the year compared with the same period in 2024. The UK’s total rate of investment has been the worst in the G7, on average. On top of it all, the ONS today announced a 0.3% decline in GDP growth—partly, no doubt, because of the hikes in national insurance, which have hit businesses so hard. These are facts. The Chancellor should have taken corrective action in the spending review, but we can see that more taxes and higher council tax are coming.

Finally, I will come back to the Minister on a couple of points that he keeps making. He has alleged, often and aggressively, that when many new projects were announced by the Tories, no money was provided. That is, of course, because we rightly delayed the spending round until after the election. We, like the Government, would have allocated the money for what we had planned following a classic review.

This is linked to my other concern, about which I have been very patient with the Minister: that we had and have no plans for saving money to finance necessary spending. This is an inexactitude. Apart from the strong growth trajectory at the time of the election, undermined by Labour’s doom and gloom, we were on course to reduce the public sector. Instead, the civil service has risen in the past three months to over 516,000 full-time equivalent, the highest level since 2006—in contrast, according to Civil Service World, to the total of 384,000 FTE in September 2016, when I was serving in the Conservative Government.

This Government have chosen to give pay rises to the public sector costing £9 billion—and more, if you add on the future cost of their pensions—without the kind of link to productivity that any sensible managers insist on when a generous pay package is offered. Add to that the £30 billion for the Chagos Islands, which is funding reduced taxes in Mauritius not the UK, £8 billion on Great British Energy, and the abandonment of our ambitious plans for welfare reform and our attack on waste, of which, sadly, this week’s Blue Book is a pale imitation.

The truth is that the Government are busy creating their own black hole with all of this, and it has been topped up by the £1 billion reversal in the winter fuel allowance. We all understand why that was done, but it destroys confidence in the Chancellor’s determination not to raise taxes. My fear is that we will run into the autumn with anaemic growth, persistent inflation and a large new tax bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I recognise that the Chancellor faces real constraints, and this morning’s GDP figures for April underscore the problem. However, I am not going to use this opportunity to spend a lot of time talking about growth. It is such a big issue that we need some separate debate time set aside for it.

On these Benches, we are pleased with the significant allocations for the NHS and for housing in the spending review, though we are concerned that there are no targets for social housing, since we need at least 150,000 new social homes a year. I ask the Minister: given this additional money—which I know is only £3.9 million a year, but still, it is additional money—will we see that number of social homes come through annually? That really is the need that must be met.

However, nobody will be surprised that I was disappointed—almost to the point of devastation, quite frankly—to see adult social care overlooked, with no uplift until 2028, despite the reality that the situation is grim as we speak and that, without properly functioning adult social care, improvements to the NHS will be seriously undermined. If the Casey review is the hold-up, it should be and could be completed this year.

The Chancellor also suggested that she would back the fair pay agreement for adult social care workers sought by Care England. She absolutely should—care workers deserve every penny—but did I hear correctly that she will not fund it? The total package is £2 billion a year, and just the living wage and sick pay portion is £805 million a year. That kind of money puts in jeopardy not only many care providers but many local councils. If the Minister says that there was an uplift for councils, then not only does that rely on a 5% council tax increase in most councils but the additional money will be fully swallowed up by SEND, which is also in a dire situation. Will the Minister please explain what seems completely inexplicable: the overlooking of adult social care?

I also ask for clarification on defence spending. The Chancellor said she would raise it to 2.6% by 2027—which is the right direction—but is it correct that when she spoke, she treated spending on the secret services and on the Ukraine war as defence spending? If we speak in the terms that we have all been using up to now then the 2027 spend is, in my estimate, below 2.4%. I hope the Minister will tell me I have simply misunderstood. Will he help explain what exactly is going on with this defence spending? To me, all this confusion is underscoring the importance of cross-party talks, which my party has proposed, so that we collectively find a way to reach the necessary 3% well ahead of 2034. Boy, would I appreciate some clarification on what on earth is happening within that budget.

I am pleased to see new funds for the British Business Bank, whose greatest weakness, frankly, is its tiny size. However, to which bit of its activity is the additional money to be directed? I am particularly concerned about small business lending, and it could make a serious difference if much of the new funds are directed into the BBB’s Community ENABLE fund and its growth guarantee scheme. Who will make that call, is it dedicated, and does it have a target? Could the Minister please tell us more?

I could raise a lot of other questions, but I am anxious to hear properly from the Minister. I came away from the spending review, the Blue Book and the speech asking endless questions to which I could not find answers. I thought that I was going rather brain-dead. Then, I heard Paul Johnson of the IFS talk about the documents being so opaque that he was asking questions and could not find answers. If he cannot, we need help. Could we have clarity in the future, but in the meantime could the Minister please serve as our clarity?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions on yesterday’s spending review Statement.

It would have been perfectly credible for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to say she cannot support any of this investment because she did not support any of the difficult decisions that we took to make this investment possible. It also would have been perfectly credible for her to come here today and say she has changed her mind, now supports the difficult decisions that we took and therefore will support the investment that those difficult decisions have permitted.

Unfortunately, the noble Baroness did neither of those things. We heard her support for the huge amounts of spending we announced yesterday for the nuclear programme—for example, £30 billion into nuclear. We heard her support the £3 bus fare cap, even though her party had refused to fund it any longer than last December. Yet she has opposed every difficult decision every time we have stood here for almost a year now. She has opposed every single difficult decision we have taken to repair the public finances and fund the public services. Even today, she was opposing the changes to the fiscal rules that enabled the additional investment spending we have made. She supported the nuclear spending, which is investment spending, but she opposed the fiscal rule change that enabled that spending. That simply is not credible.

The party opposite cannot support the investment in the spending review without supporting the money to pay for it. We all know exactly how we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is exactly the approach that Liz Truss took in her mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates spiralling. We will not be repeating that mistake. The shadow Chancellor is distancing himself from the Liz Truss approach, and the noble Baroness should distance herself from that approach too. She talked about the money that is being allocated. I am not sure she understood the process of the spending review: the envelope was set by the Chancellor last spring. She cannot say in any way that we have lost control or are deviating from that envelope, because the Chancellor allocated every single penny of that envelope and not a single penny more. I fully understand what she is saying—that she understands that—but, in that case, I do not understand why she made the criticisms she did. The Chancellor was simply allocating the envelope that she set out in the spring.

The noble Baroness also said that the last Government delayed the spending review. We all know why the last Government delayed the spending review: because their sums did not add up. They had a £22 billion black hole at the heart of it, and they knew that the moment they did a spending review that black hole would be revealed. That is the reason why they delayed the spending review.

The noble Baroness talked about growth and the performance of the economy. In the first quarter of this year, the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Under the forecasts inherited from the previous Government, this year the UK would have been the slowest-growing economy in the G7. If she wants to compare growth stats, I am more than happy to do that with her all day. The figures out today show that April was a challenging month, given global headwinds. That was the month in which the tariffs were imposed by the US, and it was before we had agreed the trade agreement with the United States. If you dig into those growth figures, you can see that a lot of it is driven by a decline in exports because of that. It underlines the need to continue to deliver on our growth mission.

The noble Baroness talked about facts. The facts are that living standards are now forecast to grow four times faster than in the previous Parliament. Real wages have already grown by more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. She often talks about productivity and GDP per capita, but GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament. It is now forecast to rise by 5.6% in this Parliament. On top of that, the IMF has upgraded our growth forecast, as did the OBR in the Spring Statement.

It is disappointing to me that the noble Baroness often says that she and I agree on growth, but she did not mention any of the growth-boosting measures included in this spending review. She did not mention that capital spending would increase growth by 1.4% in the long term. She did not mention the £39 billion affordable homes programme, which is vital for growth. She did not mention the record amounts of R&D funding rising to £22 billion a year. She did not mention any of the major rail projects to connect our towns and cities and make sure that growth is felt right throughout the United Kingdom. She did not mention the skills budget and the amount of money we are spending on skills. It is disappointing that she says she supports growth but then does not welcome or mention any of the investment that we are doing to get that growth.

The noble Baroness mentioned borrowing and the public finances. Average borrowing in this Parliament will be 2.8% of GDP, compared with 5.6% of GDP over the previous 14 years. She talked about the investment rule. Obviously, we have changed that fiscal rule—quite rightly—to enable the much-needed investment infrastructure to deliver stronger growth in the future. She opposes that change to that fiscal rule and yet somehow also claims to support the investment that the rule brings about.

The noble Baroness talked about tax. Yesterday’s spending review allocated the envelope set out by the Chancellor in the spring. These record settlements have been made possible only by the tough but necessary decisions we took in the Budget last October. On future decisions on tax and spending, I am not going to write four years’ worth of Budgets at this moment, even if that was in my power. The independent OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget. The Chancellor will take decisions at that point based on that forecast, and I will not prejudge those now.

The noble Baroness asked me about funding of the winter fuel during Question Time earlier. As she knows, we will set that out in full at the time of the Budget.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, both asked about defence. As the Chancellor made clear yesterday, increasing defence spending is a strategic necessity, and that is why we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the precise definitions: 2.5% will absolutely be the case by 2027. If she wants to include the intelligence agency spending and the other spending she mentioned, it is 2.6%, but it is 2.5% excluding those things—I can give her that absolute certainty. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, but we will not be putting arbitrary dates on when we will meet that.

I have two final points: the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about efficiency and productivity. This is the first zero-based review done into spending for 18 years. The previous Government had 14 years to do a zero-based review, if they really cared about efficiency in public spending, and they did not do one at all over the course of 14 years.

The noble Baroness did not mention any of the reforms we are doing in the NHS. In fact, she sounded quite sceptical of additional money going into the NHS, which is a great shame as we know it is the most treasured public service in this country. She did not mention digitisation, for example—putting £10 billion into the NHS app to make it far more efficient in its spending. We are doing a great deal more on efficiency savings. All departments have identified at least 5% savings and efficiencies by 2028-29.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about social care. I am grateful to her for welcoming some of the other additional spending, particularly on the NHS and housing, for example. She talked about social housing: we have made the £39 billion investment into the affordable homes programme. That is crucial for growth, as she said.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, who has consistently campaigned on social care. The spending review provides an increase of over £4 billion available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26. That includes an increase to the NHS’s minimum contribution to adult social care via the better care fund, in line with the Department of Health’s spending review settlement. This will support the sector to improve adult social care, with further details to be set out shortly.

The noble Baroness asked about the fair pay agreement. As the Chancellor said yesterday, we remain committed to delivering a fair pay agreement in line with our manifesto commitment, and we will set out further details of that shortly. She also asked about the British Business Bank. There will be an increase to £25.5 billion, and it will set out further details as to how that will be allocated. In the industrial strategy in a few weeks’ time—access to finance is obviously a major issue for all those sectors—we will set out how the British Business Bank can help with those access to finance issues.

13:08

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I also wish my noble friend Lord Livermore a very happy, significant birthday.

Communities across the country were told for years that they would be levelled up. In practice, regional investment plummeted and long-promised schemes were downgraded or pulled entirely. Does my noble friend agree that while it will take time for people to see the results of regional investment, the money allocated to English city regions and the devolved authorities will enable long-term schemes that provide jobs and growth and are genuinely transformative?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind words and her good wishes. I absolutely agree with her. One of the central themes of this spending review is making sure that growth is both created in all parts of the country and felt in all parts of the country. For too long, we have been reliant on just one or two regions of our country to generate that growth. Clearly, given our growth mission and the importance of raising sustainably the level of growth in this country, making sure that every part of the country contributes to that economic growth is absolutely vital.

On the regional investment that my noble friend talks about—in particular the transport investment that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to—the previous Government made lots of grand plans but never funded any of those grand plans. What we are doing here is setting out a very careful strategic plan to connect our cities, connect our towns to our cities, and funding that fully, so that those transport connections are made and people are able to get around cities and regions, which is absolutely vital to economic growth. It is no good having the jobs, the skills, the towns and the housing if they are not connected and people cannot travel around to them. I think that is an absolutely vital part of getting growth throughout the country.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the welcome moneys for the repair of cultural venues, the cuts overall to the arts are hugely disappointing. This will affect most the individual freelancer, who really had high hopes that finally there would be reinvestment in their sector. Of course, small and large organisations will be affected, too. So I ask the Minister, would he agree with me that these cuts make no sense, considering the Government have earmarked the creative industries as the linchpin of growth? They do not seem to grasp the vital role—a role in innovation—that the subsidised arts sector plays in the ecology of the creative industries as a whole. Neither is the 15% cut to staffing within the DCMS, while such cuts are not happening everywhere, a vote of confidence in the sector, so the Government do need to rethink these cuts.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know that he is a passionate and long-standing campaigner for the cultural sector. As outlined in the spending review yesterday, the DCMS will invest more than £2.9 billion across its entire capital programme to safeguard and modernise cultural and heritage institutions in towns and cities. I hear very much what he says about the wider cultural sector and I ask him to wait for the creative industries industrial strategy sector plan, which will be coming out shortly and which I hope will address many of the issues that he is talking about. As he says, we absolutely recognise the enormous value, both cultural and economic, that the creative industries offer. We will be setting that out in the sector plan for the industrial strategy in the coming weeks and I hope that we can discuss it at that point.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, there are things to welcome in the spending review: I would point in particular to His Majesty’s Government’s steps to support the most vulnerable, tackle regional inequality, increase investment in schools, social housing and healthcare and maintain some level of support for the arts and culture, recognising their importance. More support for libraries, which act as community hubs, is welcome. I hope that the benefit of churches, which are also public buildings that contribute to community life, especially in rural areas, will also be recognised and that DCMS will do this by resolving the long-term uncertainty about the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme beyond 2026 and the capping of grants, effectively, by VAT liability.

May I press, however, the Minister on two other matters that I think are important? The first is children—our nation’s future—and investment in them. While on the surface, the increased access to free school meals is welcome, could the Minister reassure the House that the Government have not uncoupled free school meal eligibility from the pupil premium? Secondly, given the impact of the cost of living on families and the growth in child and rural poverty, which I do see even in the diocese of Chichester, especially in our coastal towns, can the Minister give assurances that the much-delayed child poverty strategy will now be published as a matter of urgency, with further consideration being given to ending the two-child limit and reviewing other policies which so adversely impact the well-being and flourishing of our nation’s young people and their families?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate set out a number of issues that he agreed with, and obviously I am grateful for his agreement with those. He talked about child poverty and he knows that—as the Prime Minister described it—our free school meals policy is a down payment on the work that we want to do to tackle and end child poverty. I was lucky enough to be part of a previous Government—I worked for a previous Chancellor—who reduced child poverty by 1 million children, so there should be no doubt about my personal commitment to reducing child poverty. I had to sit by, as did many of my noble friends, and watch the previous Government increase child poverty by 700,000. That is not something that any of us wanted to see; so he should be reassured that we absolutely prioritise this issue.

The right reverend Prelate asked about free school meals. The children of every family on universal credit will be eligible for those free school meals. He described the child poverty strategy as much delayed. I am not sure I would accept that. I think we have set out when it will come—alongside the Budget this autumn—and it will consider all the issues and representations that are put to it. There is quite a lot in this spending review to tackle child poverty. As I say, that is a down payment and I very much hope we will be able to do more.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that the Chancellor reiterated yesterday, in the other place, a commitment to no unfunded increases in expenditure. Could the Minister reassure me about the other promise which she made in the autumn Budget—I am going to read it so I am not misrepresenting it—that there would be no further tax increases during the current Parliament? She said, “I will not increase your income tax; I will not increase your national insurance; I will not increase your VAT”. Does that promise still stand? How can it possibly stand with the Government’s debt interest bill now being £105 billion and rising and the costs of borrowing, because of the level of debt, actually being higher than they were at the time of the crisis under Liz Truss?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On the specific question that he asked about whether the manifesto commitments that we have given to working people still stand, yes, they still stand. The manifesto very clearly says there will be no increase in working people’s income tax, national insurance or VAT. That commitment continues to stand. In terms of future decisions on tax and spending, as I have said already, I am not going to write now—it is not in my gift to write now—four years-worth of Budgets. As he knows, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget, and the Chancellor will take decisions at that point, based on that forecast. He can be assured, though, that, at all times, we will meet the fiscal rules, but I am not going to prejudge those decisions now.

I am not sure whether he was defending at that point the Liz Truss mini-Budget or not. He shakes his head vociferously. I do not blame him: I would not want to defend it either.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in this spending review. Can I especially welcome the £39 billion of investment in social and affordable housing that the noble Baroness mentioned earlier on? Shelter yesterday called this a game-changer. The National Housing Federation said it was the most ambitious affordable homes programme in decades. All of that is extremely encouraging. I note that the ramping up of extra funding is gradual, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned, reaching an additional £4 billion per annum by the end of the spending review period. What needs to be done as this money is ramped up in the next couple of years to ensure that this funding is generally transformational? In particular, I know he is passionate about improving the supply of skilled workers in the housing construction sector so that it really does result in the step change we all want in social housing.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The Government are providing the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, and giving social housing providers the long-term certainty that they need to focus on development. We are putting in £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. We are making a 10-year social housing rent settlement from 2026 at CPI plus 1, alongside a consultation on how to implement social housing rent convergence. We are putting in over £1 billion of new investment to accelerate the remediation of social housing. So I think that is genuinely, as he says, transformative, and I am glad that those experts in this field have welcomed that allocation.

As my noble friend said, it is a gradual increase, which is probably sensible for public finance reasons, but probably for delivery reasons too, to ensure that it can actually be implemented, but he is absolutely right to point to skills. In this spending review, we have a record allocation in terms of skills, but also, at the time of the Spring Statement, the Chancellor set out a construction skills package, which I think is vital. Clearly, not just on housing, we are doing a lot of infrastructure investment and a lot of infrastructure spending. We must have the skilled workers to do that work; I absolutely agree with my noble friend on the vital importance of skills alongside this investment.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as former chairman of the South East Wales Transport Commission and the North Wales Transport Commission. I want to make a few remarks with respect to those roles, rather than comment at this stage on the macroeconomic aspects of the Statement. I very much welcome the proposals in the spending review for the investment in rail services in south-east Wales and north Wales. My understanding is that this allocation will allow most of the recommendations of the two transport commissions that I chaired to go ahead. The new stations in south Wales will provide vital commuter rail services, connecting major housing developments to sites of potential economic growth on both sides of the border. They will provide an effective alternative to many existing car journeys on heavily congested roads and will improve opportunities for those without cars, who face serious challenges with existing public transport.

In the case of south-east Wales, much of the work has already been done to progress these technical studies for both projects. The development work is largely complete and the project is ready to go. In north Wales, there are projects identified that will also improve transport connectivity to important centres of good jobs, such as Deeside and Wrexham industrial estates, the aircraft facility at Broughton and the city of Chester. There is also, would you believe, the real possibility of connecting by train those two great football cities of Liverpool and Wrexham. Does the Minister agree that these funds should be used as soon as possible?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In the Treasury over the past months I have heard many references to the “Burns stations”, so it is a great privilege to talk to the noble Lord himself about these stations. He is absolutely right. We are investing at least £445 million into rail enhancements over 10 years to enhance rail across Wales, including at Padeswood on the Borderlands line and through upgrades to the core valley lines, as part of the 10-year infrastructure strategy that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary will set out more details of next week.

This includes providing £48 million over four years to the Welsh Government to work with them to upgrade the core valley lines; up to £80 million for port investment to support floating offshore wind into Wales; and £2.4 million over three years to launch a new brand Wales programme promoting Welsh investment opportunities and exports around the world.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I too wish the Minister a happy birthday. In welcoming the increase in defence spending, I am sure he will acknowledge that diplomacy goes hand in glove with our ability to deliver on our defence and trade priorities. My former department has suffered the largest reductions, of over 8.3%, in both CDEL and RDEL. What assurance can the Minister give me and all Members of your Lordships’ House that important priorities such as the integrated security fund, which focuses on cybersecurity threats and counterterrorism, will be not just sustained but, in the ever dangerous world that we live in, increased?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind wishes. He is vastly more experienced and expert in these important matters of defence than I am. To answer his very specific question on the integrated security fund, the spending review settlement enables the fund to continue to deliver programmes that support the National Security Council’s national security priorities. The integrated security fund will focus on the most pressing threats facing the UK, whether posed by hostile states, instability in volatile regions or emerging cyber and technology-enabled risks.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to ask about continued funding by DfE for the music and dance scheme bursaries for talented young musicians and for the outreach work of the national centres for advanced training in dance. It is right that the Government fund schemes such as these, which ensure that dance training is not just for elites and that children from any background can access a world-leading vocational music or dance education. Can my noble friend the Minister convey to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education the need to protect and, when possible, to grow the funding of our leading pathway into music and dance careers for young people from deprived backgrounds?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will do exactly as my noble friend asks and pass that on. The important announcements yesterday that she mentions are incredibly welcome. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Chancellor also announced the dormant assets initiative to get more creative industries into more schools, so that the huge advantages and benefits of that kind of creative industry are available no longer only to privileged children but to far more children in state schools.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I can only welcome the 3% increase in NHS funding in real terms, although it is below the long-term average over decades of 3.6% increases. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation has said that this

“won’t be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments”.

