House of Commons
09:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 79 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.163)
Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first private Member’s Bill that I have moved in 30 years, and I have been somewhat discombobulated by the extraordinary amount of effort that has gone into getting just six clauses before the House today, so I am deeply indebted to the Government Whips Office, which has been extraordinarily helpful. I do not know what is happening to this Parliament—it is vastly more helpful than I was ever expected to be when I was a Government Whip! Anyway, I am equally indebted to the Ministers and their private offices and, indeed, to the parliamentary draftsmen. Of course, included in those Ministers was the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has pursued this particular agenda in opposition and in government, frankly, since God was a boy.
Equally, I give my thanks to the Public Bill Office, which has been exceptionally helpful, and to our former Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, and her 1001 Critical Days Foundation. Finally, I give thanks for the heavy lifting done by my parliamentary assistant and by our former colleague, Will Quince, and his team. Of course, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Standing Orders are clear: we do not refer to people in the Gallery—I take it you have got the hint.
This Bill responds to the widely held view that services for infants, prospective parents and parents of young children are somewhat vulnerable when they rely largely on non-statutory guidance and programme funding. The purpose of the Bill is to shine the legislative spotlight on those services and to ensure that they are systematically understood and are known about and scrutinised by Parliament.
It is a truism that if we want a better future, we need to start with the provision of services to babies today. It is vital that those services are available in that critical period of 1,001 days from pregnancy through to two years old. If children are confident that they are safe and if they are responded to properly by adults, they will build relationships, they will be healthy, they will have language development and their future learning will be assured. That is vital. It is vital that we make that impact in those early weeks, months and years when 1 million neural networks are being formed every second and the baby’s brain grows to 80% of the weight of an adult’s brain by two years old.
If those services are not available, and if problems arise and are not addressed, there will be problems with speech, problems with relationships and problems with development later, so it is vital that they are there.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As a former schoolmaster, my right hon. Friend will be familiar with the work of Piaget, who makes exactly that point: early development—prior attainment, as it is often called—is a determinant of subsequent progress both at school and beyond it. In rural communities such as mine, it is vital that the delivery of the services my right hon. Friend describes is done in a peripatetic way, ideally through what were once called district nurses—familiar figures in the community who could engage with local people and build trust. I wonder if we ought to add to his Bill, in the form of an amendment, a call to bring back district nurses.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I will address exactly that point shortly.
If a child is not developing properly and is not sleeping, feeding or communicating, parents need to know that they have somewhere to turn. If that difficulty is spotted by, let us say, a district nurse, a midwife, a health professional or one of the excellent workers in our family hubs, help is on the way. If that help does not arrive or does not arrive in a timely manner, problems will present later, when they will be much more difficult and more expensive to address.
I have received an enormous amount of advice from clinicians at the top of their game and from frontline workers with enormous experience, laying out all the vital services that ought to be provided for by a Bill such as this and, indeed, offering me substantial help in putting the Bill together. It would be perfectly proper for hon. Members to share that sort of advice with the Minister today, and that is the proper place for it. This Bill is quite deliberately written at a higher level. It does not specify what the services should be; it empowers Ministers to regulate and make provision for those services. That is the overwhelming purpose of the Bill.
Of course, there is a vast amount of evidence out there that suggests that all these services are vital, be it perinatal mental health services for parents, relationship training for parents and their child or the peripatetic services that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to, as is the systematic provision of those services.
All that is vital, and if it sounds familiar it ought to be, because that is what is being delivered to a large extent by our excellent Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme. The Bill does not provide something new in the way of services; it will make those services accountable, more easily scrutinised by Parliament, and therefore less prone to being deprioritised. We might recall what happened to much of the Sure Start programme, and let that be a salutary lesson, particularly for Opposition Members.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Opposition Members, but does he mean that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were involved in that?
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Government removed the requirement to ringfence the funding for Sure Start, and because local authorities were not required to spend that money in that way, they made their choices accordingly. I accept that it was the wrong priority, and I hope the whole House is the better for knowing that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Some Sure Start places in London were created before Sure Start was formally created, and having seen my children go through it, I saw its direct benefits. Sure Start was structured around hubs, and there was a desire to go out and visit people at home—indeed, many of us visit people in their homes. As the right hon. Gentleman says, Ministers will interpret this measure, but there is something about a home visit by professionals that reveals a great deal about the challenges that children face, whether before going to nursery or afterwards, and whether by a health visitor or a midwife. From his research in developing the Bill, does he have anything to say about the importance of that?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I remember with respect to my own children the importance of a visit by the midwife, even after birth, and that is essentially the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was making about the importance of district nurses. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to define these services, and the functions that the Secretary of State will carry out. Their primary duty is to work out what those services actually contain.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The idea of ringfencing and ensuring that we protect this time is the reason why the Bill is so important. Where councils did not ringfence in the past, they kind of lumped together youth services with this period of time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having a separate pot and protection for this time is valuable, even if we later have to look again at youth services for people as they get a bit older?
Sir Desmond Swayne
Yes, essentially today we are putting these services on a statutory footing. Of course subsequent Governments can change statutes, but this Bill makes it an explicit decision of this House and Parliament, rather than a fiat by Government decision.
Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess the need for these services, and that includes a duty to take into account the opinions of parents, prospective parents and carers, as far as reasonably possible. The first duty is to define what services and functions we are talking about, and the second is to make an assessment of need. The period in which to make that assessment must be no longer than three years before another period of assessment begins.
Clause 3 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to then make provision for the services that she has assessed are needed. To address one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, that takes account of the fact that there may be different levels of need in different areas.
Clause 4 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the provision of those services and the outcomes that arise from them. Clause 5 is largely an interpretation of terms used within the Bill, be it “infant”, “prospective parent” or “prospective carer”. Clause 6 determines the short title of the Bill and provisions for its coming into force.
Effectively, this Bill lays a series of duties to make regulations on the Secretary of State: first, to specify services and functions; secondly, to assess the needs for them; thirdly, to provide for those services; and, fourthly, to report accordingly to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on coming top in the private Members’ Bill ballot and on his choice of Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her work to champion the needs of very young children and their families over many, many years. I thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation for its work on the Bill. Its research so clearly demonstrates how critical the first 1,001 days—the stage from conception to the age of two—are for child development and the unique opportunity they offer to set every baby on a solid foundation for the rest of their life.
There is a sign outside the wonderful Sheringham nursery and children’s centre in east London that captures the importance of the first 1,001 days perfectly: it reads “Building brains here.” During the first 1,001 days, babies’ brains develop at the most astonishing rate, forming over 1 million neural connections every minute and reaching 80% of their adult size by the age of two. The right support during this vital phase of development can bear fruit for a lifetime in terms of good emotional regulation, learning capacity, language and communication skills, and physical health. Conversely, without the right inputs in early childhood, the impacts of disadvantage can become embedded for a lifetime.
Good support in the first 1,001 days involves a wide range of people. It means family, of course, but also midwives, health visitors, GPs, parenting support, breastfeeding and weaning support, and perinatal mental health care. It can also involve special educational needs and disabilities specialists, and, sadly, sometimes those in safeguarding and social services. This network of people involved in providing support for babies, parents and carers during the first two years gives meaning to the phrase “It takes a village to raise a child.”
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Kingdon review of paediatric audiology services demonstrated terrible shortcomings in that service throughout the country. Poor hearing leads to poor language development and poor brain development and is a catastrophic start to a child’s life. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must do all that we can to support audiology services? She mentioned a long list of health professionals; I would like to give a shout-out to audiologists.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is right. I mentioned the need for early access to SEND support, and I would include audiology in that category. Those services are vital, as are speech and language services, which we know are all too often not available at the earliest possible opportunity. In a moment, I will speak about the importance of that very early intervention. That network is the village, and the village should be available in every community for every family, right across the country, every single week of the year.
One of the proudest achievements of the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 was the creation of Sure Start—a children’s centre in every community, bringing together a range of universal services for pregnant women, new parents and carers, and children under a single roof in local neighbourhoods. I once again pay tribute to my predecessor, Dame Tessa Jowell, for her pioneering work to establish Sure Start right across the country. The results of Sure Start were transformative, with long-term evaluations showing that integrated early childhood interventions significantly improved long-term health, especially for disadvantaged children; reduced hospital admissions; and improved GCSE results. The analysis also showed that investment in those services represented exceptional value for money and a positive financial return, with every pound spent on Sure Start delivering more than twice as much back in societal benefits.
My own daughters were born in 2005 and 2008, and we experienced at first hand the benefits of that investment in the form of antenatal and early childhood support. It provided a gold standard in community midwifery services, excellent health visitors, good breastfeeding support, a drop-in speech and language therapy clinic when one of my daughters needed that, and a wealth of other services. All of this was delivered a very short distance from home in our local community, so we also got to meet other parents and babies at the same stage and to build relationships with them.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend and I have had similar experiences of the system. For me, one of the important things was that it did not stigmatise going to seek advice, whether it be about child psychology or speech and language. Does my hon. Friend agree that when Ministers start working on how to flesh out this Bill and put it into practice, it is really key that it must be universal?
Helen Hayes
Later in my speech, I will make exactly that point about the importance of these services being available on a universal basis, for the reasons my hon. Friend alludes to.
It was a tragedy that Sure Start centres were one of the earliest and most extensive casualties of the austerity of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government of 2010. The funding was not ringfenced; in many cases, the services were not statutory; and the integrated service design model was not mandated. In many ways, the strongest argument for the Bill we are debating today is the experience of just how easy it was for Sure Start to be dismantled, ultimately resulting in the closure of 1,300 centres and the loss of that precious and vital integrated network of support for babies and their families, which had been delivering so much. Those closures were compounded by the covid-19 pandemic, when access to face-to-face services in early childhood was very limited. We have seen the impact of that, particularly the increase in the number of children with speech, language and communication difficulties coming through the system in recent years.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about Sure Start, and in particular about the capacity to deliver what she describes as face-to-face services. It is critical that those services are delivered in precisely that way—in person—because of the trust that that creates. As a new parent in 2000, having never had a child before, I remember that my wife and I were dependent on exactly those kinds of very trusting personal relationships. I fear that more and more of those kinds of services are being delivered now online, and people are being driven online to attain them. We must reverse that trend; it was exaggerated, of course, during covid, but it has never really recovered since.
Helen Hayes
I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of face-to-face services. I mentioned the excellent community midwifery services that I was able to benefit from as a new mother. We have got ourselves into a terrible state with maternity care right across the country, with tragedies and a real challenge in turning those services around. One of the things I found so important and appreciated so much about that community midwifery service was that during the course of my pregnancies, I got to know the team of five midwives who worked in that service. One of those midwives took me through labour and the antenatal period. That was so important for building the trust that, in midwifery and maternity services in particular, has been badly damaged by service failures in lots of areas of the country.
My second daughter has two middle names, one of which is Agnes. Agnes is the midwife who delivered both my babies through that excellent community midwifery service, about which I cannot speak highly enough. Those services have now largely gone; midwifery services are not delivered in that way anymore.
On the delivery of online services, parents and carers—all of us—look for advice online all the time, so it is important that there are accredited, reliable, trustworthy sources of good information online. I do not dismiss the role of online services, but they cannot ever be a substitute for the delivery of in-person services.
As our Labour Government seek to restore some of the provision that was lost as Sure Start was dismantled, and to respond to the challenges that families face by expanding Best Start family hubs, there are some vital considerations. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) alluded to, is the principle of universality. None of us comes to parenthood for the first time knowing everything about what is best for our baby. For many new parents, irrespective of material resources, the experience is overwhelming. It is an incredibly vulnerable time of life: 10% to 15% of new mothers experience post-partum depression. We should therefore ensure that all new parents can access support and advice in the earliest years, and that it is easily accessible for everyone in their local communities. If support was delivered in that way, there would be no stigma associated with accessing it, and there would be the added benefit of helping to build community cohesion by giving parents from different backgrounds living in the same area an opportunity to connect with each other.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some valid points about Sure Start, which I was able to use for two of my children; the service had disappeared by the time I had my third child. When we talk about involving all parents, does she agree that we need to make sure that fathers are involved? In the parental leave work that is going on, we have to ensure that self-employed fathers are not left out due to a lack of access to paternity leave. That would make it really difficult for them to attend these places that we are introducing and would cause stigma.
Helen Hayes
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. The role of fathers is so important, and they must have the opportunity to connect with each other and share their experiences. I will later talk about some powerful work on reading that involves fathers. Parenting support should be presented as something that absolutely everybody needs, not as something that people need only if they have a problem, because that is where the stigma creeps in. As well as making these services as normal as possible, we need to make them as accessible as possible. My hon. Friend also makes some important points about paternity leave.
Natasha Irons
My own experiences as a new parent were as my hon. Friend described: it was this terrifying thing, “How do I keep this bundle of lovely joy alive and get some sleep at the same time?”
Universality is so important but, as these services have lost funding, they have become more and more targeted. One of the good things about a universal service is meeting other parents from different backgrounds and children growing up in a community rather than in silos. Does my hon. Friend agree that any way forward has to be a one-stop shop model—a drop-in service, like a stay and play, not something highly targeted and specialised? It should be the sort of thing where parents can drop in, get some support, and meet other parents who are going through the same thing.
Helen Hayes
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. It is important that Best Start family hubs are, like Sure Start centres, anchor institutions—anchor places in local communities—as well as places where individual services are delivered; then the whole will be more than the sum of its parts.
The second principle I want to mention is the importance of the availability of SEND expertise in early years settings. The earlier that a special educational need or disability is identified, the sooner that appropriate support can be put in place. Early identification also enables parents and carers to understand their child’s needs and provide the support they need as they grow. Early intervention is not only the best for the child and the family, but much more cost-effective for the public purse. I therefore strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to put SEND specialists in every Best Start family hub.
The third principle is the opportunity to participate in a range of activities together. My Committee recently published a report on reading for pleasure, which delivers such significant benefits for children’s development, educational attainment, empathy and mental health and wellbeing. Reading for pleasure should start as early as possible in a child’s life, with parents and carers reading to their babies.
My Committee recommended a national reading guarantee that will embed opportunities to read for pleasure throughout every child’s life, from birth to the age of 18. This should start in Best Start family hubs. I pay tribute to the brilliant work of BookTrust and former Waterstones children’s laureate Frank Cottrell-Boyce in this area. They have modelled inclusive approaches to early years reading that engage and build the confidence of parents and carers, who themselves had negative experiences of reading at school and lack the confidence to read with their own children, by making reading together a fun and joyous experience for everyone. We heard some wonderful testimony about groups who do this work with fathers, grandparents, parents and carers, building the confidence back to do something that delivers such benefits both for children and for parents.
Chris Kane
I commend my hon. Friend and her Committee for the excellent “Reading for Pleasure” report. There is an irony that I am recommending the report—it is 130 pages—to everyone that I can. It said that reading for pleasure can include all sorts of things, such as manga books—my son likes those—and comic books. Reading for pleasure does not have to mean a novel, as we might think. Simply exposing children to the concept of reading and the choice to read is important. I certainly picked that up in the report, and it resonated with me. If Members have not read it, I commend it to them as very much worth reading.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We take a broad definition of reading in the report, including audiobooks, because this is about the stories and the connection. Any way that gets children and young people engaged in that is important. Frank Cottrell-Boyce makes the point so well that reading with babies often means books that do not have any words in them at all—it is about the pictures, the story and the engagement.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This might be an opportune moment for the House to pay tribute to Dolly Parton, who did an enormous amount of work across the world to encourage children of all ages to read.
Helen Hayes
I was coming to that exact point. We must pay tribute to the legend that is the late Dolly Parton. We mourn her passing. Her extraordinary commitment through her Imagination Library means that children in my constituency, many other parts of the country and across the world can receive a book a month free of charge. We owe her a huge debt of gratitude for her generosity and leadership in this area.
My Committee is undertaking an inquiry on the early years and will report shortly. I look forward to setting out our recommendations for the ways in which support in the first 1,001 days can be further strengthened to give every child the best possible start in life. In addition, we are working with the Work and Pensions Committee on a joint inquiry to scrutinise the Government’s child poverty strategy, because unless we tackle the scourge of child poverty, children will continue to experience the blight of disadvantage, which prevents them from fulfilling their potential.
I welcome the Bill and I am pleased that the Government are supporting it. Placing early childhood services on a statutory footing will provide a better basis to ensure that these vital services are delivered consistently in every community across the country, making it much harder for a future Government to dismantle them, as previous Governments have been able to do. I welcome the requirement for an annual report to Parliament as the accountability mechanism for the new statutory duties.
My Committee would welcome the opportunity to play our part in scrutinising the Government’s progress in this area. There is no more important task than giving every child the best possible start in life. It is important because every child is precious and deserving of love and security. It is important because the benefits to our society and our economy are huge. The Bill will play an important role in ensuring that we deliver for every single child, and I am proud to support it.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), and I thank him for his continued work and his commitment to this Bill. As colleagues may know, this Bill carries a particular significance for me, as I recently celebrated the first birthday of my son. In fact, today we celebrate him being 395 days old, so I am pleased that Members on the Opposition Benches are taking action to highlight the undeniable importance of those critical first 1,001 days in a child’s life. I hope that Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting this Bill.
In Leicester East, we are fortunate to benefit from an excellent quality of service throughout the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland NHS trust. I put on record my thanks to the wonderful nurses, doctors and midwives who supported me through my pregnancy and birth and have supported my son on several occasions since. To be clear, this Bill is not about critiquing the quality of healthcare we receive through our NHS, or placing further demands on the hard-working healthcare professionals who serve on the frontline every day. It is focused on establishing an enduring legal foundation for the best start in life and the healthy babies programme.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are a time of rapid and vital development. During this period, babies strengthen their physical, neurological and emotional capacity, with the brain reaching about 80% of its adult size by the age of two and forming more than a million new neural connections every single second. To support that profound chapter of change in a newborn’s life, babies must be safe and secure. That not only improves the first 1,001 days of their life, but has a lasting impact into adolescence and adulthood. Statistics show that children whose mothers were stressed during pregnancy are twice as likely to experience mental health difficulties during those teenage years. By investing in the measures promoted by this Bill, we change our approach from crisis management to prevention.
We will target early support for families to ensure that they are prepared to manage those early days of parenthood, saving billions of pounds of annual spending on public services later down the line. In an ever-changing world, with swift advances in healthcare and technology, we must continue to check in with the parents and carers who are taking on responsibility for these new lives.
We must also continue to be available to prospective parents and carers—those who anticipate the arrival of new life with great excitement, but also with great trepidation. Listening is a fundamental part of what we do here, and we have to make sure it stays at the forefront of all decision making in this House. I have been privileged on a number of occasions to spend time with the incredible Sally and her team at Leicester Mammas. They do some amazing work within my constituency supporting mothers through the early stages of parenthood.
Sir John Hayes
I have come to know and become a friend of my hon. Friend over recent times. She will understand that although it is easy for us to imagine the vulnerability of unborn and born children, the vulnerability of new parents is often underestimated. They can feel, as she describes, nervous and uncertain, as they can be frightened of making mistakes. When people have their second child, it is a lot easier, as I am sure many Members would acknowledge, but in those first days, weeks and months, it is difficult. What this Bill creates is a cushion for those vulnerable parents that I have described.
Shivani Raja
I thank my right hon. Friend for that wisdom, and I could not agree more. As a first-time parent and a young mum, I can confirm that I have felt the pressures faced by many mums across the country. Again, that is why I am grateful to Leicester Mammas for providing guidance in my post-partum journey, including breastfeeding support. They give encouragement to my family and many other families across Leicester, and they have truly grown to be an integral part of our community.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists reported in 2024 that up to 85,000 mothers across England had experienced post-natal depression. That is staggering, and it is all happening well within the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life. The last national maternity review, in 2024, described the harsh and devastating reality that three in 10 women reported symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress just six months after giving birth.
We have to do more, and that begins with being better listeners. The Bill would enable the Government to continue to monitor the situation for parents and carers, prospective parents and carers, and newborns, but ultimately we have to make sure that our listening is followed up by action. The second component of the Bill would improve the level of accountability in that area.
The third element of the Bill focuses on information and support, specifically in ensuring that we introduce a stronger legal foundation beneath the resources and services that families rely on during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days. There sadly remain inequalities throughout our system. The reality in many of my constituency’s communities is that pregnancy and childbirth are far from straightforward. Evidence shows that women living in the most deprived areas die during childbirth at nearly twice the rate of those living in the least deprived areas. Having a firm legal basis for the care that is provided to new mothers across demographic groups will ensure that some of the anxiety is taken out of pregnancy. For many mothers and prospective mothers in Leicester East, that would be life-changing.
As a mother with a son who is growing up at an unbelievable pace, I know the reality of both the challenges and joys of the first 1,001 days. However, no country in the world has fully recognised in law the huge opportunity that strengthening the support to families in this early period carries. It would be transformative, and I support the Bill because I know from personal experience as a new mum that, as many mums in this House will also know, parents and carers need more support, and I believe the Government can offer that.
We have the evidence to back up the need for the Bill, and we are now presented with the perfect opportunity to lead the world in our approach to championing young families and their children. I urge Members across the House to join me in supporting the Bill.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I am delighted to wholeheartedly support the private Member’s Bill of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), which pushes for vital provision to support infants and families, and would finally put into legislation the requirement for the Government to report to Parliament annually on how this country supports children and families from pregnancy to age two.
I am very proud to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two). Over the past two years, I have seen through that role that the evidence on this subject is there a hundred times over. We know that there are 3.5 million children under the age of four, all of whom will grow into UK citizens whom we need to thrive. We know that some of the most significant brain development happens before the age of two. We know that Sure Start centres were directly linked to a reduction in special educational needs. We know that the Department of Health’s own research says that early intervention could save £45 billion a year.
As I always say, though, to many of the people in this sector and to my own constituents, even though the evidence is there a million times over, sometimes getting the political will is even harder. That is why I think we are in a really lucky position right now: 41% of MPs are women, and I am really glad that feminism has developed to a point where this is finally coming before the House. We also have the maternity taskforce, for which I am proud to be a member of the parliamentary expert advisory panel. I think we have a moment now where these things are coming together, and finally there is the political will and momentum.
Women particularly are finding their voice, alongside all the incredible dads, and parents and carers across households, who are really standing up, but we have to keep shouting about this. I am delighted that the Bill finally puts the first steps into legislation, but it is important that we build on it. One of the powerful arguments for the Bill is that no Government would now question the funding for free entitlement to schooling at age five. No Government would change that. I think this is about putting the same assumptions on to care from pregnancy and birth, and making sure that no future Government could change those basic principles, with which I think we all now agree, without a lot of difficulty.
I want to pay a few tributes to those who have got us to this point, because there are people who have been banging the drum on this issue for decades. Dame Tessa Jowell, who has already been mentioned, along with Lord David Blunkett and Naomi Eisenstadt, who was the civil servant who led on Sure Start, all put so much of the framework in place. Lord Frank Field, who went on to develop partnerships during the Cameron Government, was an incredible force in this space. Dame Andrea Leadsom has worked really hard to bring the Bill forward and made sure family hubs continued under previous Governments. And most recently, this Government, driven in particular by our hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), are bringing in Best Start family hubs to really start to rebuild the Sure Start legacy.
I also want to pay tribute to the wonderful Nicholas Peacey MBE, who passed away this summer after a lifetime of work with young people, which included leading the Foundation Years Information and Research charity, which I am honoured to chair. Nick was relentless in his positive support for early years and for stakeholders like myself, with a conviction that nothing was more important than babies. I believe he knew that the Bill was coming through Parliament, but there was so much more that he was excited to do and we will miss him.
The Bill is deliberately simple. Organisations have lobbied me, and I am sure others, about the fact that they wish it did more. I have been very grateful to Dame Andrea Leadsom and the wonderful Will Quince for educating me on how important it is to keep a Bill simple. It is important that the public know that this Bill is about creating a basis and making sure something gets through and on to the statute book, but it is absolutely only a start and we will all in this House, I am sure, be committed to building on it. The Bill will serve as a foundation. If it becomes law, there are a few things the Government could do to ensure a glowing first report.
Too often, mothers, babies and parents are treated as an afterthought in policymaking. The Bill recognises a simple truth: if we want healthier families, greater equality and better outcomes for children, we have to pay more attention to the early stages of life. Maternity care is one of those areas that currently gets shamefully low focus. Around 84% of women will become mothers, and maternity care is often the first time a healthy adult really interacts with a publicly funded institution. Her experience and the experience of her family around her of what her taxes have been paying for is currently woeful. The state of maternity care should concern every one of us. The Care Quality Commission found that 65% of inspected maternity units required improvement or were inadequate for safety. The fact that two thirds of maternity services have been rated unsafe should be treated as a national emergency.
The consequences are not felt equally either. Black women are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy or in the year after birth than white women. Babies born in the most deprived parts of our country are more than twice as likely to die around the time of birth than those born in the least-deprived areas. We have had more than 700 recommendations on maternity care over the past decade. We do not need another list of recommendations; we need investment in staff, workforce stability, continuity of care and time for professionals to build trusting relationships with women and families. How women experience pregnancy and birth is not a nice to have; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Women deserve to feel safe, listened to and empowered through pregnancy and childbirth, and as they take their first steps in feeding and caring for their baby.
The Bill is also about what happens after birth. We know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are among the most important in determining future outcomes, yet they receive remarkably little attention. Currently, only around 55% of infants develop secure attachments, despite overwhelming evidence that early relationships shape future health, wellbeing and life chances. Recent research has shown that expanding parent-infant relationship support in the most deprived communities could save the Government £1.2 billion annually.
The Bill also speaks to a challenge that sits at the heart of gender inequality. Becoming a parent remains one of the biggest drivers of inequality between men and women. Mothers still carry a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities and the result is the motherhood penalty: lower earnings, reduced career progression and less financial security for many women. Evidence shows that when fathers take meaningful leave in a child’s life, mothers are more likely to return to work, more likely to progress in their careers and more likely to share caring responsibilities on a lasting basis.
Many of us here are campaigning for the Government’s parental leave review, which concludes in December, to fund six weeks of paternity leave paid at 90% of pay. As a mother to two young children, I have seen at first hand among my peers, alongside all the overwhelming evidence, the life-changing difference it makes to a child’s early years, and to equality, when parents are enabled to take equal responsibility from the very start. For me, the Bill is a foundation not just for how we support babies, but for how we support families to support their babies, because it is families who are at the coal face, families who get up in the night, who do not get to clock-off, and families who get the criticism when things go less well with their children.
I would like to make a point in support of targeted universalism, as some of my colleagues have made, with early years support. It feels like it strays outside my political home in some ways, but not in others. The Labour movement was founded in working-class families and ensuring opportunity for all, but the movement has been upheld and sustained by other groups, particularly feminists—and feminists of all backgrounds. While we must ensure that financial disadvantage does not become a barrier—and I will always defend that as the first goal of a Labour Government—we cannot ignore the strain that women from all backgrounds are under with caring responsibilities, especially at the earliest stages of a child’s life.
I wanted to be a politician because I have felt for the last 20 years how relentlessly hard it is for women, even from a more supported background, to do everything expected of them. We need earlier services for all women—for all families—because currently even wealthier women hold a hugely disproportionate amount of the responsibility for physical caring and the mental load of working out what is the right thing to do for their child. We need to support those women, because it is against our Labour values to still be enabling such inequality of care. We also need to support them because it is often those women—if they have the right support and balance, equality with their partner, and confidence in the balance they establish between work and family—who get to stand up in this place and fight for everyone else. Most women I know do not think they could be in this place because of the things they would have to juggle. The Bill does not just enable healthy babies; it enables the systems for women to thrive. I have been incredibly lucky to have a largely positive journey with my two gorgeous children, but it should not be luck that made that happen, and it should not be luck that enabled me to stand in this place because of that equality.
The Bill recognises something that every parent knows: raising children is not a private issue to be solved behind closed doors; it is a public good. When we support parents, we support children’s development, strengthen families, improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. Unlike what most economic theory would have us believe, human capital does not just appear like magic at age 18; endless unseen effort goes into creating those productive, mentally healthy members of society. The Infants, Parents and Carers Bill asks us to take those realities seriously. It asks us to invest earlier, think longer term and put parents, babies and carers at the centre of policy rather than taking them for granted. For those reasons, I am frankly emotional that this Bill might actually become legislation, and I am beyond delighted to support it.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for breaking with his decades-long tradition of eschewing private Member’s Bills and engaging with this process. I congratulate him on coming top of the ballot and was very amused by his response when he won that lottery—one that many of us in this House would love to win. I congratulate him on his choice of Bill, and the work that he has done with the 1001 Critical Days Foundation—with Andrea Leadsom, Will Quince and others—to enshrine in law the support that babies, parents and carers should receive, as well as ensuring that there is proper accountability in place to make sure that that support is forthcoming.
Many Members have talked about their parenting experiences. I was just thinking how I remember my first being born, and today she has just started year 8 of school aged 12. I cannot even begin to imagine how quickly she has grown up, and I remember those sleepless nights. I think about those tiny babies: vulnerable, defenceless, voiceless—except for when they are screaming for food at 3 am—yet so often overlooked in policymaking and service planning, something that the NSPCC has described in its briefing as the “baby blind spot”. We have so many other services and provision for older children enshrined in law, but not for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
As others have already said, we know that a person’s quality of life and outcomes are profoundly shaped by those early months and years. People have talked about the rapid brain development; the first 1,001 days lay the foundations for a child’s development, including attachment, emotional regulation, language and lifelong physical and mental health. As we have heard, babies are entirely reliant on the adults around them to protect and nurture them. Again, that is why I was shocked to read in the NSPCC briefing that 61% of child deaths happen in babies under the age of one. That is profoundly shocking. It underscores the importance of the support that we provide to parents and carers, ensuring that people are going into people’s homes to see what is going on, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), has said.
We have talked about the first 1,001 days being crucial, but that actually starts at conception, going through pregnancy and birth and into a child’s early years—we have to ensure that support is there before those difficulties become crises. Yet at the moment, help and support for parents and carers remains really quite patchy across the country. The healthy babies programme is extremely welcome, bringing together infant feeding, perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationship support alongside wider health and family services, but at the moment it covers only 75 local authorities in England. It is quite right and sensible that the Government have targeted the areas of greatest disadvantage first with the roll-out of that programme, but we do need that support quickly right across the country.
I represent an affluent constituency, but we do have pockets of real deprivation within the constituency, and pockets of deprivation within a much more affluent area tend to be overlooked even more. Also, let us face it: whatever someone’s sociodemographic situation, new parents need support. Yes, some of that support can be bought, but being signposted to a trusted place in those early days and weeks is absolutely critical.
We have talked about people going into the homes of new parents and babies to provide support. The number of health visitors has fallen by 40% over the past decade, and in some areas practitioners are responsible for more than 1,000 children, far exceeding the recommended caseload of 250 children per practitioner.
Research by the NSPCC has found that more than half of parents of young children do not feel confident about the support that was available to them in their local area. There are issues with both accessibility, which we have talked about, and which is variable across the country, and awareness—although 66% of parents had heard of family hubs, only 16% had actually used one.
I want to pay tribute to the many voluntary sector organisations that often step into the gaps in national and local government service provision and support that are left around the country. I have seen this in my constituency with charities such as Home-Start, which supports new parents and children, and specifically with the charity The Extra Mile, which was set up by the Hampton Methodist church in Hampton. It takes in donations of all sorts of baby equipment and clothes. It gets many referrals from GPs, midwives, health visitors and social services and is constantly giving so much out to families in need, not just in my constituency, but well beyond it.
I also want to give a shout-out to Reach family hub in Feltham, which is not in my constituency but just down the road, in an area of deprivation. Thanks to the inspirational work of a headteacher at Reach academy, Reach has worked with health services and the local authority to provide a family hub with charitable support very close to the school, meaning that the academy is engaging with parents-to-be right from conception through to when their children go to school at Reach, up to 16, and then on to Reach college, up to the age of 18. The academy has identified that that early support is absolutely crucial for the most disadvantaged families.
It goes without saying that babies cannot speak for themselves, advocate for their needs or demand better services. I think that that is one of the reasons they are so overlooked. It should not fall to exhausted parents and carers to have to fight tooth and nail for the essential services they need to protect and nurture their children.
It is our duty as elected representatives and policymakers to ensure that parents and carers have access to the support that they need, when they need it, so that every child has the best start in life. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, however, this needs to be coupled with a serious review, which I know the Government are undertaking, and I hope they will make their proposals soon for better maternity, paternity and shared parental leave arrangements. I include leave for kinship carers in that. Many in this House will know that I and other Members from across the parties have been working on this issue for a long time. We want families to have genuine choice and flexibility in how they look after their children, and all the evidence shows that having a parent, whoever it is—it does not have to be the mother; it often is, but in my children’s case, often my husband was with them, while I was out at work—more present at home helps with attachment and emotional development.
Government policy over the years has been heavily skewed towards trying to get parents back into the workplace as soon as possible. That is excellent for those families who want that, but we need to provide genuine choice, so providing more support for parents who want to spend more time at home should be a Government priority.
Amanda Martin
From the work that I have been doing, it is evident that 90% of parental leave is taken by the top 50% of earners in this country. That means that this is part of the class system; we are not allowing those lower-paid workers to take time with their babies. It is not that they do not want to be a good dad; they are literally priced out of being able to be a good dad.
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. Statutory paternity leave, statutory maternity leave and shared parental leave pay is less than half the minimum wage. That is not affordable for parents who want to stay at home, whether they are a mum or a dad, and we as a society really need to look at this seriously. If we believe in investing in our children, we have to start here.
There have been a number of attacks on the coalition today, which I am happy to take on the chin, but in government it was the Liberal Democrats who fought hard to introduce shared parental leave. It still pains me to this day that take-up is so low because it is not affordable. Big employers that want to be competitive in the marketplace are providing really good and enhanced benefits in the form of shared parental leave, which attracts people—particularly dads—who want to spend more time with their family. The businesses realise that it is good for them, because they get more women coming back to the workplace sooner so that dads can then spend more time at home. They also get more engaged and more productive employees. I really hope that the Government’s review of parental leave arrangements will result in a better offer on the table for parents in all sorts of families—not only those with birth children, but kinship carers, too.
This Bill is excellent. It is quite high level, but finally putting a legal duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on the provision of infant support services and their contribution to securing positive outcomes puts the wellbeing of babies and their parents firmly on the agenda. It should also keep them on the agenda and protect babies and parents, whoever is in Government, although I note that some Members who think they ought to be in Government are off at their conference.