With that in mind, it is disappointing that while “public services”, “public finances” and “public debt” appear in the Chancellor’s speech, there is no use of the phrase “public health”. Given that the NHS is under such pressure, surely the Government should look to decrease the demand for healthcare by improving the health of the nation, which is, compared with comparable countries, extremely poor. That would mean measures to deal with water, air and other pollution, our broken food system and the poor quality and lack of green spaces. Will the Government look at making the nation healthier to help the NHS?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes. The noble Baroness says that we are not spending enough on the health service. Over the next five years, £30 billion will be invested in day-to-day spending, with over £5 billion specifically allocated to address the most critical issues. The noble Baroness likes to tell us how she does not believe in economic growth. If we do not have economic growth, how will we find the money to fund our public services? I sat through the national insurance Bill. The noble Baroness opposed it and the additional money that it brought into our National Health Service. She says that this is not enough money. How exactly is she going to find the money? She is mouthing “wealth taxes”. If she thinks a wealth tax is going to raise that many billion pounds, I would love to see her proposals.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the capital investment contained in the spending review will be very welcome in many parts of the country. The problem will be making sure that it is money well spent. As those of us who were here in the morning heard, public bodies often are not the greatest at making sure they can build a door, let alone a motorway. How will the Government ensure that we get value for money on our projects? Just having an office called the “office for value for money” might not be enough. I was cheered that the Chancellor said the amount of money being spent on consultants had come down. Can the Minister put a figure on that and tell us what the budget for consultants over the next few years will be?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have the specific budget for consultants over the next few years to hand. I am more than happy to write to her with that figure if it is available. She is right that we have reduced the number of consultants. It ballooned under the previous Government, who like to talk about saving money but did not always walk the walk.

We are investing an additional £113 billion in capital spending, which is enabling so many of the projects that we are discussing today. It would not be possible if we had not rewritten the fiscal rules that we inherited from the previous Government, which guaranteed neither stability nor investment. We inherited such a poor public infrastructure situation from them as they repeatedly cut investment spending to patch up the holes in their day-to-day spending. The noble Baroness mentioned the change to the fiscal rules. Alongside the fiscal rules, we have set out very clear guard-rails to ensure that that money is spent wisely and carefully through public finance institutions. I am very confident that we have set out those guard-rails and will ensure that we get the value for money that she is describing.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too wish the Minister a happy birthday, and I declare my interests.

Does the Minister recognise the damage caused to UK growth by pension funds? We have the second largest pension system in the world according to the Government, the Exchequer gross contribution is £70 billion a year, and our DB and DC schemes are no longer backing Britain and are selling or underweighting UK equities and risk assets, damaging investments and corporate financing costs. DB pension funds bulk buying annuities is driving up long-term gilt yields, which many noble Lords have mentioned, as the insurer sells the gilts they tell the pension funds to buy as soon as they take over the assets, competing with the Bank of England’s QT sales. Our economy is desperate for long-term investment. Our brilliant companies are being snapped up on the cheap by foreign owners or private equity. I believe in Britain, and the Government seem to have a clear opportunity to require pension funds, if they wish to receive these generous taxpayer subsidies, to put, say, at least 25% of their new contributions into British assets to reverse the doom loop that pension funds have created for our markets and restore some growth.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness and I, along with many others in this House, have discussed these issues many times before. I think she knows that what she wants and what I want and what the Government want are pretty much the same thing. She says she wants to see greater levels of investment by pension funds into UK assets, and that is exactly what we want to see as well. The Chancellor set out some proposals on that in her Mansion House speech last year. We have seen substantial pension fund reform announced by this Government, which should bring an additional £50 billion of investment into the UK. We have seen the Mansion House compact announced just last week—a voluntary scheme by pension fund providers to get more investment into the UK. The Chancellor will make her next Mansion House speech on 1 July. I hope this will include more interesting announcements on this regard. It will also include the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which I hope will achieve many of the things that the noble Baroness is talking about.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest: from 2018 to 2025 I was the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how much the Government are having to spend to rectify the appalling failure of the last Government to address the prison capacity crisis and all its consequences?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the expertise that he brings to this question. In the summer of 2024, at the time of the election, prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. Clearly, the previous Government, as I was saying before, did not believe in investment spending, because they kept cutting it. Our social fabric was in a terrible state when we took over. We are having to do a lot of investment spending now to make up for the damage done over 14 years. The Government in this spending review are providing £7 billion to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, today’s growth figures make tax rises in the autumn all the more likely, but one rise that we do not have to wait for is the 5% increase to council tax each year planned for in this spending review. The Minister will know that council tax is a regressive tax. He will also know that this is the biggest increase since the 2001 to 2005 Parliament. Can the Minister confirm to the House how much a 5% growth in council tax each year will cost the average working family?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness says that we do not have to wait for it. She is absolutely correct: we do not have to wait for it because her Government introduced it. A 5% cap in council tax is something introduced by the previous Government—we have not changed that. It is a cap. Councils do not have to increase council tax by 5%, but, under the rules, they cannot increase council tax by more than 5% without a local referendum. We have not changed that. That is to invest in things such as social care, but also, as is normal, to put money into policing.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the benefits of the infrastructure expenditure are wide-ranging and indeed thrilling. However, most of those benefits are going to be long term, and I think most people are still worried about the cost of living and their day-to-day access to public services. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about how the plan is going to affect ordinary people, day-to-day?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right when she says that a lot of our capital spending is long term. I think that is perfectly right. For example, the noble Baroness earlier talked about pension funds. I met representatives of some of the largest Canadian-Australian pension funds recently, and they told me that one of the most attractive parts of the UK economic landscape at the moment is the long-termism of our policy-making. They want to see long-term commitments and long-term investment so that they can invest into this country. The long-term nature of the policies is important, but my noble friend is absolutely right that people need to see improvements in their lives much sooner than that, because obviously they have lived through the cost of living crisis brought about by the previous Government. We need to see those cost of living improvements quickly.

One of the funds established yesterday was the pride in place fund. It is important that people see improvements quickly in their local communities. We also announced funding for the warm homes plan, with a total of £13 billion allocated across this Parliament to improve the energy efficiency of people’s homes. We did a big boost to social and affordable housing, with £39 billion, and expanded free school meal eligibility in England to all children with a parent receiving universal credit. We invested more to fund childcare entitlements for working parents. We funded the freeze to prescription charges at below £10 over the spending review period, and we launched a new crisis and resilience fund to help families when in crisis.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall the table to the spending review which lists the departmental expenditure limits. Within that there is a line for the reserve, which I assume is essentially the contingency reserve. I recall that, back in 2023-24, the contingency reserve was over £9 billion, and that was completely blown and we had to have supplementary estimates. The table shows that, for phase 2, the reserve is at 1% of the totals for DEL and does not increase over the three years: it goes from £6.7 billion, to £6.7 billion, to £7.1 billion. This seems to be an inadequate figure for contingency that far out and is not, as one would expect, a rising figure—a wedge of contingency—in the later years. I wonder whether the Minister might explain why that wedge does not appear as one would have expected.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

If I may say so, the rising wedge, as the noble Lord describes it, is his analysis. It clearly is not analysis shared by the Government. I do not know whether it is based on any economic theory. It may be, but it is clearly not one that the Government share, because they are the numbers that the Government have set out.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the most welcome aspects of the spending review is the terrific increase in science and technology spending, which will drive innovation across the country. It is long overdue, especially as it is now linked to Horizon, with an explicit reference to the building of new partnerships and new skills. I hope we can attract some of those American scientists who are now rather destabilised, shall we say, by the Trump Administration.

My question is about how housing fits into the growth agenda—it clearly does. One of the most explicit elements is the new towns programme, which is lined up not just to fill housing need but to drive housing growth and economic growth linked to infrastructure in different parts of the country where we need that growth. Can the Minister just tell me how that fits into the £39 billion now made available for affordable and social housing?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend—both where she started and indeed where she ended. I completely agree about the importance of innovation and the spending that we have been able to do in this spending review. As I have said before, the industrial strategy will be published in the coming weeks. Clearly, innovation and R&D are vital to those high-growth sectors. She also talked about the importance of partnership, and that sits at the heart of the industrial strategy—a partnership between government and business, helping to systematically remove the barriers to growth. As my noble friend will know, we have increased public funding on R&D to a record high of £22.6 billion in the spending review.

My noble friend talked about housing and its link to growth. I completely agree that, for too long, people have not been able to live anywhere near the jobs that they want to do because they have not been able to afford the housing to be close to those jobs. That is absolutely not good for growth. I am certain that the £39 billion we are investing will help us to begin to tackle that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that the Government were elected on a promise of ending the housing of refugees in hotels within 12 months of being elected to office. For what reason have the Government now decided to continue to house refugees in hotels until the end of this Parliament?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Probably because of the inheritance that we faced from the party opposite, which did absolutely nothing to tackle or fund that issue. We have funded it in the spending review on the terms that the noble Baroness set out.

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

My Lords, in contrast to the moaning dirge we have from the Front Bench opposite, my inbox is full of emails congratulating the Government on the spending review, and from some unexpected sources, such as Liz Cameron, director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, who welcomes the Acorn carbon capture go-ahead, the defence expenditure and the Edinburgh University supercomputer. That is a great welcome, but will the Minister confirm that the money being allocated to the Scottish Government is the largest ever grant since devolution? Will he do everything he can to make sure that that money is spent efficiently, effectively and according to our priorities?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the feedback that he is receiving. He is absolutely right to highlight the incredibly important things we have done in the spending review for Scotland, such as the investment of £8.3 billion over the Parliament in homegrown, clean nuclear power, alongside establishing a new government campus for energy that draws on the world-leading engineering expertise in Aberdeen, the Acorn carbon capture and storage project that he mentioned, and £750 million for a new supercomputer at Edinburgh University. Those are all genuinely exciting developments.

As my noble friend said, this is a record settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution in 1998. They will receive £50.9 billion per year on average between 2026-27 and 2028-29, including an additional £2.9 billion per year on average through the operation of the Barnett formula and £451 million of targeted capital funding in addition. My noble friend asked how we will ensure that that is spent on our priorities. Obviously, the best way to do that is to ensure that people vote Labour at the next election.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Like my noble friend on the shadow Front Bench, I was surprised that the review suggested that a benefit-cost ratio of less than one could still be considered value for money. It also committed to publishing the BCR for all the cases. Can the Minister say when that will happen and whether it will also include projects from the NHS?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness referred to the review of the Green Book. Its six key findings were that there was insufficient emphasis on place-based objectives; ineffectiveness at assessing transformational change; continued overemphasis on benefit-cost ratios in decision-making; overly long and complicated guidance; inadequate capacity and capability across the public sector; and poor transparency around appraisal. We will set out the information that she requires in due course.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly welcome the extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However—

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

I am sorry, but it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the House in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday and many more of them ahead. I too welcome yesterday’s Statement. We feel as if we are turning the corner and starting to take a longer view, which we have not had expressed by politicians for quite some time. It is true that there are risks for us and, given the instability in the world, it is desirous that we are not too inflexible about how we look to change our minds as needs require it when circumstances change. I do not like to see us digging in too firmly in saying that we will not change this or that when circumstances may force it.

In looking at our tax system, investment is one of the ways in which we will see progress be made, and Statements will be made on that very shortly. One of the things the Government—and, indeed, all parties—ought to look at is the way we try to maximise opportunities for raising funds. It is high time that council tax was subject to a review. It is way out of touch with reality and is now being run very unfairly. I suggest to the Government that, as they look at wider tax reform, they look in particular at council tax and at changes to make it fairer and more productive in paying for these investments.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree very much with what my noble friend said to begin with about uncertainty. I think he was talking about the increasing global headwinds we face as a country when it comes to the economy and about the importance of stability; I completely agree with him. The IMF, for example, in its most recent report when it upgraded its forecasts for the UK economy, said that our fiscal strategy is striking a

“good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”,

and that our

“Growth Mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity”.

On spending, it concluded that our plans are “credible and growth-friendly”, and

“are expected to provide an economic boost over the medium term”.

I am afraid that I do not agree with the points my noble friend made on council tax towards the end of his question.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned pride in place recently. It is understandable that people have pride in the place where they live. One of the indications of that is the number of volunteers who come forward to work in the Britain in Bloom scheme, but some volunteers have told me that there has been an enormous amount of vandalism, tearing apart the beautiful plantings that unpaid volunteers have made to beautify their local area and which have been much appreciated by local people. They say that part of the problem is there are not enough police on the beat and that, even when they have CCTV evidence and can identify the perpetrators, the police do not have time to do anything about it. I have heard from the police that the settlement for the police will not be adequate for the increased number of police that has been promised. Can the Minister give any cause for optimism to all those volunteers who work so hard?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says, and I agree with her about the importance of pride in place and the difficulties around vandalism, graffiti, fly-tipping and so on. That is exactly why the pride in place fund was established: to tackle some of those really difficult local issues. When it comes to police funding, the Government increased investment in policing yesterday, and the spending power of our police will increase by 2.3% in every year of this Parliament, which is around £2 billion extra for the police. I hope the noble Baroness can take that back to the people she talks about and give them the optimism and reassurance she asked for.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly welcome the extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However, the IFS director, Paul Johnson, said that his think tank was “baffled” by the Chancellor’s spending review. He said that the Chancellor will

“have all her fingers and all her toes crossed”,

but that OBR borrowing and growth forecasts are not downgraded for the autumn, which will

“almost certainly spark more tax rises”.

Can the Minister say whether that will be the case, or will there be more borrowing?

Secondly, supporting my noble friend Lady Altmann’s point about encouraging investment in UK-quoted equities, can the Minister give his views on how insurance companies and pension funds could be encouraged to devote more assets to the quoted areas of these markets?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord started by welcoming nuclear, and then seemed to say that the fiscal position was not what he would like it to be. I feel as if he needs to choose which lane he wants to be in in that respect. Will he support the measures we have taken and support the change to the fiscal rules, or support the spending? I am not sure that he can both oppose the way to raise the money but then support the way we are spending it.

On the second part of his question, we have set out very clear pension reform. We may not agree on that specific point, but I hope we agree on our objective, which is to get more pension fund investment into the UK economy.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

13:50

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Welsh Legislative Consent sought.

Clause 6: Promoting educational achievement

Amendment 77

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

77: Clause 6, page 11, line 4, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable debate on the implications of adding “and others” before section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.

Amendment 77 just asks the question: what is the effect of “and others” at the end of Clause 6(2)? Is it just to enable the insertion of Clause 6(3) or does it have wider implications that I have not noticed?

Amendment 78 is to encourage good and improving practice by making sure that what is being done is published so that it can be assessed and criticised by the local electorate, and there can be a stimulus for doing better. Amendment 81 enables the Secretary of State to enlarge on that by specifying the way in which local authorities should report on the educational achievements of children in need of or in kinship care—again, with the objective of making sure that the information is out there against which the local authority will wish to report improvements. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I support strongly this group of amendments.

Does the Minister agree that local authorities would very much welcome the positive effects of these constructive amendments? Thereby, local authority education success stories would become more visible and, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has already implied, that visibility in itself would clearly assist further improvement.

As indicated in Amendments 78, 79 and 80, this would apply to the educational achievements of children in need or in kinship care, as it also should to all previously looked-after children who were adopted.

As correctly advocated in Amendment 80, career and employment opportunities ought to be included as part of educational achievement.

Taking into account the increasing benefits from virtual education, I am sure that the Minister will concur as well that, in these and other respects, and as recommended in Amendment 83, the Secretary of State should equally now review the current and future role and remit of virtual education, so that it can become properly funded.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 80, which

“seeks to include career and employment opportunities as a part of educational achievement”.

I have spoken many times in this Chamber, and will probably do so again, about the need to ensure that we an educational system that prevents young people becoming NEET.

I will share some statistics with noble Lords. There are 354,000 young people who are unemployed and actually seeking work who are NEET, and 569,000 who are economically inactive and not seeking work. According to the Department for Education’s 2025 report, 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. I add to this that I discovered recently that 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution and 25% of the adult prison population had been in care. I have no doubt that these figures will ring alarm bells for all of us, and so they should, so what can we do about them?

The main factors that contribute to these figures—the main reason why these young people are in the position they are and NEET—are educational disruption; poor mental health and emotional well-being; lack of stable housing; limited support networks; stigma and discrimination by employers for those young people who have been in care; and inadequate transition planning when they move from education to employment. It is this last point that I will focus on. I hope that all noble Lords, including the Minister, will agree that we must have a system that prepares all young people, in particular those who have been or continue to be in care, to make an effective transition from education to work.

My first question is: can the Minister tell us what tailored and individual careers advice and coaching the Bill will put in place, working with the DWP and all its great partners, to ensure that young people get the service they need? How will the Bill bring employers into the lives of young people at a much earlier stage and dispel the negative assessment they make which keeps these young people out of the workplace? Will she please ensure that every educational establishment publishes its NEET tables, so that we can see what is working, do more of it and help those who are not doing so well? Prevention is much more effective than cure. It costs less in financial terms and puts young people on the right path. It was explained to me that it is better to be a fence at the top of the cliff than the ambulance at the bottom, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree.

One of the most enjoyable experiences I have had in this House was to be a member of the Public Services Committee, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Before I left that committee, we produced a report entitled Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Employment for Young Disabled People, but its findings, although they concern specific help for disabled people, have resonance with all young people.

The second recommendation in that report says:

“The Government should work with local authorities to improve the availability of ‘ready to work’ programmes such as that provided by ThinkForward”.


Another happy moment in my career was to develop and deliver the prototype for ThinkForward. I can tell noble Lords that it works and it can be done. It can be done in schools, where the coaches are part of the school management team. Young people at risk of becoming NEET are identified very early and get a dedicated coach who is on the journey with them. The results are that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds involved showed significant improvements in attendance; 60% of the school leavers achieved at least five GCSEs at grades A to C; and 96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds were in education, employment or training. I know that ThinkForward and other organisations would be more than happy to work with the Government, and it was a private equity foundation that put the funding model in place to make sure that it worked, so not every penny came from the Government—I hope that that might excite the Minister. So, it can be done, it must be done, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will be done.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 79 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Following the statistical barrage from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I shall give some more. According to the Drive Forward Foundation, children in care on average achieve an Attainment 8 score that is less than half of the overall pupil population. Just 14% of care leavers go on to university, compared with 47% of all young people. Some 22% of care leavers say that they always or often feel lonely, compared with 10% of all young people, and 15% of care leavers report that they do not have a good friend, compared with 5% of all adults. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after they leave care, and 52% of children in care have a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared with 13% of non-care-experienced children. One line in the Bill could achieve so much.

14:00

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 83 seeks to address what is currently a series of gaps in the information that we have about the effectiveness of the virtual school head role. Clause 6 extends the statutory duties of the VSH role to children with a social worker and children in kinship care. The question is whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing and what resources are necessary to implement it effectively. As I understand it, we do not yet have the evidence that confirms the positive impact of that role, nor the emergence of value for money.

I take your Lordships to the interim evaluation, which was published in 2024. On page 11, it states:

“The evaluation of Phase Two follows a broadly cyclical pattern of data collection and analysis, alongside ongoing analysis of secondary national datasets … We assumed that there would not be only one way of providing effective support and that the aim at this stage was to support shared learning about potentially effective practice, rather than to conduct an effectiveness trial … The final report for this evaluation … will test whether there are any early signs of progress at aggregate level in attendance, persistent absence, suspension and permanent exclusion”.


I suggest to the Minister that the policy document for the Bill seems to overstate the impact. That policy document says:

“The evaluation of the extension shows early signs of improved educational outcomes … with several local authorities reporting improved attendance, reduced exclusions and enhanced collaboration between education and social care services”.


I am concerned that trends in attendance could be influenced by a range of other factors apart from the presence of the VSH. We therefore possibly have correlation rather than causation. I may have misunderstood things, but can the Minister please correct me if I am wrong?

I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at my amendment. It seeks to fill the evidence gap, both in terms of impact and in terms of resources, before extending the role of VSHs still further. Otherwise, the Government are at risk, in my opinion, of expanding and even diluting the impact of a role without the evidence that clearly demonstrates that it really can make a difference. I hope the Minister will look at this amendment sympathetically and in the spirit in which it is drafted.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 82 would provide further opportunities for children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The Government should be applauded for their commitment to raising the profile of kinship care as a vital part of the ecosystem for children from broken families. As we heard earlier in the week from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, there are more than 150,000 children in kinship care in England. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, without whom it would be almost inevitable that the care system would buckle.

For most of Part 1 of the Bill, I have taken a back seat as I do not have direct expertise in the many complex areas that it seeks to tackle. However, for this proposal I was the Minister responsible for boarding schools, both state and private, when at the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task confronts kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. We have heard how the level of support for kinship carers is patchy at best and often almost non-existent. For many potential kinship carers the prospect will simply be too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances.

That is why I am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child—and, of course, this is not always the case—it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are reduced to around 16 weeks a year from 52 when boarding school is providing a home for the balance of the time.

I believe it is a dramatically underutilised resource. There is an unexplained squeamishness across many directors of children’s services to use it more. However, when I was the Minister in the area in 2018, we published a small longitudinal report showing just how impactful it could be. By coincidence, it was work led by Norfolk County Council, where I live, and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published the report—it is no longer available on the DfE website, which is a shame. I urge the Minister to not only read it—I can send her a copy—but ask officials to put it back up again.

In essence, it tracked 52 vulnerable young people for between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. Dr Claire Maxwell, who contributed to the report, then a reader in the sociology of education at UCL, highlighted three specific benefits. First, the setting can provide amelioration from risky emotional and physically stressful situations—for example, a circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, a moment ago about the number of children from care ending up in prison—it is appalling. Secondly, there is improvement of educational outcomes. Thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. Dr Maxwell’s view, and that of charities in the sector, was that successful boarding placements can help strengthen families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and is part of the reason for the improved emotional and educational outcomes.

In this study, the 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision. Some 21% of these children achieved a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English—above grade C, in old money. This compared with a national looked-after children pass rate in that year of 17.5%. These are not dramatic differences, but put alongside the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This study also compared costs against more institutional forms of care beyond kinship. At the time of writing the report, the Norfolk Boarding School Partnership had an average cost between £11,000 and £35,000 a year, compared with £56,000 for a looked-after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years for this group.

Obviously, kinship care is more affordable because carers get less support, but my argument is that if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked-after children costs. Today, the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation offers bursaries for looked-after children attending private boarding schools. We know that the educational outcomes for looked-after children remain way below the national average, and this is not a silver bullet—but, combined with the other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool in the box to support these vulnerable children who never chose this harsh route into life. I hope the Minister will support me by agreeing to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I was pleased to be asked to speak to Amendment 82 by my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. As well as the evidence I will refer to, I was in your Lordships’ House back in 2014 when my noble friend gave his maiden speech. A Conservative Party treasurer perhaps brings a certain stereotype to mind. However, you could have heard a pin drop, as a globally successful metals trader spoke of being a young teenager in a chaotic home with an alcoholic single mother. But he went to the boarding house at the state-run Wantage Grammar School. It rescued him.

It made me reflect on the role of boarding schools. I was born and bred in Oakham and I have had to deal for many years with the annoyance of, “You’re from Oakham? So you went to Oakham School, then?” “No”, I reply, “there is a state comprehensive as well in the town, called Catmose College”—which was rated “outstanding” in every category in an Ofsted inspection in 2024, if noble Lords will forgive the shoutout for my state school.

This testimony by my noble friend is supported by the 2023 study by the University of Nottingham’s School of Education, commissioned by the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which found that children in or on the edge of care who attend state boarding or independent schools experience significant educational and financial benefits. They are four times more likely to achieve good GCSE passes in English and maths and five times more likely to pursue and succeed in A-levels, leading often to higher education. The study estimates that, for every 100 children attending boarding schools, lower social care costs and increased future earnings mean there is an economic return on investment of approximately £2.75 million. The report stated that, when vulnerable children in boarding schools were interviewed, they said such opportunities were life-changing.

This amendment would also make it significantly easier, as my noble friend Lord Agnew outlined, for kinship carers to step forward to offer a home to a child who might otherwise enter the state care system. Not every family will want or be able to house the child 24/7, 365 days a year. That can be a daunting task. They know of course that their own children will be greatly affected, and their house might not be big enough for that extra child. Kin altruism can be greatly aided and encouraged when a child can be educated in this way in the state boarding sector, giving the carer breathing space to attend to all their other responsibilities, while knowing that the child is safe and cared for in the state boarding sector. I hope the Minister will look at the evidence carefully in relation to this matter.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have no amendments in this group, but we are very sympathetic to them. When you look at all the statistics for children in care, your heart goes out to those young people, and we should do everything humanly possible to help them, develop them, encourage them—and any other adjective you can think of.

I will deal with a few of the amendments. First, I want to deal with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He may not know Liverpool College, but it is a very successful independent school with a dynamic head teacher, a Dutch American who came to England and did two things. First, he made Liverpool College an academy, and then he decided to make a boarding facility available. He came to an agreement with the local authority that he would offer a percentage of the places to children in care. The results have been spectacular. It is a model that should not be shunned for party-political reasons—“We are not in favour of independent schools or boarding schools”—but should be welcomed, embraced and encouraged.

Secondly, I want to make a point about Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Again from personal experience, not only did we create a virtual school in Liverpool, but the then director of education, Colin Hilton, said, “I am going to be the virtual parent of these children”. He set up a steering committee of children in care in the local authority and he met with them once a month to hear their issues and their problems. Some might think this was flag waving, but, by taking on that role, he nailed his colours and the colours of the local authority to the mast, and again the results were amazing.

I am in favour of all sorts of information being made available, because it is only by getting information that you know what you have to do and how you can achieve it. Surprisingly, I am the chair of Liverpool’s education, employment and training scrutiny committee; the Labour authority has made a Lib Dem the chair of two of its select committees. The local authority sets a series of targets, and for education those are obviously training, employment and so on. In each quarter, we look at the results next to the targets we hoped to achieve, and I was surprised that children in care were not separated in those figures. I asked for the figures to be separated and that has now happened, so you can track the progress that those children in care are making.

So all these amendments, in one way or another, can only help to further the support that we as a nation want to give to those children in care. On the question of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, again, why not? All these issues are important, so I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to them.

14:15

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 79, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and Amendment 80, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. While we are of course positive towards efforts that support children with a social worker, those currently and previously looked after and those in kinship care, we question why adopted children are excluded from His Majesty’s Government’s plans to strengthen the role of the virtual school head.

Our Amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual school head to ensure that those children in the care of the local authority who are then adopted receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to

“make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area”.

Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a duty on a local authority to take

“such steps as it considers appropriate”,

which is a much broader role but one that currently does not appear to include adopted children.

As the helpful briefing from Adoption UK sets out, almost half of adoptive parents surveyed for its 2024 Adoption Barometer had sought advice from their local virtual school in the preceding year. The report highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value they placed on the advocacy that a virtual school head could provide with their child’s school. Their exclusion from the Bill appears inconsistent, and we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or, if they will not be, why not.

Amendment 80 seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. The ONS estimates that 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24—12.5%—were not in education, employment or training in the period January to March 2025. Although that is down on the previous quarter, I think all noble Lords would agree that the number is way too high and we must act to reduce it.

Amendments 78 and 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken that has resulted in the educational achievement of the children in need or in kinship care, and that the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported. It is important for successful practices to be shared, and the amendment would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured.

Amendment 82, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Farmer, seeks to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. The noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly worked very well for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Where it works for a child—and that is obviously critically important—it can be a hugely positive experience. That child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts or drama, away from the distractions or dangers that they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It would lessen the time pressures on kinship carers, who we know do an amazing job but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Council, the issues it encountered and how it addressed them. We look forward to discussing this further, and hope the Minister will do so also.

Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, seeks to review virtual school heads and their role in improving educational outcomes for previously looked-after children. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads. As such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads have had before full implementation. We very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.

In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these all seem entirely sensible and well thought out amendments.

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

I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important area of the Bill. I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship care experience significant difficulties. Many of them have poorer educational outcomes than their peers as a result, across all key stages. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right that it is important that everyone shares their experience. In Leeds, we always made sure that the scrutiny of children’s services was held by an opposition member; that seems to make absolute sense. We all want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised.

Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of such children, increasing their visibility, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and ensuring that they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes. In practice, these duties will be discharged by the virtual school head, who will have strategic oversight of the outcomes of these children, raising awareness and improving visibility of their needs—for example, through the delivery of training to schools in effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have just received more information about why this information is so important. For example, it will mean having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, placement instability or social work instability—all of which contribute to their experience in learning and their ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, upon request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangements orders, regardless of whether their child spent time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a non-statutory basis, and we recognise the need for a much stronger basis. I echo the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully.

As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled, which would ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children, while ensuring that local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties. They would also ensure that previously looked-after children adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result—I will come back to say more on that later. We are confident that the measures in this clause meet these aims and that, as a result, these amendments are not necessary. I will go into more detail later.

Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to enable discussion on which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school heads will promote their educational outcomes. Providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school head role is extended is important. New Section 23ZZZA(2), to be inserted by Clause 6, provides a clear definition of these children. Specifically, they are children for whom the local authority is

“providing or has provided services”

under Section 17(10)(a) or (b) of the Children Act 1989, as well as children

“in the authority’s area who live in kinship care”.

Amendments 78 and 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they perform in promoting the educational outcomes of these children, and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency in local authority support are essential for driving improvements, and for ensuring that decisions are made in the child’s best interests and that every child receives support, wherever they live or are educated.

Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report summarising strategies for supporting children in their care, while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children’s services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for, and that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to include reporting on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of children in need and children in kinship care. This will ensure greater consistency across all local authorities, enabling continuous improvement in the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government are committed to ensuring that previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption are supported to succeed in education.

Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to children in need and children in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his statistics; it is always useful to have that level of granularity in our discussions.

To repeat, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 to promote the educational achievements of all previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or child arrangements orders. I hope that satisfies the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. In addition, subsection (3) of Section 23ZZA allows the local authority to

“do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”.

I would suggest that that level of flexibility adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child.

The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children’s educational needs. However, we are committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked-after children in statutory guidance for virtual school heads. There is no room for complacency here; we have to keep revisiting, refreshing and relooking on behalf of all the children we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen sections on support for adopted children, and we will work with the adoption sector on this, including by clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and incorporating examples of good practice.

14:30

Amendment 80 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. I have heard the noble Baroness speak many times on this subject, which is absolutely central to this Government’s drive to improve outcomes for young people, wherever they started their journey in life, and to ensure that the support runs right through to the other side of schools. I think we can all put our hands on our heart and say that the statistics that we have heard today, which many of us know from before, are simply shocking. All of us need to have a real commitment to looking at how we can work to improve career and employment opportunities as part of the educational achievement goals for children and young people.

We know that these opportunities are key to breaking the cycle of disadvantage for many children who have experienced the care system. Although career and employment support is not explicitly referenced in Clause 6, it is implicitly part of educational achievement. This includes raising aspirations; promoting transitions into post-16 education, employment and training; and supporting access to timely and effective careers advice and guidance. In practice, virtual school heads will support employment opportunities by championing improved attendance and educational progress, and by working closely with schools to identify and address barriers to learning. Our updated statutory guidance for virtual school heads will provide a framework for promoting short-and long-term academic achievements and aspirations, including the career and employment opportunities of all children under the virtual school head remit.

We also need to make sure that every area has appropriate relationships with employers so they are aware of the situation and circumstances, and to ensure that they do not miss out on giving opportunities to move forward to a very rich seam of young people with incredible backgrounds. Government departments are looking at ways in which they can move this forward. I welcome the whole area of corporate responsibility, which we will discuss later in the Bill. Transition is part of the local offer in many areas in the Staying Close agreement.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for speaking so effectively for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I am sorry that he could not be here today, but I thank her for putting forward his point of view.

Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, seeks to increase the number of boarding school places available to children in care, in particular to those in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment. I reassure him that we are committed to ensuring that all children are given the best possible opportunities to succeed. We recognise the positive impact that boarding schools can have but we do not believe that they should be the default position for all children living in kinship care. We all know that stability has to be the watchword for young people who, in many cases, are going through some enormous traumas, and stability in education is of fundamental importance to both well-being and educational outcomes. It is essential that we minimise disruption through unnecessary changes to school placements and removal from friendship groups, for example, or any of the things that really matter to a young person.

However, where a placement in a state boarding school is in the best interest of a child in kinship care they should have the opportunity to consider this option, and the noble Lord is quite right to raise its profile. This is why we continue to support the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation’s broadening educational pathways programme, which provides a placement-matching and brokerage service to children in need and children in care in state boarding and independent schools. I am not aware of any DCS who is squeamish about this; I am sure the noble Lord will inform me at another time if he knows of any who are.

I recognise the noble Lord’s involvement in this work and thank him for his information about the Norfolk group. I recognise its role in the programme, the work that it has been doing at Wymondham, and the outcomes that the five children who have been placed there will, I hope, achieve. We recognise that the college continues to be an active participant and champion of this work.

Lastly, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the role and effectiveness of virtual school heads. As I have already stated, understanding the effectiveness of virtual school heads is crucial for assessing their impact on educational outcomes and for ensuring that they are adequately resourced. It is important that, by making the role statutory, virtual school heads will have a stronger legal basis to support these children’s educational outcomes. It also gives local authorities greater certainty over the future of the role. Current data has shown the role’s positive impact, with nearly two-thirds of virtual school heads reporting an increase in school attendance of children with a social worker. We expect the extension of the role to continue positively impacting children with a social worker and children in kinship care arrangements.

We are resisting this amendment as we believe an extra review is not necessary. We have been formally evaluating the impact of the role since it was extended to include children in need on a non-statutory basis in 2021. A final evaluation of the work will be published later this year, and I am sure we all look forward to that with enormous interest. Our updated statutory guidance will provide a clear framework that enables virtual school heads to support the educational outcomes of all children they have a duty towards. We will continue to work closely with key stakeholders, including the National Association of Virtual School Heads, to ensure the role is sufficiently resourced and funded to meet all children under the virtual school head remit.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I am very grateful for the comprehensive and courteous way that the Minister has responded to the amendments. Can she comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With all this work, I believe it is important that we focus on the job in hand through the route of accountability and the local authorities, and do not give virtual school heads yet another onerous task to do. I believe that enough safeguards are in place and enough ways that the outcomes can be reviewed, so I do not believe that this is necessary at this time.

I was going to say that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments, based on the fact that this is work in progress. We all know the significance of this area and the contribution that so many people make to it. We are opening up an exciting new chapter to make sure that the work that happens is accountable and transparent, and that more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young people can be helped going forward.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I thought was a really satisfactory set of responses to these amendments, and I thank her for that. Will she commit, when the evaluation and the statutory guidance are published, to giving a heads-up to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this area during this debate?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have a feeling that I would not have any other option, given the comments I have received to date.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I shall be very grateful for that. I hope the Minister will also have a quiet word in the ear of her colleagues responsible for the Employment Rights Bill, referring to the speech of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in particular. When an employer wants to take on someone who has a history in care, they know that this may be a difficult experience for them. As it is at the moment, the Employment Rights Bill makes that much more dangerous and difficult. It is a matter of casting the rules right, but the Government have not got there yet. This is really important in making sure that children from a care background can find their way into employment, that an employer can take on someone they know is going to be difficult and have time to bring them through, and that the regulations are set right to make that happen.

I encourage the Government to encourage local authorities to use boarding schools where this is appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Agnew said, this is something that can save money and make for a better outcome for the right children. I ask that, where this is done, we track performance. We ought to build up, not just as one experiment but as a routine, a history of how these children have done with that experience, so that we can all learn who it works for and how it works best, and the schools concerned can learn from each other how to do better. There is a real wish in the independent sector to be part of this, and I very much hope it will be included.

I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Amendments 78 to 83 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7: Provision of advice and other support

Amendment 84

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

84: Clause 7, page 12, line 8, after “support” insert “and staying put support”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before I go on to them, I will say a word about yesterday’s spending review. I apologise that I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore’s session, just before we started the Bill.

There was significant spend announced yesterday on wider children’s social care. The review stated:

“This settlement will improve support for England’s most vulnerable children and young people by setting aside £555 million over the SR period from the Transformation Fund for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government … and DfE, as well as total capital investment of over £560 million to reform the children’s social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s homes estate. This will help more children and families stay safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market”.


It obviously remains to be seen how that will shake down, but I think it is a very promising start and a real indication of how seriously the Government view the current situation as far as the children’s social care sector is concerned.

In its present form, the Bill extends Staying Close support only to young people up to the age of 25—that is for any relevant child in residential care—but not Staying Put support for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. The increased support that the Bill provides for care leavers is welcome, but it risks creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their foster family beyond the age of 21. The amendments in my name in this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding. I suggest that the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source for at least part of that.

14:45

The last issue may be a sticking point for the Government, but it need not be. Even if the money I mentioned is intended for elsewhere, in the long term there would be significant cost benefits to the Treasury if young people were allowed to stay in foster care beyond the age of 21. Both Ministers will be familiar with that argument, because it was set out in the widely respected Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, published three years ago, commonly referred to as the MacAlister report. That report quoted figures from 2020, which showed that the average cost of a residential care placement was £3,830 a week, annualised to £199,000. By contrast, an average foster care placement was costed at £71,000 per year, or just 35% of a residential care placement.

The benefits of foster care were recognised in the Children and Families Act 2014, which extended the right of young people in England to stay with their foster family from the age of 18 to the age of 21 under what became the Staying Put arrangement. The Fostering Network has shown that many young people and foster carers would like the children they are fostering to stay with them beyond 21 but that most often cannot, because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it. I very firmly believe that there should be.

On average, a young person living with their birth parents does not leave home until the age of 24, though if they do not want to leave home at that age—and there are very often strong financial reasons for not doing so—they simply remain where they are. It just seems wrong to me that children in foster care should be forced to leave their foster parents unless those parents are in a position to replace the support previously provided by the state.

The MacAlister report stated that the current cliff edge that care leavers face puts them at a severe disadvantage when navigating adult life. It is widely acknowledged that young people experience better outcomes when they remain in family environments through foster care, adoptive care or kinship care in comparison to residential care. It is known that foster carers are often best placed to prepare the young people in their care for independence, because they are the most trusted adult known to the young people. Surely they should have the same support and opportunities to stay beyond 21 in the environment they feel most comfortable as those living in residential care.

When an amendment to extend Staying Put support for young people up to the age of 25 in line with Staying Close support was tabled in another place, the Minister refused, stating that they recognised the case made but felt the need to prioritise young people in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. That is all very well, but young people in foster care also have complex needs, and many young people are placed in residential care only because there are not enough foster places available for them, or, beyond the age of 21, because they have nowhere to go. Ofsted reported in 2022 that one-third of children in residential care had foster care on their plan when they arrived.

I certainly would not want to give the impression I am seeking to pit the needs of those in foster care against those in residential care. Through the Staying Close provisions in Clause 7, the Bill greatly benefits a relatively small but nonetheless significant group of vulnerable young people in care by extending Staying Close to 25. Some young people either wish to or need to be accommodated in children’s homes, and often that is because, for whatever reason, foster care has not met their needs, resulting perhaps in multiple unsuccessful placements. It is important to say that the amendments in this group would help those in residential care, as well as those in foster care. These young people—essentially the same group of young people—should not be subject to a two-tier system, not least because it is well-evidenced that it is generally in a young person’s best interest to live in foster care and a family environment post-18 to improve outcomes as they transition into adulthood.

I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will remind your Lordships’ Committee that an extension of Staying Put to age 23, as proposed by the MacAlister report, was committed to by the previous Government in their response to MacAlister, though of course it was never actually introduced. I say to my noble friend the Minister: please do not allow this Bill to be a missed opportunity to provide support for care leavers by extending the Staying Put scheme to enable children in foster care to remain with their former foster carer beyond the age of 21. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, having attached my name to all the amendments in this group that include extending Staying Put support for young people up to the age of 25. The noble Lord has already made the case very well, so I will not repeat all the stats and the recommendations that we had from the MacAlister report et cetera, but it is worth reflecting on how hard it is today for young people to be independent at the age of 21. The Office for National Statistics report last year showed that, across our society, the average age at which a child moves out of their family home is 24. Surely the state should also be providing the kind of care that children are getting in families.

I also have a genuine question that I have not been able to establish the answer to. These amendments and the Government’s plans cover both children in foster care and those in institutional arrangements. My understanding is that about 40% of 17 year-olds are staying in unregulated or independent accommodation, and it would appear that at the moment they are falling through the cracks and not being covered by either these amendments or what is happening here, so I would like to ask the Minister whether that is indeed the case and whether the Government have plans to act on that.

It is perhaps worth setting out the kind of story of what is happening now, which I doubt anyone in this Chamber would disagree is unacceptable. Last year the Big Issue reported on the case of a young man called Duncan, who was in care with a foster family that he had been with since age 11. He came home from college one day and found that all his bags had been packed up. It was a week after he turned 18. The foster carers were happy for him to stay, but social services simply said that was not an option and could not happen, and packed his bags up. Think about how utterly damaging that would be. Duncan was then put into supported accommodation. At 3 am the next morning, someone was knocking on his door looking for somebody else. There was drug dealing happening all around him. He had a bottle flung in his face by someone who was trying to throw it to someone else in that supported accommodation. That is what the state, as a corporate parent, is doing to a child at the age of 18. There are some places where some people are able to stay, but surely that should be the absolute standard provision. We need the parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, which is what these amendments would achieve.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to lend my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, regarding extending the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25. My Amendment 130 does exactly the same thing but for some reason is in the next group. I will say a few words about it when we get to the next group, but I just want to underline my support. I think it is a very important issue.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164 to introduce a national offer for child care leavers. This is strongly recommended by Barnardo’s because this amendment would end the postcode lottery of support for care leavers and help remove barriers to opportunity. Each year around 13,000 young people leave care without the support they need, and the outcomes of these young people remain much lower than those of their peers. That is why we at Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—believe that there should be a new minimum standard of support for care leavers: a national offer regardless of where they live. It should include measures recommended by Barnardo’s, which I hope the Government and the Minister will agree to.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97 and 99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. His support for Amendment 99, and mine, is grounded in—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Those are in the next group.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I apologise; I am just so keen.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and Amendment 164 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.