The measure of a nation is how it treats its weakest citizens. If we truly care about the future of our country, we must start by caring and investing in babies and children. I am delighted to support this Bill.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is truly an honour to speak in this important debate. I am happy to follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
This is such an important Bill, as we have heard. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for his work on bringing it forward; I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him on it. I also thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, which I have had the privilege of working with over many years, for its unwavering support for the Bill and beyond, and for its tireless commitment to ensuring that every single baby has the best possible start in life.
That thanks extends, in particular, to the former Member for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom. She has been the biggest champion of this issue, whether in this place during her whole time as an MP—I worked with her on it—or from the outside, as now. I also thank the wonderful former Health Minister Will Quince, who is now the chief executive of the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, for his dedication and work on getting the Bill to where it is today. We all know how much work went into these important six clauses, as we heard from the right hon. Gentleman for New Forest West in his opening remarks.
Before I go into why the Bill is so important, it would be useful to contextualise how we got here—some of this we have heard in the other excellent speeches. I was extremely proud when the last Labour Government introduced Sure Start to reduce the impact of child poverty and address social exclusion by improving the life chances of children under five, especially those who grow up in disadvantaged areas. I pay enormous tribute, as others have, to the late, great Baroness Tessa Jowell. She would be so proud of the right hon. Gentleman—who is not actually listening to me at this point. She would be—he is still not listening—so proud of him for choosing this issue for his private Member’s Bill and of all of us for being here to support it. When I became shadow children and families Minister back in 2010, she explained the genesis of Sure Start, how important it was and how we got here. She said, “Sharon, you need to be able to smell the babies—the places need to be full of babies.” Metaphorically, this House is, in all our remarks, full of babies today. I am sure that she would be proud of us.
I also pay huge tribute to Lord Blunkett, as others have, Baroness Margaret Hodge, who also gave me the benefit of all her wisdom and experience, and our current Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), as well as the former Member for Nottingham North, the amazing and brilliant Graham Allen, who I had the pleasure of working with on early intervention. I still have copies of his excellent reports, written with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and refer to them now; his work goes on in the work that I will continue to do from the Back Benches. I thank him for that. I also thank Naomi Eisenstadt, who has been mentioned. So many played major roles in driving the policy forward after the 1997 election.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend referred to the former Member for Nottingham North, Graham Allen. He not only had the idea, but implemented it through the Nottingham strategic partnership, which he chaired from 2005. He turned it into something that started pre-pregnancy, in order to tackle the high number of teenage pregnancies. He lived this, and set a real blueprint for what Government can do—I look to the Minister—when they take forward the Bill, which we hope will pass today.
Mrs Hodgson
The work on teenage pregnancy was a real blueprint, and the 10-year teenage pregnancy strategy fulfilled its ambition of reducing those numbers, following the great work of Graham Allen. I remember taking part in a Westminster Hall debate acknowledging 10 years of that strategy and its success. As for what the numbers are now, as we have been saying, when anything of that kind stops, there is backsliding, I am afraid. That shows that the job is never done. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill through Parliament and on the statute book.
While the initial roll-out of Sure Start targeted disadvantaged communities exclusively, the approach soon shifted to focus on the universal provision of children’s centres, as we heard in the excellent speech by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). At Sure Start’s peak, almost 3,500 centres were operating across the country. However, in 2010 came the change in government and Tory austerity, as has been discussed; we all know what happened thereafter. Within months, Sure Start funding was slashed, with cuts of up to two thirds, and the ringfence was removed. Hundreds of centres closed so quickly. I was shadow children and families Minister at the time, and our now Prime Minister was shadow Education Secretary. Together, we fought the battle against those cuts day in, day out. I was keeping a tally of closures, and when it got to over 1,000 closures the coalition Government stopped publishing the numbers, which made it so much harder for us to keep track.
Mrs Hodgson
It was; those were dark days. That is why I was so glad and grateful to hear the right hon. Member for New Forest West acknowledge how wrong it was that the coalition Government allowed that to happen. As we know, the former Prime Minister and then Member for Witney’s pre-election promise to protect Sure Start never held true—quite the opposite. Those savage cuts were truly a tragedy for children everywhere. I agree with the then Member for Sheffield Hallam and Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition Government, who said that Sure Start was
“one of the best things the last Government”
had done. It was a shame he was not able to protect it from cuts, even as Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he tried; I acknowledge that I am sure the Lib Dems did try.
Amanda Martin
I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the Labour Government’s initiation of Sure Start. Our Prime Minister, who was shadow Education Secretary, actually kept Sure Start going in Manchester while he was mayor. Even before coming to this place as Prime Minister, he continued to see the value of Sure Start in our early years education.
Mrs Hodgson
That is a really good point, which gives us great hope that the Prime Minister will help to rebuild that, and protect what we are discussing, going forward.
Munira Wilson
I know that the hon. Lady is passionate and committed to this issue; we have worked together in this place on many issues relating to babies and children. She quoted Nick Clegg, who, of course, was Deputy Prime Minister when the cuts to Sure Start were made. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I say that our former colleagues—none of us were in this place at the time—did fight the Tories every single day? There were some unpalatable choices being made. However, I am sure she will acknowledge that the Liberal Democrats in that Government introduced universal infant free school meals, which I know she strongly supports, and the pupil premium for the most disadvantaged children. I was a school governor in a school with very disadvantaged children, and that transformed the interventions we could make. We also protected school budgets. Will she acknowledge at least that?
Mrs Hodgson
I did so in my remarks just before the interventions—I said that I am sure the Lib Dems tried—but we are not here today to rehearse all that, although we are touching on it in a small way. All that is why the Bill is so important, and why it must pass today—to give vital services the statutory protection that they require, so that progress cannot ever be reversed by a future Government through austerity, cuts, neglect or indifference.
The decisions we make as parliamentarians shape the support available to babies, parents and carers during the 1,001 critical days from pregnancy to age two. This is one of the most important periods in human development. This window may be relatively short, but its impact is not small; in fact, it is responsible for the fastest development of a baby’s brain when compared with other stages over the course of our whole life.
I am not very good at clicking my fingers, but I am attempting to do so—I will try my other hand; that’s a bit better—because a million connections happen a second. That is what George Hosking from the WAVE Trust used to say to me. He would click his fingers and say that a million connections happen a second in a baby’s brain in those first 1,001 critical days. I know from my work with George and the WAVE Trust when I was shadow Children and Families Minister that the period from conception to age two is absolutely the age of opportunity. By age two, 80% of a baby’s brain development has happened. That lays the foundations for attachment, learning, health, wellbeing, stress responses and more. It is therefore essential that the most effective support is provided during this vital time.
For babies to thrive, their parents and carers need to be supported. After all, they are directly responsible for the development of their babies during this most critical period of their lives. Their relationship, stress levels, responsive care and more will unequivocally influence the development and growth of their babies. They are therefore the foundation of our society. Evidence shows that parents’ perceptions of their foetuses are associated with the quality of the relationships built after birth. That highlights the key relationship between maternal foetal attachment and later outcomes.
Getting this right matters because when we do not, children suffer. Research shows that 10% to 25% of children experience disorganised attachment with their main caregiver, putting them at greater risk of poor social, emotional and educational outcomes. That is why we need an assessment to understand exactly what parents and carers, current and prospective, need from us as legislators to help them thrive and take advantage of this time, so that they can provide the best possible start in life for their babies. But to do that, parents need the support and emotional capacity to do so.
Carrying the huge responsibility of ensuring the health and wellbeing of another human being so tiny and so vulnerable is an extremely difficult journey to navigate. However, that weight does not come with any training or preparation. Parents are expected to know just by instinct how to fulfil this role, and that is where we have gone wrong. If we want a healthy and happy society, we need our children to be thriving and therefore our parents and carers to be supported from the very start. That is why I have long advocated for age-appropriate child development education, including on attachment theory and how to be a good parent, to be incorporated into the school curriculum. My hon. Friend the Minister for Early Education was here earlier, so I hope that he listens in to the point I am making now.
There need to be lessons in how to form healthy attachments with babies and in the importance of someone speaking to their baby, even while pregnant, and giving them the love and care they need when they are born, consistently and constantly. This is not only an investment in their development; it is vital to ensure well-attached, healthy and happy children who will thrive into adulthood—it really is that important. This is not at all about encouraging young people to become young parents before they are ready. It is about education, in the same way that we accept that age-appropriate sex education is needed so that people are prepared for it if and when that time comes.
I want to be clear that this support is just as necessary during pregnancy as it is when the child has arrived because, as we know, no two pregnancies look the same. Many will know that I have spoken before on the Floor of the House about my heartbreaking experience of baby loss, and I know that I am not alone in that. This is yet another reason why the Bill is so important. Having important support and intervention, especially in instances of grief and trauma, will be a lifeline for so many. Many of us who experience baby loss then go on to try to have another baby, sometimes successfully, so being supported through that trauma, ready for when the next baby comes along, is so important for their attachment and support. This Bill will be key in ensuring that support is not just reserved for crisis but is consistent, proactive and accountable.
The current non-statutory Government guidance, which sets out delivery expectations for Best Start family hubs and healthy babies services, does not go far enough. We need legislative protection so that history can never repeat itself. It would ensure that that support is actually accountable to Parliament, with an annual mandatory report highlighting the services that have been provided and the outcomes that they have achieved. If the provision of support is there but not accountable to anyone, the quality of that support can be variable, as no one is accountable and keeping track of it. It is therefore essential that the needs of infants, parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers, are actively assessed, and that is precisely what the Bill will do.
As a former public health and prevention Minister, I know from first-hand experience that Government interventions on health oftentimes focus on responding afterwards, rather than preventing, and are reactive rather than proactive. I know that the Department is very focused on changing that. If we instead focus on building conditions that allow parents, carers and babies to thrive, we allow children to thrive from the beginning, rather than waiting to intervene when they struggle later down the line.
Babies should not be an afterthought. There is clearly both a moral and an economic case for this, and the cost of doing nothing will always outweigh the cost of preventive action. I would therefore encourage anyone listening to this debate to back our babies and support this Bill. Babies should be apolitical. This should never be about party politics or point scoring. This is about ensuring that investment in our babies is protected and is put on a statutory footing, so that it is not something that any future Government can decide to strip away, but rather a grounding principle of our society. Babies do not have a political voice, nor do their needs change depending on which colour the Government may be. They need consistent support and care, as do their parents, as they are reliant upon us to act for them.
As I hope I have shown in my remarks today, and as we have heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest West and others, the evidence is clear and robust: supporting the healthy development of babies in their first 1,001 days is fundamental to lifelong physical and mental health and happiness. Surely the success of any Government must include a measure of how well the children in our society fare. Since we know that this key period is the ultimate determinant for that, implementing the Bill is not just an opportunity but a responsibility. That is why we said in our manifesto—I am so proud of this—that we would help raise the healthiest generation of children ever. This Bill is an important step in the journey to achieve that aspiration, which is why I was so proud when I was the Minister to secure Government support for this private Member’s Bill, and it was a pleasure to work with the right hon. Gentleman on it.
I do not believe that any Member in this place would disagree with the fundamental principle that investing in our babies and supporting our parents are investments worth making. This therefore should be a uniting issue across the House, and I hope that the Bill receives the absolute and universal support it needs and deserves as it progresses through both Houses. I look forward to serving on the Committee with the right hon. Member for New Forest West, and I look forward to seeing the Bill become the Swayne babies Act very soon.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The first 1,001 days of a baby’s life are the single greatest opportunity we have to reduce inequality, improve health and educational outcomes, and thereby improve the life chances of future generations. The “1001 Critical Days” report came out in 2013 as a truly cross-party manifesto, and I believe it has been relaunched at least twice since then. I took a great interest in it when I worked in the domestic abuse sector a decade ago, because I saw at first hand the devastating impact that trauma can have on babies and young children.
I wholeheartedly welcome the statutory protection for babies that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is bringing before the House in this Bill. Reassuring words also need action, however, and sadly the actions of the party that he represents have moved in exactly the opposite direction. That has let families down year after year, with under-investment in all those areas that support our children. There has been a lot of talk of Sure Start and children’s centres, and Action for Children found that in just three years between 2015 and 2018, the average spend per child of children’s centres, and the number of children using them, fell by around one fifth, with the most deprived areas hit hardest.
It is not just Sure Start; in North East Hampshire we used to have a drop-in health clinic—somewhere parents could weigh their babies, meet others, and build connections with other members of the local community. It made a real difference, but it stopped operating after the pandemic. Hampshire has 18 and a half constituencies, almost 70,000 children under five, and so far only one Best Start family hub. Today the nearest Best Start hub for the 5,000 children in my constituency is on the other side of Hampshire, and there is nowhere within my community offering a one-stop shop for early years support. When services are closed, others are stretched to breaking point. Families have nowhere local to turn to, and we miss a window of opportunity to invest in a child. That child might arrive at school without the basic skills they need; they might arrive at the GP surgery with avoidable health risks. They are more likely to need further help that is harder and more expensive to provide.
Before becoming an MP, I ran a charity supporting children and young people with Down syndrome, working with families from the moment their child was born, and indeed sometimes before. My charity, and countless others, stepped in to provide the services that councils were cutting. I saw at first hand what early intervention does for a child’s health, skills and confidence, and what its absence costs. We saw the impact on families of speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and other interventions that are life-changing, especially if provided in those early years. We also saw the impact of a lack of those services.
Although we are of course focusing on babies, we must remember that the first 1,001 critical days are from conception, nine months of which is pregnancy. The Bill is not just about babies; it is also about mothers. Inquiries by the Women and Equalities Committee into medical misogyny, women’s reproductive health conditions, miscarriage and bereavement leave, paternity and shared parental leave, and female genital mutilation all found that women are routinely let down across those areas of health, maternity care and scientific research. Sadly, I expect that that surprises nobody, but the impact is felt by everyone, including men and boys, because if the mother’s concerns are ignored, it can result in her son’s health conditions worsening. A father who has little to no parental leave has less chance to bond with his children, to the detriment of both.
Investing in the first days, weeks and years of a child’s life is the right thing to do not only for people but for the economy. Early intervention could generate an estimated £45.5 billion for our economy every year, and for every £1 invested up to £200 comes back in long-term benefits. Previous Conservative Governments have systematically eroded the services needed to provide the best start in life. I saw that at the coalface when supporting victims of domestic abuse and their children to flee dangerous and violent partners. They needed the support of a children’s centre, but also of social services and the health service. They needed public transport and a safe and secure roof over their head. They needed reliable maternity services, reliable nursery places, and a reliable legal system. Often they got none of those things, and watching the systematic removal of support for the country’s most vulnerable people was the exact reason for my journey into politics.
We have an opportunity to repair and build. We have the evidence, we have the numbers, and we clearly have cross-party support. We have a country full of children with huge potential who need our support. We cannot afford not to invest in their future, so I heartily welcome the Bill as a first step, and call on the Government not to toddle but to take great strides in providing the essential cross-departmental support for parents, carers and children that is so clearly needed.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
For complete transparency, let me say that I am the national maternity adviser to the Government; I wanted to make that clear before I begin my remarks. I wish to place on the record my sincere gratitude and thanks to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing this Bill to the House. I am genuinely delighted to speak in support of it, because its subject matter goes right to the heart of why I entered public service in the first place.
There is one principle that has guided me throughout my working life: where someone is born should not determine their future. The postcode where someone is born, their parents’ income, and whether they are born in an affluent community or a former mining community, should never determine how healthy they are, how well they do at school or the opportunities they will have throughout their life. If we genuinely believe that, then we have to begin at the beginning—not at secondary school or primary school, but during pregnancy, at birth and in those first precious moments and years when so much of a child’s future is being shaped. That is why the Bill matters so much. It asks us to look seriously at the support available to babies and families, and at whether the provision we have actually meets their needs.
This debate takes me back to the beginning of my career, in the heyday. Before coming to the House, I spent years working with children, young people and families, first for the YMCA in America, then back in Nottinghamshire, and then developing Sure Start services across Nottinghamshire and Derby. I worked on the frontline, directly with parents and children, and then I moved into management, helping to develop, plan and co-ordinate services for families—all based on the principles of early intervention, support and prevention.
I was fortunate to work at a time when there was a real belief that children and families should sit at the centre of public policy. We not only talked about early intervention and prevention; we developed services to deliver it, bringing services together, including things like the common assessment framework. Crucially, we talked to parents, families and communities. I believed in Sure Start then and I believe in the principles behind it every bit as strongly today.
Sure Start was never simply a building with a sign on it; it was an idea—a philosophy—not only about how we should treat families, but about how we give every child, no matter their background, the best possible start in life. It said that families should not have to be in crisis before somebody helps them, and that becoming a parent should not mean being handed a list of telephone numbers and then being expected to navigate half a dozen public services on your own. It recognised that a child’s life does not fit neatly into departmental boxes. There was early education and childcare, health visitors, breastfeeding support, parenting programmes, speech and language support, stay and play sessions, and family support and outreach. There was advice about benefits, employment and training. There was support for parents as well as for their children.
And sometimes the most important intervention was not a formal programme at all—sometimes it was a cup of tea. In Nottinghamshire, we understand the power of a brew, because what it really means is to stop: for someone to listen, for someone to care and for someone to help. While I am not advocating for tea to necessarily be a national policy or an amendment to the Bill—nor will I ever advocate for how the Prime Minister makes a cuppa—I will always advocate for those working on the frontline having time to care, time to stop and time to listen, whether they are a support worker in a family hub, a health visitor or a midwife.
Sometimes Sure Start was about a mum walking into a children’s centre, sitting down beside someone she had begun to trust and quietly saying, “Can I talk to you?” That conversation could be the beginning of getting help—that mattered. Relationships mattered and we worked with parents; I feel incredibly strongly about that. Good family policy cannot simply be designed in Whitehall and done to people. Parents know their children and their communities. They know what works and what is missing. When I worked with parents, we listened to them, we involved them, we asked them what they needed and we learned from them. We understood that the mother who did not attend a group was not necessarily hard to reach—perhaps we were hard to reach. Perhaps there was no bus, or the sessions were at the wrong time. Perhaps she was frightened of being judged. Perhaps she was exhausted.
Amanda Martin
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those places were a place for a cuppa, as we would say—somewhere to go along to without judgment. As someone who had been a teacher but had not had my own children, when I had my second child and did not know that I had post-natal depression, it was in the Sure Start centre that it was picked up, because somebody knew I was not being me; they were able to pick up on that. It was a really good working relationship with our midwives and local GPs, but also with the network of friends that you came to trust, whether you were talking about baby’s poo or about the fact that you did not feel yourself.
Michelle Welsh
That is exactly what it was all about. When that approach began to change—and it did change—I did not want to sit on the sidelines and complain about it; I wanted to do something. That journey eventually brought me to this place.
I believe the principles behind Sure Start should never be consigned to history. We should learn from them and build on them, and whatever name we put above the door today, the fundamental principle must remain services built around the child and the family. That begins before a baby is born; it begins with maternity, and through my campaign on maternity safety, and—most importantly—through listening to families, those on the frontline, charities and organisations, I have become absolutely convinced that maternity policy cannot sit in a silo, separate from children’s policy. Safe maternity care, maternal physical health and mental health, supporting fathers and parents, and making sure that women are listened to are all early years policy. We cannot talk seriously about giving every baby the best start in life without talking about the care their mothers receive.
I believe we need fundamental reform. That is why one of the most central proposals I have argued for is an independent maternity commissioner—someone whose sole focus is women, babies and families, with the independence and authority to change and challenge the system. When something goes catastrophically wrong, families should not have to become investigators, they should not have to understand every layer of the NHS, and they should not have to fight organisation after organisation simply to get the truth about what happened to the woman or the baby they love. We also need better national data, proper national standards and a culture where staff can speak up. Good midwives, obstetricians, maternity support workers and other staff who raise concerns should be listened to and protected, because a safe culture is one where people can say something is wrong before another family is harmed.
There is another part of maternity reform that I believe is fundamental, which is continuity of care. I want us to be much more ambitious about what we mean by continuity. I do not believe that continuity should mean a good handover from one professional to another—I believe the same person should stay. A woman should be able to build a relationship with someone throughout their maternity journey. That relationship should not simply end because her baby has been born; every woman should leave hospital following birth with a full debrief, not simple discharge paperwork. That is part of prevention.
Continuity also gives us an opportunity to address the appalling inequalities we see in maternity care. The latest MBRRACE-UK data shows that black women still face nearly three times the maternal mortality risk of white women, and women living in the most deprived areas have around twice the maternal mortality rate of women in the least deprived communities. These inequalities are unacceptable, and we cannot simply publish those statistics year after year and call it action; we have to design services that actively confront inequality and discrimination. Continuity can be part of that. If somebody actually knows the woman—knows her history and her circumstances—and is responsible for staying with her, it becomes much harder for her concerns to disappear between appointments, or for her to be forced to tell her story over and over again.
All of this connects directly to the wider health and development of the baby. After maternity comes health visiting, then perhaps a family hub, early years provision, nursery and eventually school. Governments see these as separate services, separate budgets, and sometimes separate Departments; a parent sees none of that. They see their child—one child, one family, one continuous journey. That is how Governments should see them, too. A health visitor may identify a developmental concern, a mother may need breastfeeding or feeding support, or parents may notice speech and language difficulties. There may be early indications of SEND, housing conditions affecting a child’s health, financial pressure or difficulty in the parents’ relationship. A mother may be experiencing depression. None of those things exists neatly on its own.
The worst possible system is one that waits until a family has deteriorated sufficiently to meet a threshold for help. We should not wait for a crisis; early intervention works. If we can support the mother earlier, we should. If we can help a family earlier, we should. If we can identify a child’s need earlier, we should. If we can prevent someone from reaching crisis, we should. That is not wasteful public spending; it is intelligent public spending, and it brings us directly to education.
Education can transform a person’s life. I know that personally, as I was the first person in my family to go to university. I defeated the odds, but it does not and should not have to be that way. If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we have to be honest about when it begins. It does not suddenly appear when a child starts secondary school. For some children, inequality begins to take hold before they ever walk through the school gates. Children arrive in reception having had very different starts in life.
Every child deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That should be not an aspiration reserved for the lucky few; it should be a promise that we make to every child born in this country. I know the Opposition do not think that we should talk about the 1980s, but I do, because I know what happens when hope is taken away. Growing up on a council estate in Notts in the 1980s, I lived and breathed it, and now I serve those very communities, which are still up against it.
I came into public service and eventually into politics because I believe that government can put hope back. That is what Sure Start represented to me. That is what safe maternity care should represent. That is what good health services, early years support and education should represent—not charity or a favour, but opportunity: the opportunity for a mother to be safe and heard, the opportunity for a family to be supported before they reach crisis, the opportunity for a baby to be given the very best start in life, and the opportunity for every child, whatever street they are born in and whatever their parents earn, to look at their future and believe it belongs to them. Ultimately, that is the test of everything we do here—not whether we can write another strategy or create another pathway, but whether the child born tonight in the poorest household in the country has the same right to dream, to thrive and to succeed as the child born into the richest. Where someone is born should never determine their future, but what we choose to do in this House can.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on his achievement in bringing this Bill forward. We all know how a varied job being in this place is, and he is testament to that: after all these decades, he gets to do something brand new. That encourages us all to keep doing new things in this place, however short or long our time is here.
I support this Bill, because it is about one of, if not—I would argue—the most important issue that sits before any society: how to successfully raise the next generation. The manner of that challenge has changed enormously over the course of human history. Even just a few hundred years ago, the single biggest thing that a parent could do to successfully raise their child was to get them to adulthood, as 50% of all children died before reaching adulthood. In this country, the equivalent figure now is about 0.5%. Although the loss of every child is a tragedy, those figures show the big change in the challenge that parents face. In fact, as another way of illustrating the difference, suicide accounts for a quarter of all deaths of older teenagers in this country. More than anything, the challenge for parents now is to raise content, productive children who go on to lead fulfilled lives as part of a much more complicated society.
My interest in this area is one of the main driving forces behind my wanting to get into politics. It dates back to my time as a medical student and some of the experiences of meeting patients. In particular, I remember a lady who came to see me the first time I was in placement at a GP practice, when I was a student. She had come to see the GP because she did not know how to get her children to go to bed on time. I remember thinking, “What an absolutely valid thing to want help with,” but I wondered what was going on in wider society that resulted in the GP being the only person she felt she could get help from.
I also remember from my paediatrics placement a dynamic professor who sat us down and gave us a seminar about attachment theory. I was astounded to learn that, at age four, a child can be tested for whether they are attached to their caregivers; if they are not, that is enormous predictor of their future health outcomes. All the way at the other end of the spectrum, as an A&E and general hospital doctor looking after older patients, I often wondered where their children were and what had gone on their family to lead to there being no bond or attachment—they often spent many days in hospital without anyone coming to see them.
In my work as a volunteer policeman, I have met young people on council estates where membership of gangs and crime were rife. Some young people had managed to overcome those challenges, and the thing that seemed to stand out as a protective factor was their parental and family environment. We have heard a lot today about the challenges and perspectives of parents. I am not a parent—I hope to be one day, but I am not at the moment—so I wanted to offer that perspective that we have all had as a child on the receiving end of what we are talking about today.
I began to reflect on how different the people I met and the scenarios I came across were from my own experience. My parents are divorced, so mine was not a perfect image of what a family looks like, but I felt incredibly supported and loved, and I was taught enormously the importance of values and morals in a way that only a parent a can, sometimes even in opposition to the state. I had an ambition to study medicine, and at a parents evening my A-level chemistry teacher told me I was predicted to fail that A-level and had no chance of getting into medicine. It was my mum who was determined that I would overcome that challenge. It was my mum who coached me after work in the evenings to pass my 11-plus, to get into grammar school. All those things came from my parents, including my dad in different ways.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that most parents want to provide that support for the children, but given where we are economically in our country, many are unable to do so due to the primary commitments of breadwinning and putting food on the table? The message from across the House for a joined-up approach to early years, from prenatal to post-natal, is key.
Dr Mullan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it brings me nicely to my next point. In these scenarios we have to avoid any judgment or lecturing parents who are unable to do that, because there are many reasons why parents differ. It is not just about time or money; there is good research about the links between life outcomes and values and ideas in someone’s upbringing.
There are all sorts of factors. It is difficult and things have changed so much. Several decades ago, most people were raising their children within walking distance of their wider kinship network. Most people saw their own parents at least every other day, and a wider network of people were involved in raising a child. That is much more physically difficult to achieve these days. We have had all the focus on social media and the challenges it presents. I will go on to thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation later, but it has commissioned research into screen time for babies, showing the impact of excessive screen time even on babies, while our focus has been on older children.
If we get this wrong, the consequences are for everyone to see. I am a shadow Justice Minister. Crime costs us between £170 billion and £250 billion a year. We know that if a child experiences four or more adverse childhood events, they are more than 20 times more likely to end up in custody at some point as an adult. All these things are interconnected.
The question is: how do we help? I had the privilege of visiting Sidley family hub in my constituency relatively recently, and I spoke to the professionals there who meet and work with parents every day. I asked them, “What is the most important thing that you do?” The most important thing they say, consistently, to people from all backgrounds, was that it was okay to ask for help and to say, “I need help.” The most important thing they say, consistently, to people from all backgrounds, was that it was okay to ask for help and to say, “I need help.” It is about challenging the stigma, so that everyone feels it is all right to ask for help. We do not think we can necessarily do the plumbing, the gas or the electrics in our houses without help, and parenting is 10 times more complicated and difficult than any of those jobs. It is normal for people to think they might need some help at various points along the way.
Returning to the Bill, there are a few reasons why I support it. The first is its focus on babies, because anything else we do further down the chain will not be as good as anything we do at the start. The sooner we do anything we can to help a parent be more effective, to help them understand the role and to support them, the more we get back from that investment. Our funding pyramid in this area is completely the wrong way round. Money builds up as we go further along the journey, but if that money was spent on day one and from conception onwards, we would get much more from it.
The second reason I support the Bill is clause 1(2)(b), which talks specifically about supporting the relationship between a parent or carer and an infant. This is about relationships as much as it is about anything else, and it is great that the Bill states that so clearly.
The third reason I support the Bill is the provision to report regularly. We all know that reporting does not necessarily create the impacts and change that we want, but it is a powerful tool for parliamentarians across parties to make it difficult for Governments to move an issue out of the spotlight, so I welcome that provision.
I will also touch on the Bill’s terminology, and the fact that it talks about carers. I recently met a kinship carer in my constituency who was looking after her own grandchildren. Such people provide an enormous service to our society in so many different ways. I am talking not just about kinship carers, but adoptive parents and others. From a purely financial perspective, the money that would be spent on those children if they were in care of one form or another is astronomical. These people take that burden on, and it is natural and human to want to do that. I do not think we should be thinking about them doing it for money or paying them—people should want to look after their wider family network—but at the very least we should be spending money on making sure that it is as easy as possible for them to do that, so that if anybody ever said to them, “How was it being a kinship carer?” we would know that every single kinship carer would be a cheerleader and a champion for it. We want them to be able to say, “It was difficult, but I felt fantastically supported.” I do not think I have ever met anyone who says that about their experience of being a kinship carer.
Amanda Martin
The hon. Member rightly highlights the fantastic work of kinship carers. One area that often goes unrecognised is siblings who take on their younger brothers and sisters. They may have experienced care themselves, and we have to make sure, when they hit adulthood, that the service wraps around them and provides them the opportunity to be successful in their life while caring for their brothers and sisters.
Dr Mullan
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, because people stepping up in those circumstances is incredibly important. Those who have siblings will know the importance of siblings in helping each other out and supporting each other through life—I have experienced that. All these wider family networks do so much. If they were not doing it, the state would end up picking up the bill, and that would not be good for anybody, so I pay tribute to how this Bill recognises the wider set of people who are involved in raising children.
I conclude by again thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West and the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I also pay tribute, as many others have done, to the right hon. Dame Andrea Leadsom for her work over many years. Like the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two), and I thank the Parent-Infant Foundation for the work it does as the APPG’s secretariat. This Bill is a great opportunity to channel so much of the work that we want to do as part of that APPG. I welcome this debate and the attention it has given to the most important task ahead of any society, which is to raise the next generation successfully.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has served our family of nations in many different ways with real distinction. Ensuring that we are here discussing how we make sure that our society treats every baby with compassion and love and provides them with safety is his finest achievement. I welcome the fact that so many Members have come along to signal to our family of nations that this is such an important topic.
As a Labour Member of Parliament, I am immensely proud of my favourite policy of the 1997 to 2010 Government: Sure Start. Being an MP and able to change laws is something precious, and being a Government MP—a Labour Government MP—is immensely precious to me
I find it helpful, as a recovering lawyer, to road-test drafting against real-life examples of what might happen, and what we are seeking to do. One must ask, will this Bill work in the real world? I say it will. I have assessed the Bill against the serious safeguarding issues raised in the Glasgow Child Protection Committee’s learning review about Family C. The report pointed to catastrophic failures in the care of four babies and children in my home city. The neglect and abuse of the children was catastrophic, and the system that was meant to protect them did not do so.
Against that, I turn to the first duty in the Bill, which is a duty on, and a power for, the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the services that are relevant to good outcomes for babies. The Family C case points to an important issue when the Secretary of State comes to exercise her discretion: what services should be covered? That will need very careful thought. Consider homelessness services. The report shows that there were 12 occasions when housing and homelessness services came into contact with the family, and could have had the opportunity to identify and report risk factors. That did not happen.
Another example of the sort of services that the Secretary of State will need to grapple with are health and dentistry services. This example occurred in 2010, when child A was three and child B was less than four months old:
“In February, Child A was diagnosed with a squint and referred…but was not brought to the appointment. Child B was diagnosed with a small heart defect. By April he had missed three outpatient cardiology appointments.”
For today’s purpose, that points to the importance of the careful exercise of the power in the Bill so that all relevant services for babies are captured. I also applaud the Bill for another reason: it signals to those involved in the care of children how important the care of babies is. It is Parliament speaking to the professionals involved.
The Bill also provides for a duty on the Secretary of State to consult parents, carers and prospective parents and carers when making the assessment of the level of need of services, and to take those views into account. For all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), that is a very important requirement; however, I am anxious about one point. I appreciate that it is not possible to consult with babies, but while adults have a voice expressly specified in the statutory framework, babies and children do not have a voice in the Bill.
Related to that is a central principle underpinning child protection law: that the law should act, and we should act, in the best interests of the welfare of a baby or child. The Children Act 1989, in relation to England and Wales, explains that when a court is considering these matters,
“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”
The analogous Children (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that
“the welfare of that child throughout his childhood shall be…its paramount consideration.”
It naturally follows from the use of the word “paramount” that the child’s interests must be prioritised over those of any adults in the child’s life.
A potential response to what I say is that all this is obvious, but even though it is obvious to all of us here, it is not always acted on—children are not listened to. A lesson from the learning review is that the staff in Glasgow did not ensure that they were listening to the children, and observing what the children were saying through not only their words. The learning review explains:
“Indicators of distress, like headbanging and deliberately seeking eye contact with professionals were not considered”,
and the children’s welfare was not considered paramount. When there was a conflict between the welfare of the children and what the adults were saying, the babies’ welfare was not prioritised.
On page 28, we read:
“Overall, professionals accepted the parents’ view of the children’s behaviours as being ‘challenging’. When staff raised concerns about the children’s care with the parents, they would effectively shift the issue to what it meant for themselves. Child A’s behaviour was generally described by staff from the parents’ perspective i.e. that her behaviour was “challenging”.
I gently suggest that serious thought is given to ensuring that the operation of the Bill, and perhaps even the drafting, gives greater weight to the interests of babies and some sort of mechanism to give babies a voice in the assessment and the Bill’s process.
I now wish to make some brief remarks on duty four. This is another important provision in the Bill and it requires the Secretary of State to assess an appropriate level of provision. I believe that that is critical in Scotland as well, and I hope the Scottish Government look at the Bill and consider whether something similar should be introduced in Scotland. What this very sensible provision calls for is an assessment not just of the number of social workers or the amount of money spent, but of the quality of the services—whether there are sufficient senior social workers, and so on.
In that regard, one of the many questions left unanswered by the learning review is whether the overall level of service provision in Glasgow is adequate. The learning review does not address that, but it is a very important question, because what happened to those babies really points to a lack of appropriate resources. Child A was born in 2007 to an adult mother who had serious substance misuse problems. She was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and as a result of that was placed on the child protection register. Despite that, there was no adequate scrutiny of the adults involved in the child’s life. No qualified social worker was allocated to child A—a baby at the time—from February 2008 to October 2009, when adult E was pregnant with child B. That was despite very many serious issues being identified. This is the important point about the Bill: it calls for an assessment about whether we are putting adequate resources into the safeguarding of babies. It is an essential question that must be answered in Scotland, too.
The Bill is incredibly important. It forces this House—because it will result in reports being laid in this House and in the other place—to grapple with whether we are doing everything possible to give babies and young children the best possible start in life. It is underpinned by a critical point that I think each and every person in this House today shares: that our youngest children must be treated with love, compassion and safety. I have concerns and their voices should not be dismissed. For that reason, I am delighted to support the Bill.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing the Bill to the House—at first perhaps reluctantly, but I think now enthusiastically.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be forgiven for thinking that we are from slightly different backgrounds, but I am here to make the case that we are from exactly the same background: we both started out life in nappies, weeing and crying out for our mothers. We both started out with approximately the same level of potential, with a hundred billion neurons in our brain waiting to be fused together as they tried to understand the world. This is what I think the Bill is about: maximising the potential of every single baby.
I am arguably—I am not sure; people might want to intervene—Parliament’s newest parent. I am 141 days into the life of my first child, so I have had a front row seat for this amazing show. Getting to see the development of my baby over the summer has been phenomenal: her first smile, her first belly laugh, working out how to roll over from her back on to her front, and initially completely ignoring the dog and now wanting to tug its ears every time it goes past. It has been amazing watching every single one of those interactions and how her brain is developing and building an understanding of the world.
I would be lying if I did not say that it was also a bit of worry. It is a worry because we are now hyper-aware of how critical these moments are; how each one of these interactions are setting out a pathway for the rest of her life. The first 1,001 days movement has been explaining to us how critical these early moments are for children’s long-run physical and emotional development—how, in each one of those early moments, we are shaping the development of their brains and directing the potential of the rest of their lives.
Knowing that, of course, makes it unforgivable that so much provision for children and babies has been cut back over the past decade or so—as if it was some sort of luxury that is unaffordable now that we have other priorities, such as cutting the grass verges in our local areas. The Bill seeks to draw a line in the sand and say, “Never again.” It speaks up for babies, and will make it a statutory requirement for the state to demonstrate how it is meeting babies’ needs. It is a critical step forward in society’s recognition of how our brains develop and how we create opportunity for the next generation.
As others have said, the Bill sets the floor, not the ceiling. We therefore look to the Government to build on the foundations that the Bill sets, and ensure that the principles, on which we all agree today, are built into a practical reality. The healthy babies programme is currently available in only 75 local authority areas, and it excludes places such as mine. The Government made a commitment in their 10-year plan to ensure that it is universal, and I urge them to accelerate that and deliver it as quickly as possible. There is not much specificity about what services are required, and it would be great if the Government came forward as soon as possible to bring clarity.
I have my own request for a service that it will be essential to deliver to babies and parents in the coming years. Health visitors already talk to mothers about nutrition, safe sleep, and bonding between babies and parents, but we need to add another dimension: screentime. It is already Government advice that under-twos should not have solo screentime, but that is extremely poorly understood. Routine screen use is now normal for babies under two, and one in 10 are exposed to more than four hours of screentime per day. Instead of learning through social interaction, they are being induced into dopamine dazes, which affect their sleep, meal times and emotional regulation. The damage being done is so great that it should be an essential requirement to educate parents about this from day one.
Maya Ellis
As much as we know the damage that screentime can do, a good majority of parents use screens not because they think that that is the best thing for their child; they are often used as childcare or as a way to get the tea made. Does the hon. Member agree that it will be critical for this Government to research why parents rely so much on screentime, and how we can support parents not to have to do so?
Bobby Dean
I wholeheartedly agree. As I just said, I am experiencing parenthood myself, and I know how difficult it is to keep a baby calm. I completely understand why parents use devices as a means of regulating their child, but I do not think that the damage being done is well understood. I want that to be formalised. It is not about zero screentime; the Government advice is about not having solo screentime for extended periods. It is fine to share a FaceTime call with grandparents, and educational interactions are okay. It is about building the education, so that every parent understands the impact of extended screentime for under-twos.
Iqbal Mohamed
To extend that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the use of screens by adults or people in the room with the child can also have an adverse impact? It is almost like second-hand smoke in the ’80s; we have now banned smoking indoors to protect people who do not smoke, including children. It is important to educate parents and carers on the use of screens in the presence of a child as well as on allowing the child to use screens.
Bobby Dean
I agree—I am learning this lesson live and directly at the moment. We have actually bought devices to make us lock our phones away, because the temptation is always there. Phones are such a part of our daily lives, but they are damaging our interactions with our children, particularly during feeding times. Making eye contact is an essential part of development. We should look to formalise education with parents on this point.
Before I close, let me reflect on just how significant this Bill could be. In the late 19th century, just 2 million out of 4 million primary-age schoolchildren actually attended school. It was not until 1870 that a Liberal, William Forster, introduced the Elementary Education Act, which mandated school attendance at this age. It was a statutory commitment, and what was once deemed unfortunate became unthinkable. I believe that this Bill could have the same effect for babies. It will make their development at this early stage—the critical first 1,001 days—a real focus for society, so never again will we think it is unfortunate that they miss out on such provisions. It will become unthinkable. I am proud to support this Bill.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on coming first in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on promoting this Bill. In the previous Session, my private Member’s Bill was the first to pass through this place and the other place, so I wish the right hon. Gentleman similar success with his very important Bill. Having taken through a private Member’s Bill, I know full well the hard work that he and his team will be putting into the proposals, and I want to put on record my thanks to them for doing so.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Floor of the House about the importance of a baby’s first 1,000 days of life. We all know of the love, care and attention that new-born babies need to thrive. By the time they reach 1,001 days old, they will already have progressed to having some form of independence in eating and communicating. The devastating fact, however, is that in the same timeframe, the impact of financial and health inequalities will already be visible. The gap between the most affluent and the most deprived areas will already be evident in toddlers’ groups and nurseries across our communities. For Labour Members, tackling these inequalities is a fundamental goal. We wanted to be elected to eradicate this unfairness. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister how this Bill could further the Government’s ambitious tackling child poverty strategy.
I want to speak about the growing number of babies across the UK who are born as the result of a surrogacy arrangement either here in the UK or abroad. We cannot be absolutely sure how many babies have been born through a surrogacy arrangement, but what we do know is that the number of parental orders granted by the courts, in line with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, increased from 132 in 2011 to 450 in 2021. The number of babies being born as the result of surrogacy is far more than the handful of cases that the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 had intended to cover. The growing number of babies being born as the result of surrogacy arrangements poses a serious issue that we as legislators must address.
I do not intend to cover all the points today, but I want to cover two areas in particular. The number of UK nationals using commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad is on the rise. The explosion in international surrogacy is estimated to be worth a $200 billion industry by 2032. Too many babies in their first 1,001 days are being left in legal limbo, because the Surrogacy Arrangements Act did not legislate for overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements, and, as far as I am aware, this place has not taken a view or held a debate on this issue. My position is clear. We should follow our EU partners in Spain, France and Germany in banning surrogacy and, at the very least, we should work in this place to prevent the harms caused by international surrogacy.
The failure of this House to have debated the increasing use of international surrogacy arrangements has resulted in different rules applying between adoption and surrogacy. For instance, the Children and Adoption Act 2006 places a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain and publish a list of countries where restrictions on inter-country adoption apply, yet a similar process does not exist for surrogacy. In 2021, the then Secretary of State used his power to place Nigeria on the list of restricted countries, therefore preventing all adoptions between the UK and Nigeria. The reasons given for this decision, which is still in place today, include unreliable documentation, corruption and evidence of child trafficking.
Those harmful and illegal practices, however, are not isolated to adoption. For example, earlier this year, a Nigerian police force made five arrests exposing child trafficking and an illegal surrogacy syndicate under the guise of an orphanage. There is no law currently preventing a child born in such circumstances from being brought to the UK. This void in legislation creates a vacuum where children’s welfare and children’s rights are left unprotected while fuelling the international surrogacy syndicates that put women and girls in developing countries at further risk.
My second point is that the procedures and guidance about surrogacy that are available to midwives, doctors, nurses and health teams on maternity wards are often out of date and very patchy. In some parts of the country, midwives may experience a number of births involving a surrogate; others may see very few or none at all. It is therefore even more important that up-to-date guidance is available with the very best information, so that the care of the mother and child, both pre and post birth, is the very best it can be.
Through freedom of information requests to all Scottish NHS boards, I have discovered that only NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Fife have active guidance in place for midwives and clinician teams on the care and treatment of surrogate mothers and babies to ensure that the law is followed and to set out where they can access support. Of the other Scottish NHS boards, five have no policy at all, one has a draft policy, four have a policy on which a review is overdue, and one refers to the Department of Health and Social Care guidance. Midwives across Scotland are being left to their own devices in ensuring that babies born under a surrogacy arrangement receive uninterrupted care and treatment. I encourage the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that maternity wards and midwives across England are not left in the same position.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech on international surrogacy, as she has done previously on adoption. I commend the efforts of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) to bring in this new law. Does my hon. Friend agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) that the Scottish Government should closely follow what is happening in this House today and consider similar laws on the rights of babies and on surrogacy?
Tracy Gilbert
I absolutely agree that the Scottish Government must take some action on this matter.
In conclusion, I would be keen to see if there are areas where I can work with the right hon. Member for New Forest West to look at changing the law to ensure that babies born through a surrogacy arrangement and the women giving birth to them are no longer forgotten.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I join many others today in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing this debate and on his choice of topic. There does seem to be an enormous amount of agreement in the Chamber today, and I know that he has secured cross-party support for the Bill, which is excellent.
Like everyone else present, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. While I, like many others, do not have my own children, I am an aunt to four, a godmother to four and a friend to many people who have children. I have been looking after my friends’ kids since I was about 18, so I am pretty adept at changing nappies; I know how to get them to smile and how to do all those things. We have heard mention of the value of the wider family and friendship group, and I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill from that perspective. As a result, I know that there is a reason why we say, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”—it is because those earliest years really do matter profoundly.
During the first 1,001-day period, secure attachment is built through a baby’s everyday interactions with their parents, their carer or, indeed, their aunties and uncles. A smile, a cuddle, a comforting voice—those simple moments lay the foundations for emotional wellbeing. I certainly hope that the 24 hours in which I was the only person to provide my 18-month-old nephew with all those things added to his wellbeing, rather than detracting from it—we will see in a few years’ time. I think he generally knows who I am and is happy to see me, so that is fine.
By the age of two, a child’s brain reaches around 80% of its adult size. As Lord Cameron has said,
“mums and dads literally build babies’ brains.”
By supporting parents from the very beginning, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the need for costly state intervention later down the line. That is why I support the Bill’s intention to put services during pregnancy and early childhood on a stronger statutory footing.
The reporting requirements in the Bill will mean that decisions on funding cannot be made in the dark, ensuring that services such as Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme remain a Government priority. Family hubs provide a vital one-stop shop for parents, bringing together practical support under one roof, from breastfeeding advice to work to help to reduce parental conflict.
Plymouth was one of the original 75 local authorities selected to participate in the Conservative Government’s family hubs programme back in 2022. The council has now successfully established a network of 11 hubs. However, interestingly, there have been recent reports about funding changes, and trying to find out information on what is happening, who is responsible and what is going on has been really difficult. Therefore, anything that ensures that that reporting back is done—particularly on funding and sustainability when external agencies are providing those services—will be particularly important. As an advocate for family hubs, when I have constituents come to me and say that people working in those hubs are being made redundant, I want to know what is going on and whether delivery is continuing.
It is important to remind ourselves that the value of family hubs is that they are open to everyone. However, I believe that more could be done to encourage parents to use them. So far, only 16% of parents with a child under five have used a family hub, despite 66% having heard of them, according to a poll from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is clear that we need to do more on that.
Dr Mullan
One of the other challenges I heard about in the family hub I visited was that, in constituencies like mine, we have towns but also lots of villages that are perhaps very far away. I agree with people having to physically go somewhere, but this is an example of where funding for rural authorities needs to reflect the additional costs involved in providing all sorts of services, including family hubs.
Rebecca Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that good point, which I am particularly passionate about. I have spoken a lot this week about funding for rural services, particularly under local government reorganisation, and that will be really important in the future structure of unitary councils. How can we ensure that villages and smaller towns get access to family hubs and things like them—and whatever else comes about following the Bill—and that people are not reliant on infrequent public services or on having a car to get to them? I am glad he mentioned that, because it gives me even more reason to continue on my journey against local government reorganisation in my constituency.
My hon. Friend also highlights how we want every community to have a family hub. I am considered to be the MP for the slightly well-off bit of Plymouth, so I am incredibly grateful that the city set one up in my constituency, but there are whole communities in my constituency, such as Plymstock where I was a councillor for many years, that do not have a wellbeing hub or a family hub. If we are to do this, we must ensure that we do it properly.
I want to take the opportunity to remind the House that family hubs are a Conservative innovation, grounded in the principle that strong families make for a strong society. I am delighted that the Labour Government have committed to build on our success and roll out family hubs to all local authorities, not just those initial 75. I must also say that they are not merely Sure Start rebranded.
Pam Cox
On the historical point—forgive me; I could not stop myself—the Maternity and Child Welfare Act 1918 probably preceded some of the things the hon. Lady is about to say, as well as some of the measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). There is a long history of efforts to introduce child welfare.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Lady. I mentioned to one of my colleagues the other day how this entire debate is catnip for Labour Members, because it is an opportunity for them to highlight that they have cared more about families and children than the Conservatives. I do not believe that; I believe that we have always cared about the vulnerable and ensuring that the right thing is done.
To bring the House back to the point and bring down the temperature in the Chamber, I want to talk about what is good about family hubs and why they are different. The key point is that they are not just Sure Start rebranded. Sure Start did good things, but we felt at the time that it was not necessarily targeted in the right way.
I pay significant tribute to Lord Farmer. If it were not for his work and his personal commitment in all sorts of ways—he effectively trailblazed the family hubs policy—we would not be here today. Family hubs have provided a model that we can replicate. That is not to say that Sure Start did not provide the opportunity to do something similar, but the distinctive thing about what Lord Farmer set up and that we put into practice in government—he is seeking to work with the Government to continue it—is that it is not just for the early years but for people right up to the age of 19. Regardless of what we think about what happened in the past, what family hubs are called and what they do, I think we all agree that we need to provide support right through to when a child is 19 and to give families that opportunity. We have heard many people speaking about the challenges in teenage life if we do not get it right at the beginning.
Natasha Irons
To bring us back to the Bill and to take the temperature down—to be fair, nobody on the Government Benches sent it up—the point is that this particular time, the first 1,001 days, has not been protected. I agree that of course we need to take support through to 19, but the challenge when Sure Start was rolled back was that councils found themselves with one pot of funding for the journey from conception to the teenage years, which meant that the youth services that help with later intervention were competing with the early intervention we are talking about today. Protecting this time means that we can invest properly in and hopefully bring down the cost of those youth services later on. I hope the hon. Member can agree on that point.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Of course, if we are going to do this properly, we have to make sure that the funding is there, which I think is the entire point of the Bill. I agree with that, but the great thing about family hubs is that they set out an intention right from the start that it is not okay to just ringfence the money until the age of five; we need to ensure that we provide support all the way through. There is a lot more work to be done on both sides of the House to develop what that looks like. I think we are in pretty good agreement on this, whether it is support up to five or beyond. At the end of the day, we want families and young people to have the best start, as the name suggests.
It is worth pointing out that family hubs are required to provide support for children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There is clearly a lot more thinking to be done. I appreciate that the Bill will specifically ringfence provision for under-fives, but ultimately we do not want there to be a cliff edge—we do not want all this support to suddenly drop off when children get to five because that would not maintain and make the most of the family hub model as it was established.
When I visited the Rees centre family and wellbeing hub in Plympton in my constituency, I was very impressed with what is going on there. It is a brilliant community asset that has been there since the ’60s. There is breastfeeding support, but what is also amazing is that it has a time bank, so there are all these mums bringing in their babies to see the health visitor or to be weighed—all the things that a family hub does for under-fives—but there are also older people from the community coming to meet, socialise and do things together.
When a family hub or a Best Start centre is truly embedded in a community, it has the opportunity to be a place where all sorts of things are delivered, and that combined delivery makes them even better. We do not want them to become centres where only people with children and those who have families go; we should open them up, to do as much as possible within the community, because that is at the heart of what they can do. It is really important that we look at the whole picture, as well as focusing on the first 1,001 days, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to deliver family hubs right up to the age of 19.
As we discuss earlier support, there is a little elephant in the room. Evidence consistently shows that children under the age of two need to be nurtured by their parents primarily, and I think we are all saying the same thing today, but it is my personal view that parental presence requires childcare choice. More than two thirds of working mothers with pre-school children say that they would work fewer hours if they could afford it, according to the Department for Education, but too often parents feel pushed towards a one-size-fits-all model of formal childcare. We need to explore where we can offer parents more options in the earliest years and free them up to do what they feel is best for them and their family. It is not about telling parents what to do; it is about trusting them to make the right decisions for their family. We must never forget who matters the most to the baby: it is their parents. We should do everything we can to help mums, dads and carers be present as much as possible.
This Bill must be the start of a wholesale reframing of family support. Every stage of childhood matters, and we must back families every step of the way. That is why I am very keen to support the Bill today.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the wonderful Bill he has brought forward and on the debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless work on this issue.
Up and down the country, it is a bittersweet time for parents. We have enjoyed spending the summer with our children, creating lasting memories, but we are also celebrating not having been asked to provide a snack for the last 10 minutes, or worrying if someone has fallen down the stairs, like in my house. In our household, we are celebrating my eldest putting on a blazer for the first time and heading off to high school—[Hon. Members: “Aww!”] Yeah, it’s a bit much. It has been an interesting time, and as we have reached this new milestone in my son’s life, I could not help but reflect, in the context of this debate, on what it was like in those early days of parenthood, because no matter how scary it is to see my son becoming his own person and having his own views on things, nothing compares to that first initial fear when you become a parent, not knowing what to do and where to go, when you are a little bit dazed, terrified and wondering if you will ever sleep again.
I think back to the services I leant on: the antenatal classes, the health visitor who came to my home—we have heard how important that is—and the stay and play that I took my son to and met other parents, where we were able to swap notes. We have remained lifelong friends, and they have helped raise my son, creating that sense of community and village around him. That network meant that I had the right diet during my pregnancy, that my son was surrounded by the things that helped him to learn, and that our new family had the support we needed to get the best possible start.
We often talk in this place about policy being routed not in ideology but in evidence, focusing on what works and investing in that. Well, we know what works for the early years of a child’s life because the evidence is overwhelming. The first 1,001 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday are among the most important in human development. As the Government describe in their “Best start in life” review, these critical 1,001 days are the
“foundations for lifelong emotional and physical wellbeing”,
as many have mentioned today.
Research shows that during these critical days, a baby’s brain develops at an extraordinary rate—doubling in size during their first year, with around 1 million neuro connections forming every second. These precious days have the potential to shape our health and resilience and who we are later to become. This Bill matters so much because it protects those critical days with legislation. It requires the Government to assess need, listen to parents and carers, ensure that appropriate support services are available, and report transparently to Parliament on the impact of that support. The reality is that too many children growing up are without the services they need in those most critical moments. If those neural pathways are developing every second, then every second counts, doesn’t it?
In my constituency of Croydon East, around 30% of children are growing up in poverty. Croydon’s public health data suggests that girls growing up in the most affluent parts of our borough can expect to live around six years longer than the girls growing up in the least affluent parts. For boys, that gap is nine years. In a borough like Croydon, where a child’s postcode can still have a profound impact on their health and life expectancy, we cannot afford to treat early intervention as an optional extra. It is not a luxury; it is the most effective tool we have to break the cycles of disadvantage and create genuine equality of opportunity.
That is why I cannot speak on this debate today without acknowledging the impact of Sure Start, which many colleagues have mentioned. Sure Start was the most successful early intervention programme this country has ever seen. Independent research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that access to Sure Start improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged children, with benefits lasting way up to their GCSEs. It found that the positive effects of Sure Start came with significant financial benefits, including reduced costs for Government services at later stages in life and increased tax revenue from higher earnings. In fact, it estimated that at its peak, Sure Start generated over £2 for every £1 of Government spending. Yet despite that evidence, funding for Sure Start fell by more than two thirds between 2010 and 2022, and over 1,000 children’s centres closed across England.
I wholeheartedly welcome this Government’s commitment to giving every child the best possible start in life, for their investment in Best Start family hubs and the steps they have taken to eliminate child poverty by lifting the two-child benefit cap. But if history can teach us anything, it is that priorities change, spending changes and even Governments change, and when support at this critical time is scaled back, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Just think about where we would be if we had kept that investment in those Sure Start centres, if they had not closed—if families, regardless of their shape, size or background, had continued to have the support and investment they needed, how much better off would we be?
It is important that we do not make the same mistakes. The Bill means that for the first time, we legally give the first 1,000 days the recognition, protection and visibility that they deserve. We set out that no matter what or who is in charge, we choose to invest in our children. If we are serious about reducing inequality, improving mental and physical health, strengthening families, and giving every child the best possible start, then we must act when it matters the most: at the very beginning. I welcome the Bill and give it my full support. I am so proud to take part in this debate.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, and I also sit on the advisory board for the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing the Bill to the House and giving us all an opportunity to wax lyrical about babies. We get fewer emails from babies than other constituents we represent, which is why it is so important that the Members who have chosen to be here are taking the opportunity to speak up for the voiceless.
Let me take this opportunity to welcome a new baby into my family. I have a new nephew—my first nephew. His name is Raven and he was born eight days ago; he was born with a thick shock of jet black hair, so he clearly knew what his name was going to be. He is wonderful and we all love him dearly already, including my two children, who are delighted to have a cousin to steer down the wrong path.
As the 1001 Critical Days Foundation has made clear through its campaigning and work on the Bill, a baby’s development until the age of two is vital. Failing to provide adequate support for parents and babies at this time can leave individuals and families chasing their tails in the future, trying to make up for issues that occurred during this crucial period. Investment in infants’ health and care pays dividends for society, improving health and educational outcomes, and reducing inequality. It is for that reason that I absolutely support what the Bill is trying to achieve: putting support in the early years on a statutory footing and ensuring a health check of early years support by the Secretary of State at regular intervals.
As the Chair of the Education Committee said, there is an old adage: “It takes a village.” But if a new parent cannot access services in their local area, how are they meant to find their village? I was lucky when I had my children—the first one nearly 12 years ago—to find my village. I attended a weekly breastfeeding support group called Milk, where we could talk freely and openly about the challenges, understand why our babies’ poo was a funny colour, and get advice about combination feeding, introducing solids or returning to work.
At that group, we also learnt about developmental leaps, which I do not remember a midwife or a health visitor ever telling me about when my child was born. I could not understand why I put to bed a lovely calm child, and then a demon woke up and was so hard to soothe for three or four days. When I went to that group, the parents who were a month or two ahead of me said, “Are you sure they are not having a developmental leap? It could be that they are learning new things, and that is why they are struggling to sleep, or they are unregulated, or their pattern has moved around.” It was so helpful.
There was an area for the older children to play. We all enjoyed a cup of tea, something that was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). We weighed our babies, and we talked about the various methods we all adopted to remember what side we last fed our baby on. The women I met at that group are still my friends today, and they have made my life as a mother better, more supported and brighter. We also went to a baby movers group every Friday morning, where we shook our beanbags, threw scarves over our children and sang songs that still randomly appear in my head when I cannot sleep at 11 o’clock at night.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The hon. Lady had a fantastic Adjournment debate nearly a year ago on breastfeeding support. My wife and I are now 384 days into having our first child. We have an organisation in Exmouth called Bosom Buddies, which is run by a fantastic lady called Jodie Wilkerson. She pretty much does it for free, and is constantly trying to get funding. I remember a point that the hon. Lady raised in that debate about breastfeeding support being a postcode lottery. Does she agree that as the Bill goes through the House, the Government need to look at supporting those organisations, which have given so much support to my wife, the hon. Lady and so many women around the country?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for supporting that Adjournment debate. Every community should have a Jodie; mine was a Julie, and she was constantly chasing funding to keep Milk alive. When my daughter was born, five years after my son, that Milk group, which I had relied on so heavily, was now being run out of a broom cupboard. It was by appointment only, and parents could not take their older children along. The whole thing had just crumbled, so I feared for those coming after me who would not be able to find their village.
Six months after my daughter was born, the pandemic hit. Her 12-month health visitor review was done on Zoom, and my daughter was not even in the room with me. The baby movers classes that I had loved so much with my son ceased to exist, so I ended up running them on Facebook Live—I would message everybody at 10 o’clock and say, “I’m going to go live in half an hour, and we’re all going to shake our beanbag together in our own lounges.” The local children and family centre in Chichester never reopened in the same way after the pandemic, and the children and family centre in Selsey—a coastal community in my constituency—is now permanently closed.
The clearest example of the effectiveness of early support and intervention, as cited by many hon. Members across the House today, was Sure Start. Last May, that service was described in a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies as having had an “overwhelmingly positive” effect, with the benefit estimated to be over £2 in societal value for every £1 spent. However, when budgets were tightened during austerity, it was services such as Sure Start that were cut to the bone. The provisions in this Bill are so important because they add statutory foundations, assessments and accountability to protect infant support services for the future.
This Bill should allow Parliament to recognise the importance of services such as feeding support, to ensure that provision is maintained and services are improved. The impact is stark, especially when it comes to infant feeding. Through the work of the APPG for infant feeding and inequalities, I had the privilege of hosting the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative in Parliament last year for the launch of its 2024 report, which was looking at breastfeeding in the UK against metrics measuring other countries. The key takeaway from that report is that the UK has some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. Importantly, however, the data also shows that the majority of mothers do set out to breastfeed; despite this, by six to eight weeks, around 70% of babies in the UK receive some formula, and by six months, only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed. The majority of mothers who stopped breastfeeding early wanted to breastfeed for longer, but did not receive the help they needed to resolve the problems they were facing.
In my constituency of Chichester, most of the support—as cited by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed)—is run on a voluntary basis. There is now a brilliant support group that runs out of the Graylingwell chapel, and it is run by retired midwives who give up their time and run the group for free. I know what a lifeline that has been for so many mothers, but at the point when those midwives choose not to do that any more, the service will disappear, because it is not on a statutory footing. Many of the midwives in my local maternity unit at St Richard’s run support groups in their spare time on their days off.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Breastfeeding is one of the reasons that this Bill is so important, because breastfeeding is about what happens before birth as well as in the first two years. When we look at the data, the trigger point for people not taking breastfeeding forward is about 16 hours after birth, so if they are given support before they have their baby, and they know where they can go straightaway, that will give them the confidence to breastfeed for longer. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have to make sure that this Bill covers both pre and post labour?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is very much my opinion that mothers should all have the right to choose how we want to feed our babies, and that choice should be based on information. If parents are not given the information they need before making those choices, they do not have a choice—it has been taken away from them.
Natasha Irons
Anyone who has been a new mother will understand that for some women breastfeeding is very easy, and for some women it is not. Does the hon. Member agree that research into the difference between an easy breastfeeding experience and a harder one is not particularly good? If all a struggling mother wants to do is feed her baby, because she has been told that she needs to feed her baby and that if she goes below a point on a chart, she is not doing a good job, perhaps we need more investment and research into how we can make it easier for mothers to breastfeed, so that they can make informed and supported choices as they go forward.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Lady is right. Just as every pregnancy is different, every breastfeeding journey is also different. We do not want to put mothers in a position where all they have is Google at their fingertips at 2 o’clock in the morning, when the baby is devastated and will not feed, and they are worried that they are dehydrated. The National Breastfeeding Helpline, a 24/7 service funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, is an important resource and a lifeline for so many mothers—33,000 mothers call every month. It is also helpful to have peer support. If someone is in a room with other mothers who are saying, “I experience mastitis,” or “I experience thrush, and this is what I did to get past it. Keep going and come back next week and see if things are better,” that support can mean so much to a mother who feels like they are on their own in that journey.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The hon. Member is being incredibly generous with her time. I was delighted to contribute to her debate on infant feeding, and I thank her for her leadership on that. When we talk about the information and advice that is available to people, does she agree that one thing that can make a difference is the right person at the right time? I will not make this too much of a speech—I will include this when I get to speak—but the difference made by a midwife who arrives just at the moment when someone is prepared to give up can sometimes result in someone’s daughter acquiring the middle name of that midwife, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She raises an important point, namely that infant feeding is not taught generically across medical professions. For example, a lot of mothers may present at their GP surgery if they are having challenges, but their GP is probably not the best placed person to inform them on how they can best be supported on their infant feeding journey, whatever that looks like. Advice from specialists, such as midwives and most health visitors, means that people are being supported, asking the right questions and getting the right answers.
Breastfeeding strengthens babies’ immune systems and significantly reduces the risk of infections, obesity, asthma and long-term conditions such as type-2 diabetes. I pay tribute to Her Grace the Duchess of Richmond for convening a Goodwood health summit to specifically look at the infant gut microbiome, and at how important it is in those formative days of pregnancy and the first few critical weeks of life, and for her continued advocacy in that space. For mothers, breastfeeding lowers the risk of breast and ovarian cancers, cardiovascular disease, and supports post-natal mental health. Providing support for breastfeeding mothers can pay for itself further down the line by improving the health of babies and mothers.
Currently the UK has no national infant feeding strategy, timebound action plan, multisectoral infant feeding committee, or overall national co-ordinator. There is little-to-no mention of infant feeding in health professional training, and no co-ordinated strategy for infant feeding in emergency situations. I hope that the Bill will provide the foundation for such support to return to levels that we have seen in the past, and address gaps that have always existed. Babies and their parents deserve better, and I look forward to supporting the Bill through its passage through the House, including in Committee.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
This is such an important Bill, and I am pleased to support it. He is not in his place, but I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing it forward. What a credit it will be to him if the Bill proceeds. We would also not be here without the work of Dame Andrea Leadsom and all the team at the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, and I put on record my thanks and appreciation to them. I also take the opportunity to wish the most important baby in my life, my little niece Hallie, a very happy first birthday which is coming up next week.
The Bill does vital work putting into law the requirement to ensure that infants, parents, carers and prospective parents receive the support that they need at this vital time in life: the start of a baby’s life. We have heard many examples of how this would be transformative for the babies and families who lie at the heart of the Bill, and rightly so, because evidence is compelling that the care that a baby receives in those first 1,001 days from pregnancy to aged two, when those vital neural connections are forming in their brains, can affect their life chances in so many ways, from education to health to earnings potential.
My contribution will focus not on the babies, but on their parents and carers, specifically pregnant and new mums and their partners, and the mental health challenges that they can face at this time of life. I believe the Bill will improve the support available to them. However, babies and their parents are connected, of course, because we cannot separate a baby’s wellbeing from the wellbeing of those caring for them. When parents are struggling with their mental health, the effects can be felt throughout the family.
As compelling evidence from the Maternal Mental Health Alliance and others shows, perinatal mental illness is associated with increased risk of poor emotional, intellectual, social and physical development in children. It can disrupt attachment and bonding during the period when secure relationships are laying the foundations for a child’s future health and wellbeing, but when parents and carers are supported, and when babies experience that secure attachment as a result, babies go on to thrive.
Perinatal mental health is an issue close to my heart, as I have said in the Chamber before. I lost my close friend Sophie to suicide after the birth of her third daughter, when her little girl was just 10 weeks old. I have introduced my own Bill to stop more people suffering in the way that she did. My Bill would require that every pregnant and new mum has a mental health check-in, and I am continuing to push that forward. No matter how many times I speak about it, the sadness and shock of losing Sophie does not lessen, because she struggled more than anyone should have to at that time of life, but too many people are still struggling in the way that she did.
For many families, a new baby is time for excitement and joy, and I am so glad when that is the case, but for many others, it is time that can be marked by anxiety, depression, trauma, isolation and, in some cases, severe mental illness. Across the UK, about one in four women experience a mental health challenge during that time. That means that families in every community and every constituency are living with the realities of perinatal mental illness. This can include post-natal depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and, in some cases, severe illnesses, such as post-partum psychosis. These challenges can affect first-time parents, as well as experienced parents—for Sophie, it was her third time as a new mum. They can come quite unexpectedly, including for those with no history of severe mental illness.
We have spoken about how babies’ brains are forming in those 1,001 days, but a lot is happening for a mum at that point too. There is a brilliant book by Lucy Jones called “Matrescence”, which I recommend to everyone. It sets out the profound hormonal, neural and cognitive changes that occur during motherhood, which have consequences for people’s sense of identity and self in much the same way as happens to teenagers during adolescence. There have been some brilliant advocates for the idea of matrescence, including Maggie Gordon-Walker, who I want to acknowledge.
All of that creates challenges to mental health, which can have incredibly serious consequences. There is a great report by MBRRACE-UK—Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—called “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” that shows that suicide remains the leading cause of death among women between six weeks and year after birth. That is a life lost, but it is also a family broken. That is the shocking and sobering reality of families not getting the recognition, understanding and support that they need at this time. That has consequences, not just for the people at the heart of the situation, but way beyond that, for the economy and society. The London School of Economics estimates the long-term cost of untreated perinatal mental health problems to be about £8.1 billion every year. Significantly, about three quarters of that cost—72%—arises from the long-term impact on the children’s ability to learn, earn, be healthy and care for themselves later in life.
Correcting all that has to start with raising awareness. Despite a lot of great advocacy and awareness-raising work from many organisations, including the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, Jo Cruse at Delivering Better, and the Hearts and Minds Partnership, we still recognise and understand perinatal mental health poorly. As a result, people continue to suffer in silence. They are afraid of being judged and fear that admitting that they are struggling could somehow be seen as a failure, or they might recognise that something is not right but they simply do not know where to turn for help.