I am a retread, a hereditary Peer who originally came here not very long ago, in 1981, left in 1999 and was recycled, like an old tyre, in 2014. I made my first maiden speech in 1982 and my second in 2015, on the subject of Staying Put. At that time the Minister for Children was the rather wonderful Edward Timpson, the younger brother of the Department of Justice Minister here. He had grown up in an extraordinary family. Apart from having full-blood siblings, while he was growing up his amazing parents fostered more than 90 children. So Staying Put was put in place by an individual who had a deep understanding of the issues faced by young people unfortunate enough not to be able to live with their natural or even unnatural parents. Staying Put was a result of that. The debate in 2015 was to welcome the fact that it had been extended, having been deemed such a success.

It is very fitting that now we have another Timpson in government, albeit in a different department, we again look at this and recognise how successful it has been. What we are asking for in this amendment will not involve a vast number of children or a vast amount of money. It will, however, be transformative for that small number of children. In economic terms, the benefits of giving them support up to the age of 25, if they need it, will be more than repaid by some of the problems that might cost rather more if they have to leave earlier. For all those reasons, I request that the Government look at this sympathetically and see how it can be fitted in.

On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in so many parts of our society there is a postcode lottery. That is not surprising given how the highly centralised country of England, with all roads leading to London, coexists with a piebald mosaic of different local authorities and different organisations of all kinds, which to some extent relish the English creative impulse to reinvent the wheel in your own image. As a result, there is considerable variation. If you asked a variety of organisations providing support for those in care or coming out of care to define succinctly, in two or three minutes, exactly what their care offer was, you would get rather different answers.

For those reasons, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, it would be very beneficial to have clarity about the core elements of the offer and to do everything one can to make sure it is understood and, as far as possible, complied with across the country.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 164 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. I omitted to declare my interests as a teacher and a kinship carer, but your Lordships probably know of those by now.

15:00

I am going to quote the Drive Forward Foundation again and belatedly acknowledge the Family Rights Group for its work on kinship. We have seen first-hand the immense potential of care-experienced young people and the systemic barriers that prevent them thriving. Despite the Government’s role as a corporate parent, care leavers face disproportionately poor outcomes. They are three times more likely to be NEET, twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues and are at significantly higher risk of homelessness. By forcing the Government to publish a local care offer and then making local authorities have a duty to publish their minimum standards for that offer, we should avoid many of the traps that capture care leavers.

These provisions should include the following specific new entitlements and services for young care leavers aged 18 to 25: all public bodies to offer a specific care leaver internship scheme using the civil service care leaver internship model; the local authority or corporate partner to act as a guarantor and provide rental deposit; free NHS prescriptions; a dedicated mental health offer in every local authority; for those eligible for universal credit, the rate should be the same as for those aged over 25; and local authorities to create and embed local protocols for reducing the criminalisation of children in care and care leavers. The Government are serious about improving the lot of care leavers. This amendment would make it even better.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 94 in this group. It is very much the same as my amendments in the last group. If we can get local authorities to say clearly what they are doing and what they have achieved in a year, then they will wish to do better next year.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I just want to say a few words, especially in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I remember that 14 years ago this issue was discussed during consideration of the Children and Families Bill. We all sort of huffed and puffed and said, yes, this is really important, but nothing came of it. I just wish we had seized that opportunity then. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly said, we do not want to make this a missed opportunity. Some young people are ready to leave, but many are not. If you look at the figures for young people who are not in care and not fostered—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned 24 year-olds—sometimes we see people in their 30s still living at their parents’ home. What happens in those families should be reflected right throughout our society. Sometimes young people are not emotionally ready. We heard of “pack the bag and go”, but I can tell of the opposite: foster parents, at their own cost and in their own time, being prepared to keep on their foster children for several years afterwards. That is amazing.

I turn to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Having each local authority publish what its national care offer should be seems such an obvious thing to do. I just hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and do that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for local authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need Staying Close support; and when such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. This provision builds on the Staying Close pilot scheme, which gives care leavers safe and secure accommodation along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support. I am very grateful to the charity Become for sharing its expertise in this area with me. As the Minister knows, each year thousands of young people face what we might describe as a care cliff edge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, vividly described, when they leave the system, they are expected to leave home at around 18—often abruptly but, I hope, not always as abruptly as in the case she described—losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood.

Research by Become shows that

“the transition from care to ‘independent living’ is often poorly planned and managed, and many young people feel unsupported”.

Evidence from the Staying Close pilots demonstrates

“improved outcomes for care-experienced young people … including better ‘independent living’ skills, increased happiness, better stability, increased participation in … education and employment; and a reduced risk of homelessness”,

and that extending Staying Close support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care. We warmly welcome that.

However, we have concerns about the drafting of Clause 7, which could limit its impact. First, Clause 7(2) requires local authorities to assess whether Staying Close support serves the young person’s welfare, but without providing specified assessment criteria. We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our Amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors the local authority must have due regard to, including the

“wishes and preferences … accommodation requirements … emotional and practical support needs … and existing support network”

of the young person. Our ever-optimistic Amendment 92 would give the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where it is judged to be appropriate.

The current wording defines Staying Close support merely as providing advice and information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The Minister will know that “making representations” does not always translate into a service. That narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots, so our worry is that it will not achieve the same positive outcomes that the pilot did.

Our Amendment 89 aims to strengthen the voice of young people and ensure that a record of their wishes is kept. The Bill does not reference young people’s wishes and preferences. We believe, and I know that the Minister agrees and has been a great leader in this, that young people’s input is vital when determining support.

Lastly, our Amendment 93 gives a strong legal entitlement to an opt-out for all care leavers, ensuring young people’s preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I very much hope the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the Government could turn into their own.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, very generously pointed out the response of the previous Government and put the case for extended Staying Put support extremely ably. I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments; indeed, he or another noble Lord mentioned that, when asked, 75% of children said that they would like to go on living with their foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 94. Having clarity and good performance-management data should always lead to better outcomes.

I feel rather mealy-mouthed not to be more enthusiastic about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164. I absolutely do not want to sound preachy, but I worry. Of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but, as we often discuss in your Lordships’ House, some of that comes from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them. I suppose my only hesitation is that information without relationships does not get us much further, but I know that all noble Lords know that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I start by re-emphasising that we all know that care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society and that many have not received the care and support that we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong, loving relationships, and are engaged in education, employment and training. The ongoing work and the measures in Clause 7 are geared to improving outcomes for those eligible and will help address any cliff edge of support they may face when leaving care.

On Amendments 84, 86 to 88, 90 and 91 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I thank him for highlighting the issues and for going through the background so thoroughly, but also for highlighting the very positive measures that were announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail on how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

These amendments together would require local authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with Staying Put support where their welfare requires it. They seek to probe why the Bill makes provision for Staying Close support to be offered to eligible care leavers up to the age of 25 when the Children Act 1989 puts duties on local authorities to support former relevant children and their former foster parents to maintain a Staying Put arrangement until the former relevant child reaches the age of 21.

I acknowledge the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I am sure that many of us in this Chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and difficult examples that are based on the real experience of some young people. That is exactly why we have the Bill before us and what we are trying to achieve with it.

We fully recognise the importance of these duties and remain strongly committed to the Staying Put arrangements. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend Lord Watson, we believe at this moment that it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support, in particular for young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. It is difficult to have to prioritise and focus, but this is the place we are in at the moment.

We are doing this very positive work through the introduction of Clause 7, where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in or who have left a Staying Put arrangement, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. Staying Close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation, and support to access wraparound services.

On Amendments 85, 92 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I start by reassuring her that we agree with the sentiment of the amendments and that Clause 7 is already very much in that spirit. We are very keen, of course, to make sure that everything we do links and aligns with the different opportunities: for example, how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that there is a seamless direction of travel. There will be more to discuss on this as we go forward, as I understand she acknowledges.

15:15

Amendment 85 would require local authorities to have due regard to the person’s wishes and preferences, accommodation requirements, emotional and practical support needs and existing network when assessing what Staying Close support is required in the interests of that particular young person’s welfare. Clause 7 sets out that Staying Close support is provided to a former relevant child for the purpose of helping them to find and keep suitable accommodation—I think the “and keep” is absolutely relevant here—and to access services relating to health and well-being, relationships, education and training, employment, and participation in society. Alongside this, the new statutory guidance that will accommodate this duty will set out that the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and to keep a record of that person’s wishes.

Amendment 92 seeks to expand the definition of Staying Close support to include

“any other support the local authority deems appropriate”.

As previously stated, the duties in this clause require the local authority to provide any Staying Close support that it considers appropriate where that person’s welfare requires it. This clause already allows for the inherent flexibility that the local authority needs to assess the individual needs of the young person and provide bespoke Staying Close support accordingly. Clause 7 makes it clear that the new duties imposed on local authorities by this clause are in addition to other duties that already exist to support care leavers.

Again, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 93 seeks to make explicit that young people can opt out of receiving Staying Close support if they choose to. We agree that it is an essential principle that any support from local authorities must consider the wishes and feelings of the care leaver, and this includes support under the Staying Close duty. I repeat, and I will repeat on every occasion, that the voice of the child or young person is fundamental in all these areas and everything that that we are striving to achieve. Statutory guidance for the Children Act 1989 outlines that local authorities must respect the right of young people to decline support. This principle will also apply to Staying Close support and will be made explicit in the guidance produced.

Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, also draws attention to the important principle that local authorities are always expected to consider the wishes and feelings of their eligible care leavers. In assessing what Staying Close support is required in the interest of that person’s welfare, the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and to keep a record of that person’s wishes. I am repeating this, but for a good purpose: we have to make sure that this message gets out there, is heard and, most importantly, is acted on. The guidance will also cover how we expect Staying Close consideration to form part of the young person’s pathway plan in developing and maintaining the plan and support arrangements. Within this, again, the views of the young person are expected to be considered.

The Children Act 1989 provides for certain former relevant children under the age of 25 to have access to advocacy services. This entitlement is not just for times when they wish to complain; it also offers situations where the young person might want to make representations about their care and support provided by the authority, where they have spotted gaps or where, with their peer group, they have recognised that other things need to be taken into account. The way that local authorities bring young people with care experience together is a very rich area to get that sense of what is possible and what is required.

On Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked for clarity and it was suggested that local authority performance in relation to Staying Close support should be more visible so as to drive improvement. It is, of course, essential that we have the powers in place to ensure that local authorities fully carry out their duties and ensure young people receive the best possible care and support. In December 2022, Ofsted updated the Inspecting Local Authority Children's Services framework to include a separate judgment on the experiences and progress of care leavers, and that began in January 2023. We expect Ofsted to review local authority performance in relation to the delivery of such support within its care leaver inspection of local authority children’s services; these inspections are published once complete.

On Amendment 164, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to a postcode lottery. The amendment asks for a consultation on and then publication of a “national care offer”, which would set out the minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish as part of their published local offer for care leavers. Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989 and accompanying statutory guidance. The department has also recently launched a nationally accessible website that clearly sets out available support to care leavers.

Picking up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I have a huge amount of respect for the work that she does and for Barnardo’s. This is an example where young people themselves have determined how they will get their information; they do not get their information in the ways that we might have thought appropriate. In particular, they have asked for it to be accessible, online, available and interactive. This is an area where there is a huge potential to move forward and, through the young people themselves and through peer group pressure, hold to account those that are not living up to the expectation.

Alongside this, Clause 7 of the Bill requires local authorities to offer Staying Close support to eligible care leavers under the age of 25, where their welfare requires it. Clause 8 requires local authorities to publish information about the arrangements that the local authority has in place for the purpose of supporting and assisting care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living.

Through Clauses 21 to 25, we are introducing new corporate parenting responsibilities on each Secretary of State and, importantly, on relevant public bodies. These measures aim to ensure that policies and services that affect this cohort better take account of the challenges they face and provide opportunities for them to thrive. I would express this by saying that it is time that everyone realises that looking after children is everyone’s business. Every department has a role to play, and everyone across the piece—including the private sector—has a contribution to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, commended the internship model, leading by example, and also the mental health offer, which is something that we will come back to. These measures, alongside wider work—such as the recently launched national website that I mentioned, which clearly sets out available support to care leavers, including support that is provided by central Government—will signpost the support already available. The purpose of this is to make it much more likely that the support available is accessed and used to its best ability. Of course local authorities—referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—will have a significant part to play in the offer.

However, I urge noble Lords to be careful that we do not reduce the opportunity here by being too prescriptive. We must make sure that there is flexibility to take advantage of the very best that is available locally and let local determination set the bar and spread improvements on a much wider footing. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the fact that, apparently, 40% of 17-year-olds turning 18 are in unregulated or independent accommodation. Could the noble Baroness perhaps write to me about that?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I apologise: I knew that I had missed the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, of course I will write on that important point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments—which may not be surprising, since they added their names to them, for which I also thank them. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the point she raised about 16 and 17 year-olds living in unregistered accommodation, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in group 8 today, if we get that far.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, although, of course, it is disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response—if she will forgive me, it could probably be described in three words, “We’re staying put”, which is effectively what she said—whereas her opposite number in the other place said that the Government were not in favour of extending Staying Put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, who, she said, had the most complex needs. My noble friend today said that the Government want to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision. Neither is unimportant, but I think that, where there are gaps in current provision, yes, they can be filled, but that does not mean that there are no gaps in the provision beyond the age of 21 for young people Staying Put.

My noble friend said that, when people in foster care reach the age of 21 and leave for whatever reason, they will have Staying Close to fall back on in certain situations, and of course that is right. But, overall, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay on in foster care beyond the age of 21. We are not talking about thousands and thousands, so the cost in additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. I have to come back to the point that I started off with, which is that there was a very positive statement yesterday in the spending review, which may offer the opportunity to deal with this as well, although of course there will be many competing demands.

As I said, it is disappointing. I request the opportunity of discussing this issue a little further with my ministerial colleagues before Report, but I again thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 84 withdrawn.

Amendments 85 to 94 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

15:30

Clause 8: Local offer for care leavers

Amendment 95

Moved by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

95: Clause 8, page 13, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy and financial support.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a requirement on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop financial literacy and to better understand their financial entitlements as part of their Local Offer for Care Leavers.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 95 and 130 in my name, and in doing so I draw attention to my interest in the register as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. I think the amendments in this group are very important. They look in broad terms at the support that is available to care leavers—an issue which we all understand is incredibly important. I am supportive of pretty much all the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is about a national offer to care leavers and how that relates to local offers. No doubt we will come back to that.

I had the privilege of attending an all-party group meeting recently where we spoke to a large number of care leavers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was there as well. I was very impressed with the presentations that these care leavers gave. One of them made the key point that they would like to see a national offer for all care leavers to ensure consistency. I asked them to send me some more details about what exactly it would entail, because this is a critical issue.

My Amendment 95 is a bit more specific. It would require local authorities to provide more clarity on the services they provide to care leavers to help them develop their financial literacy and thus access their financial entitlements. As we have heard, young people leaving care are much more likely to leave home at an earlier age than other young people and be forced to live independently, often before they are ready. That means managing bills, a tenancy and other financial responsibilities, and juggling that with education or starting employment, often without having any financial safety net to fall back on, which so many parents provide for their children. I know it is stating the obvious, but there is no bank of mum and dad for this group of youngsters to fall back on.

Too often, care leavers are not aware of the financial entitlements and supports available to them from the local authority, such as council tax discounts, higher education bursaries or, more broadly, welfare benefits. This lack of information can lead to them facing unnecessary financial hardship or falling into rent arrears or debt. We all know that, once you start falling into debt, it is a vicious cycle and so hard to get out. All of this has a huge impact on their well-being and security. Care-experienced young people often report that they feel unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come from living independently from such a young age, primarily owing to the lack of support or opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge they need on such basic things as budgeting, money management and broader financial understanding.

That is why the amendment, which would introduce a requirement on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop their financial literacy as part of their local offer for care leavers—we can come back later to whether that should be part of a national offer—is vital and could make such a difference to their life chances. Such a change would create more transparency for care-experienced young people about the financial support available to them and would help to address one of the main challenges they face when moving into independent living.

Amendment 130, as I said in the previous group, is basically about extending Staying Put to the age of 25. We have already had that discussion; I never quite understand some of the mysteries of grouping, so quite why we are having it in a separate group as well I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, set out the case very well. I shall just add that, as we heard in some of our earlier debates, young people leaving care often face a disproportionate risk of experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity. Care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people, and statutory homelessness rates for care leavers have increased by over 50% in the past five years, which underlines why I think extending Staying Put to the age of 25 is so important. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the previous group, it involves a pretty small number of care leavers. The costs of doing this would be fairly modest and I hope, from what we have heard in the spending review yesterday and today, that some space is opening up. So, really, I am asking Ministers whether they will think again.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for my earlier early intervention. Noble Lords know how passionate I am about early intervention and it got the better of me.

Amendments 97 and 99 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. My support for my noble friend in his amendments is grounded in a desire, which I am sure all noble Lords share, to see high national standards of support, not just pockets of excellent practice in some local authorities. Having said that, the requirement in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 for local authorities to publish their own offer for care leavers, which this would amend, is an important one. But it needs to be built on. A higher standard at a national level would not prevent innovative and exemplary councils doing even better, but it would force any that were lagging behind to improve. I suspect that those who are dedicated to their local care leavers’ cause and are working hard on the ground would welcome high national standards, as those would help them argue successfully for the enhanced leadership and financial support required to lift their offering.

Another reason why the local offer is an important part of primary legislation is that it includes services relating to relationships—a primary need for children coming into care, while they are in care and when they exit. My noble friend Lord Farmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and Lord Mackay, now sadly retired, tabled an amendment to the Children and Social Work Act 2017 that was eventually accepted by the Government, which included the important word “relationships”.

On Amendment 97, the Bill presents an important and timely opportunity to embed relationships more deeply into councils’ arrangements to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living. We should do all we can to enable care leavers to maintain, strengthen and build family and social relationships. Family group decision-making provisions in the Bill need to be built on. Having gone to all the effort to bring together families and friends who are committed to a child potentially leaving their parents’ care, we cannot allow those relationships to fall through the cracks in their care pathway.

The Family Rights Group, which forged Māori-born family group conferencing into a British model over many years by working with families and children with relevant experience, has similarly refined the lifelong links model, which started as the family finding model in Orange County, California. Lifelong links ensure that children in care have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them. A trained co-ordinator works with the child or young person to identify and safely reconnect with important people in their lives, such as relatives they may have lost contact with, former foster carers, teachers or sports coaches. With family group decision-making becoming standard practice, many such people will, or should, have been involved in that process. Keeping these contacts going is a sensible and straightforward next step. The lifelong links approach has demonstrated significant benefits, including more positive and healthy connections in the child’s life and better mental health, instead of isolation and depression, or worse.

Knowing that they matter as an individual to people who are not the professionals paid to look after them gives a child a much better sense of identity. The practical wisdom and guidance that family and friends give often makes the care leaver far more emotionally stable, with a knock-on effect on their ability to hold down accommodation and training or education courses. This reduces the risk of homelessness and of a child trying to make their way without a goal or purpose. Without the motivation that positive relationships provide, it can be very hard to persevere. If you do not matter to anyone, it is easy to wonder what the point of bothering is.

The lifelong links model is currently available in over 40 local authorities across the UK, with 22 receiving Department for Education funding. Lifelong links is not named in this amendment, but, given all of the investment the Government have already made in evidence-building, it should be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care and care leavers.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am going to be slightly unconventional and start with the last amendment in this group, Amendment 183A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I think it is so important that it does not get buried in this rather large and diverse group. This amendment seeks to deliver what was, in essence, in the right reverend Prelate’s Private Member’s Bill, which we debated a few months ago, and which I spoke in favour of. It sought to ensure that the universal credit regulations are amended so that care leavers turning 18 receive the same level of universal credit as anyone receives at the age of 25.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who said that these are young people who have no access to the bank of mum and dad and no cushion. We are expecting them to live on a level of universal credit that is not reflective of what other people who have more support—not necessarily, but probably—live on. This is a modest measure. As I said at Second Reading, it is a humane, constructive and practical step. Although this should not be the reason for it, it is very clear that it would end up saving the state money by ensuring people have a little more support and do not fall a very long way through the cracks, as the statistics show they very often do.

At the Second Reading of that Bill, I spoke about the wonderful scheme in Wales that has been trialling universal basic income for care leaves, set at a quite decent level. One of the interesting things was that the only condition put on those care leavers was that they had to take one session of financial education. This is where I come back to Amendment 95, from the noble Baroness Tyler, to which I have attached my name. I have heard anecdotal reports—we have not had the written reports from the UBI trials yet—that one of the offers was that care leavers could take more financial education sessions, in acknowledgement that they had a significant amount of money available to them. Virtually every person in the scheme took the extra financial education. It might seem a bit specialised to have this in an amendment, but it is such an important factor.

I point to the fact that this is a broader issue. Care leavers are obviously people who particularly need financial education, but I note that, last year, the Financial Times Christmas appeal was to raise money to give British young people financial education. That is an indictment of the failure across the whole system to educate young people. It is very clear that care leavers are people who particularly need it, deserve to get it and can hugely benefit from it.