Awareness alone is not enough; we need support too, and that is where the Bill comes in. I will touch briefly on four ways that it could make a real difference. First, the principle behind it is that everyone in England—regardless of who they are, where they are from and what their background is—is equally deserving of support at that time in life in the eyes of the law. The reality today is that not all pregnant and new mums get the same support. The evidence shows that mums from black and minority ethnic communities face much poorer outcomes and greater barriers to accessing care. Younger mothers, families in poverty and deprivation, and those living with the effects of domestic abuse or other past trauma encounter additional obstacles and worse outcomes, and that is simply not acceptable. The aim of the Bill is to enable every family to access high-quality support. That important principle is supported by many experts, including the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The second important point about the Bill is the period that it focuses on. For someone struggling with their mental health, it is vital that the support kicks in at the very early stages of the 1,001 days. As others have said, the systems too often kick in when people are at crisis point, but for support to be effective it has to kick in early. It is about identifying the vulnerability early; building trusted relationships with the midwives, GPs and health visitors providing care; providing continuity of care; and ensuring that mums feel seen, heard and supported long before the difficulties become overwhelming. There must be the possibility of being referred to specialist services if necessary. Once the baby gets to the age of two, it can be too late. They have already formed their early understanding of the world, and the family has had to get through that really tough first phase, so that time period is critical.
Thirdly, it is absolutely right that the Bill extends the statutory support in a wide-ranging way across infants, parents and carers. It is not enough to focus on just one member or one part of the family. On mental health, my speech has obviously focused on pregnant and new mums, but it is equally vital to consider the needs of fathers, partners and other carers at that time. There was a very worrying Samaritans study from Wales recently, which showed for the first time, in an evidence-based way, the really high rates of suicide among new dads and the many barriers to support that they face. That should compel us to act.
There are good examples out there of good support to dads. I was talking to the mental health midwives at my local hospital, Stoke Mandeville in Aylesbury, and they use something called the DadPad, which has a book that comes alongside it. It has easily accessible information and advice about how dads can look after themselves and give their child the best start in life. That good advice is out there, but it is not routinely available, so I see the potential of the Bill ensuring that everyone who needs that guidance can access it.
Fourthly, it is right that the nature of the support in the Bill is very broadly defined. It is obviously for the Government to work further on. A model of broad, cross-cutting, joined-up support is embedded in the Government’s Best Start family hubs programme. I am proud that they have introduced it and are driving it forward. It is already benefiting my constituents, and the Best Start family hub Elmhurst is opening this month. With those mental health teams, infant feeding support teams, SEND support teams, maternity care, primary care, health visitors and the voluntary sector all co-located in one place, families will be able to access the joined-up support that they need, whatever that might be.
There is also such an important opportunity for the voluntary sector to dock in with other services on offer from the local authority and the NHS. Often, that sector is overlooked in these debates, but if we did not have such brilliant active voluntary and community organisations across our constituencies, a lot more women and families would fall through the cracks.
Chris Kane
I thank my hon. Friend for her compelling speech and for sharing so much about her own story. On the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, we often get a sense that all this great operational learning is going on in communities, but it does not always turn into strategic learning back in Parliament. The Bill talks about a report of the year, but if the report comes back and no one reads it, we cannot learn how to do better. Does my hon. Friend agree that learning the great lessons that are going on in our communities is important for us, and that we should not lose sight of that in the Bill? We should learn at our level from the lessons going on in communities, to help what we do here.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I agree, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. We see these pockets of good practice across the country, but too often they are not flagged up through the system. Certainly, we in this House do not become aware of them. Part of the potential of the Bill is that, through those reporting mechanisms, we will get a better sense of what works and what does not, with the potential to roll that out and scale it up.
I pay tribute to the brilliant PANDAS group in my constituency, which offers tea and coffee, and toys for the kids, but is also a really supportive space for new mums to meet other mums who may also be struggling. There are such organisations across the country—Mothers for Mothers in Bristol does fantastic work along those lines. I went to a wonderful session by Breathe Melodies, which works across London to harness the power of community and singing to bring mums—and dads now—together and to provide that support. Sport in Mind is more about getting people out and walking, and also talking. There are fantastic voluntary groups, and we need to think about plugging them into the support that would be provided through the Bill.
As others have said powerfully, a baby cannot tell us when they are struggling or when their family is struggling. They cannot navigate a complex and fragmented healthcare system or advocate for improved services. A baby relies on us, as legislators, to ensure that that support exists. That is why the Bill is so important. My ask as we consider this legislation is that we recognise that supporting perinatal mental health and, more broadly, the mental health of parents and carers, is fundamental to that ambition and such a key determinant of whether the infants, parents and carers at the heart of the Bill go on to thrive.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The House will agree that we believe that all children should be born equal. However, we are here today because we also know that in the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, not all children here are born equal. I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Bill, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on bringing it before the House. Some would say that he has been very lucky to be drawn first in the ballot, but as a person of faith, I believe that it is divine intervention, and that almighty God has bestowed a responsibility on this House to support children, parents and carers in our country in the way they have the right to be supported and deserve.
The central idea behind this legislation is simple yet radical: every child deserves the best start in life, regardless of their postcode, family income or ethnicity. As we have heard in eloquent speeches from right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, the first 1,001 days are among the most important in all human development. They shape physical health, emotional wellbeing, educational attainment and life chances for decades to come, yet support during those crucial early years is too often fragmented, inconsistent, and dependent on a family’s individual circumstances or where they live.
The Bill rightfully seeks to address that injustice by ensuring that needs are assessed and timely support is provided. It recognises that giving children the best start in life cannot be the responsibility of any single Department. Improving outcomes for babies and families requires health, education and local services to work together. I welcome the Bill’s emphasis on greater co-ordination and accountability.
Before I talk about my constituency and some of the challenges that it faces, let me pick up the point about breastfeeding. It is absolutely the right of the mother to choose, and sometimes it may not be possible for that mother to breastfeed. However, it is important that substitute breast milk is not commercialised and sold for immense profit in this country or elsewhere. Parents, especially those in low-income households, struggle to make ends meet as it is. The children of mothers who, for whatever reason—medical or other—are unable to breastfeed depend on substitute breast milk. That must not become the cost that suddenly unravels the household—not just for the child, but for everybody living in it.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point: the formula industry is a commercial industry. Breast milk, by its very nature, is free and therefore does not have the backing of large-scale corporations that advertise it widely. Does he agree, then, that the Government should heed the Competition and Markets Authority’s report into the formula milk industry and take on its recommendations, including price controls for formula milk?
Iqbal Mohamed
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady. It is important for parents, mothers and families to know that Government policy is free from commercial influence, not just in this space but in all the spaces that impact our citizens.
As an engineer and a regulatory compliance expert in the pharmaceutical industry, I believe that the marketing of breast milk and the formulation of breast milk need to be better regulated. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency should have responsibility to regulate the nutritional content of substitute breast milk and the marketing claims of substitute breast milk producers. That is an important measure that the Government could introduce to ensure the consistent quality and nutritiousness of substitute breast milk.
As the Member for Dewsbury and Batley, I will focus my contribution on health inequality. In my constituency, we are proud of our diverse communities, but we cannot ignore the fact that outcomes for mothers and babies are not experienced equally. A recent Healthwatch report highlights the reality facing many children and families across West Yorkshire. Families repeatedly identified poverty, poor housing, long waiting times, barriers to healthcare access and the cost of staying healthy as factors that profoundly affect young children’s health and wellbeing. Poverty and its attendant effects mean that families struggle to maintain healthy living environments for their children through no fault of their own, whether because of mouldy housing or the lack of a nutritious diet. Health outcomes depend on income and place. The result is that infant mortality rates in Yorkshire and Humber are 5.1 per 1,000 live births, against a national average of 3.9 per 1,000 live births. This is a postcode lottery and we must do all we can to eradicate it.
Yet those inequalities are also compounded by ethnic disparities. Nationally, babies of black ethnicity continue to be more than twice as likely to be stillborn as babies of white ethnicity. In 2026, that is a scandal and precisely why legislation focused on the early years matters. The research conducted and the reports published over decades have not led to a meaningful positive intervention to reduce infant mortality for ethnic minorities and black families. The Bill is a real opportunity to address that inequality. We know, too, that children from ethnic minority backgrounds in deprived communities often face additional barriers in accessing healthcare and support. The Healthwatch report I previously cited found that cultural and language barriers can make it harder for some families to navigate services, while stigma around receiving support in some communities can prevent parents from getting help when they most urgently need it.
Those statistics and findings should remind us that improving services is not simply an administrative exercise; it is fundamentally a matter of fairness. That is why I believe one of the strengths of the Bill is its potential to shine a light on where support is working and where it is falling short. The annual report to be presented to Parliament on the state of services, outcomes and changes to outcomes since the previous year is extremely important, but it must be a catalyst to continuing to address the inequalities that remain at the end of each year. As the Bill progresses, I hope it will focus not only on the availability of services, but on whether outcomes are actually improving for children from disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds. When support is available early, far greater cost to children, public services and society can be avoided later.
Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Dewsbury and District hospital and recognise not only the institution but the generations of dedicated staff who have served our communities with skill, compassion, dedication and commitment. I pay tribute and extend my deepest gratitude to the doctors, nurses, midwives, porters, healthcare assistants, cleaners, administrators, technicians, volunteers and countless others who have cared for patients through times of joy, crisis and profound change.
I want to end by recognising the incredible work of health visitors, midwives and family support workers, and all health professionals across West Yorkshire and the whole country. They often provide the early intervention that transforms the course of a child’s life. Just a few months ago in my constituency I visited the reopened Brontë Birth Centre at Dewsbury hospital, which was closed for two years because of staff shortages. It is doing absolutely fantastic work and the facility is world class. I pay tribute to the Government who helped to implement and fund the facility, and to the staff who run it day to day.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
My local maternity unit in North Devon is closed, causing heartache for many mothers living in a rural area. Some have to turn around midway to hospital to get to the accident and emergency department at North Devon district hospital. The shortage of obstetrics and gynaecology consultants is a national problem. We are okay for midwives, but not for obs and gynae. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that creates inequality between urban and rural areas, and does he think the Government need to address that?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Services must be of the same quality and standard, with the resources that the demand in an area requires. Whether in rural areas, urban areas or city centres, there should not be a postcode lottery for the quality of care that expectant or new mothers receive anywhere in our country.
These amazing individuals—healthcare workers, midwives and obstetricians—are working under immense pressure, as is our entire health system. We have seen a significant reduction in the health visiting workforce over recent years, while demand has continued to grow. If we are serious about giving the Bill meaning beyond good intention, the resources required to deliver it must follow. Health visitors in Kirklees and in my area used to have manageable caseloads, with a number of families that they could visit at the appropriate frequency and provide the necessary support. However, due to funding reductions and the necessary cuts to balance the books, there are reports that individuals now face mountains of casework and up to almost a thousand families per caseworker or healthcare professional. That is clearly not sustainable and will never deliver the support that those families need.
In conclusion, I am honoured and delighted to support the Infants, Parents and Carers Bill. It will not solve every challenge facing families with young children, nor should we pretend that this legislation can address the root causes of poverty, poor housing or widening inequality. However, it is a vital step towards ensuring that babies and their families are visible in public policy and that access to support becomes a consistent expectation, rather than the roll of a dice. Every child gets only one start in life. Our responsibility in this House is to ensure that that start is as fair, safe and healthy as possible, and we must act in the period when intervention can have the greatest impact. This is not simply a maternity issue; it is a health issue, a social justice issue and an education issue. I fully support this Bill.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on putting a Bill in front of the House that has support from literally everybody in the Chamber? That is not true of the next Bill, which would protect our veterans from gratuitous prosecution under the Government’s new legislation. For that reason, the Government Whips Office does not want it to be properly debated or to progress today. The Bill we are debating is important, but it seems to me that we need to make time for another important debate about protecting our veterans. In view of that, I shall beg to move the closure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will be conscious that there are in the region of 15 more Members wishing to speak in this debate, and we have not yet heard from the Minister, so I am not minded to accept a closure motion at this point.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill today, and I commend the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on introducing it. If he will permit me to say so, he did so with his characteristic flair and passion. While I am in no way able to match his flair, I share his passion for improving the support available to babies, parents and carers, particularly during those first two years of a child’s life. Those 1,001 days are a golden opportunity. If we get the support right, the benefits last a lifetime. If we get it wrong, so do the costs.
There are three points I want to make in support of the Bill. First, it sets us on the path to support every child and every parent, whoever they are and wherever they are. Secondly, and most importantly, when this level of support is not there, as is the case now, the vacuum it creates puts babies and their parents at serious risk. Thirdly, by building better support during those first 1,001 days, we are investing in the essential infrastructure needed to make this country a fairer, stronger and more prosperous place.
Like many, I approach this Bill from the perspective of being a parent, which is one of the greatest joys that life has given me. I remember the first year of my son’s life and the happiness those precious early moments brought me and my partner Catherine, but I also remember distinctly the less precious moments and the daily battle that every new parent has with their anxieties: “Why are they crying? Why are they not sleeping? Am I doing something wrong?” These questions swirl around our heads when we are sleep-deprived, emotionally drained and totally unsure of ourselves. It is a time when we are at our most vulnerable, when we need help and when, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, parents need to have somewhere to turn.
From perinatal to neonatal care, that help must be universal, it must be statutory and it must be something that the Government are held to account for delivering. This Bill sets us on the path to doing so. It is universal, in that it requires the Government to assess the needs of all babies, parents and carers; it is statutory, in that it gives a legal footing to the support provided; and it is something on which the Government can be rightly held to account, in that it requires Ministers to report annually on the support they are providing and the difference it is making.
Without universal, statutory and accountable support, a vacuum is created, and that vacuum is dangerous, because in the gaps caused by the dismantling of services like Sure Start and health visitors, opportunists who are not fit to care for children and provide advice have thrived. I am talking most prominently here about the infant sleep industry—the wild west, where literally anyone can pose as an expert and give parents advice that puts their child’s life at risk. Sometimes these people call themselves nannies, sometimes maternity nurses and sometimes sleep trainers. They can provide care in the home, or they can share their advice to vast audiences on social media, but in all cases, there is no requirement for them to have any medical training or qualifications. There is no legal accountability for the advice they give and no recognised standard for the support they provide.
The reason I believe this is so dangerous is, as many Members are aware, because of what happened in my constituency two years ago, when a four-month-old died after being placed in an unsafe sleeping position on the advice of a maternity nurse who had no medical qualifications. There was no criminal recourse for that. It was an unimaginable tragedy, but one that I fear is bound to repeat itself unless action is taken.
To further illustrate this point, in May the BBC used undercover filming to expose two prominent individuals in the infant sleep industry who were openly giving advice to parents on safe sleep that could have resulted in the death of their children. Those figures have sold popular books on raising children and have thousands of followers online. The reason that these cowboys have such reach cannot be separated from the dismantling of Sure Start over the last decade and the fact that the number of health visitors has halved in that time. In the absence of services that used to be provided by the state—we have heard a lot from Members on both sides of the House about the importance of in-person support—vulnerable parents have understandably looked elsewhere for that support.
This Bill is an important step towards rebuilding these services and giving them statutory protection both now and in the future. Backing this effort is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic and social one too, because the services that support babies and their parents are essential national infrastructure that is just as important as any other. Investing in babies and young people reaps long-term rewards. In setting solid foundations for lifelong health, brain development and emotional wellbeing, we create a better future for the individual and the society they live in. As the Royal Foundation has said, improved support for infants and the adults around them could add £45 billion to the UK economy each year.
Mr Rand
Yes, I agree that we should be thinking about the support provided to babies and parents in that way as an important component of national infrastructure; indeed, it is just as important as any other.
The projected reduction in the huge costs associated with poor mental health, reliance on the care system and future criminal behaviour shows how our economy would benefit from increasing the support provided to parents and the adults around them and by creating the conditions that allow parents and carers to stay in work. However, for too long we have failed to grasp the opportunity of investing in babies and parents in those vital early years because it was treated as an afterthought and not a necessity. The Bill will set us on the path to changing that. It is a path where every baby, parent and carer has the help they need to be the best they can be. It is a path where the vacuum in support that exposes us to tragedy is filled by the services the state should always provide. It is a path where that support and those services pay for themselves by making us a stronger, fairer and more prosperous country. That is why I am proud to support the Bill.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing first place in the ballot and, more importantly, on choosing to use that valuable opportunity to introduce this Bill. There are many subjects that a Member fortunate enough to come first in the ballot might choose. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen one that is both profoundly important and—too often, I think—absent from our political debate: the health and development of babies, the wellbeing of their parents and carers, and the support available to families during pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life. That is why I am so pleased to support the Bill. I do so not only as the Member of Parliament for Mansfield but as a father and a grandfather.
When I think about the matters before us, I think about my own grandchildren, Samuel, Joseph, Rosa and Martha—and indeed those grandchildren in our family who are yet to be born. I think about the families into which they were born, the love and care that surround them and the extraordinary speed with which I have seen them begin to develop a personality, to form relationships and to make sense of the world.
Inevitably, that makes this debate personal, but it should be personal for all of us, because every Member of the House represents thousands of families who want exactly the same thing for their children and grandchildren: for them to be safe, healthy, loved and given the best possible start in life. The wellbeing of babies should therefore not be a party political matter. As many hon. Members have alluded to, babies do not comment on my Facebook posts or attempt to come to my surgery, yet the decisions we take in this House shape the circumstances in which those children begin their lives. That is why the Bill matters so much.
The 1,001 days between conception and a child’s second birthday are not simply a preliminary period before the more important business of education begins. It is the period in which the foundations of a child’s physical health, emotional security and ability to form relationships, develop language and develop future capacity to learn are all being laid. A child does not suddenly acquire life chances when they first walk through the school gates; by that point, a great deal has already happened.
Of course, we should never suggest that the course of a child’s life has been irreversibly decided before the age of two. Children are resilient, families overcome extraordinary difficulty, and good schools, good public services and strong communities can transform lives. However, we should recognise what the evidence and the daily experience of families tell us. Early relationships, responsive care, good nutrition, physical safety and the emotional wellbeing of parents all matter enormously, and when a family needs help, the earlier that help is available, the more effective it is likely to be. We talk a great deal in this place about prevention—about preventing ill health, family breakdown, or children falling behind at school—but prevention requires us to act before a difficulty becomes a crisis, and to invest political attention in people whose needs are not always visible or vocal.
That is the central strength of this Bill. It does not attempt to invent an entirely new structure or prescribe from Westminster how every service in every community should operate; instead, it seeks to place a stronger and more enduring statutory foundation beneath the support that families already need and, in some places, already receive. Supporting families does not mean replacing them—parents are the first and most important people in a child’s life. Our role, and the role of government, is not to take over the ordinary work of raising children; it is to create all of the conditions in which families can fulfil those responsibilities. As such, the best services work alongside families. They respect parents’ knowledge of their own children, offer reliable advice, identify risks, and help parents to develop confidence.
That is also why services need to be welcoming and non-stigmatising. If support is associated only with crisis, parents may delay asking for help because they fear judgment. The Government’s Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme provides an important basis on which to build. The commitment of £500 million between this year and 2029, the expansion of Best Start family hubs across every upper-tier local authority, and the enhanced healthy babies support in areas of high deprivation all demonstrate that the Government understand the importance of this period.
All Labour Members should be proud of the legacy of Sure Start. At its best, Sure Start understood that children’s wellbeing could not be separated neatly into health, education, family circumstances and so forth. It brought support into communities and created places where parents could seek assistance without stigma. My own daughter described Sure Start centres in Mansfield as “the best place in the universe”, so we should learn from the best of Sure Start, the family hubs programme, and the experience of Start for Life. Families are more interested in whether doors are open, the staff are present and help is effective than they are in thinking about the organisational model.
When I consider this Bill, I naturally think about my own family, but I also think about the generations of children in Mansfield and across the country whose names we do not yet know. If we believe that every child should have the opportunity to flourish, our commitment cannot begin at nursery or primary school; it must begin at the beginning.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West again, and hope that Members across the House will allow the Bill to proceed without dividing, work constructively on its detail in Committee, and give support for babies and their families—the enduring foundation that they deserve and that this Bill can help to provide. I commend the Bill to the House.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who I think has just stepped out for a moment, and all my hon. Friends who have worked on this matter for so long, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).
I rise today to speak particularly on behalf of a group of babies who are particularly vulnerable and sometimes forgotten: babies who live with their families in temporary accommodation. There are 177,500 children living in temporary accommodation at the moment—a record level. We all wish that level to be brought down, and yesterday I listened to a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, who set out plans as to how exactly we will do that.
But for the moment, those 177,500 children remain in temporary accommodation, often in single rooms with shared facilities, living with damp and mould, and with no space to play, crawl or learn. They are often moved repeatedly, and are in a situation where their families lose touch with support networks; services struggle to keep in touch, as those families are far from their GPs, their health visitors and the hospital where their babies were born—multiple bus journeys away from the schools, early years settings and SEND specialists who were previously supporting them.
Mr Rand
Would my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that our new Mayor of Greater Manchester, Bev Craig, has agreed to provide free bus travel for children in sheltered accommodation, which will hopefully go some way to making a difference to those children? I hope that this will be replicated in other areas across the country.
Antonia Bance
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What a fantastic idea from our brilliant new Mayor of Greater Manchester—one that I will raise with our fantastic Mayor of the West Midlands to see if we can do something similar. I frequently argue with my Sandwell council to ensure that bus passes are provided to families in temporary accommodation.
For some families, though, life in temporary accommodation can be even more devastating. Our friends at the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation set out evidence showing that 104 children died in temporary accommodation between 2019 and 2025, and 75 of those were under the age of one. The Lullaby Trust, which does work on sudden infant death syndrome, sets out that temporary accommodation provides the ideal environment for unsafe sleeping. Often, these children are placed with their families in single rooms without cots; in 2023, 4,100 babies under one were placed in temporary accommodation by councils that provided no safer sleep advice to those families, and 903 babies were placed by councils in rooms without cots.
This is personal. Babies in the 10% most deprived areas of the country are twice as likely to die as those in the 10% least deprived areas. My constituency is the 38th most deprived out of the 543 constituencies across England. I am always bound, when I say stats like that about Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, to say: we are proud, we are resilient, we care about our kids and we want the best for them. But, as our Prime Minister has set out, 40 years of deindustrialisation and 15 years of austerity has put us at the bottom of all the wrong lists, and it is our job to reverse that.
Two hundred and twenty-two families are in temporary accommodation in my borough of Sandwell, with more in the bit of Dudley that I represent—that is 554 children. I am sure that other hon. Members will agree with me that there are some constituents who contact us who we worry about—and we worry about them constantly. We all have our lists. I know my families in temporary accommodation. Every one of them gets a call from my office every two weeks to find out where they are up to. Every one of them has been asked by my office, as soon as I know that they are in TA, “Do you have a cot for your little one?” Please ask families you come into contact with in temporary accommodation if they have cots, and please do your level best to find them a cot if they do not have one, because temporary accommodation is not safe for babies, and we should all be aware of that.
I think of the families I have met. I met Katie in central Wednesbury, pushing her two sons through town, on the first day that I was a candidate. I do not think my agent thought that one of his jobs was going to be childcare for small children, but it was because I needed to speak to Katie. She talked to me about how the council had placed her two bus rides away in Walsall, and she was trying to keep her autistic son in his nursery setting, by hook or by crook, on two buses. Then, quietly, she rolled up her sleeve and showed me the insect bites from the infestation in the temporary accommodation that she was living in. She told me that she was ashamed to show me. The shame is not hers; the shame is all of ours that that was where she was living. It was not for long—we got her out—but there are still families in those situations.
I think of Sarah—these are not their real names, by the way—trying desperately to cook, with three children, in a shared kitchen. How do you cook with three little ones around your feet? You cannot leave them in the single room that is your only private space. Steve, fighting for his family, called me at 20 past 6 about a month ago. He left a message: “Antonia, maybe you can help. We’re going to sleep in my car tonight—me, my missus and two kids.” They did not sleep in their car. I will not let people sleep in their car and my council, thankfully, will not let people sleep in their car, but I worry about our families in temporary accommodation.
That is why I am here to speak on the babies Bill. Although the babies Bill cannot solve the housing crisis that we face for children in this country, it can ensure that babies caught up in that housing crisis are not forgotten. It will mean support for infants and parents put on a stronger statutory footing; a stronger assessment of need; and accessibility of services that families receive. It will help to make sure that our most vulnerable babies are identified earlier and supported better, especially our babies forgotten in hotel rooms, two bus rides away from where they usually live.
The Bill will build on a measure introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 that councils must notify schools, GPs and health visitors when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. That means that better access to health visitors, stronger perinatal mental health support and earlier intervention to stop escalation will be more likely to happen for children in temporary accommodation. It means a better chance to thrive for some of our children, despite the challenges that their families face.
I have to end by paying to tribute to my three family hubs—my Tipton family hub, my Wednesbury family hub and my Coseley family hub—because behind every statistic is a child and a family left devastated. We remember every one of the 76 babies who died in temporary accommodation between 2019 and 2025. They should not have died; they should have been safe. The Bill will protect services for all children, especially the most vulnerable, like our babies in temporary accommodation, and I am proud to support it today.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I also hugely thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing forward such an important and necessary Bill, which has my wholehearted support. I declare my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children and as a member of the parliamentary advisory group for the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I also proudly declare that, a decade and a half ago, I worked for Dame Tessa Jowell, who pioneered the transformational Sure Start programme that the spirit of the Bill echoes back to. When announcing the first Sure Start trailblazers in this very place, she said that we are not prepared to allow children’s opportunities to be set on the day that they are born.
The nature of parental influence on babies was brought up with me recently, when my daughter stayed with a family friend, and on her return said, “Mum, she taught me a brilliant poem by a guy called Larkin.” It goes:
“They”—
mess—
“you up, your mum and dad,
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.”
As shocked as I was at hearing her use the vernacular, I was delighted that she had discovered Larkin, as “This Be the Verse” was also a favourite of mine as a teenager, but I know more now than I did when I was a teenager. We now have the brilliant research and evidence that shows that with support, parents can bond and love their babies. Breaking the stranglehold of intergenerational trauma is possible.
There was a huge wealth of evidence that sat behind the need for Sure Start, so it was devastating to see that by the time I was having children, the strong political consensus built by the late 2000s around the value of investing in the early years had become undone. It is, after all, easy to make cuts to services supporting babies, given that they neither have a voice or a vote. It is also heartbreaking that the most recent evidence by the IFS, quoted today, shows that children who attended Sure Start had higher educational attainment, particularly those from the most-disadvantaged backgrounds. That was exactly the ambition and what underpinned the introduction of Sure Start by Tessa, David Blunkett and others, only to come to fruition after the whole programme had had the rug pulled from under it.
However, I think Tessa would be delighted to see, through this Bill, the reforging of that cross-party consensus on the issue of support for babies and their parents. For that I thank Dame Andrea Leadsom, who co-chaired the 1,001 days all-party parliamentary group with Tessa, for her work on making the Bill a reality, and carrying the love for the smell of babies—which they regularly discussed in Tessa’s office—into her programme of work at the Department of Health and Social Care, alongside former Minister Will Quince. I also thank Jess Mills, Tessa’s daughter, and her organisation Start Strong, through which Tessa’s legacy lives on.
It is our duty to not just to Tessa’s memory, but the lives of babies and parents across the country facing the stark inequalities at the start of life, to embed the principles behind the Bill in legislation, so that they can stand the test of time. I have a particular interest in safeguarding, and given that babies under the age of one account for a third of serious safeguarding reviews, and around three fifths of child deaths reviewed nationally, any Bill that makes babies more visible to multiple services is incredibly welcome.
It is a stain on our idea of equality that so many babies in this country begin life already at a disadvantage, that babies in the top 10% most-deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die as those in the 10% least deprived, and that almost a third of parents cannot afford to provide balanced meals. The Bill will only succeed if it makes that scandal of inequality an issue that no future Government can simply ignore. It must be strong enough to hold successive Governments’ feet to the fire. For that to happen, the Bill must have the teeth to achieve it.
I am slightly concerned that the strength of the accountability process set out by the Bill is undermined by the ability of any Secretary of State being held to account by it to define the scope against which they are assessed. To me, that is not strong enough. I would like to see in the Bill the specific outcomes that Governments must improve for babies and young children. There is precedent for that. The Childcare Act 2006, which helped establish the framework for Sure Start children’s centres, placed a duty on English local authorities to not only improve the wellbeing of children in their area but, crucially, reduce inequalities between young children across a number of named outcomes, including physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing. If we want successive Governments to work to improve outcomes for our babies, that requires us to be bold enough to say so in primary legislation. If we could place that duty on local government 20 years ago, surely we can ask the same of our national Government today.
It is, of course, heartening to see the investment that the Government are providing and that they are rolling out more Best Start family hubs. I recently visited Kirkley Best Start family hub in Lowestoft to see its perinatal mental health support in action. While there, we met a mother who experienced a mental health crisis and found it difficult to bond with her baby. With support from the mental health worker, she and her husband were slowly able to build those blocks. When I met them, she said that things were still hard but she was able to love her baby, now a curious toddler, and she called her worker her rock.
Relationships are the key. This is not just a service or intervention, but the very best of what Tessa would call the “relational state”. Perhaps man may not need to hand misery on to man, and this Bill can play its part in that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I have spoken in this House before about Stoke’s rates of infant mortality, which consistently rank among the highest in the country. In the latest data, the infant mortality rate in Stoke-on-Trent was 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, almost double the national average. It is a stain on our society that in 2026 a child’s chances of reaching their first birthday can be influenced by where they are born. Infant mortality is explicitly linked to socioeconomic deprivation and is a consequence of deep-rooted inequality.
Tackling our infant mortality rate is a goal that is deeply important to me, and I want to take this opportunity to tell the story of one of my constituents, Ashley Wilshaw—I will get upset—and the short life of her baby daughter, Chloe. It is upsetting, so if anybody who has experienced baby loss wants to step out, I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will understand.
Chloe was born prematurely, just before 26 weeks, on 28 April 2011. That may sound like a long time ago, but it is not to Ashley. She was, in her mum’s words,
“a settled, healthy and happy baby, a baby who knew what she wanted and fought so hard to be here.”
As a premature baby, Chloe was at high risk of necrotising enterocolitis, or NEC, a serious bowel condition that can become life-threatening without quick intervention. Chloe had received blood transfusions and had been given formula milk, which are both risk factors for NEC. Chloe began to show signs that something was wrong. She became pale and quiet, her body temperature lowered, her heart rate rose to 200 beats per minute, she struggled to breathe, she began vomiting profusely and she refused feeds. Her abdomen became hard and distended, and blood appeared in her feeding tube—a clear sign of a perforated bowel, which leads to sepsis.
Ashley did what any concerned parent should do—she asked questions, but she was not listened to. She was told that the blood was Gaviscon and that Chloe needed to continue being fed and medicated, causing Chloe agony. Ashley still was not listened to. When she persisted in raising concerns about Chloe, one nurse described her as an “over-the-top mother”. Chloe’s symptoms worsened. The investigations that may have identified the problem sooner were not carried out when they could have made a difference. Lactate levels were not checked. Blood gases were not carried out as appropriate. Scans focused narrowly on her lungs, and feeding continued despite signs of feed intolerance.
Tragically, little Chloe died on 4 June 2011, aged just 37 days old. Leaving behind a very traumatised mum who, 15 years later, still struggles every day with her mental health to cope with the memory of the unnecessary pain and death of her precious baby girl.
Amanda Hack
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in such an emotional debate. Does she agree that looking after mothers before, during and after having a baby is vital, particularly when birth trauma or, sadly, baby loss is suffered?
Dr Gardner
I wholeheartedly agree. I have never experienced it myself, but I live in awe of how women keep managing to go, day to day, having had that experience.
After fighting for answers, Ashley finally achieved an independent review, which identified missed opportunities to detect and treat Chloe’s NEC earlier, alongside multiple instances of sub-optimal care. That review came after four earlier investigations, fought for by Ashley, that, by the trust’s own admission, had not been conducted to the required standard.
Finally, the Royal Stoke hospital has accepted the independent review and its conclusions in full. It has apologised to Chloe’s family and acknowledged that Chloe most likely would have survived had those opportunities to detect and treat her NEC not been missed. This is devastating, because at the heart of this case is a mother who knew that something was wrong; a mother who should have been listened to, and a baby girl fighting to live.
I must state that the Royal Stoke has made considerable improvements to its maternity services in recent years. At the time of Chloe’s short life, the maternity service was rated as requiring improvement, with safety rated as inadequate. However, after much work, self-reflection, culture change and process improvements, the service is now rated good. I had the honour of visiting and seeing the work of the amazing midwives. I commend the hospital for turning things around.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour just acknowledged the massive improvements at the Royal Stoke hospital, and I join her in doing so because the impact on both my constituents and hers has been huge.
Dr Gardner
My hon. Friend was with me on that visit, and I am sure he remembers how impressive it was. Importantly, one of the areas highlighted in that service improvement was communication with families and the way that feedback and concerns are now heard and acted upon. Listening to parents is not an optional extra; it is part of delivering safe and effective care. I ask only now, 15 years after Chloe died, that the hospital finally forward the agreed settlement to Ashley. She wants to provide a caravan holiday home by the sea for parents who have experienced the loss of a child, to allow them time to grieve and rest from the trauma.
That brings me back to why the Bill matters. It calls for better support, guidance and information for parents and carers. In providing that support, we must recognise that parents know their children best. They know what is normal for their baby. They notice when something is changing. They may not always have the medical vocabulary to explain exactly what is wrong, but their observations are valuable. Their concerns should be acknowledged and considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the clinical picture. Chloe’s case shows why that matters. Ashley saw that something was wrong; she raised concerns, she asked questions and she should have been listened to.
Even while contending with the grief of losing her daughter, Ashley has sought to ensure that another family does not experience what hers did, and to ensure that Chloe’s legacy lives on. Ashley has developed recommendations for dealing with NEC, which show exactly what better support and guidance are needed—practical recommendations grounded in her lived experience. I ask the Minister to meet Chloe’s mother Ashley Wilshaw and me to discuss the recommendations and the lessons that can be learned from Chloe’s case. In the interests of time, I will not go through them now.