15:45

Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, Amendment 99 in my name calls for the publication of a national offer. It is really important to draw the line here between the national offer and a local offer. The national offer should be a foundation that no care leaver should fall below. That does not mean we might not hope that local areas might be able to do more than that, if they have the resources or the capacity, or if they acknowledge a particular issue, problem or local circumstances. The local offer will vary from the national, but it should not fall below the foundation of the national level that meets the basics that should be available to every care leaver. That is the intention of this amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the excellent and compelling amendments in this group. In particular, I support Amendments 96 and 107A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, will remember that I spoke at Second Reading of her commendable Private Member’s Bill on mental health professionals, which I think was about 18 months ago. I raised the particular issue of children with complex needs—specifically children mainly in mainstream schooling who are diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. For a number of years in the other place, I supported Tourettes Action in its research, profile-raising and fundraising. For full transparency, my brother is a professor of cognitive neuropsychology, specialising in human movement studies, which includes Tourette’s.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships’ House in discussing Tourette’s, but I want to make the point that one of the key issues that affects children who have Tourette’s is a lack of collaboration and consistency across schooling, primary care and hospital settings. In other words, often children behave badly in school and are excluded because they are not diagnosed with Tourette’s and do not get the clinical care that they need. That work between the two parts of the state is not happening, and there is a similar issue for children with complex needs in the care system.

Again, all these amendments are excellent, but the specific advantage of my noble friend’s amendments is that they would impose an imperative on the education sector, and specifically the health sector—primary care, hospitals and other clinical settings—to focus on those children leaving care with specific and very important pressing needs.

There are a wide variety of issues that affect young people in that situation, including housing—the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham have focused on those issues—but the advantage of these two amendments is that they would put a focus on primary care in the Bill. Yes, young people are worried about education, skills, training and housing, but probably the most important thing is their health.

On that basis, putting this in the Bill would be a positive move that would encourage different social care agencies and the people who write the statements for those children and young people, such as teachers and so on, to start thinking about what their healthcare pathway will be in addition to other pathways, such as housing, education and skills. For that reason, I support these amendments. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon all the amendments, but those two in particular.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 100 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which would insert a new clause aimed at giving all care leavers up to the age of 25 priority status in homelessness legislation. To that extent, it is a subsection of the much broader debate about how we look after care leavers.

The amendment would end a current anomaly in the law, whereby care leavers up to the age of 21 are entitled to priority under the homelessness legislation, if they present as homeless to their local authority, but not those between the age of 21 and 25. It is supported by a range of charities, not least Barnardo’s.

All young people need a safe and stable home in which to start their adult life—and, if you do not have that, it is difficult to access education, employment and health services. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, care leavers are more likely to be homeless than non-care leavers. Research by the charity Become shows that they are nine times more likely to become homeless, and that threat does not stop at the age of 21. Again as we heard from the noble Baroness, the numbers of young care leavers presenting as homeless has gone up by 50%.

We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, earlier that non-care leavers are staying at home much longer; the average age at which they leave is now 24, up from 21 a decade ago. Over the years, the legislation has been gradually catching up with that trend, beginning I think with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which recognised that the state or local authorities need to support children beyond the age of 18. Again as we heard earlier, care leavers do not have the same safety net of family to fall back on.

There is a lot in the Bill which I welcome to support care leavers, in particular a recent amendment disapplying intentionality for care leavers, meaning that local authorities, when they have a corporate parenting duty, no longer view care-experienced people under 25 as being intentionally homeless. But the Bill needs to go a little bit further. Under the current legislation, all young care leavers under the age of 21 who present as homeless are deemed to be in priority need, which means that local authorities have an obligation to accommodate them. However, there is no such automatic protection for care leavers between the ages of 21 and 25. Under the current homelessness legislation, they are required to prove that they are vulnerable—something that is not defined in legislation. This means that they have go around getting letters from their GP, for which they may have to pay, and getting other letters from psychiatric services, to prove that they are vulnerable and their corporate parent is under an obligation to support them.

There is also a problem with children who are placed out of area. They are not apparently automatically eligible for the usual care support in the local authority in which they are now living, even if they have been living there for many years, whereas local care leavers have that entitlement. That seems to be an anomaly that the Minister might like to comment on.

Finally, the amendment would bring the homelessness legislation into line with the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which obliges local authorities to continue to provide support up to the age of 25. It will not be a panacea for all the problems facing care leavers, but it will be an important step towards ensuring that, when the worst happens, help is available for a young person who may have few other places they can turn to for help. So I encourage the Government to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support two amendments in this group, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Amendment 99, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendment 100, both of which I have put my name to.

With more than 80,000 children in care, the highest figure on record, this Bill represents an opportunity to strengthen support for all care leavers. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after leaving care. Many become drug users and end up with a criminal record.

Some of the most affected care-experienced children are those from diverse backgrounds, who suffer double discrimination. Research by Barnardo’s found that nearly one in 10 black children in care has received a custodial sentence by the time they turn 18. When many finally leave care, they find themselves in prison or with a criminal record, which makes it difficult to find a home or employment, or develop a secure, happy life and any hope of a prosperous existence. They find themselves being part of a gang, which becomes a family substitute but leads to even more disaster.

As the Minister said in reference to the earlier group of amendments, there is an urgent need to improve understanding across agencies and departments of the needs of children in care and care-experienced young people, as well as providing training on how to better address these needs. For example, the Department for Education could extend corporate parenting principles to all bodies involved with care-experienced young people.

As we have heard, many young people can depend on their parents to support them long after they leave school or university, both financially and with a roof over their head. But support for care leavers across the country is piecemeal—a postcode lottery. Ashley John-Baptiste’s book, Looked After: A Childhood in Care, which I highly recommend, illustrates graphically just how difficult it is for young people to navigate their life after leaving care without support, especially if they want to go to university. It is potluck and almost an impossible task. Therefore, we should be doing more to ensure that care leavers are supported into adulthood, which I why I support Amendment 99 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

Through Amendment 100, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to increase protection for care leavers facing homelessness. I welcome this amendment and fully support it. We need to support care leavers and give them the opportunity to forge a happy, secure and hopeful life. It is our duty to do this and I hope that the Minister will agree with me and other Peers, and support these amendments.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, on Amendment 100, from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I will offer a bit of Big Issue news. We did a survey in the early part of this century in which we surveyed 150 to 200 Big Issue vendors. Some 80% of them had been through the care system; most of them had been in care for a period of at least 10 years. I wrote an article about this which upset a lot of people, because I said that, in order to produce a Big Issue vendor, you had to spend over £1 million. To me, that is one of most frightening things: how expensive it is to keep people poor.

It costs £70,000 to keep somebody in foster care, but it costs almost £200,000 to keep somebody in care. We need to look at this problem. In spite of all the moral outrage, we need to look at this as a bit of fiscal bad news. We have to start shifting our resources towards moving children into foster care as much as possible. I am going to talk about this later, but I wanted to give noble Lords the news that Big Issue vendors are very, very expensive.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 98 in this group asks the same question I asked in the two previous groups: can we get local authorities to publicise what they are doing each year, to give them a benchmark to improve on each year?

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, this group ranges quite widely but there is a common theme: the things that are going wrong which ideally should not be. The question is, how do you get a handle on all of this?

There is a certain symmetry with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, asking for a review into the disparities that care leavers are facing, which is fairly all-embracing. I suspect that quite a lot of that information is already available thanks to the MacAlister review. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment suggests that it could take up to two years—I would hope and expect it to be done a great deal quicker.

16:00

That lends itself very neatly to Amendment 99, to which I have added my name, which would define a national offer for care leavers. Therefore, one could use one amendment to try to embrace and pull together the issues where the disparities are; then, under Amendment 99, pull it together into a much clearer exposition of what needs to happen for it to work and what the standards are. As other noble Lords have said, clearly there is—and should be—room for local variation according to local needs and expertise, etcetera. This seems a sensible way to proceed.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, and to Amendment 130. We have heard that 67% of care leavers are anxious about money, according to the study by the charity Money Ready. Given that the second Oral Question today was on financial education post-16, it seems appropriate to talk about this in considering this amendment.

Some 80% of care leavers want more help managing their finances. Rent eviction and homelessness are the consequences of poor financial literacy. In 2024, a report from the Become charity revealed that 4,300 young care leavers aged between 18 and 20 end up homeless. This represents an increase of 54% in the last five years. The Staying Put charity has helped, but most still leave care on or before their 18th birthday.

In contrast, 55% of female and 59% of male 20 year-olds still live at home, and 47% of men and 29% of women still live at home at the age of 25. Most young people move out when they feel ready, when they have the financial capacity and literacy to live away from home. In contrast, care leavers need to be ready to leave home at a much younger age and do so usually with very tight financial budgets. There is no home to go back to if the money runs out.

It is easy for care leavers to miss out on financial education to help prevent issues that come up with independent living for the first time. Not only is there little information about financial management; the avenues available for reaching support to apply for grants and loans mean that many struggle to access these resources.

Because of the nature of the job market and house prices, 47% of men and 29% of women still live at home at the age of 25. The cost of living is keeping people at home; care leavers should have this support too. The expansion of the Staying Put scheme is supported by charities, and evidence from the charity Become shows that this would be a core way of mitigating against homelessness among care leavers.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that this was a wide-ranging group. As I was thinking about it, I thought that what pulls it together is that it is a kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. A lot of the amendments in it are the basic planks at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid; one of those planks is of course healthcare.

My Amendments 96 and 107A try to address some of the evidence, which noble Lords will be well aware of, that shows that care leavers face much more negative physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. These disparities stem from the trauma they have suffered, adverse childhood experiences and, sadly, in some cases, the inability of their carers to meet their healthcare needs.

In the general population, children and young people visit specialist clinics more frequently than adults, if they need them, and their growth and development necessitate regular adjustments to medication and treatments. In young adulthood, health needs typically stabilise. We expect adults to manage their own healthcare, work with GPs and other medical systems, and self-manage long-term health conditions. Parents in supportive family settings will guide their children, and maybe even grandchildren, through this transition, but care leavers do not have that support. They often struggle to recognise that they need help, they do not know how to seek it, and it can often be very difficult to navigate complex healthcare systems. As a result, care-experienced people have a very poor uptake of physical and mental health support but very great physical and mental health needs. These clear and practical points were raised with me by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, to which I am extremely grateful for its briefing and advice, and for the time it has taken talking me through these issues.

My Amendment 96 would require local areas to set out clearly the transition arrangements for health and primary care for care leavers. It does not feel like it should be too much to expect this to be available. As importantly, my Amendment 107A would automatically schedule an extended GP appointment for care leavers who wish to use it; that is the simplest way to bridge this gap and empower them to talk about their health needs, and understand what local services are available to them and how to access them easily. Through this, they would receive support in navigating health systems—from booking appointments and requesting repeat prescriptions, to recognising when they need help. It seems a very small ask, and I hope the Minister will say yes.

There is a coherence to the other amendments in this group. They are the planks that all of us all too easily take for granted, such as having confidence in and transparency about how money works, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, so ably argued. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, cited the interesting example of the appetite for financial education of care leavers who are part of the universal basic income pilot.

I put the case for health and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put the case for Staying Put—it was such a good idea that we have had it twice—and possibly the national offer. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted very simple human requests about how the housing system works for care leavers. The idea that a young person aged between 21 and 25 who has been through the care system has to yet again prove they are vulnerable is frankly shocking. I hope the Minister can say something encouraging about that.

We have a combination of the specific elements that would make a difference to care leavers’ lives: the reporting data that my noble friend Lord Lucas raised; the financial aspects highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bird; and, crucially, as I mentioned on an earlier group, the importance of relationships, ably explained by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer. I remember listening to the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington talking about this issue, and I think he said that every child is one or two relationships away from success or failure. Actually, in the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of children going into gangs, they are seeking relationships. We would all do the same if we had no choice, but we want strong, positive relationships such as lifelong links has been proven to create, so I very much hope that, when the noble Baroness comes to sum up, she will come with good news.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I like the description of the hierarchy of needs and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I jump around a bit as well in my summing up. It has been a very rich set of contributions to an incredibly important part of the work that has been undertaken in bringing the Bill before your Lordships.

The first four amendments in this group seek to amend Clause 8, which will require local authorities to publish information on the support available to care leavers as they transition to independent living as part of their local offer for care leavers, set out in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The remaining amendments seek to extend support for care leavers to address the poor outcomes they experience across so many aspects of their lives. Improving support for care leavers is something the Government are committed to doing through the measures in this Bill on Staying Close, local offer, corporate parenting and other programmes such as the care leaver covenant, and also by other initiatives that seek to work across government.

The fact that the Government have set up the care leaver ministerial board, chaired by Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson and for MHCLG Angela Rayner, shows absolutely top-level commitment to bringing all the relevant departments together so that they can most properly address the issues that have been raised here. It is probably beyond our ability through this Bill to address all the very important issues that have been raised and spoken to so eloquently from across the Committee.

Of course, the basic principle is that we want to ensure that young people are leaving care with stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in education, employment and training. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that is exactly the reason this board has been set up: to bring everything together to address the complex needs of the young people we are addressing.

I assure noble Lords that we are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships. The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme. From personal experience, the school that two of my grandchildren go to works on the restorative practice model. If noble Lords have not come across it before, I suggest having a look at how it works and how young people can learn at the youngest age how to form relationships and how to express their needs in a coherent and structured way, which can then inform all the complex issues that they will reach going through their lives.

16:15

Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, probe whether there are sufficient requirements on local authorities to publish information about the services they offer to care leavers in relation to financial literacy and entitlements, health support and maintaining and strengthening family and social relationships respectively. My noble friend Lady Smith had an OQ on financial literacy earlier today. I am not sure whether noble Members were in the House to hear it, but from personal experience I can say that it is so often the first ask when young people, particularly those on the edge of leaving care, are asked what would make a difference to their lives: financial readiness, awareness and education. To emphasise the point, we also have the curriculum review taking place, which will report in the autumn. I understand that these matters will be picked up for recommendations in that review.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for bringing to life the lifelong learning links work in such an eloquent way, linking to family group decision-making and all those other areas that we have discussed. Providing information on the support available to care leavers in all these areas is important. For those leaving care without family support around them, financial literacy support can be fundamental to setting young people up to succeed and not to fail when they set off on the path towards independence.

I do not feel that the amendments are necessary. Eligible care leavers are required to have a pathway plan prepared for them before they leave care. This should include an assessment of their individual needs across eight domains, including financial needs, capability, health and development, and family and social relationships. The fact that many of them do not feel that this has affected them adequately needs to be picked up by everyone involved in this. To help achieve this, we are funding 47 family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes across 44 local authorities. We need to assess their impact, making sure that the Staying Close duties impact on their welfare right up to the age of 25, including for those in a Staying Put arrangement.

There are provisions in the Bill to improve data sharing. This is another vexed issue that we all face. How do we get all the relevant areas to share the data that they lovingly collect and put it to good use, to inform their decisions to change how they work if it is not delivering? I believe the single unique identifier proposal will improve looked-after children and care leavers’ access to health services by better enabling relevant information to be shared between agencies in a timely manner. I hope the measures will also have a profound impact on safeguarding matters, with the unique identifiers staying with them for their lives.

Measures to introduce corporate parenting responsibilities for government departments and key public bodies, including health services, will help ensure those bodies consider the needs, circumstances and common barriers of looked-after children and care leavers when they provide their services. We are talking about health in its widest sense, so the Department of Health but also the local bodies: the ICBs, NHS trusts, and others. We have to be mindful of who actually commissions GP services through their contracts. In addition, the existing statutory guidance for local authorities on publishing their local offer for care leavers already stipulates that the local offer should include details of the support that the local authority provides in relation to finances, health and well-being, and relationships.

Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, again seeks to explore the transparency of local authorities’ performance in relation to their local offers for care leavers. Clause 8 will require local authorities to publish the arrangements they have in place to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood as part of their local offer for care leavers. This provision will improve transparency, making information available so that care leavers can understand what support is available to them and access the support they need.

Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to introduce a national offer for care leavers. Again, I emphasise that it is the local side of this that will deliver for these young people. We need to bear in mind that we are delivering bespoke packages at a local level, so reflecting the local partners on the ground and the work they do is really important.

Care leavers’ legal entitlements are set out in the Children Act 1989, with accompanying statutory guidance. This sets out the support that all local authorities must provide to care leavers, irrespective of where they live. In addition, local authorities may provide further discretionary support following consultation with care leavers on their local offer, meaning that local authorities can take account of the views of care leavers rather than it being one size fits all. As I mentioned in the previous group, the Department for Education has recently launched a nationally accessible website that clearly sets out support expectations, including support provided by central government: for example, picking up on the transitional theme, the £3,000 bursary available to certain care leavers who start an apprenticeship. The youth guarantee and the trailblazers are being delivered through that programme.

Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, seeks to extend automatic priority to all care leavers up to the age of 25. This is a fundamental and critical area. Care leavers repeatedly bring up their experience of homelessness and poor housing. Priority needs status identifies households whose circumstances make them significantly more vulnerable than others if they become homeless. I do not think I need to reassure the noble Lord that the provisions within the homelessness legislation already ensure that all care leavers up to the age of 21 have priority need. This is also the case for care leavers aged 21 to 24, as he quite rightly pointed out, who are vulnerable due to their time in care. I suggest, perhaps, that this is one of the areas that the responsible Secretary of State could pick up through the new corporate parenting requirements that will come as a result of the Bill to ensure they have a very practical way of looking at some of the issues.

It is fundamental that we address the issue of how we better support young care leavers accessing social housing. As a result of recognising that, the Prime Minister announced on 24 September last year our ambition to do so. One of the important steps forward in this area is to remove the local connection barriers for care leavers, which is fundamental to enabling them to stay within the areas where they have been cared for but might not have family roots. That will ensure that local authorities will not be able to apply the local connection test to any care leaver aged under 25 who is eligible as a relevant child or former relevant child.

We are aware that we need to do more work on this and, as a result, MHCLG’s dedicated team of youth homelessness advisers engage regularly with local authorities to help support them in delivering their statutory duties. The application of priority need for care leavers has, surprisingly, not been raised by local authorities—including by their children’s services and leaving care teams—as an area of local concern. This might change, perhaps, as more awareness is put out there, but we need to make it clear that the issue of vulnerability is there at the ages of 21 to 24. As the noble Lord suggests, making the definition of vulnerability clearer is a fundamental way of assisting those young people when they pass the age of 21.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about the cost of failure in family breakdowns, I emphasise that, as well as better outcomes for young people, the cost element of local authorities taking young people into care is one of the driving forces in making sure that the full range of kinship opportunities is offered to young people so that they can be cared for within their families with, as I said, better outcomes against all those awful indicators we have heard about throughout the debate. The money that is saved by those local authorities should be able to be reinvested in early help, early intervention, family group conferencing and preventing the problems developing in the first place.

Amendment 106 from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester seeks to highlight the disparities between care leaver outcomes and those of their peers in the general population. I wholeheartedly agree with him that care leavers experience deep disparities across all aspects of their lives. We have heard examples today. Care leavers are, for example, three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training, as we have heard; nine times more likely to experience homelessness; nearly three times more likely to report that they are struggling financially; and, most distressingly, four to five times more likely to attempt suicide.

That is why, as I have said, the care leaver ministerial board, which is chaired at such a high level, has been established to highlight these disparities and identify the cross-governmental action that will be taken to improve support and hold Ministers to account to deliver these actions. These disparities are also why the Bill introduces the wider corporate parenting responsibilities, not just for government departments but right out into all the agencies and partners we work with at a local level.

Amendment 107A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is a probing amendment that seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of care leavers when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. I have something to add to her list, which is the timing of appointments. Why are appointments so often held at times when it is very difficult for young people with family support to get to them, never mind if they are on their own? That is my personal observation.

16:30

The Government have committed in the Bill to introduce the duties, as I have said repeatedly, through responding to the issues that have been raised in this group of amendments, and the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers needs to be at the centre of the work that is done. As I have said, as well as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, NHS trusts, NHS England and integrated care boards will also be required to take up their responsibilities as corporate parents. Of course, it will need intensive work to develop the statutory guidance that will help everyone to meet their corporate parenting responsibilities. I can therefore confirm to the noble Baroness that the Bill will help ensure that decisions taken by public bodies take the specific needs and vulnerabilities of care leavers into account.

Turning again to Staying Put—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness moves on, I am not clear about something. The specific recommendation from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals is to have this extended GP appointment. The noble Baroness has now amended my amendment to make sure that it is at a convenient time. I just was not clear whether she said it would take time to produce the statutory guidance that will underpin all the corporate parenting responsibilities. However, as regards putting something—I am going to get the terminology wrong, so forgive me—into the kind of agreement with general practitioners, so that part of their contract is to offer this extended appointment as children young people leave local authority care, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness thought that was a realistic option, with the tweak of it being at a convenient time.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for picking me up on that commitment. This is quite a detailed ask, but it is absolutely realistic that this is a new departure going forward and there will need to be consultation and everyone coming together to make sure that the statutory guidance is deliverable and works. However, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with more specific detail on that area as we move forward.

Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to extend the provision of Staying Put to age 25. We have discussed this at great length and I am no clearer as to why this is in this group of amendments rather than one of the others. So, without repeating the arguments, I will just say that the rationale is that we cannot commit off the top of our heads to effecting fostering arrangements without recognising that there will be a knock-on impact of change on the whole area of the foster care market, as it were. Any changes in this area are sensitive and have to be taken in the round.

However, the most important thing that we have to address is that too many young people who have come through the route into independent living from residential care, for example—who often, as I said earlier, have the most complex needs—will be a priority area in terms of addressing the support that they do not have because they have not entered the foster care route. So, we are keeping an eye on all of this through the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties, making sure that all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who are still in a Staying Put arrangement, as well as those who have left it, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it.