I will never forget little Chloe Wilshaw or her brave mum Ashley. I hope Ashley has received some comfort from today. She has been listened to. I thank the Bill’s sponsor, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), for bringing this crucial Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am honoured to support the Bill. With it, we may create a brighter future for all our children.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) for her emotional contribution, and I hope baby Chloe’s mum feels that her case has been aired here today. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for introducing the Bill. It is a really important one. Infants, parents and carers—it covers it all. He has paid tribute to all those whose work he is building on, such as Dame Andrea Leadsom, Tessa Jowell and my good friend and previous office buddy, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).
What does this Bill do? It proposes a legislative framework focused on three linked elements in infant support services: assessment of need, provision of services and reporting. We cannot get anything right until we know what is happening, so assessment is critical. As the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, it is a short Bill, but it is a high-level one. I am sure that in Committee the Bill will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and that the Minister will have a lot to work on from it.
Why 1,001 days? We have already heard clearly the evidence about the 1,001 days from conception to two years old. From my 30 years’ experience as a paediatric physiotherapist, I know just how important that period is. I could see how important the care was that the mum received during pregnancy. I have seen babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome and babies who are six hours old going through heroin withdrawal. We must not see these things again. We must do what we can to stop this, and that is why the Bill is so important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be asking why a Welsh MP is talking about a Bill that applies only to England, but my experience in the Welsh services, as well as the English services, showed me just how important the early days are. That is why Sure Start was so important, and in Wales we have Flying Start. We know that if a mum goes to regular antenatal checks and has the scans, things can now be picked up very early. We can actually treat children in the womb. That is fantastic news and can ensure a great start for any baby who has problems that are discovered before birth. Obviously, after birth, the use of health visitors is vital.
We have already talked about home visits. It is not enough to have an online visit. Baby P was a clear example of what can go wrong. Professionals can be hoodwinked, and that is not right—we need face-to-face visits. When I was a physiotherapist, home visits told me so much about the family. By just walking through the door I could tell what level of money they had or what it smelled like. I would know what was going on in that family and intuitively how much more help they might need. We have heard clearly today about the history of the erosion of Sure Start. It is important that services are set out in statute, so that they cannot be eroded. The evidence is clear that 1 million neuropathways are set up every second, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South said. We also know from the terrible evidence of children who have been isolated in orphanages with a lack of stimulation and the problems that they had that that ground can never be made up. That is why this Bill is so important.
We need a level playing field in order to bring everybody up to a suitable level. I could go on and on, but I will not. I am proud of what has been achieved by Labour Governments in the past, but I am equally proud of what this Bill will do in the future, and I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing it forward today.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on bringing forward this important Bill and on winning first place in the ballot. I would like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her work on this topic. I also thank Will Quince and Andrea Leadsom and the 1001 Critical Days Foundation for their work.
I must declare an interest: I am a consultant paediatrician, a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a mother of three. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke of the importance of universality and concerns faced by all parents, especially first-time parents, and I agree. I was very familiar with babies when my first was born—I was working as a registrar in a large, highly specialised neonatal intensive care unit looking after babies with sepsis, babies born months early and those who were having surgical operations—but being a parent is different: the love, the joy, the sheer responsibility of looking after that little bundle of love. I am grateful to the midwives who provided me with support at that time, and I particularly remember Marie, who was good to me throughout all three of my pregnancies.
The 1,001 day window from conception to age two is crucial. It is where the human brain is most malleable. It grows and develops rapidly and is making literally millions of connections. The care received and the opportunities provided through that period affect brain growth and the child’s development. Positive interactions—play, reading, singing and cuddles—strengthen that process. They improve brain connections, support healthy development, and improve emotional regulation and social skills. This continues into the long term. Sadly, the converse is also true: unresponsiveness, neglect and trauma interfere with this biological process. They disrupt the white matter structure connections. They affect a child’s brain growth.
Successive Governments have recognised how crucial the early years are, and have tried a combination of various types of services—some universal, some targeted, but all with the same aim of improving children’s lives. Sure Start has been mentioned. The ringfence was removed, allowing local decision making—I believe that the new Prime Minister calls this “devolution”. The overall budget was strained, resulting in difficult choices, and under pressure, councils of all colours made some unwise decisions to cut some services. Previous Conservative Governments tried to support children with funded nursery and childcare hours, tax-free childcare and family hubs. In a recognition that children spend most of their time at home, the Hungry Little Minds programme supported parents in helping their children at home.
The 1,001 days from conception to two years are key, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that care for a baby can start before conception. The national health service website advises women considering a pregnancy to ensure they have had a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, smear test and sexually transmitted infection checks; have stopped smoking; and are a healthy weight. It advises them to take vitamin D and folic acid, and to discuss any prescription medicines with their general practitioner to see whether they are suitable for pregnancy. The Government have ensured that, by the end of this year, non-wholemeal wheat flour must be supplemented with folic acid, which will reduce the number of neural tube defects. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, when it starts to have effect, will also help to reduce problems in pregnancy.
The Bill has been produced with the support of the Department of Health and Social Care, but it requires work across Government. It is not just the health service that will deliver better opportunities for children. There is obviously a role for the Department for Education, and things like air quality, transport services for people to access the services provided, and a strong wider economy are all important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that fewer people live near their extended family than was previously the case. That is something important to consider as we ensure that people have local support.
The Bill will put children’s services on a statutory footing, but regulations will determine what that means. I am particularly interested in whether the Bill would have helped to protect two services that were given to my constituents. The Safe Families edge of care service provided befriending, practical help at home and daytime care. It ended on 30 June and has not been recommissioned by the Reform county council. This service tried to help children and families who were in difficulty and whose children were at risk of being taken into care; it tried to keep families together while ensuring that the child was safe. That has been cancelled. Reform also stopped Lincolnshire county council’s voluntary youth services grant funding. I am interested in understanding the Government’s plan for the regulations, because although the Bill protects services, regulations will say what those services will be and whether they will be funded. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about that.
I am also interested in the use of the services themselves. We had a debate on vaccinations in Westminster Hall just the other day. Vaccinations are available for free for everyone, but not everyone takes them up. We can have the best services in the world, but if they are not used by the people who need them, they will not be effective. I am interested in understanding how the Minister intends to ensure a good uptake of the services.
Every single baby is precious. As we have heard, everyone across this House wants children to have great opportunities. We all want them to achieve their best potential. That requires teamwork—parents, wider family, friends, community and tax-funded services. We must all play our part. Supporting the Bill may help to support children, and I will support it today.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing first place in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and on bringing this important Bill before the House. In the 21 years that I have been in this place, I have never even got close to getting a private Member’s Bill, but I heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he had had to wait 30 years to get his, so there is hope for us all. It has certainly been worth the wait. The Bill reflects both careful thought, and a determination to ensure that babies, parents and carers receive the sustained attention that they deserve.
I also recognise the valuable work of the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, and in particular Dame Andrea Leadsom’s long-standing commitment to that agenda. I served in Parliament with Dame Andrea, and I know that over many years she has helped to build understanding across Parliament, and beyond, of why pregnancy and the first two years of life matter so profoundly. Her leadership has kept babies and their families at the heart of the national conversation. I also commend the work of the CEO of the foundation, Will Quince, who previously served in this House and was a Health Minister, and of course I thank my distinguished colleague, the right hon. Lord Blunkett for all his work in this area. I want to refer to the late Baroness Tessa Jowell, who has been mentioned many times during this debate, and her pioneering work around Sure Start, which I will say a little more about later in my speech. I also thank Graham Allen, the former MP for Nottingham North, for all his work in this area. I am grateful to all the organisations, professionals, parents and carers whose advocacy and experience have shaped this debate.
I acknowledge the many excellent contributions we have heard today, but I will start with the outstanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who until this summer was an excellent Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care. In the 21 years that she has been a Member of Parliament, she has fought long and hard for the rights of babies and children, be that by promoting school food or free school meals or special educational needs, or in this case through all the work she has done to ensure Government support for the Bill. As she said, “Back our babies, back the Bill.” She has been campaigning on these issues for so long—indeed, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, “since God was a boy”. In my view it is “since God was a girl”, but I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she has done.
We have had important and wide-ranging contributions from Members across the House covering many issues, and I will highlight a few. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the Chair of the Education Committee, gave us the excellent phrase that is outside Sheringham nursery and children’s centre: “Building brains here”. I think that is very powerful. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) that raising children is a public good and we all have an interest in it. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) spoke about the important role of charities and the voluntary sector, of Home Start, and of the Extra Mile charity in her constituency. The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) talked about medical misogyny and domestic abuse, which are really important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) talked passionately about her frontline experience of early intervention at Sure Start and, absolutely, the power of sitting down with a cup of tea and having someone to talk to. I also pay tribute to her role as the Government’s national maternity adviser, and her wise counsel in that role.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will carry on, because I want to say something about other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) spoke as a recovering lawyer and talked about safeguarding issues. I found his scrutiny of the Bill’s clauses interesting and important, and we will obviously reflect on that. I wish the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) well as a new parent—I think he is the newest parent in the House, so all the very best with that. He talked about maximising the potential of every child.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) talked about surrogacy and made passionate comments about the surrogacy laws, particularly in respect of international surrogacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) gave her personal reflections and talked about her community. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) talked with great skill and knowledge drawn from experience in her role on the APPG, and talked about the importance of support for mums. I add my best wishes to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) to Hallie on her first birthday.
We heard about health inequalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) talked about how investing in babies will provide the fairer, stronger and more prosperous country that we all want to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked from the perspective of being a grandfather. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) talked about temporary accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) quoted one of my favourite Larkin poems—Philip Larkin was the librarian at the University of Hull for many years, and as a Hull MP, I know that poem very well—and talked about the importance of getting safeguarding right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) spoke passionately on behalf of her constituent, Ashley, and baby Chloe. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Ashley, and I am pleased to hear about the improvements that have been made at the Royal Stoke hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) brought her experience and knowledge as an NHS professional to the debate.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Many Members were unable to contribute to today’s debate but have much to say, so will the Minister meet those Members to discuss further issues that were not raised during the debate?
Dame Diana Johnson
I know that my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this area. My door is always open to Members of Parliament to discuss issues within my portfolio, so yes, of course I would be happy to meet those Members.
I want to say a little bit about the importance of the first 1,001 days. The Government have set out an ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, and to give every child the best start in life. If we are to achieve that, we must begin at the very beginning. The 1,001 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday are a unique window of opportunity. During that short period, babies’ brains, bodies and relationships develop at extraordinary speed. The experiences they have and the care and support around them help to lay foundations for physical health, emotional wellbeing, communication and learning. I have seen that myself in recent weeks with the birth of my great-niece, Isabelle Diane.
A baby does not develop in isolation: their world is shaped by the adults who care for them. Supporting a baby therefore means supporting the whole family, helping parents and carers to build confidence, protecting their mental health, strengthening the parent-infant relationship and providing practical help with feeding and child development.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will carry on.
That support must be accessible and compassionate. Parenthood can be joyful, but it can also be exhausting and isolating. Some families face the additional pressure of poverty, insecure housing, poor mental health or limited support networks. Early help cannot remove every challenge, but it can prevent difficulties from escalating and reduce inequalities before they become entrenched. That is why the child poverty strategy is also so important, alongside all that this Government are doing. Early intervention is not only the right thing to do for babies and families now; it is an investment in the future. When parents and carers receive the right help at the right time, children have a strong platform from which to grow, learn and thrive, and there is less need for costly crisis intervention later on.
I want to say a few things about Sure Start. We all know that well-designed support can make a lasting difference. Sure Start, launched in 1998 under the previous Labour Government, brought health, early learning, childcare, parenting and wider family support together for families with children under five. At its best, it offered a trusted local front door, with professionals working around the needs of the child and the family, rather than expecting families to navigate a maze of separate services.
The long-term evidence of the success of Sure Start is compelling. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that children with greater access to it experienced fewer hospital admissions later in childhood and adolescence, better educational outcomes, improved mental health and lower levels of school absence. That was felt even more profoundly by children growing up in disadvantaged communities. Very importantly, there is also a strong economic case. The central estimate is that Sure Start’s long-term financial benefits were about twice its up-front cost. That matters, because it shows that early support is not simply a desirable addition to public services, but can improve lives, reduce pressure on health and education services, and provide value for the taxpayer.
The lesson is not that every aspect of the past should be reproduced unchanged. It is that trusted local provision, early help, joined-up services and a clear focus on families can make a measurable difference. Those principles run through the Government’s approach today. Through the Best Start family hubs and the healthy babies programme, we are building a more joined-up, prevention-focused system of support. As part of the wider best start in life agenda, Best Start family hubs are designed to give families a clear route to the help and support that they need, making it easier for them to find information, advice and practical help, from pregnancy through to childhood. They bring together health, early education and wider family services, and connect parents and carers with support with parenting, relationships, child development, special educational needs and disabilities and financial wellbeing, and with community support. Since April 2026, all 153 upper-tier local authorities in England have been delivering the programme.
The healthy babies programme sits at the heart of the Best Start family hubs, providing focused help from conception to the age of two, particularly with infant feeding, perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationships. Those services support parents and carers to nurture their babies and promote healthy physical, social and emotional development. The Government are investing £200 million in healthy babies over three years as part of our wider £900 million package for Best Start family hubs and healthy babies. The healthy babies funding is helping 75 local authorities with high levels of deprivation to strengthen those services. The support is practical and preventive, and includes one-to-one and peer support with infant feeding, help with mild to moderate perinatal mental health difficulties, and evidence-based work to strengthen the relationship between parent and baby. The support also helps local areas to publish clear information and involve parents and carers directly in designing and improving services. Importantly, this is not a one-size-fits-all model. Local areas are responding to the needs of their own communities.
Effective support is about not simply making services available, but ensuring that parents, carers and expectant families feel confident seeking help and can access it when they need it. It means building on the strengths already present in communities, creating opportunities for families to support one another, and developing trusting relationships so that no family feel that they must face challenges on their own. Through the 10-year health plan, we are committed to expanding healthy babies nationally over the coming decade. We want to create a visible local offer, rooted in neighbourhoods and designed around families.
So why is the Bill needed? The Government are taking action to support babies and their families, but history shows us that effective early years support can be vulnerable when it depends mainly on time-limited programmes, non-statutory guidance or broad general duties. Priorities and funding arrangements change, and services that families value can lose visibility or become fragmented. As one of those who was around during the time when we had to fight to try to keep Sure Start in place, and who heard the warnings about how short-sighted it was to cut and dismantle the service, I know that the battle is really hard, so the Bill is very welcome.
The Bill provides a focused and proportionate response. Its central purpose is to ensure that the needs of babies, parents and carers are systematically understood, reflected in relevant decisions and made visible to Parliament. Pregnancy and the first two years should not be treated as a passing policy priority; they should receive sustained attention over time. The Bill does not create a new individual entitlement to a fixed list of services, and it does not prescribe a single model of what these services should look like. Instead, it creates a durable national framework, so that decisions on infant support services are informed by evidence, assessed need and the lived experience of families.
As we have heard, the Bill establishes five linked duties. First, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the publicly funded infant support services and relevant functions to which the framework applies. Secondly, the Secretary of State must assess the expected level of need for those specified services. Thirdly, in preparing that assessment, the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to seek the views of parents, carers and those expecting to become parents or carers and must take those views into account. Fourthly, the Secretary of State must exercise the specified functions with a view to ensuring appropriate provision. Finally, the Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the level of provision and the contribution that those services make to positive outcomes.
The Government support the Bill because it aligns with our priorities. It advances our ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and reinforces the work that is under way through the healthy babies programme and Best Start family hubs. For those reasons, the Government are supporting the Bill this afternoon.
Sir Desmond Swayne
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank hon. Members for their contributions. I am presented with the difficulty of forming a Standing Committee that balances those who supported the Bill on Second Reading with those who opposed it. If any of those Members who were unfortunate in not catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, nevertheless want to serve on the Standing Committee, I will attempt to accommodate as many of them as I can.
During the debate, a number of Members referred to the need for breastfeeding and its importance. It reminded me that for many years, my wife was a breastfeeding counsellor for the National Childbirth Trust. Part of the training for that involved being a breastfeeding agent for the Egnell breastfeeding pump, which clients could hire for £1 a week. It was a bit like an iron lung that sat in our basement. It went “ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa” and extruded the milk. It was always a mystery to me why my SodaStream delivered a cloudy product, and it was not until later that I discovered that I had been serving milkshakes, because my wife had been using the machine and storing her product in the ice maker.
The Education Act 1944, or the Butler Act, which made such a profound difference to the lives of children in our country, was preceded by the coalition Government’s White Paper, in which they set out their vision in 1943 for
“a happier childhood and a better start in life”.
Let us hope that we have begun a process today with this legislation that will have as profound an impact.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful to the sponsors of this snappily-titled Bill, who are the deputy Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy); the shadow Housing Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); the shadow Minister for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois); my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst); the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Devon (Ian Roome); and last but definitely not least, because he has been such a massive advocate and supporter of this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis).
Members will know that one of those sponsors is a Liberal Democrat and another is a Democratic Unionist party Member. I did try very hard to get a Labour Member to sponsor the Bill, but to no avail, and I am very sad about that. Equally, I notice that we do not have here any Members of the self-styled patriots, the Reform party. They do not even have a defence spokesman. I suspect, though, having watched the television last night, that they will have quite a few defence lawyers!
I would like to apologise to the hundreds of people across the country who have written to their MP at my request, asking them to be here today and to support the Bill; I am incredibly sorry that the Government so disliked the Bill that we have had four and three quarter hours of the House in fervent agreement with itself, albeit on a very important issue, which means that I get 15 minutes at the end. This is a tactic. I feel very sorry for those veterans sitting in the Public Gallery, who have been here since 9.30 this morning expecting to hear a debate in support of our veterans. They will be as confused as I am as to why the Government so dislike this Bill.
The reason I am quite so discombobulated is that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who thought this issue was sufficiently important to make it a resigning issue, has sadly not thought it sufficiently important to be here today. He said that the Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Bill is not fit for purpose and that
“It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect…people who did their duty under conditions most individuals in Westminster will never have to imagine.”
The good news is that I do not have to imagine. I declare an interest: this Bill would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland. I spent three and a half years of my life trying to bring peace to that place.
What I will do, because I am incredibly time constrained, is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway is under orders that at 28 minutes past the hour, he will make a discreet tug on my jacket and that at 29 minutes past he will positively yank me to the Bench in order that the Bill does not fall.
The Bill is very simple. In a nutshell, it would place into law that there could be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless and until there was new compelling evidence in the view of a Supreme Court judge. It is really that simple. The Clerks have done all the hard work on the wording, as have the generals and the veterans’ community to bring forward the Bill today.
The Government are promising us that they will bring forward protections for our veterans via amendments. Now, given that this Bill will not really progress today, maybe the Minister would consider taking the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and simply re-presenting it to the House as one of the Government’s amendments to its own Bill, because I think it is completely reasonable. I cannot remember which US President said it, but it is amazing what you can achieve when no one is worried about who gets the credit. I do not mind whether the Government want to take credit for this. I would be the happiest veteran in the country if they simply took my Bill and made it one of their amendments.
I know the Minister for Veterans and People well, having served on the Defence Committee, and that is my entreaty to him. The reason why—[Interruption.] I do beg the pardon of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); I made the unreasonable assumption that it might be a Defence Minister replying to the debate. I have outlined, in a nutshell, what the Bill does and why it is important.
When I was getting ready for my first Northern Ireland tour, we were training, and they had invented a thing called the coffee jar bomb. It was lethal. It was a Nescafé jar with a length of scaffolding in it and what was affectionately known as “shipyard confetti”—nuts and bolts—as well as some plastic explosives and a plunger switch, which is the sort of thing in a fridge door that turns a fridge light off. That would be rigged up, in the shape of a coffee jar. It would then be carried to a riot and often slung over a wall, so that there was no line of sight, when troops were known to be on the other side.
The coffee jar bomb was designed to kill and maim, but it was also designed to put us troops on the horns of a dilemma. If a soldier saw someone with a coffee jar in their hand, and they looked like they were going to throw it, could that soldier reasonably open fire under the rules of engagement? It could just be a coffee jar.
To prepare for our upcoming Northern Ireland tour in Belfast in 1992—by the way, there was a young second lieutenant called Ben Wallace in the same battalion getting ready at that time—we would have our judgmental shooting tested on a thing called a cine range. In the cine range, we would lie on the floor with our sub-cal rifle in our hand, and a scenario would build up in front of us, whether it was a public order situation or a sniper getting ready to shoot. We knew the rules of engagement and we could see the scenario building up. At the critical moment, when the soldier thought that the threat required it and the rules of engagement allowed it, they opened fire and the action froze, and a tiny pink dot would appear on the screen to see whether they had hit or not. The instructor would then debrief the soldier as to whether they had acted reasonably or could in fact be prosecuted.
One scenario was devilishly difficult. It was a public order scene, with one of these coffee jars was being passed around. At the point of launch, I said to the instructor, “Stop the tape.” The action froze, and I said, “Can I open fire?” My instructor paused, and he said, “Sir, you have chosen a very difficult moment indeed. It is at times like this, sir, that you remind yourself that it is sometimes better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six.”
It was completely chilling, but that is, in effect, what we have done for decades; we have put young men and women on to the streets of the United Kingdom with a rifle strapped around their neck and very few rights in addition to those they have as a private citizen. We have sent them on patrol to try to keep the peace, with bad people on all sides trying to do bad things to them. On that Northern Ireland tour, I had the words of my colour sergeant ringing in my ears—it is better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six—but it turned out not to be true. It turns out that you get tried by one man, in the case of two of our guardsmen who were involved in a judgmental shooting situation; they were convicted of murder and given life.
I raise that to make the point that these cases have been investigated and judgments have been made. What I am seeking to do with this Bill, and hopefully with the Government’s amendment, is to draw a line—a fair line—under the never-ending cycle of investigation, inquiries, inquests and prosecutions that is itself used as a punishment tool on our veterans. Ask any veteran involved in this space, and they will tell you that the process is the punishment.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
In essence, what my hon. Friend is doing, very ably, is to try to defend those who defended us. May I place on the record that, in that noble aim, from the Conservative Benches he has our wholehearted and undivided support?
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that there is support on the Government Benches as well—I just could not find it when I went out to get sponsors. There are many veterans on the Government Benches, and on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and there is a lot of support for this measure in the country. I hope that the Government will listen to that body of feeling.
Why does the Bill matter, and why should it get the support of the House? It matters because of a very important thing, which is called the moral component of fighting power. The British believe in a model in which there are three components: the physical, which is the guns and the bullets; the conceptual, which is the way in which we fight; and the moral, which is how we fight, why we are prepared to put yourselves at risk for the British citizenry—the man and woman standing next to us—and that we will do our best to achieve our mission, and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice.
The moral component is more important than all the other things. Napoleon, who was a great believer in the model, observed that the moral is to the physical as three is to one. We undermine the moral component of fighting power at our peril. This gave me no joy: someone sent me a meme, which was a real photograph of the former Prime Minister—it was not mocked up—addressing a load of troops who were getting ready to deploy, and the caption said, “We want you to go to Ukraine, where we will ask you to do things we’re going to prosecute you for in 30 years’ time.”
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I first thank the hon. Member for his service in Northern Ireland, and extend those thanks to the thousands of servicemen who came to my part of the United Kingdom to defend democracy and to defend us all from terrorist forces? He mentions moral issues. Is not the greatest flaw in the Government’s Bill the moral equivalence that it creates between the terrorist who wakens up determined to kill and the law and order agent who wakens up determined to defend people from being killed?
Lincoln Jopp
There is no moral equivalence in my book between men and women who served their nation in good faith and did a difficult job in a deadly environment, and what the terrorists did. It is worth pointing out, if any hon. Members are feeling queasy about my Bill, that one thing it is not is an amnesty. No one is looking for a free pass here. If, in the view of a Supreme Court judge, there is new, compelling evidence, by all means those cases should be reopened. But we cannot allow this never-ending not-so-merry-go-round of prosecution and investigation of our people to continue.
The trouble is, in Northern Ireland everything is totemic. Because the Good Friday agreement was a peace agreement, it deliberately did not answer the question, “Who won?” So, as an extension of the troubles by other means, this is becoming part of the answer to that question. The more people that can prosecute our troops, the more they seem to have answered that question. We must bring an end to it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for the wonderful way in which he has introduced the Bill today and given us the opportunity to have this conversation. Like many hon. Members, I approach this debate with some significant degree of hesitation because of the weight of the issues we are discussing—the legacy of the troubles is one of those issues where every right hon. and hon. Member must begin with a significant degree of caution. We are discussing events that scarred communities, took thousands of lives, and left behind serious grief. There are families who still do not know the full circumstances of how their loved ones were killed. There are—
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September.
Ponds (Permitted Development) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October.
Sale and Supply of Glue Traps (Prohibition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Social Care and Mental Health Services: Hornsey and Friern Barnet
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to be awarded an Adjournment debate to discuss the profile of social care in decompressing the strain on mental health services in Hornsey and Friern Barnet. I begin the debate by emphasising how many improvements we have seen in society over the past 20 years when it comes to the position of people who suffer from poor mental health. I do not want this debate to be a counsel of despair. Rather, I want it to be an opportunity to push forward the work that Baroness Casey from the other House is doing, and to be positive about what can be achieved with the opportunity we have—with people seeing mental health services as part of a normal health condition—and how we can support people to have long and happy lives and live with a condition, and to support families and so on.
I know that Members across the House will have constituents who get in contact time and again because they have fallen through the cracks of our porous health and care system. Navigating the endlessly complicated care pathways, from primary NHS care to social care, community support and housing, is not easy. The exponential growth in mental health referrals, coupled with the enormous pressures on local authorities to provide social care and social housing against increasingly constrained budgets, has created a perfect storm. That is being felt across the country, but most acutely in my community, where people are too often failed in their time of greatest need. Too many people are being left without the care, support and stability they desperately need to recover.
A previous Labour Prime Minister emphasised that his priorities were “education, education, education,” but when it comes to mental health and social care, we need to talk about “early intervention, early intervention, early intervention”. The North London foundation trust, which covers Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey and Islington, says that the financial challenges facing local authorities are really straining their ability to work together, as they are forced to consider more radical reductions in adult social care services. In particular, the reduction in investment in preventive and early intervention services is having a catastrophic effect, but local trusts are finding it hard enough to fund their basic statutory responsibilities. The lack of suitable housing and step-down care is also having a direct impact on in-patient services and contributing to much longer hospital stays. That is the system I will be focusing on today.
The trust says that of the five local authorities it covers, Haringey is the most affected by the lack of suitable and affordable housing, and therefore has the largest number of delayed discharges. From January to July 2026, a total of 846 occupied bed days were unavailable to other patients desperate for care due to Haringey residents being unable to be discharged from mental health in-patient wards despite being clinically ready for discharge. In July alone, the trust had an average of 10 in-patients on their wards who were clinically ready to leave but could not be discharged due to lack of suitable housing provision or social care support, and 8% to 12% of the total adult in-patient bed base was unavailable to other patients who needed one.
Healthwatch Haringey has highlighted the recurring barriers to gaining access to timely, co-ordinated and person-centred mental health support, such as lack of continuity between services, fragmented care pathways and inconsistent communication between providers. When services do not work together effectively, people experience poorer outcomes and are more likely to reach crisis point. This is precisely the cycle that we need to break. We need to protect organisations like Healthwatch and others that amplify voices so that we can understand the data behind monitoring service quality and amplifying patients’ voices.
Someone who is clinically well enough to leave hospital can become trapped at the most expensive stage of the care pathway, unable to continue their recovery in the community. At the same time, someone desperate, experiencing an acute mental health crisis, may be unable to gain access to a hospital bed. This is not an effective use of public money; that public money could be spent on quality of care, which is desperately important for the families who are suffering due to issues around the particular care that their loved-ones have received.
In March 2024, mental health trusts in England recorded 49,677 delayed discharge days—the highest level since national reporting began. Analysis of NHS data identified Barnet, Enfield and Haringey mental health NHS trust among the trusts with the highest levels of delayed discharge nationally. These figures demonstrate exactly the point I am making today: mental health cannot be treated in isolation from housing and social care. In order to fix one, we must fix all three.
Disability Action Haringey, which does excellent work supporting disabled people to maintain their independence and freedom, has highlighted the combination of difficulties in accessing suitable housing, delays in obtaining social care, the financial hardship that so many suffer, social isolation and the challenges of navigating multiple services simultaneously. People experience poor housing or insufficient care, their mental health deteriorates, and they reach crisis point, requiring hospital treatment. We must break that cycle.
In my constituency, the Safe Haven crisis hub provides a vital service, helping people to de-escalate during a mental health crisis and providing an alternative to accident and emergency. I know that this is the kind of example that Baroness Casey will be looking at. She is very welcome to come and visit Mind in Haringey, which hosts this particular crisis hub, because it shows the best practice. Staff there have seen people reaching out to their services with increasingly complex needs, often requiring co-ordinated support across health, housing, social care and the voluntary and community sector. That is why collaborative care and cross-body communication are so critical.
We also have a rapidly ageing population across Haringey and Barnet, which will inevitably place additional pressure on social care. Haringey council’s older people’s needs assessment reported that Haringey had around 27,700 residents aged 65 and over in 2022, and that figure is projected to rise by approximately 40%. The pressure on our social care system is therefore going to grow, as we all know, and we need to ensure that the system is ready for it.
The evidence is clear: mental health services cannot be considered in isolation from social care. Investment in social care is not separate from investment in mental health services—it is investment in mental health. Investment in supported housing is not separate from relieving pressure on the NHS, but part of relieving that pressure. Investment in community-based support is not simply about providing an alternative hospital, but about helping people to recover, maintain their independence and avoid reaching crisis point in the first place.
I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to address these enormous challenges, and was particularly excited to hear the Prime Minister talking about tackling social care in advance of 2028, which was when Baroness Casey was going to report back. I also welcome the Government’s wider action to improve mental health care through the NHS 10-year plan, and would like to ask for a meeting to discuss standards of care in the mental health service. I also invite Baroness Casey or the Minister to Mind in Haringey to see an excellent way in which the statutory and voluntary sectors work together.
The Government’s actions meant that, earlier this year, we successfully reached the target of recruiting 8,500 mental health workers. That is a crucial step towards providing better and earlier care, closer to people’s homes. I welcome the £343 million to open 159 NHS mental health centres across England, which will give people access to specialist support away from A&E. These problems are not just about cash, but about the system being proactive and improving workforce morale so that we can improve outcomes for patients.
Investment in housing is crucial, but the £39 billion earmarked for social and affordable housing has the potential to be transformative. Yesterday, we heard the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government lay out her vision for tackling rough sleeping, which is an element in the mental health jigsaw puzzle.
If we want people to maintain their independence, they need appropriate homes and community support. If we want to prevent people from reaching crisis point, we need to address the circumstances that contribute to stress, worry and deteriorating mental health. Social care reform has been pushed down the road too many times, but now is the moment for it to come forward. We must invest further upstream to improve people’s lives, free up NHS capacity, reduce unnecessary hospital stays, support recovery and create a health and care system that is preventive rather than reactive. People living in Hornsey and Friern Barnet and communities across the country should be able to live safely, recover with dignity and get the right support.
In pulling together my words, I thank the wonderful mental health staff at the North London NHS foundation trust, which sadly lost members during covid, because they were so close to patients—I feel that it has still perhaps not got back to where it was pre-covid. We need to support that workforce. I also thank Mind in Haringey, Safe Haven, Disability Action Haringey, Healthwatch Haringey, Haringey council, Barnet council and all the elected Members who care deeply about the future of social care in the UK.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this important debate. I have spoken to the Minister for Social Care, who is happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns, including her concerns around standards of care in particular. We can arrange for that to happen.
This debate is important because when we talk about social care and mental health services, it can be easy to talk in terms of systems, services, assessments and waiting lists, but behind every one of those words is a real person—someone who may be struggling to get through the day without the right support. It could be a family member who has reached breaking point in trying to care for someone that they love. Those are the people we must keep at the heart of the changes that we are making to our NHS and social care system.
My hon. Friend has taken a sustained interest in these issues in Hornsey and Friern Barnet, particularly the pressures facing adult social care and mental health services, the importance of community provision and the importance of ensuring that people can access the right support at the right time. Let me be clear: it is unacceptable that anyone is left without the mental health care that they need, particularly when they are in crisis.
Let me turn to the local picture in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is clearly a variation in mental health need across north London. The prevalence of severe mental health illness is particularly high in Haringey, where an estimated 1.44% of residents are living with a severe mental illness—compared with 1.16% nationally—making it among the highest rates in England. Residents of Hornsey and Friern Barnet draw on mental health and social care services at some of the most difficult points in their lives. As my hon. Friend knows, the constituency is served by both Barnet and Haringey councils. There is a different picture in each area. Barnet was assessed by the Care Quality Commission as “good” in January ’25. Haringey was rated as “requires improvement” in February ’25, with the CQC highlighting concerns surrounding mental health discharge processes, communication and timeliness around hospital discharge, partnership working, and a shortage of move-on accommodation for people with mental health needs.
I appreciate how important these issues are for people who are already facing considerable challenges, and how frustrating it is when services do not work together effectively. The Department has therefore supported Haringey through its improvement offer, and I am pleased that the council has engaged constructively with that process. In May, Haringey requested to be de-escalated from the Department’s formal reporting process, which was accepted. The council provided a voluntary update on its progress in August, and expressed confidence in its improvement trajectory.
While that is encouraging, I want to be clear that de-escalation does not change the CQC rating, which remains at “requires improvement” until the CQC completes a further assessment. The CQC issued a notice of assessment on 3 August and we will now await the outcome. I hope that will provide a clear picture of the progress being made and, most importantly, help to ensure that people receive the safe, timely and joined-up support that they deserve.
I want to say a few words about the national picture for mental health. I think we all acknowledge that the challenge is significant, but our ambition is significant too. The 10-year health plan sets out our ambition to reform the NHS, and we are already taking important steps to improve mental health services, including reforming the Mental Health Act 1983 to support better and more personalised care, and recruiting thousands more mental health staff.
We are also making £473 million of capital funding available over the next four years, including community-based mental health centres and mental health emergency departments. That includes £343 million to establish 100 community-based mental health centres and 59 mental health emergency departments across England, building on the six centres already operating in Birmingham, York, Copeland, Tower Hamlets, Lewisham and Sheffield.