Amendment 153, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, would require public bodies, when carrying out equality assessments, to consider the needs of people who are or have been in local authority care. We know that looked-after children and care leavers face stigma and discrimination and we are determined to tackle this. There has been effective and passionate campaigning, with many local authorities taking positive action as a result.

Amendment 183A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to enable care leavers to claim the higher over-25 rate of universal credit. Although he is not in his place, his amendment is an opportunity to revisit this: I was at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading of his PMB on this subject. Just to emphasise what we have already said, the Government recognise the considerable challenges that care leavers face and remain committed to supporting them. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The Government have recently announced the first sustained increase to the universal credit standard allowance, and, while under-25s receive a slightly lower rate, additional elements are available, including for housing costs, to help them to live independently, and towards their living costs. They may also be eligible for universal credit elements, including for children, childcare costs and disability. Under-35s who are single and renting in the private rented sector and claim either housing benefit or universal credit can receive help towards their rental costs via the shared accommodation rate of the local housing allowance. Single care leavers under 25 may qualify for the one-bedroom local housing allowance. Discretionary housing payments administered by local authorities can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.

The Government have extended the household support fund by a further year, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. I would emphasise the work that the DWP is doing in this area: its objective to help care leavers into long-term employment is the key to supporting their independent living. This is why we are focusing on providing access to the right skills and opportunities for sustained employment and career progression. Therefore, with all of those considerations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was a really disappointing response to Amendment 98. We started with a response to Amendment 78 which was excellent, a continuing annual dialogue by someone who was really involved in what is going on. When we get to this amendment, I am not offered a review at all, it is just the menu: no content of what has been done, how it has been done and what the excitements and disappointments of the year have been. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, when she reviews this day and looks in general, will say, “Actually, my first answer was the better one”, and that that sort of relationship between a local authority and its duties and the public produces a much better response than just a local authority setting out what its offer is and making no comment whatever on how its performance has been, and offering no interaction to the public in general as to how that is going on. I will talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench about coming back to this on Report. It was a more general look at how local authorities should relate to their public about what has happened this year and what they hope to do next year.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. She used a word that I also thought of: it has been a very rich debate; it has been very wide ranging, with real passion, expertise and knowledge of the subject matter.

We all agree there is a strong moral imperative that we do all we possibly can to support care leavers as they make their transition into independent lives. I welcome and recognise the number of measures in the Bill that do that, but the whole tenor of this debate is that there is scope for strengthening. So many specific planks have been identified: health, housing, financial education, family relationships, et cetera. There is much to reflect on.

I was encouraged to hear that there is such a top-level, cross-government board looking at this, including Cabinet Ministers. That is really positive. Could this debate be drawn to its attention, so that it can see what we have said and the suggestions we have made? On the offer that should be available to all care leavers, it was helpful to have the distinction between some sort of national offer that is, essentially, the minimum standard that should be available everywhere and the local offer, where it is actually delivered. That will vary, but there is a set of standards below which it really should not fall. That is something we could think about further.

Rather than getting back into other issues or any disappointment about responses, I have a suggestion: would it be possible for interested Lords who have spoken in this debate to have a meeting with the Minister before Report, so that we could look together at where it is realistic to do the strengthening, which came across very strongly in this debate? On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 95 withdrawn.

Amendments 96 to 98 not moved.

Clause 8 agreed.

Amendment 99 not moved.

Clause 9 agreed.

Amendment 100 not moved.

Amendment 101

Moved by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

101: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Promoting relationships for looked after childrenIn section 22(3A) of the Children Act 1989, at end insert “and a duty to promote the child’s family and social relationships in ways which are consistent with the child’s welfare.””

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I am afraid it is me again. I will speak to Amendments 101 and 102. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for adding his name to Amendment 101 and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Storey. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, cannot be in his place, because these amendments are both about relationships, which I know he feels passionately about.

In short, Amendment 101 is about promoting relationships with children in care. That is central to their well-being and therefore at the heart of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the duty on local authorities to support the well-being of children in the care system by promoting the child’s family and social relationships alongside their educational achievement. Both are critical and interlinked.

We all need people to turn to in our lives for support, encouragement and love, particularly when times get tough. Research for the care inquiry by voluntary organisations concluded that the greatest failure of the care and child welfare system is that it too often breaks, rather than builds, relationships with children in and leaving care. Children often have to move to live far away from home, which means they have to change schools, leave behind family members, friends, neighbours and other important relationships. This is also relevant to Clause 11, which we will come to later, about children who have been deprived of their liberty. I will come back to that in a later grouping.

The absence of positive relationships in children’s lives increases the likelihood that they experience longer-term difficulties such as poor mental health—we have already heard about that—a tougher time at school, unemployment and homelessness. When young people leave care, their professional support network too often just disappears, and they do not have family or friends to turn to.

Charities such as the Family Rights Group have developed programmes of support to address this, such as lifelong links. I was going to talk about that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, did so in an earlier group, so I am pleased to say I do not need to. The crucial point I want to make is that these relationships should not be broken in the first place and that local authorities should be supporting children in care to maintain positive relationships with those who are most important to them.

16:45

I turn briefly to Amendment 102, which would provide all children in the care system with the same right to reasonable contact with their brothers and sisters as they currently have with their parents—something that is often sorely lacking under the current arrangements. I know from my time as chair of Cafcass, when I used to talk to groups of children in care and those who had recently left care, what sort of things had been really difficult for them to deal with emotionally. Time and again, they told me about their sibling relationships. On top of the trauma of going into care, being wrenched away from their brothers and sisters left a major emotional scar on them.

One of the most significant ways in which the current care system is failing children in care is the high number of children who are separated from their siblings. That is certainly underlined by research from the Children’s Commissioner. As I said, many children have to change school or move away, and all of that can leave children in care feeling isolated and alone. When they leave care, their professional support networks can fall away because they just do not have that family to fall back on.

I end with one story which I think sums this up. It is Abby’s story. She lived in a residential home and knew she had two sisters who were adopted. They had exchanged letters when they were younger but contact then broke down. Through lifelong links, Abby was able to reconnect with her sisters. They had kept a box of Abby’s things and had her birthday on their calendar for all those years. They now text each other all the time, go shopping together and went bowling on Abby’s birthday. Abby feels more settled now she knows that she has people who will be in her life for ever.

It simply feels wrong—indeed, inhumane—that children in care do not have a right to reasonable contact with their siblings in the way that they do with their parents, and that they are not always supported to stay in touch with their siblings. Their lives are tough enough; why are we making them tougher still, when this small change could make a real difference? I very much hope that Ministers can see their way to make some progress in this area. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I shall speak to my noble friend Lady Tyler’s Amendments 101 and 102. Without embarrassing my noble friend, I thought that was a very powerful and emotional speech. For all of us in this Chamber, one of the most important things in our lives is the love of our family, our friends and relationships with other people. Those are the very things that children in care are often missing, so we should do all we can to ensure that they have the relevant relationships that they want. My noble friend Lady Tyler rightly said that we all need people in our lives to give us love, support and positive relationships—hear, hear.

Children and young people in care indicate that it is relationships not just with professionals such as teachers and health professionals but with a range of other people who provide an important support network that they need. The quality of the relationships is much more important than the quantity. Research suggests that the presence of one stable and significant adult in the life of a young person is more important than multiple relationships.

Social care cases across the UK reference the benefits of promoting the relationships of looked-after children. Those benefits will include: contributing to children’s resilience; promoting physical and mental well-being; minimising the likelihood of forming alternative, potentially dangerous relationships; helping with therapeutic work; and enhancing the stability of placements. But there are many barriers to ensuring such stable relationships.

As a teacher, in case conferences I found time after time that—through no one’s fault but perhaps the fault of the system—one of the problems was that the social worker had moved on to another area of work. The child or young person had built up a relationship with the social worker, and the social worker, through no fault of their own, had to move on to another job, perhaps because of a shortage of social workers. That created real pressures. Changing social workers and professionals means that there is not the time to build the trust with young people that is so essential. Where young people are excluded from shaping contact plans, or where previous secure attachments have been broken through experience in care, children often struggle with trust issues with adults—something that is exacerbated by the constant changing of social workers, as I have said.

On Amendment 102, an estimated 37% of looked-after children are separated from their siblings when they are placed into care. That is 20,000 children, as referenced by the Children’s Commissioner. For older children placed into semi-independent accommodation, 93% are separated from their siblings. Once separated, very little support to maintain relationships is provided.

Lots of research by social workers and charities emphasises the importance of sibling relationships for looked-after children. Siblings provide the longest-lasting relationships, often extending through their lifetime. Contact with siblings can foster positive identity development, provide emotional support through feelings of connectivity through shared experiences, give priority to existing functional relationships and help support the emotional needs of looked-after children.

When children are going through court cases to be removed from their parents, relations of direct contact are often prohibited between certain family members. This means that siblings cannot continue their relationship. Children are rarely consulted about such decisions.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:

“No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation”.


In talking to children in care, they express that their relationship with their siblings is essential. The weight of responsibility for maintaining relationships with siblings is often placed on the looked-after person. That should not be the case.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

I speak in support of both amendments but particularly Amendment 102 for the strong arguments which have been advanced.

At every stage of a family’s involvement with a local authority, efforts should be made to enable siblings to maintain contact with each other and not to overlook the importance of the sibling relationship. It is now much better understood that, when parents can no longer care for a child, the most important and significant relationship that child may have is with his or her siblings—a relationship which, as the noble Lord has just said, can last a lifetime.

Although local authorities and courts strive to keep siblings together, that is not always possible and they may have to be placed separately. They may have different and sometimes conflicting needs. At a practical level, larger sibling groups can be more difficult to place together. If, for whatever reason, they cannot be placed together, meaningful and workable contact arrangements are essential.

There is a report, which I think is correct, of two sisters who were placed separately five minutes apart but were not allowed to see each other. One sister had to see her sister at a distance in the same school playground playing with a foster-sister. It is a desperately sad story. I recall having to deal with a case in which the siblings were a short distance apart from each other but in different local authority areas, and considerable efforts were required to get the two local authorities to co-operate. It is for that reason that I support the amendment. Judicial encouragement is usually enough but not always, and therefore court orders may be appropriate.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has highlighted the problem of large sibling groups. I want to draw attention to a very specific group, which is bereaved children. Sometimes there are several children in a single-parent family and, when that one parent dies, often the children left behind are half-siblings—sometimes several of them. The amendment is incredibly important because those children are grieving for the parent who has died and then for the sibling or half-sibling that they are separated from.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has reminded me of a family that I was involved with where the mum died and the father had been abusive so had no contact at all with the children, and the oldest child was a few months away from being 16. We managed, with the help of a schoolteacher and various other people, to keep those children together. Many years later, I still have some contact with them, and all the children have done well. I am convinced that, if we had not struggled to keep them housed together, then one of them in particular would probably have gone off the rails, yet they have all pursued good careers and have all done well.

As an investment for the long term in the lives of all these children, the amendment is important. I hope the Government will adopt it. I cannot see that it would cost anything in financial terms, but not adopting it probably would, because of the emotional trauma to the children who are separated from the people with whom they cannot share memories and remembrances about whomever it is they are separated from.

Another issue regarding that group of children is that sometimes there is a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle or someone who can provide them with some stability but is not in a position to provide kinship care. Keeping all those links going, and enabling them to link to cousins as well, can really support them.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 101 and 102 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seek to promote familial relationships for looked-after children.

Amendment 101 seeks to include a duty to promote a child’s familial and social relationships alongside the existing duties for local authorities to promote the child’s welfare and educational achievement. This amendment emphasises the importance of maintaining relationships for children in care, which would have a positive contribution to their health and well-being. It is vital that the success of children in care is both child-led and child-centric and, as such, ensures that local authorities promote familial and social relationships.

Amendment 102 focuses on the relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. Currently, the relationship with parents is emphasised, and the relationship with siblings does not receive the same focus. As was highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Meston, establishing a bond between siblings, which can be lifelong, should be a top priority for looked-after children so that, whatever challenges they may or hopefully may not be facing, they have someone to turn to whom they can trust and confide in.

These appear to be sensible amendments, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important points.

17:00

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I recognise that there is an enormous consensus in this debate about the significance of family and social relationships for looked-after children, for children in care and for all of us. This is why we feel so strongly that these are relationships we need to protect as far as possible for the children who are looked after by the state. It must be key, as several noble Lords have said, that we are able to maintain those strong relationships.

Perhaps at this point I should give a shout-out to my two sisters, who, after my mum, are the longest relationships by far that I have had in my life. As other noble Lords have said, when the going gets tough, it is your siblings who provide you with the support necessary—if you are as lucky as I am with mine—to get through those times.

We have a responsibility to help those children whose lives have been even more difficult to be able, wherever possible, to maintain those relationships. When a child is in care, as other noble Lords have said, the local authority must allow reasonable contact with the child’s parents, if it is consistent with the child’s welfare. These amendments seek to place equal duties on local authorities to allow reasonable contact with siblings of children in care. They also seek to strengthen wider family and social relationships for looked-after children.

We very much agree that it is important for a looked-after child’s welfare to, wherever possible, have and maintain positive relationships with their parents, siblings, wider family and friends. The importance placed on these relationships is echoed at all levels of a child’s care journey and is supported through current arrangements and statutory processes. We have heard in more than one debate today about the excellent work that has been done, for example, by lifelong links, which is supported in 22 local authorities by funding from the Government, and which is operating more widely than that. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right that, when it comes to relationships, we need to focus on quality as much as quantity and on the sustainability of those relationships.

For local authorities, there are existing duties in the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked-after children and their relatives. This includes siblings, friends and other connected people, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with their welfare—the Children Act is clear about that. Good social work practice would ensure that there was a strong understanding of the people who are important in a child’s life, the nature of the relationships and an ability to be able to plan for how those relationships can be sustained.

Equally, when determining an appropriate placement for a child, local authorities must, as far as reasonably practical, ensure that the child can live with their sibling, if that sibling is also looked after. The importance of this is laid out in the care planning regulations. For those involved in care planning, regulations already make it clear that arrangements to promote and maintain contact with siblings must be included in a child’s care plan. This prioritises consistency, stability and lifelong loving relationships with those who are important to children and young people.

If a child is concerned about the level of contact that they have with their sibling or other family members, they should be encouraged to speak to a trusted person about this, be that their social worker, their independent reviewing officer—who has a responsibility to ensure that the plans being made for the child or young person are appropriate, including those that involve maintaining relationships—or an advocate. Under current legislation, in extreme circumstances children in care can apply to the court for contact with any named person, which could include a sibling, and siblings can seek permission from the court to apply for a contact order. Furthermore, as I think we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the court should consider contact in making a care plan for that child.

For foster carers and, for example, staff caring for children in children’s homes, there is statutory guidance and regulations to promote positive relationships between a child and their family and friends. More broadly, a very strong theme in the Bill is our working to promote strong family networks in all areas of children’s social care—for example, through the measures on family group decision-making, which we discussed right at the beginning of Committee. That might be an appropriate way to address the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about bereaved children. The noble Baroness is right that, in those cases, it is particularly important that, at the point at which they are bereaved, children would be able to maintain contact with those who they have left in their lives.

I hope I have recognised the important arguments behind both these amendments, and that I have provided some reassurance to noble Lords that existing laws, regulations and guidance already strongly value, and have an expectation around, the importance of sibling relationships and other relationships, while ensuring children’s welfare. I suspect that this is a place where the law, regulations and standards are already in place. What we need to do is focus on the significance of this and on the good practice of social work needed to enable it to happen. Social workers around the country will be focusing on it, and I hope us having had this debate will make it more likely that it will be brought to the fore in people’s thinking. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very empathetic response. Following her example, I guess I ought to give a shout-out to my brother. We have been through some quite difficult times together, and that is what leads to that enduring relationship.

I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. It has been one of those debates that shows this House at its very best, and that we can deal with issues to do with love and emotions. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. My reaction is as follows: it may well be that this is currently written into existing legislation and guidance, but I know from all the care leavers I used to speak to on a regular basis that, far too often, it simply does not have much impact on the ground—and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of my objectives in putting this amendment forward was to have something in the Bill that makes it absolutely obvious that sibling contact is a right. It would be really encouraging for children in care to know that it was there.

Between now and Report, it would be helpful to have further discussions about the extent to which the problem is that this is just not clear enough in law, and so we need to put something in—which, again, as was said, would not have any cost implications—or whether it is more to do with social work practice on the ground. I am a great believer in both/and, so I think we may well be returning to this on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 101 withdrawn.

Amendments 102 to 104 not moved.

Amendment 105

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

105: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Register of foster carers(1) The Secretary of State must introduce a register of local authority foster parents and independent foster parents who are—(a) currently fostering children, or(b) available to foster children.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a register of foster carers. The intention is that having such a register, as exists for social workers, would improve the safeguarding of children, and matching and sufficiency of placements, and improve the status of foster carers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, introducing a national register for foster carers would produce many benefits. Overall, it would enhance their status. One resulting effect would be to attract more volunteers, thus beginning to reduce the shortage of foster carers across England, which currently stands at around 5,000. That in turn would improve the matching process by which children in care are placed with foster families, and increase the portability of foster carers. All those benefits would raise the level of safeguarding of children in the care system.

Last year the Commons Education Committee inquiry into children’s social care recommended that the creation of a national register of foster carers should be considered by the then Minister for Children. The inquiry was interrupted by the general election, but the new committee has reactivated it and is still considering these issues. It has been reported that the Government are considering the merits of a national register, which would certainly be appropriate because both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are consulting on the creation of such a register. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify the current thinking on this.

A register would safeguard children by keeping a central record of foster carers who have had their approval terminated for safeguarding reasons, ensuring that they are not reapproved by another service and then able to care for another child. Currently, services cannot always know this, particularly if potential foster carers are transferring between independents and local authority services. The introduction of a register would go hand in hand with an accredited pre-approval and post-approval training framework and robust national standards of practice, improving the overall quality of care for children.

The number of children in care in England who are moved outwith their local authority area is an issue that we have heard mentioned by noble Lords in several of the debates today. It increased from 41% in 2020 to 45% last year. A register would allow services to make matches more quickly at a local level, which would ultimately reduce out-of-area placements. That could be done by the new regional care co-operatives, which we are going to debate in the seventh group today and which will lead on regional placement commissioning, for which the Bill already makes provision. With a register in place, local authority fostering services could be given access to information on the number of fostering households with vacancies for children in their local area, including those with independent fostering providers, as well as in neighbouring local authorities.

This amendment would require the Government to establish a national register for foster carers. Linked to the regional care co-operatives, that would help to better safeguard children and, as I have said, improve the status of foster carers through formal recognition of their role, allowing services to match children to foster care placements more quickly at the local level.

I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that the register would bring the beneficial outcomes that I have outlined and overall assist in making a significant dent in that shortfall of foster carers, which results in too many young people being denied the option of improving their life chances by being able to find a loving foster family to embrace and nurture them. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 143 seeks to promote the idea of a national foster care strategy. I declare an interest in that a very long time ago my wife and I were registered as foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth—nothing on the heroic scale of the Timpson family, of whom we heard earlier. It principally involved looking after the children of a single mother while she went into hospital to have her baby; somebody needed to look after her children before she was discharged. The regime in those days was much more relaxed than it is today.

Since then, the relatively informal system has evolved into a much more structured and regulated part of the child welfare system, particularly following the Children Act 1989. There is now a much stronger emphasis on the physical and psychological stability of a child, and more awareness of the risks of inappropriate placements.

I turn to the amendment. Most children grow up in their own home with two parents, one parent, or a parent and a partner, and most of the challenges that confront a family can be met within the normal support mechanism of families, friends, the local authority and heroic voluntary organisations. But at times children have to be taken into care by the local authority. In March 2024 there were 83,630 children in care in England, up from 80,000 in 2020. For those children, there is a range of options: for a very few it will be adoption, but for most it will be kinship care, fostering or children’s homes, and we had a good debate about kinship care and the role of local authorities as a constant theme.

17:15

I want to focus on fostering. The foster homes can be provided by either the local authority or an independent agency. I admire all those who run children’s homes, often dealing with children with a wide range of difficulties, but all the evidence is that fostering has the best long-term outcomes for children transitioning into adulthood. The MacAlister review makes the point well:

“Foster carers and their families are some of the most remarkable people in society. They open their hearts and their homes and share their lives with children who they may never have met before. Stories shared with the review demonstrate just how life changing fostering can be for children and foster carers themselves”.

At a time when local authority budgets are under pressure, as we heard in an earlier debate from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, fostering comes at about a quarter of the cost of a children’s home.

I make the point in passing, in the context of recent grooming scandals, that vulnerable girls in a children’s home are much more exposed to gangs hanging around the home than if those children were distributed evenly with a large range of foster parents.

But given the financial benefits and the welfare benefits of fostering, the statistics have been going the wrong way. Although there are more children in care over the past few years, there are now fewer foster carers. Local authorities and independent fostering agencies are struggling to recruit a sufficient number of carers to replace those leaving foster care. The number of mainstream fostering households continues to decline. During the last financial year, a total of 4,080 fostering households were approved, while 5,130 stopped fostering—a loss of around 1,000 households. There are all sorts of reasons for that decline. The spare rooms that traditionally became available when children left home are now occupied by older children who are unable to rent or buy a home of their own.

MacAlister identified another reason: the failure to recruit, but not because of a shortage of applications. He said that

“the review has heard from many potential carers who were discouraged because of an off-putting application experience”.

Ofsted tells us that 160,635 families came forward to express an interest in becoming a foster carer n the year ending March 2021, but just 2,165 were approved. That is an astonishing drop-out rate. Of course, we do not want vulnerable children to be exposed to risk, but many prospective foster carers drop out because of the time it takes—sometimes up to a year, by which time they may have decided to follow other opportunities.

Some of the delay is due to the local authorities. MacAlister tells us that they

“appear to be struggling to provide”

the specialist support that foster carers need.

A further reason is the allowances that foster carers get. While we do not want people to foster for money, the compensation must be adequate and not leave people out of pocket. In a recent survey, some three quarters of foster carers said the cost of living had had an impact on their fostering. Then, there is the postcode lottery: some 32% of local authorities are paying under the national minimum allowance and only 26% are paying it at the NMA rate for all age bands, which results in a difference in an annual allowance rate for 11 to 15 year-olds of over £8,000.

Foster carers also reported feeling less supported and valued, experiencing high levels of burnout and poor well-being. Social worker turnover makes that worse, which has implications for the children who need them. Children are increasingly being placed away from their home community. Multiple moves are common, as well as sibling groups being separated. All these factors should be addressed by the strategy proposed in the amendment in my name and that of three other noble Lords.

I welcome much of what is in the Bill, and I welcome the Chancellor’s Spring Statement commitment of an additional £25 million for the fostering system, but there is nothing in the Bill to improve the development of foster carers and it does not implement key commitments from Stable Homes, Built on Love, published by the previous Government.

What is proposed in the amendment fills a gap in the market. A national adoption strategy was set out in July 2021, a national kinship care strategy was set out in December 2023, and a dedicated national foster care strategy as proposed in this amendment would fill the gap. It would enhance good practice, make improvements to national policy and help to understand where gaps in knowledge are and where research is needed.

I have read the policy paper Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, and I have read what is in the Bill before us. However, those are not the same as a dedicated strategy for this specific and important group of carers for some of the most vulnerable children. The continued decline in the number of foster carers over the past years suggests that a national strategy is of utmost importance. As Josh MacAlister concluded:

“There are many children living in children’s homes today who would be better suited to living in a family environment with a foster carer if we had enough foster carers in the right places, with the right parenting skills to meet the varying and complex needs of children. This will require a ‘new deal’ with foster carers”.

That is exactly what this amendment proposes.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I second the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am very interested in foster caring, largely because when I was in care as a young child, it was largely because I did not really have a family. I had a mother and a father, and I had brothers who were taken away in one direction. My parents were not very grown up; they had not really got used to the idea of having six children when they could probably afford only one.

I find this amendment so interesting because it backs up my experience as a young boy. When our family finally reconnected in Fulham in south-west London, the place was littered with foster-children. It was very interesting. I got to know people who went to my school, and they were fostered. They were not blood brothers or sisters or related to their family. I found that so interesting because most of those children, dare I say—I do not want to appear as a classist—ended up being quite middle class. They ended up getting the education of a lot of us who passed through care. It was interesting that, in this area of Fulham, there was this great mixture of very working-class children with a bit of a middle-class aspect, yet the children who really excelled were the ones who had the all-round relationships.

I would love to see a strategy that got behind those circa 130,000 people who want to foster. I would like to see a shrinking of the numbers of local authority homes, having been in a Catholic one, which was not an awful lot different from any other kind. The idea of institutionally raising children is not good news. The idea of raising children who were separated from their loved ones—as I was—is bad news. Therefore, I suggest we follow the example from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and create a proper strategy so that we can share out the loving relationships that we need to to our children, who are in desperate need, especially at the time when their own kith and kin cannot provide them with what they really need.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 134, 143 and 178. Fostering is critical to the provision of good care for all children who need it, and it is a really tough job.

In Committee so far, not very much has been said about the very large proportion of looked-after children who have significant special needs—it is more than 90% of all children in children’s homes, and it is over 70% of all looked-after children. Many of those are problems that have arisen as a result of post-birth experience, but there are quite a lot of instances where these are problems that children were born with and will be with them for life. Some children are in foster care precisely because their birth parents have not been able to cope with their significant needs, so we ask a tremendous amount of foster carers.

The measures in the amendment to improve on the current position are very welcome. But the Government could go further in some very practical ways, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendments. Room sharing is not always appropriate, but for some children it will be suitable. Similarly, foster carers need more authority to make more of the decisions and do more of the often everyday things that parents do.

I support the comments made about the need for streamlined recruitment processes and a foster care strategy that really thinks about the support services, training, respite and wider services that help foster carers to do it well, to feel that they have the capacity and that they can sustain the tremendous effort of foster caring through the whole period that any given child needs it. There is an opportunity here.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I added my name and to which the noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke so powerfully. I thank the Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers for its help on this.

As we have heard, this amendment aims to ensure that the challenges within foster care services are both recognised and addressed. With a well-defined strategy in place to oversee necessary reforms to the system, we can ensure that local authorities are no longer burdened by the unstable expense of children’s social care.

Many foster-children feel that their new home has given them a new chance, and they feel like a genuine part of the family. Foster carers overwhelmingly say that being a foster-parent has had a positive impact on their lives, as they provide love and support to vulnerable children.

Independent fostering agencies—IFAs—play a huge role in providing high-quality care for children: some 96% of IFAs are rated “Good” or “Outstanding” by Ofsted.

While the Government’s commitment to the foster care system since the general election is a positive step, it is vital that any interventions go beyond short-term fixes. This is why we need to see the introduction of a dedicated foster care strategy to provide strategic oversight to the tactical pledges made previously.

There are welcome measures outlined in the Bill to regulate and introduce oversight of independent fostering agencies. However, given that these IFAs make up a significant proportion of the sector, without a dedicated foster care strategy, which provides insight into the Government’s ambitions for the sector, this already precarious sector is unable to plan effectively for the future. Ultimately, without addressing the underlying causes of pressure in children’s social care, such efforts risk falling short of delivering lasting impact.

17:30

It is widely understood that one of the most significant drivers of cost per placement and delay in placing children in the right home is the lack of foster carers able to take children into their care. The number of households, as we have heard, willing or able to foster a child is decreasing. At the same time, the number of children in care remains at a record high. With 68% of all looked-after children in foster care, demand is outstripping homes available. A reduction in fostering households means fewer options for the placement of children. Ofsted research from 2024 found that 91% of local authorities that responded to its survey frequently had difficulty in finding suitable homes for children with complex needs.

The Government need to act now and use this opportunity in the Bill to resolve the crisis in foster care by creating and implementing a dedicated foster care strategy which focuses on improving the recruitment of foster carers, including those who wish to work for IFAs.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to Amendment 143, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I have added my name. This amendment, on the need for a foster care strategy, was, if I may say so, powerfully brought to life by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and I thank him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Young, put it very well when he talked about the gap that exists, saying that we had strategies for other aspects of children’s social care but not for fostering. It is a gap that it would be useful to fill, in the same way that the amendment I brought last time suggested a strategy for neglect.

As we have heard, urgent action is needed to address the recruitment and retention crisis in foster care. Nationwide, it has been calculated that we have a shortfall of some 6,000 foster carers across the UK, with 5,000 more needed in England. Certainly, more foster carers are continuing to leave than are joining up. Various surveys have shown that the three key reasons for this have been inadequate financial remuneration, lack of support from their fostering service and a lack of respect for their role. I think that last one is really sad. I did notice in the 2024 State of the Nations’ Foster Care report that the number of foster carers who said they would recommend fostering to others has decreased. Indeed, fewer than half of foster carers said that they would recommend fostering to others who may be considering it. It is for those reasons that we need a national strategy to lay out how fostering will be more sustainable in the long term, not least to meet the needs of some of the children who the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was talking about.

I also support Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which would be an important part of raising the whole status of fostering.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the context for my Amendments 134 and 178 is, as we have heard in this short debate, that we face a very severe shortage of foster carers. As other noble Lords have said, this Bill feels like a huge missed opportunity to try to address this problem. Honestly, I do not really understand why the Government have not chosen to do more to address it—but perhaps the amendments in this group will offer the way.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned that there is currently a shortage of 5,000 foster carers in England; that is 33 foster carers per local authority. It just does not feel like an insuperable problem to find 33 homes across the country in each local authority—though, absolutely rightly, my noble friend Lady Spielman spoke of the very high prevalence of complex needs in children who go into foster care.

This speaks to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others about a strategy, which would also address the recommendation in the MacAlister review that we need more flexible models of fostering. As we have heard, of just over 160,000 families who expressed an interest in becoming foster carers in 2020-21, only just over 2,000 were approved—a conversion rate of 1.3%. I understand that many applicants apply to multiple agencies and so get counted twice. There may be timing issues for potential carers, and there are structural challenges, including pay and the need for training, and difficulties in the application process, as we have heard. This is the most significant area for the roughly 83,000 children in care. Over 56,000 of them are in foster care, half of them with independent agencies and half in local authority foster care. That is a very big and important number, and it feels fundamental to address it.

It sits at the heart of what we might call the children’s homes problem of cost and profits, which we will debate in subsequent groups. If we had more foster carers, the pressure would come off children’s homes, prices would adjust and we would be in a much better situation, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, put so convincingly, because the wraparound of foster care—the fact that there is a family and relationships—leads to vastly better outcomes for the child. For all those reasons, this is an important group, and I hope that Amendment 143 is one that the Minister takes very seriously.

My amendments are much simpler. Amendment 134 would give more flexibility to allow young children over the age of three to share a room. My intention is that this would apply to primary-aged children, although re-reading my amendment I think that my drafting skills have come through yet again. Having talked to directors of children’s services in London and other areas with high housing costs, I know that the number of potential foster carers with several spare rooms is very limited. I am aware that some organisations in the sector see this as a safeguarding risk, but I argue that we are already trusting the foster carer to care for a very vulnerable child. Within that, we should trust their judgment about the sleeping arrangements of the children in their home. Sadly, safeguarding risks are not confined to what happens in a child’s bedroom. This amendment could potentially add several hundred more places, at little or no cost, in areas with the greatest pressure to place children locally, and would avoid children being placed very far from home—as we have heard about several times today—their roots and their communities.

This is not the only way to expand capacity. Another would be to invest in initiatives such as the Greater Manchester Room Makers scheme and roll it out more widely. It provides funding for foster carers to renovate existing rooms or build extensions to allow them to care for more children.

My Amendment 178 seeks to clarify the delegated authority that foster carers have for the children in their care. This was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for North Herefordshire and received a positive response from the Minister. I seek further confirmation from the Minister here that the Government still intend to consult on this point. Perhaps she could update the House on the likely timeline for the consultation and for the secondary legislation to be amended.

Thinking more broadly, and returning to Amendment 143, it would help the House if the Minister could share other ideas the Government are working on to improve recruitment and retention. I spoke recently to the organisation Now Foster, which is developing “weekenders”—that might not be the right term—which offer regular weekend placements for children who might be either in kinship or foster care, giving much needed rest and space to both parties, and a consistency and stability for the child or young person that can extend beyond the age of 18. Crucially, it also gives foster carers a chance for a more modest but still substantial commitment, rather than taking in a child full time with everything that entails. This idea—again, this came up in the MacAlister review—of having different options and different models of fostering is long overdue for more work.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham talked about the importance of a support network for foster carers. I visited an amazing group of foster carers—some brand new and about to receive their first child, some who had been fostering for over 20 years—who are part of an employee co-operative, Capstone Foster Care, in Peasedown St John in Somerset. Again and again they spoke eloquently about the impact of that network on their ability to foster and to offer love and care to very vulnerable children.

They also talked—this ties in with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson—about the need for a really positive recruitment campaign. Most people hear about fostering only when there is a case of severe neglect or worse. But across the House we have heard examples of many noble Lords who have either been foster carers or who recognise the extraordinary and life-changing work that foster carers do. We need that message to get outside this Chamber and out to people who might consider this and see it as a respected and important profession. We need more innovation in this area to unlock the potential in our communities to provide this kind of support for children who need it, and to improve retention.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a well-informed debate on the amendments in group 5 concerning foster care, particularly informed by those who have had personal experience. The noble Lord, Lord Young, gave his experience of being a foster carer and I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made a very important contribution on what it feels like to be a child in the system and the lifelong impacts that has.

I think there has been a consensus once again that foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. We very much share the concerns raised in this House about the falling numbers of fostering households—a fall of 9% since 2020—and the effect this has on children. Perhaps it was the late night I had had, but I felt marginally grumpy about the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that because there is not more about fostering in this legislation, somehow or another that means that this Government are not committed to righting the decline we have seen over recent years. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to spell out exactly what the Government have been doing. There is a tendency in this House, which is understandable because we are legislators, to think that things happen only if they are put into legislation. I hope I can demonstrate that there is plenty happening on fostering due to the actions of and investment put in by this Government.

17:45

We are prioritising fostering in our reform of children’s social care, as evidenced by the Chancellor’s recent announcement of an additional £25 million investment in foster care over two years, beginning in 2026-27. That is additional to the £15 million we are investing in fostering during this financial year. This will bring benefits to thousands of fostered children.

Part of that spending will be on regional recruitment hubs. The noble Lord, Lord Young, and others were right to say that the process of recruitment, and even the understanding of what it might mean to be a foster carer and what the opportunities are, is part of the reason why we do not find sufficient people showing an interest, and do not convert sufficient people who have shown an interest into foster carers. So, access to regional recruitment hubs is an important part of what the additional investment will be spent on.

We are already doing other things to support councils to recruit and retain foster carers, investing in those regional recruitment hubs and also communication campaigns across over 60% of councils. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that this is an area where it feels like thinking about innovative models will be important in helping us to achieve our objectives. That is why our investment includes an expansion of the Mockingbird family model, which is an innovative evidence-based approach that groups six to 10 families around a hub home carer and, in doing so, therefore provides peer support, respite and training. An independent evaluation found that Mockingbird substantially improved retention, with participating households 82% less likely to deregister than non-participating households.

To support retention, we will reform delegated authority and processes for handling allegations against foster carers. The Chancellor’s additional £25 million in funding for fostering will help us go further and faster. The spending review also set aside capital investment for innovative, sector-designed programmes to create more fostering placements by, for example, renovating and extending foster care homes in the way the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, mentioned with respect to Manchester. This will help to provide more placements for children in foster care. We intend to set out more detail on this, as well as our broader plans for fostering, in due course. We also, of course, benefit from research carried out by a wide range of stakeholders, including members of our fostering advisory board.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the point about financial recompense for foster carers being one of the reasons why they leave foster care. There is a national minimum allowance for foster carers. Beyond that, councils and fostering agencies have the flexibility to pay fees for foster carers that reflect their experience, skills and development or to provide extra support for children with more complex needs. Many fostering service providers supplement that with local offers such as council tax deductions or discounts for local child-friendly attractions and services. Fostering service providers often also provide extra money for taking children on holiday or to celebrate a birthday or religious festival. We believe that it is for fostering service providers to set their own payment structures for those additional things in accordance with local needs and budget needs. These things are happening and are very helpful in addressing some of the issues noble Lords have raised with respect to recompense.

Specifically on Amendment 143 regarding a foster care strategy, just as we quite often turn to legislation to demonstrate action, we understand the need sometimes to turn to a strategy to demonstrate the significance that the Government place on an issue and to ensure that a wide-ranging set of actions is being taken. I hope that, in outlining the action that is already being taken, I can provide some reassurance about the emphasis that the Government are already placing on—

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I just wanted to remind us of a little bit of history. Napoleon said that a battle plan strategy was the most useless thing on earth but that you were lost without it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is good, because I was about to say—although I think he called it a battle plan, not a battle strategy—that the Government will set out our plans for foster care in due course, bringing together the range of activities that is already happening and taking on board the need to go further in the way that noble Lords have rightly pushed us to today.

Amendment 105, introduced by my noble friend Lord Watson, is on the introduction of a national foster care register. As he outlined, fostering services currently maintain local registers of foster carers alongside records relating to prospective foster carers. A national foster care register would insert central government into the systems and processes of foster care oversight, which are currently deployed locally. But as he said, and as I think my honourable friend in the other place outlined in Committee there, we are considering the possible benefits and costs of a national register of foster carers as part of our wider reforms.

There are a range of proposals for such a register. It will require some careful consideration. Specifically, I am sure we all recognise the need to ensure that a national foster care register would also meet local needs and avoid unforeseen negative consequences, and that it would overcome some of the risks surrounding the security of sensitive data, as well as imposing additional bureaucracy on the sector. But we want to engage with fostering stakeholders on this issue to determine next steps, and we can see some of the advantages of the national register that my noble friend outlined.

Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is on the sharing of bedrooms for foster children to enable foster carers to look after more children in their home. She identified that one of the pushes for this comes back to one of the fundamental issues that we will discuss on upcoming clauses and which lies very much at the heart of the Government’s reforms: the insufficiency of high-quality places, fostering or otherwise, for the children who need them. I completely understand the belief that changing standards in this way might enable us to increase capacity.

I have already identified that the Government will invest money, for example, in allowing extensions and other ways that foster carers might alter their homes to provide more space and capacity for children. But it is also the case that our national minimum standards already allow foster children aged three or over to share a bedroom, subject to conditions being met, which are in place to safeguard and protect children. That means that fostered children, such as siblings, can share a bedroom where it is in the best interests of the child, provided that each child has their own area of the room.

We can update those national minimum standards at any time. We do not require a change to Section 23 of the Care Standards Act, as suggested in this amendment, to do so. The language in this amendment would change the tone of the national minimum standards. I am not averse to the point that is being made here; we just need to be careful about the balance that we are setting. It would shift the default position to present room sharing both as appropriate and, in fact, standard practice, rather than the current tone, where room sharing should be considered where it is not possible for each child to have their own room.

I think we all agree that children in foster care deserve to be treated as a good parent would treat their own children and to have the opportunity for as full an experience of family life and childhood as possible. I know that there are many good parents who will have children who share bedrooms, especially at a younger age, but I also know that for many children, fostered or otherwise, and for many parents, the gold standard would for them to have their own room. If we add to that the fact that children often enter foster care after experiencing neglect or abuse, including sexual abuse, and may have a greater need for their own personal space and for privacy, we can see the need to be careful about shifting the position to promoting sharing.

We recognise that room sharing in foster care may be suitable, as I have said, particularly for siblings, and we think it is right that flexibilities are already in place, but we are reluctant to suggest that room sharing should be promoted as standard practice. Importantly, we have seen no evidence from children and young people themselves to suggest that they want room sharing to become standard practice in foster care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister mentioned that the Government are putting funding into extensions and so forth. Will she write with details of how many additional places that funding is expected to secure? I do not mean precisely, but just to give a sense.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I am happy to do that. Of course, that is just one part of the sufficiency work that the Government are doing and that other elements of the Bill aim to make progress on, but I will write specifically on that project.

Amendment 178 on delegated authority for foster carers, which is also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Barran, would give foster carers more autonomy and flexibility. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities. That is so that they can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. Under the current system of delegated authority, if something is not listed on the child’s placement plan then the foster carer does not have delegated authority and they must check with their social worker before decisions can be made. Foster carers can only take decisions that are in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. This amendment would change that current system of delegated authority.

I have considerable sympathy with the idea that if we are asking people to take on the crucial role of caring for children on a day-to-day basis and making them part of their families then they also need the authority to be able to do that in the rounded way that any parent would expect to have. That is why we have begun conversations with foster carers and fostering services about proposed changes to ensure that all foster carers should have delegated authority by default in relation to the day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We think that reforming this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties but, following a consultation, we are committed to implementing necessary amendments to secondary legislation. We do not believe that we would need changes to primary legislation in order to do that. Delegated authority is outlined in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baroness that, in that area, we very much see the case being made and want to make progress.

With all the assurances and further information that I provided, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

18:00

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. One thing that has always struck me about your Lordships’ House is the vast experience, on all sides, that often emerges in debates. On this group this evening, we have had two further examples of personal experience from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. Such experience always informs the debate and gives it a depth and breadth that, certainly when I have been in other legislatures, has not always been the case, and it is very valuable.

I heard what my noble friend said in her response about the proposal for a national foster care strategy. One of the strong points of Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Young—which would have had my name attached to it, incidentally, had it not already had three names when I went to add mine—is subsection (2), from memory, which refers to how we can improve the quality of foster care. That seems self-evident and I am sure the Government are doing it anyway, or trying to do it anyway, but it seems to me that it is important that, however well we are doing, we are not doing well enough, given the figures that have been quoted, not least the number of foster carers coming forward and the high rejection rate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred, which is astounding—I had not heard that before. There must be some reason for that, which we could surely turn around to get to the 5,000 shortfall, if that is what we have across the country.

On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about what Napoleon said about the need for a strategy, whatever the Government are doing on this and in the broader children’s social care field, it is important that there is a strategy, whether or not it is written down. I do not know whether Napoleon had strategies throughout his lengthy career—which mostly went pretty well until it ended at what I might say is a London mainline railway station—but I still think it is important to have a strategy underpinning what we are doing.

I have gone on long enough. On my amendment proposing a register of foster carers, I was very encouraged by what my noble friend said—although she did chuck a couple of pebbles into the pond by saying there could be an increase in bureaucracy. There has to be an effective bureaucracy, because we are not bringing enough foster carers into the system; I do not necessarily think that is bureaucracy, because there has to be whatever it takes to ensure that we enrol more people.