One community-based mental health centre will be established in most places in England. That typically coincides with a borough in London. Mental health emergency departments will cover approximately 50% of type-1 A&E departments by ’29-30, and I am pleased to report that there is already a unit at Highgate mental health centre on Dartmouth Park Hill, which has been operational since 2024, but of course we recognise that we must go further. That is why we are developing a new mental health strategy for England, which will set out how we can transform mental health care so that people receive support earlier, face shorter waits, and are helped to stay active and participate in education, work, family and community life.
On delayed discharge and in-patient capacity, my hon. Friend described how discharge delays can leave people with no choice but to remain in mental health in-patient settings for longer than is appropriate. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that people can leave hospital as soon as they are ready, with the appropriate support in place, such as rehabilitation services. That provision requires effective joint working across health and social care services, which is why the better care fund has committed over £9 billion in ’26-27 to integrated care boards and local authorities. That pooled funding is intended to support services that help people to retain or recover their independence, and to prevent avoidable admissions. Funding recipients are expected to agree local goals for preventing avoidable admissions and reducing delayed discharge, and to work together to develop effective services.
Let me address the point about social care, housing and community support at discharge that my hon. Friend made so eloquently. For some people, particularly those with more complex needs, being clinically fit to leave hospital is not the only condition required for a safe and successful discharge; the right social care, housing and community support must also be available to enable them to live well in the place they call home. In particular, autistic people and people with a learning disability can lack suitable supported housing options in their community, which can contribute to people remaining in mental health hospitals past the point of need. The Government are taking action to increase the availability of appropriate housing and support, including through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme that my hon. Friend referred to, through which we want new supported housing supply across a diverse range of housing types, including for people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
NHS England is also investing £13 million in 2026-27 through its housing capital programme, to support areas to develop housing for autistic people and people with learning disabilities outside mental health hospital settings, alongside additional funding to support the development of crisis accommodation. Supporting timely discharge incudes ensuring that suitable arrangements are in place. It is essential that people leave mental health in-patient settings safely, with appropriate support in the community and with their needs properly considered.
Revised statutory guidance on discharge from mental health in-patient settings was published in 2024 under the National Health Service Act 2006. The guidance sets out how health and care systems can work effectively together to support discharge from hospital and ensure that the right support is in place in the community. It also includes best practice on involving patients and carers in discharge planning, as well as providing clarity on how health and care partners should work together effectively, including in relation to shared responsibilities and arrangements for funding section 117 aftercare.
Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 places a duty on the NHS and local authorities to provide aftercare once they have left hospital to certain patients who have been detained under the Act. That aftercare should provide people with the support they need to live successfully and safely in the community, while reducing the risk of deterioration in their mental health and the need for further hospital admissions. Depending on an individual’s needs, aftercare can include accommodation, day services and other health and social care support.
We know, however, that there can be a lack of clarity over which organisation is responsible for providing and funding aftercare and in which locality, which can lead to further delays in providing support to vulnerable people. The Government’s recent reforms to the Mental Health Act clarify which local authority is responsible for arranging an individual’s aftercare, by applying the existing social care rules on ordinary residents to people receiving aftercare under the Act. That should provide greater clarity and consistency for local authorities and ICBs, supporting more effective joint planning and better aligned aftercare services.
I now turn to longer term adult social care reform and the Casey commission, which my hon. Friend referred to. We need to think ambitiously about the future of social care. At its best, social care is transformational. It can give people the support they need to live independently, maintain relationships, contribute to their communities and live the lives that they want. That is at the heart of the Government’s vision for a national care service: a system that is more person-centred, integrated with health services and preventive. The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants rapid progress towards that vision, working in partnership with the adult care sector.
The Independent Commission on Adult Social Care, led by Baroness Casey, remains central to the Government’s ambitions to reform the sector. Baroness Casey’s Big Conversation on Care, launched on 29 July, gives people across England the opportunity to tell us what they want and expect from a future care service. This conversation will feed into the commission’s recommendations for the funding of adult social care, which will now be made in the summer of ’27. In the meantime, we will continue to put in place the building blocks of the national care service through improving support for the workforce and unpaid carers, and providing more than £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26.
I thank my hon. Friend again for raising these important issues and for shining a light on the experience of people who rely on mental health and social care services in her constituency. They are encouraging signs of progress locally, particularly Haringey’s engagement with the improvement process, but clearly there is more to do. The Government are determined to support local partners to make these improvements, while addressing the long-term challenges facing social care. Ultimately, this is about making sure that no one is left waiting unnecessarily for care and giving every person confidence that the services around them will work together when they need them most.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Lords
Preparing for an Ageing Society (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Preparing for an Ageing Society (2nd Report, HL Paper 236, Session 2024–26).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start, I want to make a short statement. As set out on Today’s Lists, speeches in all three debates should be limited to three minutes, with the exception of those of the movers, winders and Ministers. I know from experience that if everyone goes over by just a few seconds, those seconds mount up. I am sure I speak on behalf of Members across the House when I say that I would be grateful if Members could stick to the advisory speaking time to ensure that the Ministers have adequate time to respond to the points raised in each of the debates today.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to introduce this report on behalf of the Economic Affairs Select Committee of the House in place of our former chair, my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield. He has, as the Salvationists would say in the 19th century on the death of one of their senior members, been promoted to glory, which in his case is ministerial office as one of Ed Miliband’s Foreign Office Ministers.
I have known Stewart for more than two decades. He demonstrated a very high level of intellect by his appointment as a fellow of Magdalen at a young age. When I was in No. 10, he was a member of Gordon Brown’s council of economic advisers. Although we did not agree on every aspect of government policy, we were both committed European social democrats and were fascinated by the lessons for Britain of post-war Germany. He has been a great chair of our Select Committee to work under, and we owe him a lot.
No report is ever produced without the contribution of the clerks, the expert advisers, our technical and administrative support, and our witnesses. This whole operation was brilliantly orchestrated by our committee clerk, Matthew Manning, to whom I also pay tribute.
We learned a lot from many excellent witnesses. To pick on one is unfair, but I will take the liberty of breaching that rule by paying tribute to Charles Goodhart, the former Bank of England economist. His brother William was a distinguished Member of this House, whose contribution at the age of 89 lost nothing in its clarity and pungency. He is a great exemplar of why we should not be pessimistic about the possibilities of an ageing society. I also pay tribute to other members of the committee, including those rotated off before this debate.
The UK is a rapidly ageing society. The numbers are striking. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections say that the old age dependency ratio—that is, the number of people above the state pension age relative to the number of working people—will rise from approximately 31% now to 38% in 2050 and 47% in 2074. Indeed, in the years of the Conservative Governments from 2010 to 2024, the population aged over 65 rose from something like 16.5% to 19%.
The decline in fertility rates is even more striking. In 1964, a peak fertility rate of 2.93 children per woman was achieved. This has fallen precipitously. In 2023, it had reached a new low of 1.44 in England and Wales and 1.25 in Scotland. The long-term replacement rate is 2.08, so we can see the basis of the demographic crisis.
We heard from our witnesses that the prospects for raising the fertility rate are dim and that policy attempts elsewhere to do this have failed. That was a great disappointment to me, because when I worked for the President of the European Commission two decades ago, we had confidence that the adoption of Nordic-style family-friendly policies—subsidised childcare, gender equality and more equally shared responsibility for bringing up children between men and women—would help sustain an adequate fertility rate. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case.
Immigration is likewise not the panacea that in some quarters it is made out to be. It might help if immigration were circular—that is, immigrants returning home as their countries become more prosperous, which to some extent has happened with eastern European immigration. The problem with the immigration from further afield that Britain has experienced since 2019 is that families are more likely to settle here permanently, adding in the short term to public spending costs but not adding to demographic sustainability in the longer term, as second-generation birth rates tend to adjust to UK norms.
Among our witnesses, people were optimistic that the change in profile of the population is manageable. However, the rate at which it is occurring could pose substantial challenges, though it is worth highlighting that some of that is the result of a great success story. Rising life expectancy is something to be celebrated—for girls born today, life expectancy is 90, while for boys it is 86.7—but there is a worrying gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Healthy life expectancy has actually fallen in the last couple of years. There is already a huge north-south gap emerging; for instance, the gap in healthy life expectancy between London and the north-east is seven years. These are very worrying trends.
The fiscal picture is also stark. In its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability 2025 report, the Office for Budget Responsibility—for which I have great regard, unlike some other people—says that by the early 2070s, on current policy settings, borrowing will be pushed up to a clearly unsustainable 20% a year, and debt will rise to over 270%, which again is clearly unsustainable.
We are not alone in facing this challenge, but that is no source of comfort. The fact that others will be grappling with the same issues could increase competition between nations over a dwindling workforce, at the same time as our economy will be struggling.
This is about more than just the current elderly. The current young population will become the older generation of the future; indeed, thanks to the increases in life expectancy, they will be older for longer.
Yet demography is not destiny. One key conclusion we reached is that the Government need to focus on the older economically inactive who are below state pension age, and I think these facts are not particularly well known. Discussion of raising the state pension age to deal with this problem is, in our view, misplaced. Those still working at the point of state pension age are entitled to claim it but are in fact highly likely to continue working beyond it. The focus has to be on those who exit the workforce before reaching the state pension age.
This is the scale of the problem: at the age of 50, 80% of the age group are still in work, but at the age of 65 the participation rate has fallen to 25% to 30%. That catastrophic fall in the participation rate is the public policy challenge that we feel needs to be addressed. Simply to raise the state pension age would plunge a significant number of people in that late-60s bracket into poverty, as happened when the pension age was raised from 65.
The Government are beginning to think hard about how to promote workforce participation at the other end of the age spectrum, among young people, with the brilliant Milburn review, which is greatly to be welcomed as an outstanding contribution to public policy. However, we hear nothing, or very little, about the scale of what is required to prepare an ageing workforce for those in their mid-50s to mid-60s. The Government’s response is their mid-life MOT programme and targeted jobcentre support for older job seekers. All that is welcome but it hardly seems an ambitious enough response to this crisis, and that is a crucial conclusion of our report.
There are a number of reasons for people to leave the workforce at older ages, which present policy does little to address. Some are benign. People want to stop working if they have the financial resources to do so. Unfortunately for the Treasury, these are often those who contribute the most in taxes, and the Government need to find ways of incentivising these people to remain in or return to work. However, we also heard about those who want to work but are unable to do so because of caring responsibilities, either to ageing parents or to dependants. We recognise that this is a priority for the Government and we are looking forward to the recommendations of the commission that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, is working on. But you cannot help noting that a number of these grand reviews have been held in the past, with very little action taken. Let us profoundly hope that the Casey review will be the last before concrete policies are announced and enacted.
There has obviously been some focus in discussion on reforming the triple lock. This has proved an expensive driver of real-terms increases in the state pension, due to the recurring volatility of both inflation and earnings, which have led to real-terms increases. Linking pensions to earnings—that is, to the living standards of the working population—is estimated to save some £15.5 billion. That is a significant sum of money. It would take the defence budget up by over 0.5% of GDP. But in our report, rather than focus on that, we have chosen to focus on the much longer-term issue of raising labour force participation among those over 50. The continued yearly focus on the Budget, and the Government’s fiscal headroom and all that, means that there is a danger that we lose sight of the far more serious long-term issues. I am afraid that nothing in what the Government had to say reassured us in this regard.
The Cameron Government, to their credit, made the ageing population one of the subjects of their foresight studies, but this was lost in the aftermath— I would say “chaos”—of Brexit. The present Government, in response to our recommendation that they publish an overarching strategy statement setting out how they plan to address the challenges of an ageing society in a cohesive way, said that an “integrated approach” was
“preferable to a single standalone strategy”.
I do not know quite what that means. They went on to say that they were taking
“a strategic and cross-cutting approach to issues relating to an ageing society”.
Well, without some clear statement of what the strategy that underpins the purported integrated approach is, I find this answer devoid of significant and substantial content.
The lack of any published strategy on ageing is a worrying indication that the Government would prefer not to face up to these challenges as an immediate question, and that the UK is therefore woefully unprepared for the future. This is a harsh conclusion, but the point of having Select Committees is to point out difficult conclusions that our politics is failing to address. On that basis, and with that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wood, for his outstanding chairmanship. I have already paid tribute to him at Question Time, and I do so very happily again today, because his job was brilliantly done. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who has summarised our report very comprehensively; he has not left much for anyone to say, even within three minutes.
For me, the most important paragraph in the report was one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It is paragraph two, which refers to the OBR stating, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, emphasised, in its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report, an annual publication about ageing, that without a change in policy, government spending pressures will push up debt to
“above 270% of GDP by the early 2070s”.
Those are very alarming figures. Of course, many people will say that this will never happen, but it will not happen only if we take steps to prevent it happening.
According to the OBR, age-related public spending will increase total spending by 10% of GDP by 2074. When you add debt interest on top of that, it will raise total government spending from 44.5% of GDP to 60% of GDP by 2073. Taxes are already at an all-time high. What would they be if spending were to reach 60% of GDP? What policies are there that can mitigate the apparent need for deep spending cuts or increases in taxation? The usual answer from a Government, of course, is growth, but alas, growth does not always happen and has not always happened in response to the exhortations of government.
According to the OBR, immigration on any likely acceptable scale will not be sufficient to improve the debt dynamic. According to our witnesses, efforts to increase fertility rates in other countries have largely failed. Raising the pension age, which the Government intend to do, does save money but does not, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, emphasised, increase participation rates or promote longer working lives.
One alternative, which is recommended in our report and accepted by the Government, is to increase labour force participation among those aged between 50 and pension age. Finding a solution to the problem of social care—which is an urgent problem in its own right, not just a financial problem—would help many of those in their mid-50s and 60s to remain at work. But a national care service modelled on the NHS, as suggested by the Prime Minister, could cost no less than up to £19 billion a year in 10 years’ time, so that will not help our fiscal problems.
If we do not increase the proportion of older people at work, output per capita and the overall size of the economy will be lower, with fewer workers and higher pension payments. We have to improve productivity per worker and, at the same time, get more of the old to remain at work. It is not impossible. Over the past 100 years, the old age dependency ratio tripled, but it has not been a factor in holding back growth. In the past, we have adapted.
Our report only scratches the surface of what is a huge subject. The ageing of society is transformational and will reach into every department, but the impact is felt only gradually, almost imperceptibly. We need a longer-term framework to allow well-informed development of policy to prepare for these profound changes. If we do not face reality, reality is going to face us.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for outlining the conclusions of the committee’s report so well, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, for chairing the committee during this investigation. He has now gone on to greater things and I hope he will have the opportunity to continue to deploy his considerable economic skills in that role as well.
There is nothing new or recent about the phenomenon of an ageing population. This been going on throughout my working life, but it is now a major factor in the conduct of economic policy. In the mid-1960s, when I started work, there were fewer than 7 million people aged 65 or over. Today, that number is approaching 14 million and by 2050 it is forecast to reach almost 19 million. The increase in those over 85 is even more impressive. Over the same period, their number has gone from fewer than 500,000 in the mid-1960s to almost 2 million today. It is now forecast to reach 4 million by 2050. This is something to celebrate; it was one of the things we had to keep reminding ourselves of in the committee. It has been a remarkable measure of the progress that has been going on. But it does have consequences for fiscal policy.
Our concern is that, despite this success, the proportion of people aged between 50 and 65—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Liddle—either working or looking for work drops off considerably compared with the cohort just before them: the 35 to 50 age group. There has been some noticeable increase in the participation rate of those over 65, but it remains quite modest. It was these figures and the starkness of this that formed the basis for our report. It is clear that, unless working lives are extended, our successors will have to fund many more years of retirement than in the past. The report also emphasises the need to rethink our approach to lifelong financial planning for individuals; this is not just a matter for government but for individuals as well.
As has been noted, the committee concluded that, from a fiscal point of view, the best response would be to encourage and incentivise those in their mid-50s to mid-60s to remain active in the workforce, but this would also require greater recognition of the valuable contribution that experienced people can make to the workplace.
The issue of the growing number of people requiring health support and social care has been mentioned. As others have noted, the unsatisfactory arrangements for adult social care have been recognised for years, but no policy proposal has received the necessary support. Fundamental questions remain about service provision, our lifetime contributions, how we share costs between the state and the individual, and the potential role for insurance. Let us hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, can unlock this puzzle.
Finally, there is the testing question of pensioner incomes. The old system of indexing pensions solely to prices meant that pensioners did not automatically benefit from economic growth. However, the triple lock guarantees that the level of pensions will increase faster than earnings over time, but in an arbitrary and random way. This is a problem that must be fixed.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and I thank the Economic Affairs Committee for its thorough and timely report. As we consider the prospect of a society where the people of older age vastly outnumber younger people, it is vital that we avoid framing our discussion primarily around the burden of the old to the young. We must continue to emphasise that the value of a person cannot be reduced to their fiscal contribution to the state, although I very much understand the pressures. As the report rightly notes, increased life expectancy is a welcome gift and one of the considerable achievements of modern society. I note that, when I began ordained ministry in 1997, I regularly conducted funerals for people in their 60s and 70s; decades on, they were much more frequently for people in their 80s and 90s.
I wish to emphasise the way in which other cultures can teach us the value of older age from their perspective. For example, on a trip to Kenya in recent years, I was privileged to share in the birthday celebrations of an 80 year-old matriarch of a village, and I was bestowed the honour of a ceremonial feeding of the first taste of her enormous cake. I will never forget her jubilation, which was felt across the entire community present. Her life, in its longevity, intrinsic value and social contribution, was remarkable, and nobody there took that for granted. Sadly, here in the UK, we often speak of and treat older people as an inconvenience to be mitigated, rather than cherishing the wisdom and life experience they bring. As a young priest, I was trained to visit my congregation in their own homes—a practice continued throughout my parochial ministry to this day. What started as a visit for a cuppa ended with accounts of careers and achievements, such as the invention of the contact lens, expeditions to the summit of Everest, and a most memorable and gorgeous afternoon with an original character from “Call the Midwife”.
Clearly, the flourishing of our civil society continues to depend on the time, generosity and commitment of older people, many of whom serve as volunteers, carers, mentors, trustees and community leaders in retirement. Without this, many organisations would struggle to survive and function. It is vital that local communities continue to have the support to provide the network of friendship and stimulation that helps older people remain connected and appropriately valued as they grow older. Examples across the country of excellent dementia cafés and bereavement and other support groups are a lifeline for many. I visited the church-run Memory Lane Café in Henley-in-Arden, where the lunch on Christmas Day is oversubscribed, with 100 people attending, who were very keen to let me know that it is a much-loved annual event.
Finally, as the report explores, an ageing population requires a reframed understanding of retirement. The Church of England depends on an active workforce—as a Bishop, I am hugely grateful for their commitment. As we consider the extension of the working life, it is vital that we maintain the safeguards that protect sustainable patterns of work. That said, the challenges facing public finance, health services and social care are acute and must be addressed. I again thank the Economic Affairs Committee for its work. I urge the Government to ensure that, within this work, the value of older-aged people is not lost. As we prepare for an ageing society, we must not forget that such people are not merely recipients of care; they remain bearers of gifts, contributors to the common good and people of immeasurable worth.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the report we are discussing was completed before I joined the Economic Affairs Committee. Therefore, I need feel no embarrassment in congratulating the committee on its work. It is prescient, timely and, to put it bluntly, a stark warning to this and future Governments that they will ignore at their peril. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, summarised it very well. The UK is ageing rapidly—a sign of success. Longer life expectancy is a success, but falling birth rates mean that older people will form a larger share of the population. This will cause critical problems. This is on top of the problems of exponential growth of public expenditure and welfare that we already have.
The noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Lamont, pointed to a crucial paragraph. I will not repeat the statistics, but it illustrated just how far we will have to go to meet the challenges by 2074—roughly the next 50 years. If we do not meet those challenges, we will be in a crisis long before that. I believe this is a challenge, laid out in this report, that no responsible Government can refuse to recognise.
There is another warning. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, simply increasing the state pension age will not cut the mustard; it will not provide the means to address the challenge the committee outlined. A greater priority should be helping people in their 50s and 60s remain in or return to employment, but this in turn requires better health and social care, flexible working, reduced age discrimination—something to bear in mind next week when we discuss the report from the Retirement and Participation Committee—and opportunities for lifelong learning and retraining. All these are outlined in this report, and I urge the Government to take them most seriously.
If I have one disappointment, it is that the report did not more forthrightly consider and challenge the triple lock. I believe that is essential. Absent that analysis in the report, we have to rely on the good services of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, who has been forthright on it. I agree entirely with him. That issue would undoubtedly have to be part of the deliberations of the recommended Cabinet sub-committee and overarching strategy.
Overall, the message is simple: the UK needs to prepare now. It is already later than it should be to start preparations. We need to treat longer lives as an opportunity rather than a burden. In the months and years to come, the Government cannot say that they were not warned.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on to the next speaker, I again insist that we keep to the three minutes, because every second is extending the time of the debate. We need to keep within the three minutes.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I shall do my best. I also warmly congratulate the committee. Many of the speeches already made have set out the situation, demography and all the rest of it. The United Nations has described population ageing as
“a defining global trend of our time”.
The changes taking place here and across the world will transform our workforce, public services, pensions and families. It is worth remembering that when the Queen came to the Throne in 1952, she used to send a telegram to everybody reaching 100. How many did she send in 1952? Some 300. That is the scale of the change. Sending that many telegrams now would be difficult, to say the least. We have to act now. The greatest improvement to our fiscal outlook will come not from simply increasing the state pension age but, as has rightly been said, from enabling more people in their mid-50s and 60s to remain in work.
Healthy life expectancy in the UK has fallen by more than two years in the past decade. As the ONS figures show, it is at its lowest level since the present series began—a watershed moment.
I will refer to Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working review. We are growing older and living longer but getting sick sooner. This is not just a problem for the NHS; it is a problem for the economy. He identifies a profession that gets far too little recognition and understanding. It is mentioned in the report and the government response. It is the occupational health profession. As the report says:
“In 2024 only 45% of workers had access to OH support … this falls to just 18% among small employers”.
If we want to keep more people working through ill health, or returning afterwards, they are a critical group, helping people manage conditions, make adjustments, return after illness and avoid leaving employment altogether. The Centre for Ageing Better, which I applaud, estimates in its report on the looming retirement crisis that more than 900,000 people between 50 and state pension age are out of work but would like to be working.
I must quickly shoot forward to the triple lock, because the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, as has rightly been said, has been forthright—saying that it is “completely bonkers” and “very unfair” to younger generations—and we heard more from him this week. Sir Leigh Lewis, the distinguished former Perm Sec at the Department for Work and Pensions, wrote this in a letter to the Times recently:
“Of all the policies for which I had some responsibility during my time in government, this was by far the worst. Left unchanged, it will bankrupt our children and grandchildren”.
His conclusion was equally clear: politicians of all parties have a duty to admit that the triple lock policy is “unaffordable” and “has to change”.
The other area in which I look to for courage is social care. The Prime Minister, with his people-pleasing approach, has said warm words about social care, but this is an incredibly costly programme. Healthcare has always been free at the point of use, but social care has always had an assessment of means. It is essential that there is a proper expectation of what the reality of a social care programme will involve. I hope somebody will produce coherence in this programme. I commend the report.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the committee which produced this report, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wood, putting on record my thanks for his outstanding chairing and my thanks to the committee staff.
I want to emphasise one of the major conclusions, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others have highlighted and which I think was for many of us the major new insight: that we must concentrate on raising the participation levels of people in their mid-50s. This is really important. The UK has done pretty well at raising the state pension age, but just putting it up further is not a panacea, as others have explained. Doing that is very unlikely to increase employment levels among the pre-retirement cohort, where many have already dropped out of the labour market. Conversely, raising participation among these 55 to 65 year-olds would make a major difference to our economy, to the public finances and, in many cases, to people’s physical and mental well-being. As our witnesses confirmed time and again, working is really good for people, and being unemployed and economically inactive really is not.
This country had a good record over the last few decades of providing jobs and keeping formal unemployment down, and there is now concern, rightly, over the impact of government policy, in both taxes and employment legislation, on employers’ willingness to hire and especially to hire the young. PAYE data shows a fall of 86,000 payrolled employees in April to June 2026, while workforce data shows a fall of 97,000 in the year to March 2026.
Although we are very focused on the immediate problems, our participation rates over a longer period do not actually look that wonderful. At a time of lengthening life expectancy, it is true that total employment is up, but that is because of the size of the population. Overall employment rates have been pretty static this century: down a bit for men and up a little bit for women. Meanwhile, unemployment rates are down because of people simply dropping out of the labour market. Again, we know and heard from witnesses that, if you drop out in mid- to later mid-life, you are very unlikely to return. Meanwhile, part-time employment, which is especially attractive to older workers and those with caring responsibilities, has started to fall sharply.
This is a major challenge for the Government, and I think that people have not really been aware of it. We asked them to set out their policies and to look at tax and other incentives but, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, the focus at the moment is very much on the young. The young really matter but, in our ageing society, people in their 50s and 60s matter too.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for securing this debate and for his brilliant opening speech. Having written and campaigned on declining birth rates since 2009, I will focus my remarks on the fertility aspect of this challenge.
Last year, we had the lowest birth rate since 1977. My noble friend Lord Liddle has highlighted the statistics of a decline in birth rates and the policies tried elsewhere. I want to focus on an easy win. The Department for Education could implement this tomorrow at minimal cost to enable our young people to understand what affects their future fertility and how to protect their natural fertility. I am talking about an issue close to my heart: introducing fertility education into the school curriculum.
Today, one in seven couples struggles to conceive. I have seen the emotional, physical and financial toll that this takes, as prospective parents fight for years to realise their dreams of holding their baby. In many cases, if these patients had better knowledge about their own reproductive health, the hardship of IVF and infertility could have been avoided. Within the education system, we need to teach both boys and girls in their late teens to understand the impact of their age and the lifestyle choices they make on their future fertility.
In this age of social media, we know that more young men are looking to perfect their image online, but performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids and non-prescribed testosterone, can severely affect their fertility, not to mention the risks of smoking and excessive alcohol intake. Moreover, young women need to be aware that, if they become underweight, with a restrictive diet and excessive exercise to achieve a certain appearance, their hormonal and bone health could be affected, as could their future fertility. They need to know about their family history of menopause and its impact on their own age of menopause.
We are failing to educate young people about their future fertility. I urge my noble friend the Minister to meet me to discuss how to develop fertility education modules in the PSHE curriculum to teach students how to protect their natural fertility and change their lifestyle. I have tried this. I introduced fertility education modules in some London schools, but I have failed to get that into the curriculum. Now is not the time to sit on our hands and argue that demographic shift is our destiny. It is the time for fertility education and for more babies.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I was happy to support previous Conservative Governments in implementing the triple lock, and I support the current Government in honouring their promise. This has been a useful policy in reducing pensioner poverty.
As one of the Members of this House probably keenest to control public spending, I am very conscious of cost, and I have regularly recommended that we should raise the state retirement age, which gives you a substantial reduction and is a fair way of achieving the savings. It is also very much in the spirit of this report, which I welcome; namely, that people in their 60s, unless there is disability or a serious health problem, should be encouraged to work, and they will probably have richer lives as a result. This is now possible because life expectancy is greater than when the lower state retirement pension ages were first set.
More importantly, there are now very few people who do hard manual work. Clearly, they needed a much lower retirement age because they could not continue. Now people have hydraulics, automation and robotics, so it is much more feasible to carry on working for longer. Really, the most power or muscle pressure you now need is the ability for your fingers to press a touchscreen; you are then able to do most of the interesting jobs in our community.
Those who wish to abolish the triple lock or make other changes to pension arrangements would be well advised to remind themselves that the pension is not a welfare benefit but an entitlement based on contributions to the national insurance scheme. Of course, that can all be changed, but it would require complex legislation and a lot of political argument. No Government to this day have been willing to attempt that, I suspect because it would be very unpopular with the public.
The contributory principle is, to me, fundamental. It shows that people have to work and have to pay national insurance. There is an annual sign-off of the fund, with a review. It is a pay-as-you-go fund, not an endowment fund. It embodies a very important contract between generations: the working generation say that they will pay for their parents’ generation on the basis that their children, when they are working, will then pay for them. I do not want to disturb that social contract between generations; I want to keep the contributory principle—you get something for something—and I do not want to take away the triple lock. That would be a great pity.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, we have two related debates in successive weeks. Next week we will debate the issue of long-term debt and, this week, we are addressing one of its main drivers: an ageing population. The main elements of this are well known. Older people are putting less into the Exchequer and requiring more assistance from it. There is a sharp decline in the fertility rate. In mid-life, the shape of careers is changing. The old model of education to, say, 16 or 18 and 40-plus years of work followed by a retirement of 15 years has largely broken down. Young people are staying in education longer and taking longer to find settled employment. Taken together, these developments are producing a sharp rise in the dependency ratio, leading to severe pressures on public finances.
The EAC report looked at these developments and possible responses. It took the view that there has been significant change in the pension age, often going further than other countries, but that the scope for further rises is small. One change that should be made now—pace my noble friend Lord Redwood—is the abolition of the triple lock, which is, frankly, idiotic. Instead of a considered decision on how, over time, pensions should rise relative to prices or earnings, we have a chaotic system generating random windfall gains—and they are always gains—according to the movement of earnings and prices in particular years. The OBR has estimated that this could cost an extra 2% of GDP.
The report is rightly sceptical that the Government should try, or would be able, to influence the birth rate. We could permit greater immigration but not only is this politically sensitive; the effect may only be short term as, eventually, immigrants adopt the work and family patterns of the host nation. This leaves two areas where government action can be justified. The one emphasised most strongly in the report is trying to improve the participation rate in the 50 to 65 or 70 age range. Technological change is affecting how long jobs last. Someone may find that the line of work they have been in for 30 years has ceased to exist and they are therefore likely to need help to change jobs and skills to find new work.
Another issue, which gets less prominence in the report, is that many young people are finding it difficult after completing education and training to find fulfilling jobs. This is seen in the rise of the so-called NEETs to more than 1 million. It should be a priority to bring this number down. The policy response has been precisely the opposite of what is needed. Young people need incentives, mentoring and advice to help them into work, while we are in fact consigning them to the dead-end world of disability benefits.
The course we are now on makes for sombre reading—there will be more of that next week—but we are not without responses that could improve matters. I hope we will take them up as a matter of urgency.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Economic Affairs Committee report. I was of course a member of the committee, as can be seen. Most Members will know that you do not necessarily agree with everything in a report when you sign off on it but, in fact, on rereading it, I am quite surprised by how much I agree with.
I thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for his introduction, but I must pick him up on something. He twice used the word “crisis” in relation to the challenges of an ageing society. The report specifically did not use “crisis” because, unlike financial and geopolitical shocks, demographic shifts are slow-moving and quantifiable decades in advance. The committee’s own projections run to 2074 and the key trends—falling fertility and rising life expectancy—are already fully visible in the data. That is an advantage. Policy can be phased, rather than improvised, and institutions can adjust incrementally, rather than under duress. There is also a precedent: we absorbed the post-war baby boom generation into education, housing, employment and, eventually, pension systems over several decades. Life expectancy rose substantially across the whole of the 20th century and retirement provision was adapted accordingly, however imperfectly.
I will dodge the issue of triple lock except to say that, somewhat to my surprise, I totally agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, who gets it exactly right. We need a proper debate on the triple lock.
The specific levers identified in the report—encouraging workforce participation, addressing the social care shortfall, improving productivity, expanding skills training and tackling misplaced assumptions about age and capability—are policy choices, not fixed constraints. What the report identifies as missing is not the capacity to respond but sustained political attention. There is an absence of a published government strategy or forum for addressing ageing as a standing priority. This is a remedial deficiency. Given the lead times available and a demonstrated historical capacity to absorb comparable transitions, the present challenge of an ageing society is not one without a solution, but one of sequencing and will.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, in the time available I will make just two suggestions—I hope to keep within the three minutes by doing so. The first I can dispose of very quickly: it is to add my voice to those of others who have urged getting rid of the triple lock. This innovation was much needed when it was introduced but has long since served its purpose and the Government should replace it without further ado.
My second point concerns the issue, which has been widely discussed, of finding ways of bringing people in their 50s and early 60s back into the workforce. We all know that there are many reasons why people retire: the need to care for elderly relatives; ill health; tiredness; age discrimination—all sorts of things. Not everybody is susceptible to financial incentives. None the less, I ask the Minister whether he will explore ways in which the tax system might be used to bring people back into the workforce and to keep them there. In particular, will he look into whether the rate of income tax and national insurance might be lowered for those who continue in work above a certain age—say, 58 or 60? What it should be, I do not know; that can be decided only after the matter has been thoroughly looked into. If people could be incentivised so that their earnings were significantly increased in the time leading up to the state pension age, it might make a difference. I urge the Minister to look into this possibility and report back to the House in due course.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for the thoughtful way in which he introduced this important report. I declare my own interests as chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research. This is not the first report of a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that has identified important and common challenges attending ageing. A report in 2013 by a Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change, two committees chaired by my noble friend Lord Patel on the sustainability of the NHS and adult social care in 2017, and a Science and Technology Committee report on the science of ageing in 2021 all reached remarkably similar conclusions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has said, the increase in longevity is to be seen quite rightly as a tremendous success. But the real peril is the fact that healthy lifespan has not increased at the same rate, and that more and more of our population will be living with multiple co-morbidities and ill health for an extended period. That puts unsustainable pressure on the provision of healthcare, and it must now be addressed.
Thirteen years of addressing this issue in your Lordships’ House has been attended by no meaningful government intervention or action; action is now urgently required. There is a good basis to act, because the science of ageing is now far better understood. The biological processes are better understood. We are now able to identify biomarkers associated with chronic inflammation that attend the development of many co-morbidities.
Therefore, in a short time, we should be able to develop strategies to identify early in life those individuals at high risk for the development of multiple co-morbidities later in life, and to intervene in those in a targeted and precise way to reduce the occurrence of those diseases. In time, that will have a substantial impact on reducing the burden in the National Health Service. That burden manifests itself not only in the need to deliver care but in an ever increasing proportion of the population needing to deliver those services rather than being economically active in other parts of the economy.
But all this requires a holistic strategy to be delivered somewhere in government that brings the elements of government together and, most importantly, ensures that elements attending the delivery of healthcare reflect the complexity of managing health in an ageing population and the need to ensure that those challenges are addressed appropriately for individuals, as well as across communities and more broadly in the system. We need substantial government investment to ensure that the move to prevention is properly financed now, rather than being talked about as a future requirement.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, ageing problems begin during childhood and are incubated by poor government policies. A June 2026 paper in Nature Human Behaviour noted that consequences of poverty, inequality and discrimination accelerate biological ageing from a very young age. Adults enduring childhood economic deprivation age at a significantly accelerated biological pace, even if they achieve financial security in later life. Many need support.