As far as national versus local is concerned, I think that the two sit very neatly together: we would have a national strategy, and locally you would make sure that you draw in the people in the areas where they are most needed. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. I am encouraged by what my noble friend said, and I look forward to developments in the near future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

Amendment 106 not moved.

Amendment 107

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

107: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Adoption and special guardianship support fund review(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the level of funding available per child from the adoption and special guardianship support fund.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per child.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, as a local councillor in Liverpool, once a week I do what I call my “Keeping in touch”, where I go to each resident with a little form and ask them to fill out any particular concerns they have in the area: “Leave it outside your letterbox, and I’ll be back in an hour to pull it out”. I did the final household and thought, “I will finish now and go home”. The lady opened the door and said, “Everything is fine. We didn’t need to fill it out”. I said, “Oh, that’s good news. Goodbye”.

As I was walking down the path, the lady said, “Actually, there is something you could help me with.” I said, “What is it?” She said “No, I don’t think you can help me.” I said “Well, what is it?” She said, “I and my husband adopted two children when they were two-and-a-half years old. One is now 11 and the other is 12. The boy was severely traumatised as a two-and-a-half year old, so much so that he has to have regular therapy sessions. The problem is that the grant we got has been cut by nearly £2,000, and we now cannot afford the therapy sessions.” I said, “Okay, leave it with me and let me think this through.” I thought, “Well, I will put down a Written Question to the Minister.” We know how Written Questions work, do we not? Those who have been Ministers will know that, often, they try not to reveal all the facts as they happen to be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Oh!

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Oh, goodness, I would not suggest that for one moment of the current Minister—or the previous Minister.

My Written Question was:

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the adoption and special guardianship support fund.”


The Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, was:

“This government fully recognises the importance of support for adoptive and kinship children and families. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund … has been a valuable part of the support landscape for ten years. This is why we have provided £50 million of funding for the ASGSF for 2025/26, alongside £8.8 million for Adoption England, to complement the range of support available in local areas.”


I did a little further research, because that seemed to tell me that everything was okay and that this family need not worry: they were not getting any cuts. Almost half the ASGSF awards last year exceeded the new £3,000 allowance, so some children will receive cuts of almost 40%. Data shows that thousands of children will now go without the therapy they need as a result of this cut. Alongside this cut has gone a separate allocation of up to £2,500 per child per year for special assessments. This has been completely removed. Match-funding support for children with an exceptional level of need has also been removed. Previously, the ASGSF provided up to 50% of the funding for up to £30,000 per child, with the rest provided by the local authority. The consequences of these changes are that any new specialist assessment must now be paid for from the £3,000. Therapy care or support must also come within this budget, regardless of need. Support that was given may no longer be given.

Change can exacerbate issues for children with attachment and trauma-related needs, who require sustained, regular support. Building trust with a therapist takes time, but continuity of care will now be harder. Children with the most complex needs now face a highly uncertain future, which may may lead to increased exclusions, due to behavioural issues that were traditionally tackled with therapy. An increase in issues such as child-to-parent violence threatens family placements further.

This family just cannot cope any more because the funding, as we have heard, has been cut. Whether that is the element from the local authority or from the Government, I do not know, and I have been unable to look into that any further. The language we sometimes use in such cases is interesting. Need for funding is now framed as demand. Such language is insensitive to children who need the funding—SEND children as well as children who have experienced significant trauma.

I do not want to talk any longer on this. Given that we had the Statement yesterday from the Chancellor and there is a bit of extra money for education, maybe a small amount of it can be used in these cases. We all know the figures on fostering and adoption. Anybody who adopts a child—never mind two children—into their family, brings them up and supports them needs all the help we can give them. I feel lucky that, because I am in your Lordships’ House, I can use the opportunity to try to help this particular family. I hope the Minister will look sympathetically on my amendment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will also speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. As far as this fund is concerned, I have been involved in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence as an officer and occasional co-chair for the past seven or eight years. I do it with somebody the Minister will know: Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central. I was just scrolling back on the group’s website to see how many times we have had to launch a mini-inquiry into this fund and go through a process of appealing yet again to successive Governments to keep it going. In doing that, we have amassed each time a large amount of evidence to show just how much good this fund has done and how transformative it is for families who have adopted children, many of whom are expressing the medium- and long-term effects of the trauma they received in early life. This fund is a genuine lifesaver for those children.

I have kept in touch with a parliamentary assistant who works for an MP and is an adoptive parent. She has told me over the past few years about the intense challenges she and her husband have had with one of their adopted children and how, frankly, without the support of this fund, they were getting near crisis point and would have had to give up the adoption, so the child would have lost their adoptive family. It was the fund that enabled them to keep going. I stress to the Minister the disproportionate good that is done for these families by the expenditure of relatively small amounts of money, in the great scheme of things. The quality support and counselling that is required to help children with this level of trauma is not cheap. It requires extremely dedicated professionals who are very focused in this area. Working with children who have experienced trauma is as challenging for the practitioners as it is for the parents and the children.

I would hate to think that, over the next four years of this Government, we will have a repeat of what the all-party group experienced under previous Governments, of having to go through this cycle every two or three years of the Government threatening to reduce the fund and us having to go out and get evidence to explain just how important and life-changing it is—along with other groups, of course. In the end, the Government typically listen to the argument, but in each case it has been a challenge to get them to listen, so this group is an opportunity to remind the Minister just how transformative this fund is for the parents of children who have experienced trauma, as many adopted children have.

That leads me to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to which I added my name. In terms of numbers, adoption is a relatively small part of looking after children who are unable to be with their birth parents. There are the large numbers in kinship care, which we talked about earlier this week, the large number—we wish it was larger—who are being fostered, and then the extremely large, expensive and distressing number of children who are in residential care.

18:15

For adoption to work, adoption needs to be looked at and organised on an England-wide basis. One of the experiences with the regional adoption agencies that were set up by a previous Government is that there is a high degree of variability in how effective they are and the nature of the relationships they have with the local authority, the local education authority and local health agencies. It is all over the place, and children are suffering as a result.

In addition, a previous Government—I had quite a run-in with a certain Minister, Mr Nadhim Zahawi, on this—decided unilaterally to cancel the national adoption register for England, which was working extraordinarily effectively, not least because it was England-wide. It was able to identify children and match them with prospective adoptive parents, sometimes way outside their immediate geography, but we have largely lost that by moving to the model that we have now. The time is ripe for a review to understand what is and what is not working, look at the lessons of the past, pull that together and try to make this work.

I should declare an interest: I am a governor of Coram and a trustee of the Foundling Museum. Particularly with my Coram hat on, I think the story of adoption and how it has been viewed, treated and financed over the last 10 years has been a bit of a rollercoaster. The children who are waiting to be adopted, and the families who have been extraordinary enough to adopt, do not deserve to be on a rollercoaster; they deserve to have as smooth progress as possible to enable them to be as effective as adoptive parents as they can be, to give those children the life they deserve and to enable new adoptive parents to take on these children, many of whom have experienced trauma and many of whom are in sibling groups. I salute those who take that on, but it behoves us and our Government to make that as straightforward as possible.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. I will speak to Amendment 145 in my name. To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted the amendments in this group as being within scope, because the Bill seems to studiously avoid adoption. A search that I carried out revealed that the word “adoption” appears only four times in the Bill’s 137 pages, and three of them are as part of other legislation that is referred to.

That is disappointing because the Bill offers an opportunity to improve outcomes for adopted children, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in society, alongside measures for children in kinship care and foster care and care leavers. That is a package, or a jigsaw, all of whose parts interact, and, frankly, I do not understand why one part is virtually absent. There is overwhelming evidence that adoptees are not currently getting the support they need to provide them with an equal chance to thrive, and that is unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, it is a relatively small number in the greater scheme of things, but I still do not see why adoptive families are not given the credit they deserve for the important job that they do.

The review mentioned in my amendment would consider the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support and highlight current gaps in the system. Every year, around 4,000 children in the UK are placed in adoptive families, and government data shows that around 80% of adopted children in England last year will have suffered abuse, neglect or violence before adoption. Before being adopted, children spend an average of 15 months in care, often moving through several foster families, and many lose everything that is familiar to them along the way because of that process. Meanwhile, adoption gives children a chance to build some stability as part of a loving, safe and nurturing home. Evidence is quite clear that outcomes are better for children who are adopted than for those who grow up in residential care. The early trauma that they suffer may well be with them for the rest of their lives, and they need the support that can be provided via adoptive families.

Currently, there is a duty under the Adoption Support Services Regulations for a local authority to provide adoption services and to provide information. Often, adoptive families point out that there is a failure to provide information about the support that is available. Individual agencies, on behalf of the local authority, typically give information on their websites about the support they offer, but it does not always work out that way in practice. The support and information vary, and it has to be said that cuts to local authority budgets over the years of Tory Governments have resulted in reduced support for adoptive families, because local authorities are simply not able to provide what they want to provide.

The Adoption Support Services Regulations require updating so that they reflect the changes that have taken place in adoption over the last two decades. They have not been updated since 2005. That includes the regionalisation of adoption agencies in England. The charity Adoption UK has produced evidence that out-of-date regulations can, and in many cases do, impact on family court proceedings, and thus potentially on the time it takes for an adoption order to be made.

The agencies themselves are not Ofsted inspected, meaning there is a lack of accountability and consistency in the system. The thematic inspection of a handful of regional adoption agencies carried out by Ofsted in late 2023 highlighted some of the challenges for those agencies and partner local authorities in achieving the services that adoptees and their families require. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, will be aware of that; I do not know whether she wants to contribute to this debate, but she will be aware of the outcome of those inspections.

Adoption UK’s meticulously gathered evidence has consistently shown that there are gaps in support. Its adoption barometer survey, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, reveals that the proportion of adoptive families who said they are facing severe challenges or reaching crisis point is up from 30% in 2020 to 38% in 2023.

I was going to say something about the adoption special guardianship support fund and the other amendments. I am not going to do that now, as other noble Lords have covered that perfectly adequately.

Without effective support services, adopted children are at a higher risk of returning to the care system, with a lack of ongoing support leading to placements too often breaking down. The impact of such breakdowns on the cost to the Treasury is fairly obvious. I do not think it is right that adoption should be pushed to the margins in this way, when adoptive families play such a vital role. I come back to the point I started on: it is a bit of a mystery to me why adoption is not much more prominent in this Bill.

The review that I am advocating in this amendment would consider whether the services provided by the adoption agencies and the existing regulations and guidance covering adoption are fit for purpose. I do not expect this review to be in the Bill, but I would like to think that my noble friend will consider carrying it out as an initiative of the department. As I think everyone accepts, there are gaps in the provision that need to be filled.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Watson, have said, on the basis of my experience as an adoption judge.

First, in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the variability—as it has now emerged—of regional adoption agencies, I suggest that that is something the Government should be reviewing carefully. Secondly, I want to emphasise the point he made about the sheer awfulness of disrupted and failed adoptions, particularly in cases where so many hopes have been pinned on the adoption and so much trouble has apparently been made in preparing the child and the adopters.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to add my name to Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I commend him and his colleagues in the other place, particularly the honourable Member for Twickenham, on their concerted efforts to bring attention to this important fund, which provides support to about 20,000 very vulnerable children who have suffered great trauma. The anecdote that the noble Lord gave of the family he met brought this issue to life very vividly. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, all of whom have brought great experience, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his remarks, his expertise and the work of the APPG that he co-chairs.

I will not go into detail on the rather unusual set of announcements that the Government made about the fund, first on 1 April and then very shortly afterwards on 22 April, when it was announced that the fair access limit, or funding per child, would, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, explained, be cut from £5,000 to £3,000 per child per year, and that the £2,500 limit for specialist assessment—which, as I understand it, was in addition to the £5,000—had been abolished. The remaining fund now has to cover both the assessment, judged by the department, I assume, to cost up to £2,500 per child, and the therapy. If we give the department the benefit of the doubt and say that the assessment cost around £1,500, then, being very generous, that leaves about six sessions of funded therapy per year, which for these children is simply insufficient. I am not suggesting that those are the real numbers; they are just my back-of-the-envelope estimates to give the Committee a sense of what is happening here.

Hence the importance of this amendment, which focuses on the per-child funding level and seeks to bring some clarity to the amounts needed. In her Written Ministerial Statement, the Minister said that the ASGF—that is a new acronym for me—

“will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support, tailored to meet their individual needs”.

Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of what the department considers to be a significant package of therapeutic support that could be funded from £3,000, including the assessments?

The issue of therapeutic support is, of course, broader than just this fund. On my visit to Capstone Foster Care, I learned of the difficulty of receiving funding for therapeutic work and the bureaucracy involved in retaining it. This feels so short-sighted as local authorities search for a sound placement—defined in the sector, as I understand it, as a standard placement that does not have additional therapeutic support funding attached to it—which then, perhaps predictably, breaks down and potentially needs to be substituted with a placement in a children’s home at many times the cost.

This is at a time when we hear that funding from integrated care boards for safeguarding work will be cut by around 50% and that the threshold for health involvement is simply too high to be useful. The cuts to the fund will result in a loss of adopters and special guardians, who find—as we heard very powerfully from noble Lords who spoke earlier—that without this support they simply cannot take on these responsibilities. The very late announcement has led to a backlog and will require almost half of applicants to reapply, as their original application does not meet the new threshold.

I wondered what estimate or cost-benefit analysis—and I appreciate that the human cost is far more important than the financial one—the department has done on the savings from the cuts to the fund set against the cost of potential breakdowns. If the Minister does not have those figures with her, perhaps she could write to me with them. As other noble Lords have said, this decision feels like an error, and I hope that the Minister will urge her ministerial colleagues to accept these amendments.

18:30

I have a lot of sympathy for Amendment 145, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. As he pointed out, it is 20 years since we have had a review of the regulations, and in that time the number of children being adopted has stagnated in some areas and declined in others, despite this being the most permanent and secure solution for them. Maybe when he comes to close—although perhaps I misunderstood his amendment —the noble Lord could explain something. I was puzzled by the focus being exclusively on local authority adoption services, when, as he knows, many voluntary sector organisations also do great work in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 6. This is the second group of amendments in a row where I think that, quite rightly, we in this Committee will recognise the enormously important contribution made by those people willing to take children into their homes and families as a result of adoption. As other noble Lords have said, and as I know from having spoken to people who have adopted children, it is something that can bring enormous pleasure, satisfaction and completion to some families, and is often very much wished for by families. However, because of the nature of the experiences that children have gone through and the history of some of those children, notwithstanding that a family when adopting a child take on responsibility for that child and they become part of their family, I completely understand the need for there to be ongoing support for children in those circumstances.

Without going too far into history, one of the very first pieces of legislation that I did the last time round when I was a Minister was the Bill that became the Adoption and Children Act 2002. At that point, there was still quite a lot of discussion and debate about whether it was legitimate to provide any support for children in adoptive families. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed as a result of these amendments, it is the case that considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of the challenge and the reward that comes from adoption, the types of experiences that children may well have had before going into adoption, the impact that that has on families, and the requirement to provide support on an ongoing basis for children who are adopted. I recognise that the amendments in this group cover that issue of support for adoptive and kinship children, as well as how we can ensure and review the quality of adoption support that is being provided.

This is a significant area, to which the Government are committed. Although there are some difficult elements in the amendments, I am nevertheless pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled them and enabled us to talk about adoption.

I reiterate the point I previously made about fostering. The fact that something is not covered in this particular piece of legislation should not be taken as some sort of statement about the significance of that issue for this Government, or about its importance for children and families. The point of legislation is to address those areas which have shortcomings in the legislative framework. Our view, certainly at this moment in time, is that the adoption legislation framework is fit for purpose, and our focus needs to be on supporting Adoption England and regional adoption agencies to improve local practice and set national standards so that there are high-quality adoption services across the country. That needs to be the priority, rather than thinking about how and whether we need to change legislation. Adoption is a priority for this Government and will remain so. Of course, most importantly, it is a vital permanence option for some children.

On the points made about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, I note the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the history of adoption—

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

It is actually Lord Russell. I have told this to the House before, but in 1959 my grandfather and Bertrand Russell—the then Earl Russell—jointly wrote a letter to the editor of the Times that said: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am glad to know that I am not the only person who has made that mistake. I apologise to the Chamber and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

The noble Lord talked about the important work done by the all-party group and part of the history of ensuring that there is sufficient focus through government activity to provide the necessary support for adoptive families. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has given valuable support to over 53,000 individual children over the 10 years that it has been in place. Many have received support for multiple years, which is a point that I will return to when talking about the criteria.

The Government have continued to support the ASGSF; we provided £50 million for 2025-26. There has been an increase in demand—some noble Lords argued it was an increase in need. Then you face a challenge, regardless of how much money is allocated, as to whether you provide more support for fewer children and families, or ensure a level of support for a larger number of children and families.

The revised funding criteria effective from April 2025 will continue to enable children to receive an excellent level of support, many at similar levels to before, and £3,000-worth of therapy remains a substantial amount of support. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the assessment, children and families receive this support over several years and I think I am right in saying that this £3,000 would include the assessment. Perhaps the next year or the year after that, it would not be necessary to redo the assessment, and £3,000 would fund 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current average costings. As I say, there are many children and families who are receiving similar levels of support as before, although I recognise the case brought to the attention of this Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, where families have seen that as a cut in the provision that they have been able to receive.

Local authorities can continue to supplement available funding locally through the mainstream children’s services budget, if assessments deem this necessary. As I have said, the revised criteria will ensure that all children can continue to receive support. It is important to recognise the significance of the contribution that this support provides, even if in some cases it does not feel as though it is enough support to respond to the considerable challenges that families are facing. For that reason, the Government recognise that recent changes to funding levels came unexpectedly, and therefore local areas had limited time to plan.

I hope I can provide some reassurance that applications under the revised criteria are now being not only received but processed as speedily as possible, so that children can receive the therapy that they need. The Government will continue to assess the implementation of adoption support arrangements, including the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be taking forward discussions on the delivery and management of funds in future years. Across the department, we have heard the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee this evening and, most importantly, that have come from the families affected.

The ASGSF, like other government expenditure, is subject to business planning decisions following the spending review, and these decisions will obviously need to take into account the full range of government priorities. The ASGSF is not a statutory arrangement. We believe that it should remain flexible to provide an effective service, and that it would not be helpful—as proposed in these amendments—for decisions on funding levels to be made in isolation from consideration of other budgets. However, as I say, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I have just checked, and I think the Minister mentioned that, with the £3,000, the average number of sessions that would be allowed is about 12.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It would be 19.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The range of applications for the support fund over the last few years has typically been between 20 and 50 sessions per annum, so it is right on the margin.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I did say that it would fund 19 to 20 hours. I also made the point that this is something that does not happen within only one year; it is something that can continue, in order to provide support.

However, I also said that I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament. We will of course take these issues into account when making decisions about how to allocate funding from the DfE budget for future years. I hope this will assure noble Lords that we are considering these issues very carefully.

On Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I agree with my noble friend that adoption support should be high-quality. Of course, Ofsted already reviews how well authorities are delivering adoption services and publishes reports on each authority every three years. The Secretary of State has powers under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to require Ofsted to provide information on or conduct an inspection of any specified function of the local authority that falls within its remit, which may include adoption support services. Ofsted reports regularly on adoption support in local authorities, children’s social care inspection reports and on adoption agencies.

18:45

Furthermore, as I have said, the Secretary of State can direct Ofsted to provide information on adoption support services or to conduct an inspection. In fact, Ofsted’s recent thematic inspection of regional adoption agencies covered adoption support, including for birth families and adopted adults. It is worth noting that changes to regulations in 2023 removed some barriers to adults receiving services by removing the Ofsted registration requirement under certain conditions.

Adoption England is working with regional adoption agencies to develop national standards for adoption support, including a new core offer of support for the first 12 to 18 months of placement—a time that is particularly difficult in terms of the family adjusting to their life as adoptive parents and the children adjusting to their new adoptive arrangements.

While potentially important for children, support for birth family contact arrangements can also be quite difficult and challenging for families and adult adoptees to work through. Noble Lords have made the case very strongly that, given the experiences some children may have faced prior to adoption, it is likely that the impacts of that may well go through to their adult life. But all Adoption England’s work is based on best practice to drive consistency across agencies.

I have a feeling that I will not have completely reassured noble Lords about the fund. I hope I have gone further to reassure my noble friend Lord Watson about the ability to review and inspect the quality of adoption support services. But on those bases, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Watson and Lord Meston, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my friend Munira Wilson in the other place for raising this issue.

The Minister is right. My father was adopted: surprisingly, he was adopted by a single woman. In those days, no support at all was given. But now we recognise the contribution that parents who adopt children give. We should be giving them all the support we possibly can, because every failed adoption is a failure for us.

On the particular case that I encountered, there was a two-and-a-half year-old boy who had been seriously traumatised—I will not tell you how he was traumatised, although I know. He had therapy and then that therapy stopped, which just seems unbelievable. He presumably will regress; I just do not know.

However, the Minister has given me some crumbs of comfort, and perhaps we can hope that, as a caring, tolerant society, we can support not just this boy but any child who is adopted and who needs that kind of therapy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

Amendments 107A to 107C not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 6.50 pm.