Austerity, real wage and benefit cuts, and degradation of the NHS deprive people of nutritious food, good housing, healthcare and possibilities of working until a later age. A regressive tax system prevents the poor saving for old age. The poorest 20% pay a higher proportion of income in direct and indirect taxes than the richest 20%. The income tax personal allowance has been frozen at £12,570 since 2021. If it had increased in line with inflation, it would now be £16,070. As a result, someone earning just £17,000 this year will be paying £1,000 more in income tax and national insurance.
Some 39% of adults in the UK have savings of less than £1,000. Millions simply cannot save for old age. Premature biological ageing prevents people working until a later age. Some 7.27 million hospital appointments are awaited, fuelling a rise in chronic illness and disabilities. The average healthy life expectancy has declined to 60.7 years for males and 60.9 years for females. In parts of Blackpool, it is 50.9 years for males and 51.2 years for females. In parts of Scotland, it is 44.8 years for males and 44.2 years for females. It is hard to know how we are going to get people aged around 50 to work.
Calls for educating younger people about the financial cost of retirement will bear little fruit. In a society where 1% have more wealth than 70% of the population combined, pushing pensioners into poverty is not the answer: it will simply lead to a form of economic euthanasia. The ageing problems are nurtured by inequitable distribution of wealth, poor housing and healthcare, and regressive taxation. Government must rise to the challenge.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Economic Affairs Committee for this report. It reminds us that an ageing society is not simply about older people, it is about how we structure our whole lives and how that may need to change in future. I will touch on two points; the first is pensions, where I welcome the work of the Pensions Commission. While we await its final report, there are three issues on which I would welcome the Government’s thoughts.
The first issue is how we build a stronger culture of investment more broadly. For most people, pensions are their main exposure to the stock market, and outside that, too many people still default to cash saving, missing out on longer-term growth. The second is the gender pensions gap. Among 55 to 59 year-olds, the commission finds a 48% gap in private pension wealth. This is not primarily because women contribute less when they are saving into a pension, but because they are more likely to work part time, earn less and take time out for caring. So how are the Government considering pensions alongside women’s labour market participation? The third issue is public service pensions, which are firmly beyond the commission’s remit. The committee heard evidence about pension cliff edges discouraging people from potentially working longer.
More broadly, we need to ask ourselves whether we have the balance right across the whole life course, particularly when people in their 20s, 30s and 40s face pressures to buy a home or pay for childcare, while some pension schemes provide a substantially greater amount of security in retirement. Do the Government have a clear assessment of the affordability of these pension schemes and the incentives they create?
The second area I will touch on is fertility, where I agree with the noble Baroness opposite: we should not treat this as a lost cause. Looking at the evidence to the committee and beyond, I am not advocating for one-off incentives or baby bonuses, for which the evidence is weak, but there is evidence to say that fertility responds to economic confidence. UK fertility rates rose through the 2000s, before falling off after the financial crisis and never recovering. Growth must be part of the answer, but that is beyond a three-minute speech.
However, research by Dad Shift and Movember found that 57% of fathers say that financial insecurity after their first child holds them back from having more. Eligibility for paternity leave and the levels of pay in the UK are almost uniquely low compared with other developed economies. I ask the Minister what the Government’s approach is under this Prime Minister to the review of parental leave, due to conclude by the end of the year.
Even if the Government do not think that it would impact fertility, there is strong evidence to show that better leave for dads increases mothers’ and overall labour market participation. That matters doubly in an ageing society for strengthening workforce participation now and helping to close the gender pay gap in future. These issues are related and I hope the Government will treat them as such.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on some first-rate analysis. An ageing population has been long foreseen and long debated. Very occasionally, Governments have taken action. I recall working on the reforms to SERPS introduced by my noble friend Lord Fowler in the 1980s. But for the most part, Governments have preferred to shelve decisions on the many reports they have commissioned. The result is that the cost of ageing is rising inexorably. The OBR estimates that age-related spending will rise from 26% of national income to some 35% in 2075. We can fantasise about financing these pressures through spending cuts elsewhere, but even if we abolished all expenditure on working-age and children’s benefits, that would relieve only half the pressure from age-related spending.
Demographic pressures are already resulting in cuts. To pay for the ever-increasing proportion of spending accounted for by pensions and the NHS, successive Governments have had to cut “unprotected programmes” such as prisons, police and local government. The report describes the failure to solve “the social care crisis” as a scandal. But if those unlucky enough to require paid care are not going to pay for it, somebody else is—and that means the taxpayer. We need to face up to this fact.
I have long argued the case for a health and social care levy. Everybody should pay it, young and old alike, and it should be payable on dividends and rents as well as earnings. For all of six months, thanks to Messrs Johnson and Sunak, I got my wish. Sadly, its abolition was the one tax cut which survived the Kwarteng-Truss Budget of 2022. At some point, it is going to have to be reinstituted, but raising taxes has its limits. The triple lock will have to go. At the very least, the state pension should rise no faster than the post-tax earnings of those in work, and we will have to take another look at the winter fuel payment and universal benefits such as free travel. Support for pensioners needs to be targeted at those who need it most. A rising proportion of the elderly is relatively affluent; more than 1 million pensioners pay the higher rate of income tax.
Conceivably, higher growth may yet come to our rescue—though I rather doubt it. I was encouraged by the new Minister’s remarks on economic strategy on Tuesday. I wish him well in solving these problems, which have proven intractable for too long.
Baroness McGregor-Smith (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the Economic Affairs Committee on its excellent report. One passage particularly struck me: paragraph 40, where, in discussing the implications of an ageing society, Richard Hughes of the OBR highlighted the pressures that demographic change will place on the public finances.
Those pressures are real, and they cannot be ignored. Yet I am concerned when older people are viewed principally through the lens of cost and dependency. Too often, the debate focuses on what older people will require rather than what they can continue to contribute. Older people are workers, carers, volunteers, mentors, entrepreneurs and taxpayers. Their contribution to our economy and our communities is immense. We should therefore view an ageing society not simply as a challenge to be managed, but as an opportunity to be embraced. Having spent all my career in UK and global businesses, I have seen at first hand that experienced employees bring great experience, judgments and resilience. Too many people, however, leave the workforce—not because they wish to, but because poor health, caring responsibilities or inflexible employment practices make it difficult for them to remain.
I have three requests to make today to support businesses and business growth. First, on healthier lives, we should shift more resources from treating ill health to preventing it. We need a national focus on healthy life expectancy, with prevention, physical activity, including strength training, and healthier ageing recognised as investments that reduce future pressure on both the NHS and the public finances.
Secondly, on skills, we need to support a genuinely lifelong approach to learning. Apprenticeships, retraining and digital skills should be accessible throughout anyone’s full and longer working life. The apprenticeship levy should be fundamentally reviewed to ensure it is sufficiently flexible for an economy being transformed by AI and longer careers. We should remember that the apprenticeship levy was devised well before we even discussed generative and agentic AI.
Thirdly, on employment, we should make increasing employment among older workers a clear economic priority. Greater flexibility, phased retirement and stronger occupational health provision would enable more people to remain economically active for longer. Let us not forget: 40% of our construction workers will be retiring in the next decade. If we are serious about building homes and infrastructure, we really will need more.
The most sustainable response to an ageing society is to improve healthy life expectancy, strengthen productivity and enable more people to remain active contributors for longer. This will reduce the pressure on our public finances and support business growth. I welcome this report and look forward to the Government’s response.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, a strong theme in this excellent report is the importance of people aged over 50 remaining in the workforce—the other NEETs—and the challenge in the report is clear. Perhaps I can make the Minister one specific Budget representation on this issue. At the moment, people with pension savings can access them without losing any tax reliefs from the age of 55. The Government are already planning to increase that to the age of 57. The report makes a strong case for increasing that age to 60. Will the Minister consider that option?
Secondly, as we make progress on improving participation in the workforce, the issue of the pension age comes up. It is striking that, from April of this year, the pension age started increasing from 66 to 67 with no fuss and no dispute. Beyond that, there is an option of increasing the pension age to 68. The Government commissioned their obligatory review of the pension age from Suzy Morrissey. They have had that report for several months. It is absurd that we in this Chamber are discussing this issue and the Government have still not published that report. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that it will be published urgently, so it can inform debates such as the one we are currently having?
Finally, and very briefly, as this is a report about long-term trends, I was surprised that there was no reference to the most significant long-term technological trends—notably, the developments in robotics. It is striking that, when you look around the world, the countries facing the most significant demographic crises—Japan, Korea, China and Italy—are also the world leaders in robotics. This is part of their strategy. I declare an interest as chairing the Regulatory Innovation Office, the government body that looks at regulatory barriers to new technologies. But you do not need to read dry reports on the issue. I strongly recommend the BBC series “Ann Droid”, which identifies one possible scenario which could be in existence by the dates which this report discusses. I personally do not think we are likely to have one single humanoid robot doing everything, but I can absolutely envisage robots interacting with lonely older people, with indefinite time to give to their attention, and assisting with physical social care. I urge that the Minister also incorporates technological possibilities in any considerations of ageing societies.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my comments on this excellent report concern a missing ingredient and omission from it: the role played by housing policies in preparation for demographic change. I am not seeking to make the case for private and public investment in more manageable, accessible, right-sizer accommodation that enhances health and well-being, saves NHS and social care budgets and releases family homes for the next generation; that job has been done so well by the Older People’s Housing Taskforce of 2024. I am referring to what we choose to do about housing policy today, which has profound economic implications for both helping pay for our long lives for some and, conversely, adding appreciably to the cost of our long lives for others.
Some 75% of pensioners are home owners. Most pensioners will have paid off their mortgage. Their incomes in older age go much further, because they are not having to spend a large proportion of their income paying the rent. Most have accumulated a tax-free capital gain. Today’s pensioner owner-occupiers hold approximately £3 trillion in housing equity. This accumulation of significant resources has implications for the debate on paying for care costs and the current review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey.
However, for pensioners in the private rented sector, and particularly for retirees of pre-pension age in the private rented sector, there is serious trouble ahead. Here, rents that start out at one-third or so of earned income will absorb a much higher proportion of post- retirement income. In many cases, the impact of the increasing rent is likely to trigger an eligibility for housing benefit. The IFS estimates that the already massive housing benefit bill, currently around £38 billion per annum, will rise dramatically as a result of the switch from younger people buying to private renting. Home ownership is down from 71% to 65%. The prediction is that the housing benefit bill will rise to over £70 billion in the years ahead, much of the increase necessary to support the PRS pensioners.
It is housing tenure, beneficial for homeowners but highly problematic for private sector tenants, that will make a massive difference to the wealth and living standards of older people and the cost of an ageing population to society at large. I strongly recommend another inquiry by our excellent Economic Affairs Committee to cover this.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, one of the challenges of speaking so late in the debate is that many brilliant points that you thought you might cover have already been made, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, just made one of them. It is one of my biggest concerns about the increasing costs and one reason I kept trying to encourage the Government to abandon their ideology about not being able to buy your own home from housing associations or councils. We are reaching the tipping point, where costs are going to rise significantly as we see less home ownership.
I appointed my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to do the previous report looking into pension age. We have to reach some kind of consensus on what is an acceptable proportion of pension income compared to earnings to reach a proper settled way that we can take forward.
It was the 2007 Act, brought in by the then Labour Government and enacted by the coalition Government in 2011, that reinstated the link to earnings. We have a variety of views on what the ideal pinch point should be. That is the sort of thing that I hope the Pensions Commission will settle.
Sometimes, the triple lock gets blamed for a lot of things. To some extent, I would prefer some kind of double lock. At the time, the 2.5% probably seemed right to achieve the policy outcome of getting pensions as a proportion of earnings up more quickly. It has achieved that, by and large. As a consequence, however, it has been used about four times—though only twice in an artificially high way—compared to some of the other changes on earnings and inflation.
Indeed, I was the Cabinet Minister at the time, and we took the proactive decision on two occasions: one was when the earnings link legislation would have frozen the state pension. We changed that for a year. We also changed the earnings link, removing it for a year. That, just in one year, saved £4.5 billion, and about £30 billion over the next five years. It shows that some quite modest changes can have significant benefits to the public finance.
The other element of this very interesting report that I thought was useful was thinking about working. The best employers are a lot more flexible. I want to encourage the Government to think again, as they bring forward their regulations and guidance, about what they are doing. We removed the default retirement age. Again, this was designed to make life more flexible for people.
The other key element—I saw it with my late mother—is that Covid had a massive impact on old people, as they just did not get moving. I saw her muscles atrophy. We need a proactive occupational health service, and I would welcome health visitors for pensioners, not just for children.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this week, I was pondering on which aspect of this most impressive report on ageing I might usefully make a small contribution. As a relatively new chair of the SCIE—the Social Care Institute for Excellence—it seemed important to make the links between the new enthusiasm from our new Prime Minister for the reform of social care and this debate. The reform of social care is a much wider issue than just social care, because it deals with young people, disabled people, those with learning and mental health challenges and so on. The interface between health and social care is undoubtedly a facet of this debate.
However, lo and behold, the BBC—bless it—and its radio programme “Radical” gave me an answer, featuring, as it did, Professor Sarah Harper, professor of gerontology at Oxford. She was a witness and contributor to the considerations of this report. Like my noble friend Lord Reid and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, she challenged the widespread belief that ageing populations are primarily a social and economic burden, arguing instead that longer lives represent one of humanity’s greatest achievements and an opportunity to rethink how society is organised. As the report does, she explains why many of the pressures associated with ageing societies stem from institutions designed for a different era—it is obvious. She argued that our welfare systems, labour markets and expectations around retirement no longer reflect the realities of modern life, where people are often living longer and healthier lives—more so than previous generations.
That is a note of optimism, and that is what we need to inject into the debate. In fact, many of the contributions did exactly that. The Government need to grasp this, run with it and bring forward a much bigger strategy, and this needs to be done in the face of optimism for our society and its future. Look around this House, and look at the age profile that we have here. We are an excellent example and, of course, we are greatly privileged. There is no doubt about that, and I greatly support it. I think about my noble friend Lord Dubs at 93. He is still here, leading great things in this House. We need to see this as an opportunity to build a richer society that takes into account the things in the report to do with the economy, health and social care, and the changes that are necessary. In particular, it is about the culture and how we regard older people and the value we place on them. I look at this report as the start of an optimistic debate, which I hope will lead to greater things.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, people aged over 85 are the fastest-growing population segment, but we are also having far fewer children. This is a problem, as the excellent report highlighted. The committee doubts that financial incentives can reverse falls in fertility. I do not entirely agree. Since the 1950s, successive French Governments developed a strong, pro-family system, with tax advantages and practical benefits aimed at larger families. It worked: France had the highest fertility rate in western Europe. Today, France has not escaped the recent decline, but its fertility remains higher than ours, at 1.56 per woman.
The Government can create an environment in which it is easier for people to have more children. Higher taxes, housing and childcare costs have made it harder to start a family, just when fertility drastically declines with age. The Centre for Social Justice estimates that 3 million women may remain childless. It calls them Britain’s “missing mothers”. Not wanting children is a choice; wanting them, but being unable to afford them, is a problem.
There is another worrying statistic. In 2023, almost one in three conceptions ended in abortion—the highest proportion on record. Yet the Government recently removed women from the criminal law relating to their own abortions at any stage of gestation.
Then there is the other problem, addressed by many noble Lords, of intergenerational fairness. Immigration is not the answer. As Professor Andrew Scott told the committee,
“immigration may buy you time”,
but it does not solve the fundamental problem. Immigrants grow older, too.
Instead of all this, we need a fundamental change in our attitude towards ageing. Retirement should not be seen as the finishing line. We should encourage people to remain active, engaged and useful for longer. As we said before, look at this Chamber. Many Members are well beyond conventional retirement age. That is a perfect example, and we should stop treating older people as a cost and recognise them as an underused resource. This week, 84 year-old actor Peter Marinker, recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, is performing Samuel Beckett’s “Krapp’s Last Tape” alone on the London stage. What better example could there be?
What steps will the Government take to change our attitude towards older people, and will they consider reducing taxes and improving housing and family policies to make it easier for people to have children?
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I commend the Economic Affairs Committee for producing this report and thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his comprehensive introduction.
The committee has offered a sobering assessment of our inadequate preparedness for an ageing society, and I fully endorse the recommendations of the report, particularly the emphasis on supporting those in their mid-50s and 60s to remain in work or return to work, as well as its call to address the crisis of adult social care. It is, however, regrettable that the Government’s response does not grasp the strategic direction recommended in the report, nor the committee’s call to “act now”.
I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Age Irrelevance campaign, which was built on the vision of the late Baroness Greengross, a lifelong campaigner for age inclusion. The campaign’s push for the inclusive language of “era of longevity” as opposed to an “ageing society” captures the need for a holistic approach and the pressing need for younger generations to invest in their own longevity, from both a financial and a health aspect.
If we are to move from the idea that an ageing society is a burden that will deplete resources, we need to look it at as a multistage life. We need to move away from the narrative which creates intergenerational division and resentment to one which is designed to create systems that allow people to contribute to society in different ways and at different stages of their life. To achieve that, we need an integrated approach with a positive narrative that shows determination to benefit from the demographic shift and maximise the opportunities it offers.
If the pension imperative is that people must work longer, this can be achieved only if it is supported by a national housing strategy, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which supports rightsizing near places of work, enabled by progressive models to promote work and healthy, longer lives. Longer working lives can be achieved only if they are underpinned by a focus on healthy living, healthy ageing, prevention, and understanding of healthy living and healthy lifestyles from early stages.
In preparing for longer lives, financial planning should be mandated in the education curriculum, and we need employers to actively support longer careers and changing working patterns. The Government should also place lifelong learning at the heart of education and, of course, continue to ensure digital inclusion and the use of innovative technology to achieve this.
Urgent engagement with the issues raised in the report is very important, and I look forward to an encouraging response from the Minister.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords on the committee in thanking our recently departed chair, the noble Lord, Lord Wood, who was an excellent chair, as we have all agreed. I have only one tiny criticism about his chairmanship and his drafting of this report, and I speak as the one of the tenders of the Asquithian flame on these Benches. If you look at the report closely, it says that in 1909, when the old age pensions were introduced, they were introduced by Lloyd George as Prime Minister. They were not; they were introduced by Lloyd George as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Asquith was Prime Minister, so I want to get that on the record.
Many people may have thought that we chose to do a report on the ageing society because the majority of the members of the committee were over 80 when we decided to do this. I have to say that that was not the case. We chose to do it because, as a number of noble Lords have indicated—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, did in his wonderful opening speech—this is a serious issue facing our country.
One thing that nobody, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, touched on is that we are not the only country facing these issues. To take three of them, Italy is the worst—or best, whichever way you look at it—country in Europe for these problems, probably because, as a well-known Roman Catholic country, it has the lowest rate of fertility. Further away, Japan has a massive problem which will result in the reduction of the population of Japan. The best view about what has happened to Japan is that it is because it has had no immigration, as a result of which its population is shrinking. Then, of course, the obvious country with a problem is China, because that is what happens if you have a one-child policy—it comes back to bite you in future years.
Our committee was extremely strong on what we do not believe the solutions are. First, on fertility, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, indicated, we did not believe that doing anything about fertility would be enough to solve the problem. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, had some solutions, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, disagreed, but we were not saying that doing something about fertility would not have some impact, we were saying that doing anything about it would not have an impact in the timeframe to solve the problem.
The second thing that we thought would not solve the problem is immigration. As the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Turnbull, indicated, whatever we do about immigration, we do not believe that that would have an opportunity in the timeframe to do anything about it.
Thirdly, we do not think that what appears to be the Government’s approach, which is, “If only we did something about productivity, that would solve the problem”, is correct. Despite endless government attempts to do something about productivity over the last 14 to 16 years, there does not seem to be any evidence that we have done anything about it. So we do not believe that that will solve the problem.
As far as pensions are concerned, we did look at them, and we certainly looked at the question of an increase in the starting pension age. As the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Reid, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, indicated, we again thought that it was too late to have a massive impact by increasing the state pension age. The noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Willetts, probably disagree, but that was our conclusion.
As readers of the report will see, we did not look at the triple lock. This debate probably indicates why we did not do so, because it is clearly a highly controversial topic. On the one hand, we had the noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord Turnbull, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Macpherson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, all indicating that they thought keeping the triple lock was silly, while on the other hand we had the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, indicating quite the opposite point of view, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, thinks we certainly should not do anything about it without a proper debate. For that reason, we rather wisely kept off in the report the issue of the triple lock.
As noble Lords will realise, we believe that the magic bullet, to the extent that there is one, is to do something about getting people aged between 50 and 65 either to stay in work or back into work. As a number of noble Lords have indicated, there are a number of reasons why they leave work. The noble Lords, Lord Liddle, Lord Lamont and Lord Tugendhat, all indicated that people do not work because they have caring responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was the only person to say what I think is very often the case: actually, they have made enough money so that they do not have to work. That has an impact on our society. People such as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, have also made the obvious point that there are often health concerns. The noble Baroness had some interesting suggestions as to what might be done to help that.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, also drew attention to the fact that it is not only what is happening at the top end but what is happening at the bottom end that is relevant. As the Milburn report indicated, unless we do something to bring young people back into the workplace we will not help to provide the revenue necessary to support the elderly. I, and the committee, agree that requires action.
Finally, as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Davies of Brixton, both articulated, the government response to our report is at best disappointing and at worst very disappointing. I hope that the Minister can do a bit better in reply.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is a valuable and timely report. It continues the tradition of high-quality reports from the Economic Affairs Committee, and I join the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, in his role as chair, to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his clear and compelling opening speech, and indeed to the clerks who have supported the committee.
This excellent report sets out with clarity the scale of the demographic challenge facing the country. The UK is ageing rapidly, birth rates have fallen to historic lows and the implications for our labour market, our tax base and our public finances are profound. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Lamont were right to emphasise the consequences for fiscal sustainability and to cite the OBR in telling us that, on current forecasts, debt would rise to an unimaginable 270%. My noble friend Lord Willetts emphasised the possibilities of technology and robotics in heading this off, and many noble Lords have rightly focused on the need to increase employment rates among those in their 50s and 60s. That is a theme I will return to later.
We also heard from many about the need for transformation of adult care; I think we all wish the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, great success. There has been a debate about pensions, summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and articulated very well by my noble friend Lady Coffey from her experience at DWP. There was a lack of agreement, but the arguments for the triple lock were set out very clearly and well by my noble friend Lord Redwood. I thought my noble friend Lady Bottomley was right to mention the value of occupational health, which is something I agree with from my business experience.
It is possible, in the time available, to cover only a few points. I will try not to repeat what has already been said, but I draw attention to the Government’s response. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I think it is a respectable one, although sometimes ideology is overinfluential. At the top of page 12, the commitment to
“halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest”
is foolish. The Government’s ambition should be to improve healthy life expectancy for everyone, especially the least fortunate. We do not want the gap to be narrowed simply by reducing healthy life expectancy among the rich.
It is clear from the report that the problems of our ageing society would be much reduced if we could get our birth rate back up to the replacement rate. Although all countries have found this difficult, more efforts should be made. It is not a lost cause, as my noble friend Lady Penn explained. My view is that more help with nursery provision could make a big difference. Having a childcare system largely geared to school hours and school terms may be convenient to teachers, but it makes it very difficult for most working parents. They do it better elsewhere, not only in Scandinavia but in the United States and, indeed, in France, as described by my noble friend Lady Meyer. I know that from the experience of family members in those countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, explained that people also need to be taught more about fertility. Of course, the shift to starting families later can lead to lower replacement rates.
Otherwise, the best way to mitigate the problems outlined in this important report is to conjure up more economic growth. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, described this in his response letter as the “central mission” of the Government. It is one of the best ways out of the dilemmas described and, indeed, many of the other problems we face. Unfortunately, many of the actions taken by this Government have reduced growth. Examples include the effective ban on new drilling in the North Sea, leaving Norway to grow instead. That and other policies have led to the highest electricity prices in the developed world. These have ruined our car and cement industries and hit data centres which support AI, one of the key new avenues of growth. We have seen a disastrous attack on large and small businesses: a £25 billion hit on NICs, a very high minimum wage, especially for the young, and the Employment Rights Act, the damaging consequences of which become more apparent by the day. I urge the Government not to launch another attack on wealth creators in the Budget on 28 October.
Improving productivity can also contribute. It was rightly on the list from the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I am more optimistic than he is about the scope for improving productivity if we follow the right policies.
Demography is not only about births and deaths—or, indeed, immigration. We face a worrying trend of entrepreneurs and younger talent emigrating because of high taxation and growing burdens on business. If we want people to work longer, to invest more and to innovate here in Britain, we must stop making it harder for them to do so. I ask the Minister for reassurance: how do the Government intend to reverse the outflow of skilled, ambitious workers, who are essential to sustaining our future tax base and supporting our ageing population?
We also need a national conversation about retirement expectations. Too many assume that the system will simply provide. Yet, given the demographic realities, younger workers will need to save more for longer and will almost certainly retire later.
There are two mitigations in the report that I will highlight in conclusion. The first is to join others in persuading those able to do so to work for longer and allowing them to do that. People live much longer than they did, but a much smaller part of their life is spent in work than when pensions were devised. It is too easy for many of those contributing to the economy to retire early. My father’s farming business failed when he was in his 40s, but he retrained and worked into his 70s. We need more of this, and not only in the House of Lords. To achieve this, we need to call out the culture of age discrimination that I was shocked to discover when preparing my review of the state pension age in 2022. The latest figure from the Centre for Ageing Better suggests that one in three people reports experiencing age discrimination. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry rightly described the amazing contribution that older people make to civil society.
My second issue is better financial education. It is welcome news that the Government will shortly consult on better provision in the national curriculum. On page 6, the response commendably tells us that, through their reforms, the Government will be
“building a generation better equipped to plan for and navigate significant financial decisions, such as those relating to retirement”;
obviously, I would add to that investment, which has been a subject of this debate. The response talks about young people learning
“about tax, scams, bank accounts, savings and pensions”,
to which I would add the power of compound interest when you save. I would also point to the value and importance of financial literacy across the population and in lifelong learning, which is the subject of amendments I have proposed to the financial services Bill.
In conclusion, I warmly thank the committee for all it has done in setting the scene in this vital area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, all of the committee’s members and all those who have taken part so constructively today. They will, I hope, help the Minister move things forward, and I very much look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the welcome of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others for the report. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Wood of Anfield, on bringing it to the House today. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. As a new boy, I am struck by how coming to a debate in the House of Lords always opens up new issues around things you thought you had studied. I will aim to address the points that have been made—although I may not be able to namecheck everyone—and the excellent speeches made by noble Lords, such as that from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, which were very broad in terms of thinking about how to deal with this issue.
I begin where many noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Burns—began: with some optimism. The fact that we, as a society, are living longer is one of the great achievements of the modern age. I have two little twin granddaughters, Grace and Astrid. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, explained to me that they can expect a lifespan of 90 years, which is an absolute triumph of public health, medical science and rising living standards. People having longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives has been an objective of everybody and of every party, I think—one that we want to promote. This Government remain committed to that goal.
However, that brings with it new and mounting pressures on public services and public finances not just here but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out, in lots of countries across the developed world. The Government do not shy away from the reality, which is that addressing this challenge is not straightforward. It is not just about addressing the pension age, although that is an important part of what we have to do, or addressing fertility. I was interested in the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund. I had not thought about that issue before, so I would be more than pleased to talk to her about it or arrange for her to talk to somebody in the Government with greater expertise on it than me. The noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Meyer, also talked about this issue.
As I say, though, this is not just about the pension age or fertility. An ageing society touches on nearly every area of public policy. It would be wrong of me to suggest that there is one lever that can resolve it alone, however important it may be; that was, I think, the key point in the committee’s report. In order for this to work, we need to think also about how we can keep people, particularly older people, in work for longer and how we can deal with caring and social care. There is a circularity here, because the people who are not working are often looking after their parents. We need to think about how we can address discrimination and about life planning from education, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, as well as keeping people in employment.
I wish to talk about some of those points and the Government’s approach. I will not touch on housing, which I know is important and was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, or technology, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. I would like to talk about how we can look after people in old age. How can we support them to keep working? How can we provide adequate pensions? More broadly, how can we promote prosperity and keep the dependency ratio down by focusing on the denominator?
I shall start with social care, about which many noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Lamont and Lord Liddle—talked. There is a big gap in welfare provision. People are seeing everything they have worked for be wiped out by the costs of social care, which are increasing hugely. This issue was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady McGregor-Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. We must think about the technical solutions and not forget that old people, like all people, are of immeasurable worth.
Our Prime Minister has set out his personal commitments to making progress on fixing our broken social care system. He has agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to bring the conclusion of the independent commission forward to 2027 in order to help with that. This will combine the work that was originally set out as two separate phases, so that a single set of recommendations will cover both the immediate improvements, which the system needs now, and the longer-term transformations that are required to meet demographic changes. The same pressures are bearing down on the National Health Service, and a series of actions is taking place there. That is all from me on social care.
What about keeping people working? I must start by addressing ill health. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, introduced fantastic expertise to this debate. Last year, the Government set out a 10-year health plan. They remain committed to supporting people to lead healthier lives. In the 2025 Budget, there was an increase of £29 billion in annual cash resources by 2028-29. The Department of Health and Social Care is bringing £13.4 billion of public health funding into the public health grant, and £800 million is being put into the treatment of mental health. I know that I am quoting inputs rather than outputs, because we do not know what the outputs will be, but I feel that there is a commitment to try to address these issues.
I turn to pensions. We have had a big debate about the triple lock, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Turnbull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their input on that. As noble Lords know, the Government made a manifesto commitment that, until the end of this Parliament, the triple lock will remain. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, made an interesting suggestion about a cost-benefit analysis, and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, asked what the retirement age will be. That has been delayed because of the Pensions Commission.
Last summer, it was announced that the Government had launched a Pensions Commission to review the state pension age. The pension age review feeds into the Pensions Commission, which will advise the Government early next year on how the state pension age and wider pensions policy framework should adapt to trends to ensure that pensioners have adequate incomes in future, while ensuring fairness and fiscal sustainability.
The danger is that this feels like just another grand review. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, raised that. I have a long paragraph on all the things that are happening in pensions right now. Many foundation stones are being put in place: mandating value-for-money reporting; trustees giving people guidance on how to get a pension out of their pension savings; and CDC collective pensions that will give people an income for life rather than cash. Lots of stuff is already going on. There is also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, financial education for the young so that they know what is going on as well.
I am running out of time. Noble Lords will be aware of many of the things that the Government are doing on the economy. It is growth in every postcode, which I hope addresses the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sikka. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is right to hold us to account. This is not procrustean. We are looking after everyone in every postcode.
Let me skip forward, if I may. A lot is going on with young people. We have talked about education. There is the youth guarantee, the growth skills levy and investing in training. More broadly, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that every young person can make a successful transition to work. That is what Sir Alan Milburn’s review will be doing. Given that this is such a cross-cutting challenge, consideration of how we tackle the ageing population is embedded everywhere—in growth, pensions, health and social care and labour markets. It is also embedded in housing. We are not following one of the recommendations of the committee with a grand plan. My noble friend Lord Davies recognised this. However, the Government recognise that this is a big challenge.
An ageing society is a symptom of success. It is a matter for celebration. It is a result of the determination of a great nation to improve living standards for everyone. We have not solved all the problems—and I have not addressed them all in this speech. However, we have some strong foundations, not least in your Lordships’ report keeping an active debate going and in action by the Government. I trust that Grace and Astrid can not only expect longer lives than their granddad but healthier and more fulfilling ones. Thank you.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has thrown up an enormous range of new ideas and thoughts that various committees of the House might take up. I was going to discuss with our clerk how we can summarise all the issues that might be taken up further. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson on his summing-up. It is very difficult when you are a new Minister to do this, but he did very well, so I thank him.
I feel a little guilty that the report did not directly address the triple lock question. It is obvious that that question must be addressed. My own sympathies are very much with taking the risk of doing it in an appropriate way. We did not do that because we wanted to draw attention to a fundamental problem of this declining participation rate among over-50s. A lot of ideas have come forward on how we could address this question. Therefore, the report and the debate on it have been extremely valuable. I thank everyone most sincerely for the part that they played.
Social Mobility: Local Roots, Lasting Change (Social Mobility Policy Committee Report)
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That this House takes note of the Report from the Social Mobility Policy Committee Social Mobility: Local Roots, Lasting Change (HL Paper 201, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, there is hardly a more important subject than the future of our young people and their contribution to the wealth of the nation and to their own happiness. I was privileged to lead a one-off committee last year on social mobility. What the committee learned was sobering and shocking, as a result of lots of evidence that we received. Our remit was to look at how education and work could be better integrated.
This is a complex subject—we have just heard in the wind-up of the last debate references to young people—which covers a range of things. Therefore, our first decision was that we would focus on four areas: the importance of place, or where the issues are arising; NEETs, which is a horrible expression meaning those young people not in education, employment or training; the particular problems of those aged between 16 and 18; and data.
I hope that not many of your Lordships will criticise us for the things that we did not cover. Some may have been more important but to have covered them all we would have needed a full standing committee on the subject. Early years, mental health, housing, the benefits system, the care system, the effect of Covid, social media, levers for economic growth, attitudes to work—any one of those could have kept us busy. However, despite what we learned being sobering and shocking, it is encouraging that there is now plenty of public and political focus on these issues.
We heard a number of options for definitions of social mobility. We ended up with working on the basis that where you are born, the circumstances in which you are born and the income of your parents should not determine everything that happens in the rest of your life. As far as possible, it is the responsibility of all Governments to provide circumstances in which our citizens can thrive from an early age. Several witnesses said that social mobility is not about fishing out of the education system bright, young, talented but disadvantaged people, sending them to a Russell Group university and expecting them to be earning £100,000 as a lawyer within five minutes. We were told that by a number of people and the committee agreed.
Since we reported, there has been a lot of broad policy and HMG initiatives on this subject, and I will talk about some of them later, but we found it very compelling that different solutions are required all over the country—in coastal areas, remote rural areas and inner cities. Inner cities are also different; problems in the centre of Bristol may be different from those in Birmingham. Therefore, whatever frameworks or initiatives HMG have, we must recognise that the best solutions come from the people in the areas where the problems are, who know those problems—the transport issues, the local education, what the local jobs are and so on—or who can help create those job opportunities and remove barriers.
In a moment, I will talk about a really encouraging visit that we had to Blackpool, but one of our recommendations, building on what I just said, is that local partnerships must be the answer. I do not wish to pick out particular evidence, but I remember being very struck, as were other members of the committee, by one area—I cannot remember where—where the local fire brigade had noticed the NEETs and taken the initiative to do something. We should not prescribe that it has to be the further education college, if there is one, or the DWP: it has to be a combination of people helping.
Our other recommendations are to do with education. It is striking how many people fail maths and English who are then barred from further progress at GCSE. We went to Blackpool, where the further education college has a drop-in centre by the front door to give extra coaching in this area, but the committee tended to believe that the presentation of maths to students who understand its functionality and value in today’s internet-enabled world needed some fresh thinking.
Also striking was that the loan that someone from a low-income family gets to go to university has not risen for seven years—or had not at the time of our report—thereby barring a number of people. At that stage—and things are beginning to change—the committee also felt that there needed to be greater scope for progress on creative, technical and vocational subjects in education. Career advice seemed pretty patchy. The trailblazers looked like a good proposal; we hoped that the arrangement in which the Minister straddles the DWP and the Department for Education would continue. Data again needs improvement, including the ability to share, so that we know what the problems are.
At the time we did our report, there were also particular problems with care leavers making the transition to work. We heard evidence that, to get enough to pay for rent and the transport to get to work, they would have to give up their accommodation allowance, so there is a Catch-22 there. We thought that the growth and skills levy should be extended and that we needed datasets on parental income.
I mentioned Blackpool earlier. Blackpool comes near the bottom of most indicators of social mobility, employment and a range of other issues. But, partly led by the Social Mobility Commission—I applaud its excellent work in this area and it gave us great help in working out what we were going to do—the people in Blackpool have created a fantastic partnership. It is already beginning to have results, but there is a long way to go. It involves the local authority, the further education college, employers, the DWP, charities and students. Listening to students about their experiences and what those in education are doing to help those in the NEET category was inspirational.
Again, we were encouraged to think in terms of various tiers of people who are not in education, employment and training, which ranges from those who are very nearly ready for employment, if the jobs are available, to those who are so far away that they are without the concept of what jobs are and the social skills that they need to do them—turning up on time and so on. The suggestion was that that group needed particular attention. To quote the Social Mobility Commission, it is
“the truly disadvantaged, who get lost”
in these areas.
We had some super evidence, including from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, from whom we are going to hear later, who influenced us and is quoted in our report. We had 58 pieces of written evidence and heard 54 witnesses—students, employers, educationalists, university professors, training providers, further education colleges, academics and Government Ministers. I am not going to pick out anything, except to say that a particularly poignant piece of evidence came from an academic studying NEETs. She told us how she went to interview a young man in this category. He was thrilled to see her, as she was the first person who had taken an interest in his future. He thought that she was coming to offer him a job, but she was coming to do academic research.
I thank the members of the committee, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, whose proposal this was. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, thanking the clerks on the committee whose report was debated previously. Anybody in this House knows what fantastic support we have: Andrea, Bruce and Emily helped us enormously. I also thank the committee itself: everybody turned up, contributed and did the maximum that they could to help produce a report of which we could be proud.
Before I end, I need to inject a slightly grumpy note. I do so reluctantly, given that the Government are doing a lot in this area, but we did a lot of hard work. The Government’s response, rather than two months, took eight. The response was issued a day after the Summer Recess and—to be slightly personally grumpy—the committee was chaired by me, not by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, as the Government’s response said. Having said that, I know that there is a problem with managing business, but I plead again—as other Select Committee chairs have before—that when Members of this House do extensive, careful, thorough work, which takes a lot of time and costs the taxpayer substantial amounts of money, their reports are taken seriously and given adequate time for debate. We should not experience what this committee did.
I already mentioned the flurry of government initiatives in this area. Before we reported, we had Charlie Mayfield’s review Keep Britain Working and the work being done, although it was not complete, by the Curriculum and Assessment Review. Since we reported, we have had the interim report from Alan Milburn, some changes on arrangements for apprenticeships, job placements, youth hubs, the youth jobs grant and a jobs graduate scheme. These clearly have value severally, but—and I have not been able to discuss this with the committee because this all happened after we submitted our report—the concerns I have are whether this is co-ordinated, whether data is being collected on the value of these initiatives and their success, whether there is the right proportion of direction from central government and the freedom for local initiatives, and whether they cover enough of the country. It was clear to us that it was easier to make progress where there are combined authorities than in areas that are not covered. There are quite a lot of gaps in the country that are not covered at this level.
I will probably have more to say in summing up but, at this stage, I beg to move.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for whom I have huge respect. So often I tremble when I see her, but always with respect.
This is an excellent report. The noble Baroness mentioned that it obviously has gaps, which there are bound to be. I want to start with the gap on early years learning, because it is relevant to what happens later in the rest of learning.
I am reminded of something that happened some 50 years ago, experimentally, with neuroscientists who blindfolded a number of newborn kittens. What was interesting was that, depending on how long the blindfold was in place and for how long they were in darkness afterwards, within, say, three weeks of blindfolding, their visual impairment was permanent. Sometimes, they were virtually completely blind. In other experiments that were done, some cats showed that they could not identify geometric spaces, in spite of normal cognitive ability in other animals.
The fact of the matter is that their eyes were completely normal. Their retinas, lenses and muscles were fine, but the visual cortex at the back of the brain was hampered. Indeed, in many cases, there were no proper connections with synapses. Those synapses are the result of experience. Experience is the basis of how we learn completely. These cats did not learn to see. Just as with children who, as they go on, learn by experience all the time, this is something that we have to understand educationally.
What is so important is that this applies to early years learning. It is rather sad to think of SureStart, for example, which started under a Labour Government years ago and was highly effective. It was shown by my colleagues at University College London to be a really effective way not merely of improving learning but also social cohesion, behaviour and a whole range of other things, such as the ability to express oneself and to communicate and connect with other people. That it ended is sad indeed.
This applies in primary schools as well, of course, and I want to devote time to them, although I have so little. We neglect primary schools at the most important stage of all education. I see this when I go around coastal areas, for example, where the issue is not just NEET young people but the number of children on free school meals who are damaged as a result. That is one of the things we try to do at Imperial College, with no interest in trying to recruit students. We simply want to provide a public benefit with our outreach. That is very important.
To conclude, one of the things that the committee recognised was that connections with the universities are very important. It does not have to be local—in fact, at Imperial we go as far as the north of England with some of our outreach activity. This is something we should be expressing, but it is not properly funded, just as, indeed, primary education is not properly funded either.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on an excellent report. I am sure it was the right approach to focus on a specific set of problems, and it is a very well-judged collection that is put to us to debate today. Personally, I have always thought that the biggest single problem we face in social mobility is the prospect for those 16 year-olds who do not get good GCSEs. That is where the most shocking waste and loss of opportunity occurs.
I would like to pick up on three specific points in the report. First, there is the brief discussion of work experience in paragraph 50 and elsewhere. There is an extraordinary phenomenon at the moment: T-levels include a requirement for 45 days of work experience and have significant funding for employers to provide that work experience. That is having the effect of pushing all the work experience options into a relatively small programme and number of beneficiaries. Does the Minister see the case instead, in so far as there is public funding for work experience, for spreading it more widely and more equitably, rather than it being so specifically linked to T-levels?
Secondly, I should refer to higher education. Higher education is the only stage of education where the kids from the poor areas outperform. It is the one stage where they catch up a bit. The report is absolutely right to identify the importance of maintenance loans for them. It is still the case that kids from poorer areas are less likely to go to university. I always enjoy it when the Minister takes the opportunity of these Lords debates to reflect on policy. There is a lot of talk at the moment on restricting and controlling the numbers of people going to university. Does she agree with me that the danger, when you control numbers, is that it is the marginal students from the tough backgrounds who lose out? The evidence is that those cases where it is the marginal students—those who might just have gone or just did not go—are where you can do the best and most rigorous empirical research. That research shows that the students in those circumstances who do go enjoy far better work opportunities and life outcomes.
Finally, and third on my list, it is great that the report has such a meaty chapter on data. We need to link data to have proper social mobility research, of the sort that Raj Chetty has conducted in the US. But we do not just need it for research; it is also necessary for the place agenda, which is another strong theme in the report. At the moment there are many people providing services to young NEETs and others who are not totally confident about what data they can share with other bodies, including other public bodies that are also trying to help these people. Often, there is overcautious legal advice about GDPR obligations, so data is not being shared. There is a role for the Government in signalling clearly to those players that they can share data.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this was a fascinating committee with a very impressive chair and enthusiastic members. We asked witnesses for a definition of social mobility and received a very wide variety of answers. We ended up with, “Ensuring that the situation that you are born into or grow up in does not determine your outcomes in life”. In theory, of course, this could mean down as well as up—duke to dustman, for instance—but we felt it more productive to concentrate on people bettering themselves rather than moving down.
The government response has warm words and sets out plans for tackling the NEETs, who should be a scar on our society. We look forward to Alan Milburn’s final report and welcome the £2.5 billion to support young people, as well as the proposals for work experience and youth jobs grants, but fear that the penalties for employers in taking on young people will act as a deterrent to those opportunities. Will the Government consider relaxing the employee rights for young people trying to get into employment? We moved amendments to the Bill to ensure that apprentices should not have their hopes dashed by acquiring full rights from day one, but it is important that all those trying to find work should give employers the chance to try them out.
Messing about with vocational qualifications is never a clever way to encourage take up. We had well-tried and tested BTECs and City & Guilds qualifications when the last Government introduced T-levels under the misapprehension that changing “vocational” to “technical” would, at a stroke, raise their status. T-levels are beginning to be understood and there is some encouraging take-up, but why introduce V-levels when existing provision covers the same fields? We plead with the Government not to defund existing provision until there is very sound evidence that the new qualifications on the block are valid, valued and working. To stop when T-levels and V-levels are introduced, as in the response to recommendation 9, is no use if they have not been properly evaluated and understood by students, colleges, training providers and parents, who are some of the most difficult people to convince.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, we were very impressed by the work in Blackpool, particularly at Blackpool and The Fylde College, where young people relish doing real work in building and engineering. Local collaboration is obviously vital for such schemes to work and the partnerships that the college has built up with local businesses, large and small, was a key factor in its success.
As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, however, we must not ignore the huge contribution made by universities to social mobility. We need to ensure that financial and structural barriers do not prevent students from disadvantaged backgrounds accessing and succeeding in higher education.
We welcome the measures that the Government have announced—the Minister set those out for us in our debate yesterday—particularly to review careers guidance, to help care leavers leaving care and being left adrift, to transform the growth and skills levy, and to ensure that unspent funds go back into apprenticeships rather than into the Treasury. We shall watch with interest, in the hope that the intentions get translated into actions to enable disadvantaged people, young and old, to have the opportunity of social mobility and to become productive, happy and fulfilled members of society.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I too warmly applaud this report. What is so encouraging is that it does not have all the answers. I think it has whetted in a great number of people a curiosity, an appetite to study further, to have more data. That, to me, is a very encouraging start.
Social mobility is a theme that has dominated most of my working life. I worked in Brixton and Peckham. I was chairman of a juvenile court. Many noble Lords know that I was for 17 years chancellor of the University of Hull. I tried to represent the Isle of Wight, another very poor area, but my constituency was South West Surrey, which contained Farnham, Haslemere and Godalming—a totally different picture.
The point about disadvantage, deprivation and opportunity is that these are so contextual. The Education Policy Institute tells us that disadvantaged children are already five months behind their peers by the end of reception. By GCSE, that gap has grown to 19 months. This is something that people in the field know. There are a great number of factors. What I want to ask is: what are the protective factors? When I worked in my child guidance clinic, when a child came from a very difficult, poor home in a disrupted and difficult area there was a sort of reluctant pessimism that they would inevitably become a delinquent or fail at school. What fascinates me is those people who, in spite of all those factors, have made it through because that is a much more positive message and one from which we can learn. In my present career, I often discreetly ask people who evidently had a pretty grim start what it was—was it a grandparent, a priest, a school, the armed services, youth groups, music or sport? I hope that, through data, we can get people’s self-report about the factors that have made a great difference.
Of course, employers have a huge part to play, and I welcome the way in which many of them have been mobilised. The other day Sainsbury’s was offering more work placements, careers guidance and much else besides. A young man who I greatly admire co-chairs the social mobility allies at a professional services firm. He is the son of Albanian refugees who came to the UK during the Kosovo war. He says that it is all too easy to overlook how important mindset and self-belief are. If you do not believe you have the ability to achieve or do not see role models who have managed to achieve impressive results, you feel that that other people who come from a background similar to your own will, whatever the Government say, struggle to engage.
We need employers to recognise the value of socio-economic diversity. We can help individuals build confidence and aspiration, but we also need organisations to be open to talent that may not fit the traditional mould. There is a huge amount of untapped potential that can be unlocked when employers focus on capability and potential rather than pedigree. We talk a lot about opening doors, but for many from working-class backgrounds, there is still a feeling that they need to change how they speak and how they dress to fit in and progress. Social mobility is not just about giving people opportunities, it is about creating environments where people can be themselves and be seen as credible, capable and worthy of progression. It is a good example.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, for me, this journey started all the way back in 2024 when I proposed this topic as a special inquiry, so it is very good at last to see the work brought to a conclusion in this debate. First, I thank our superb chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her sterling work in keeping us all focused on delivery, steering us through a complex topic and keeping us entertained with her amazing Cold War spy stories. I also thank our clerks, Andrea, Bruce and Emily, for all their efforts, culminating in an excellent report. Finally, we need to single out the Social Mobility Commission for its expert advice and support throughout the process. We must also note that we are standing on the shoulders of previous work done in the House in this area, in particular, the previous committee in 2015, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley.
Something that we have clearly demonstrated throughout this work is the real importance of a regional, local approach, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, to social mobility in making progress in this area, having heard from many of the excellent local partnerships. We have made good progress in this area, both in the government responses to our recommendations and in the work done in your Lordships’ House on the English devolution Act. However, it is an area that the Government need to continue focusing on as they progress their devolution agenda in the coming years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, many areas of the country do not have that focus on the way that our devolution agenda is currently being progressed.
On data, I am pleased to see the acceptance of our recommendations on data and I look forward to seeing the outputs of the government review in March 2027 on the development of broader datasets in social mobility; I cannot overstate the importance of this work in helping to better understand the drivers of social mobility. That is really going to help us design better interventions and ultimately help to improve life chances for so many disadvantaged communities across the UK.
I finish with a quote from a noble Lord we all remember fondly, Lord Boyce: “There are no such thing as problems, only solutions in disguise”. I am grateful for the work of the committee and its collaboration with the Government in helping to tease out some of those solutions, which will make a real difference to the life chances of so many in those disadvantaged communities and ultimately continue our journey to a fairer society and opportunity for all, which is something that we can all get behind. I thank again the committee and the Government for all their efforts, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, who reminded the committee of the importance of data. I join him and others in complimenting the noble Baroness on her chairmanship. Her earlier career gave her unparalleled skills in interrogation.
While welcoming much of the Government’s response, I was disappointed with their principal response. That is because the substance of our report is captured in its title, Social Mobility: Local Roots, Lasting Change, and if there is one paragraph in the report that sums it up, it is paragraph 236:
“We have further concluded that those initiatives are best taken forward by local government, working in collaboration with Skills England and … universities, FE Colleges, schools and local employers, and, crucially, the DWP”.
However, in the introduction to the Government’s response this concept of devolution of responsibility and a fresh approach is totally absent. Worse, the Government then reject what I regard as our key recommendation that we should build on the eight youth trailblazers. That was kicked into touch:
“We expect to publish interim findings during the next two years and will develop the value for money assessment once longer term impacts have developed”.
Rest in peace. But the committee’s message was actually received by the new Prime Minister, who made a speech on this issue shortly after he became Prime Minister. The message was this:
“The current local government restructure and the creation of mayoral combined authorities is an opportunity for Government to devolve the power and resources needed for those authorities to lead work, through local partnerships with schools, colleges, universities and employers and Skills England, to promote social mobility and address the acute NEET problem”.
That is exactly what we recommended but it was not reflected in the Government’s response, which was published after Mr Burnham became Prime Minister.
There is another point that I want to make. During the Recess I read Jeremy Hunt’s book Can We Be Rich Again? This is what he said about the DWP budget on unemployment:
“Can national employment programmes ever be as sensitive to local or individual situations as those run locally? The whole system would be far more tailored to individual situations if we devolved responsibility for getting people back into work to elected mayors or unitary authorities. If they were allowed to keep a proportion of any savings made, we would be likely to see a far quicker rise in the number of adults in work than by relying on a centralised national bureaucracy”.
That is exactly in line with our report. Devolving budgets and devolving responsibility locally would indeed bring about lasting change here.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I also express my gratitude to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, along with our clerk and her outstanding team. I draw attention to my registered interests as an employer and an active Army Reserve officer. I also pay tribute to the exceptional staff at Blackpool and The Fylde College, and all our witnesses. However, I want to reiterate our chair’s point that the publication of the Government’s response took eight months and was published on the day immediately after the House adjourned. I have formally written to the Government Chief Whip, the Minister, and the chair of the Liaison Committee regarding the timing of this response and performance.
The rate at which people are speaking makes this debate feel like a QSD. In conjunction with the meagre three minutes offered to respond to the committee’s serious hard work of nearly a year, my personal view is that this behaviour from the Government displays more than a degree of contempt for the committee’s work. It is also a shame that not a single Labour Back-Bencher who was part of the committee is here today; they were all very valid members during the committee’s work.
Turning to the substance of our report, employment remains the single most effective vehicle for social mobility—far surpassing any strategy, taskforce or policy framework—but to create the jobs, you need to create the right environment, including housing, transport and digital connectivity. However, cumulative burdens since 2024 have made hiring increasingly costly: higher employer national insurance contributions; above-inflation minimum wage growth, which has narrowed the youth pay differential; and immediate employment rights under the Employment Rights Act. Consequently, sectors like retail and hospitality—traditionally the primary entry point for young workers—are experiencing severe job cuts. The British Chambers of Commerce now projects youth unemployment to reach 17.6% next year. We should not be surprised that taxing employment results in fewer available jobs.
When our committee recommended lowering the levy rate for smaller businesses, we were informed that levy operations fall under Treasury jurisdiction. This policy environment leaves nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training. Among them, 60% have never held a job, compared to 40% in 2005. Government reviewer Alan Milburn calculates the annual economic cost of youth disengagement at £125 billion, exceeding our national education budget. The repercussions extend beyond economics. Milburn’s findings indicate that young men in the NEET category are five times more likely to acquire a criminal record than their peers, while half of those aged 15 to 17 in youth offender institutions possess primary school levels of literacy and numeracy.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The noble Lord has exceeded his speaking time.
Lord Harlech (Con)
It is advisory. In the absence of legitimate career paths—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: the speaking time is advisory. However, given the number of speakers we have in all three of today’s debates, if the Ministers are going to have appropriate time to respond, and if we are going to finish at a reasonable hour on a Friday, it is three minutes.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I will then put forward two direct questions to the Minister. First, will she advocate with the Treasury to expand national insurance exemptions to cover all employees under 25 in the upcoming Budget? Secondly, will she confirm that the final Milburn report will be released promptly and that it will incorporate participation conditionality?
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and her committee for producing this very thoughtful and focused report. The committee’s focus on education and training opportunities for 16 to 18 year-olds is pertinent, as is its recommendation regarding local leadership, given the regional disparities. While the Government’s response is encouraging, it is, however, disappointing that they are not keen on the expansion of youth guarantee trailblazer pilots or expanding their remit to become pilots on social mobility.
I take this opportunity to highlight the importance of literacy as a determinant for social mobility, and the effectiveness of place-based approaches. The link between social mobility and socioeconomic status and low literacy in the UK is profoundly strong and intergenerational. Despite numerous government strategies, the situation has persisted for 50 years. Research shows that children’s lives, from their earliest moments, are shaped by characteristics of neighbourhoods and local circumstances. Based on this research, the National Literacy Trust—which I co-founded, and of which I now serve as president—has for several years advocated for place-based solutions through 12 hubs in local areas. Through these hubs, it has worked with multiple stakeholders to galvanise the whole community to improve local levels of literacy and help drive social mobility. This approach also ensures sustainability. Based on this experience, I urge the Government to take the committee’s emphasis on place seriously.
To achieve social mobility and inclusion, the importance of literacy skills should not be underestimated. Lack of literacy skills can be traced back to early years, and an early literacy deficit affects future life chances. A focus on literacy skills, particularly during early years, should be given a priority, as these skills are a crucial determinant in enabling acquisition of education and social mobility. This is not a criticism of the fact that committee did not look at this area; I am just highlighting the importance of the link between taking advantage of education at later stages and this ability. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, as we consider this issue it is also important to look at how it intersects with the criminal justice system. We know there is a cycle whereby disadvantage can lead to educational disengagement. This can lead to someone ending up outside of education, employment or training. Once there, this puts them at greater risk of getting involved with the criminal justice system. Having then been involved with the criminal justice system, this further reduces their employment prospects.
I had pulled out the same statistics that my noble friend Lord Harlech has already quoted, showing just how substantial the link between youth offending and NEET status is. The DWP report he quoted—I will not repeat his statistics—goes on to say:
“The pipeline from education failure, to offending, to sustained detachment is one of the most documented and most neglected in the country, but very little has changed or improved for this cohort”.
That is damning. We need to do more to ensure that all the different organisations working with these young people are focused on providing a genuine pathway into education, training or employment.
What we address nationally and what we address locally is important. There are obvious tensions, which have been raised, regarding where the balance of power should lie, and, as ever, the optimal answer is not a straightforward one. Too much localisation with multiple layers is confusing; people do not know where to go for help, and it is not clear where responsibility lies. Too much centralisation ignores the reality that local circumstances vary dramatically and that those closest to a specific community are often those most able to help people navigate and find a way through—a point this report makes powerfully.
The youth justice system has had to grapple with this same tension. Its current consultation into the oversight and funding of youth justice services is looking at this specifically. There is a sense of a system that has been too fragmented, with too many layers and not enough clear accountability. Given the proportion of NEETs who were involved with youth justice services, any reform of the system should be looked at in the context of wider structures and needs to be fully integrated with the conversation we are having.
The key principle should be that there must be clear accountability for who is responsible for doing what at each level of the system. As the Government consider the oversight and funding of the youth justice system, they should consider the points raised today and in this report and look at how to deliver a properly integrated system that helps transition people into education, training and employment; and, crucially, they should be clear on who will be responsible for making that pathway work.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I read the committee’s excellent report over the Summer Recess, when I spent time in Washington DC and visited the recently opened Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream. It defines the core pillars of that dream—in other words, the core pillars of social mobility—as education, health, financial empowerment and entrepreneurship. Much of the exhibition turned on the essential role of business in lifting people out of poverty.
When we talk about social mobility, we too often talk about it as something driven by the state—by the Government and the laws we pass in Parliament—when in truth the greatest engine of social mobility is business. Consider the late Dolly Parton, born into poverty in a one-room cabin in Tennessee, who built a global career and a multibillion-dollar fortune in the entertainment industry through sheer guts and talent. But even for those who work in Main Street rather than Hollywood, the first pay packet, the first taste of responsibility and the first colleague who believes in them—all these things—are crucial to setting up a young person for life.
This subject is close to my heart, as president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register. The charity recently published a report on Jobs and Education: Building the Bridge to Opportunity, which identified two sides to the NEETs crisis. On the supply side, too many young people leave school without the attitudes and workplace readiness that employers want. I welcome the committee’s call for reform of the EBacc framework. This aligns with our own finding that a broader curriculum from 14, with genuine parity between academic and vocational routes, would help prevent young people becoming NEET. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister echo this sentiment earlier this week.
On the demand side, the rising cost and risk of hiring a young person is making employers reluctant to take a chance on someone without experience. The cost of employing a young person has risen by more than £4,000 in two years. When we raise the cost of hiring young people, we should not be surprised when fewer of them are hired. As the chef Tom Kerridge told the authors, rising costs push restaurants away from the very weekend and part-time roles that once gave young people their first taste of work in the hospitality industry. When these first rungs of the jobs market disappear, the ladder of social mobility goes with them. This is why, to achieve NEET zero, both the supply and the demand side of the NEETs crisis need to be addressed.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues on an excellent and timely report, and on her speech. I will make two quick points. The first is to add my voice to the point about local partnerships and how vital they are. You cannot just have a national policy that can be applied; this is a lot of very detailed work locally, which requires the empowerment of local leadership from across the sectors, including, as the noble Lord has just said, business, alongside education, health and others. Noting that my noble friend Lord Mawson is in his place, I say that this is what he describes as a 360-degree society. This is a problem for the whole of society.
I will raise one point that has not yet been raised— I note that the committee could not cover everything—about the first years of secondary school, when children are aged 11 to 13, and what I believe is technically called key stage 3. That is a time when the body and indeed the brain change fundamentally, and it happens at the same time as people move from a primary school where they had one teacher who knew them into a situation where they may have six, seven or whatever the number is, and move from an individual pastoral approach, as it were, to a less clear one.
Research shows that educational attainment declines during that period. It then tends to come back up again, but the people for whom it does not are from disadvantaged backgrounds—increasingly, girls in that group. I do not know what the reasons for that are, but one could speculate that the link with the individual teacher in primary school being replaced or not being replaced may be part of that. It is good to see that an independent and government-supported taskforce, which I believe is called the Key Stage 3 Alliance, is looking at this, and that there is a whole series of other reviews around this. I would be very interested in the Minister’s observation on the importance of this stage in an educational career, and about how this can be tackled.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to our formidable chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for keeping us all on track. I welcome the Government’s response to the Social Mobility Policy Committee’s report on social mobility and NEETs, and it is encouraging to see progress on earlier identification, better data sharing, the youth guarantee, stronger local partnerships and the development of the “risk of NEET” indicator.
The central point I want to make is that NEETs are not simply an education or employment problem; they are a social mobility problem and an economic and place-based problem. Opportunity has a geography. Where a young person grows up shapes the education they receive, the employers they encounter, the transport available to them and, ultimately, the choices they can make about their future. That is why this response must be seen in the context of the much bigger question of how we create opportunity across the country.
The Social Mobility Commission’s recent work makes clear that social mobility cannot be separated from the economic dynamism of the place in which people live. That is particularly relevant to NEETs. We can identify risk, offer training and even secure an apprenticeship, but, ultimately, young people need good opportunities to move into. Economic growth and social mobility are not competing objectives. A growing local economy creates jobs, demands skills and supports the services and infrastructure that underpin opportunity. The challenge is ensuring that young people with the fewest opportunities benefit from that growth.
I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that different places face different challenges. We should not assume that the answer looks the same everywhere. The causes of NEETs in a major city are not the same as in a coastal town, a former industrial community or a rural area. The employer base, transport and educational infrastructure and barriers are different. The question is not whether we have a national programme, but whether we have effective local systems that understand their young people and act early.
Better data will help, but identification is not intervention. Knowing that a young person is at risk is useful only if someone takes responsibility for acting and ensuring a sustained outcome. Success cannot be measured simply by someone disappearing from the NEET statistics. The real test is whether they make a lasting transition into education, training or employment. The technical education reforms are important but, again, the test is outcomes. Do these qualifications lead to jobs or further training and are they accessible to disadvantaged young people?
There is bigger point about social mobility. We often talk about individuals moving upwards, but we must also think about the mobility of places. Can towns experiencing decline attract investment, develop new industries and enable young people to build successful careers? If the answer is yes, we do something more powerful than helping a few individuals leave: we change the places themselves. The challenge is not simply to stop young people becoming NEET but to create places in which young people can see a future, with good schools and colleges, effective careers advice, apprenticeships, early support and, crucially, businesses, investment, innovation and economic growth. These things are interconnected.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and her committee on their thoughtful report. I declare my interest as a social mobility commissioner. The Social Mobility Commission was very pleased to contribute to the inquiry, including our excellent chairman, Alun Francis, who hosting the committee at Blackpool and The Fylde College, where he is chief executive. At the commission, Alun Francis has put localism and place at the forefront of breaking down social mobility barriers, so we strongly support the committee’s calls for place-based approaches.
As to the most serious matter of NEETs, the SMC has been highlighting the growing crisis for some time and contributed to Alan Milburn’s interim report. While it is true—as the Milburn report said—that getting a job is increasingly difficult for all young people, including graduates, it is important not to conflate the Government’s political and economic decisions that are deterring employers from recruiting young people with the social conditions that are driving the huge increase in economically inactive NEETs.
The commission is currently discussing with the Milburn review team its soon to be published qualitative research with young people who are NEET in Blackpool. That research shows how they are not a homogenous group and how, for many, a lack of stability and security in their home life influences their well-being and lack of progress towards education, employment or training.
Addressing the causes of our NEET epidemic must go beyond increasing and spreading economic opportunity. It must involve topics that, too often, politicians and policymakers are reluctant to discuss, the most obvious and important being the family and parenting. This is not just about household incomes or parents’ educational attainment; it is about highlighting the need for both parents to provide stability, uphold social norms and teach their children common standards that are beneath no one, beyond no one and vital to our individual success, cohesive communities and a stronger society.
My noble friend Lord Elliott mentioned the late Dolly Parton. Alongside her talents, one of the most important things she had going for her was a stable, strong family background.
It was as surprising as it was disappointing to read media reports this week signalling the Social Mobility Commission’s demise. Of course, it is for Ministers to decide how to organise resources to address barriers to social mobility, but perhaps the Minister could tell us how and when she intends to communicate their decision. But whatever the commission’s future, promoting the importance of stable families to children’s future success must be a government priority. We exacerbate inequality when we deny evidence and fail to join obvious dots for fear of causing offence. Most importantly, those who suffer most when we do are in the lowest socioeconomic groups.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this report, particularly its focus on local areas, and also strongly agree with a number of previous speakers that Blackpool college, the Social Mobility Commission and Alun Francis are really inspirational.
There are some important specific recommendations, but I would like to offer a couple of more general—and perhaps somewhat partly downbeat—comments. There is a sizeable academic literature which traces social mobility using very much the same approach as this report, looking at whether someone’s adult occupation and finances are closely related to and predicted by their family of origin. In deciding whether this link is strong or weak, there are two key forces. The first, bluntly, is how well or badly better-off parents are able to protect their children from downward mobility. In a static society, that is critical, because when things are static, if somebody goes up, somebody else is going down.
Fortunately, in a dynamic society—or less fortunately, in a collapsing society—what really matters is the whole structure of the labour market. In the last century and a half in this country, it has been the structure of the labour market and therefore the class structure that have been the really important drivers. They have been wonderful. The greatest UK expert on this is Oxford University’s John Goldthorpe, who has done a magisterial analysis of social mobility and education in this country over the last century and a bit. The contrast is quite dramatic. For example, among men born between 1938 and 1947, two-fifths of them were upwardly mobile compared with their families, and only a 10th downward. But in the last 30 to 40 years, this has plummeted. Upward mobility has become less frequent, and downward mobility has become more frequent. This is very much because of the flattening of the labour market structure.
What I really want to say in this context is that we must not expect of education what it cannot provide. Of course, all these things are important—they are what I have worked on all my life—but what ultimately will transform social mobility is economic growth, and we have to be realistic about that and to think about that in every local area.
I want to say one more thing. I am a little concerned at the tendency—which was visible a bit in this report—to feel that if a 16 year-old is struggling with English and maths, we should just forget it. I know that is hugely oversimplistic, but there is something of that in some of the witnesses’ evidence. The new qualifications coming in for 16 to 18 year-olds, which are pre GCSE, will be important. But the most important vocational skills by miles in a modern economy are maths and English. If you doubt this, you can look at the sterling work done by DfE statisticians, which is also pretty magisterial.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates where the report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, described, seems to address only certain aspects of the issue. But as she also described, if it did not, we would be here all week. We are looking at key aspects, among which we have concentrated on the rise of the NEET.
We have paid attention to NEETs, and this debate is rather an extension of one I was in yesterday. The rise of the NEET is something that we have identified for over a decade at least. They are a group of people who do not become involved in education or work. Something has happened in our society that makes this possible. Covid undoubtably accelerated the process slightly—it may have even established it—but it was already there. There is something about the way that we are structuring our education and society that is encouraging this group to grow. I hope that we can start to address it properly. We will not do that by repeating the policies of the last decade ad nauseam; we will have to change something.
I always go back to special educational needs and dyslexia, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, had a small bet with herself that I would raise it, she has won it. It comes to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, raised, English and maths. The Latin origin of the word dyslexia—no, it is Greek. Sorry, I did not do classics. The Greek origin of the word translates to a problem with words. It is not; it is a problem with processing, which expresses itself in problems with literacy and reading—more prominently writing than reading, which are two separate skills. Maths is a language, and processing problems can express themselves there.
Many of the solutions we have found are in encouraging and immersing people in the subject. You tend to scan read, so you get a new function. In the modern world, we use technology to produce literature and to communicate. I have not yet met anybody who would object to somebody talking to a computer to get communication going, as opposed to tapping a keyboard. If there is somebody, they probably will be waiting for me at the end of the debate, but I will have very short shrift for them. Please, can we start to establish what is needed with literacy and mathematics? In training and so on, we have found that for all these groups, if you test them on the language or the maths that they are going to use in their career, they do better. Please, can we address that and work it in? The level 1 qualification, which was hinted at by the last Government and now seems to be being implemented, may well be enough for a person to go through the rest of their training. Could we please work that in? Could we make sure that everybody uses a computer all the time?
In the past, I have raised that, in terms of education, the phone in your pocket may be a distraction because of the technology on it. It also can carry assistive technology. It carries voice operation and a calculator. We may have to do other things, but it is there, it fits in your pocket and we all have them with us. I hope that mine has been switched off. We have to start addressing this differently.
When it comes to the process and the system—my noble friend Lady Garden raised this, as she often has before—changing the names of the qualifications may be great, and you may get slightly different qualifications, but let us make sure that they work properly. T-levels had an incredibly bumpy start. Because of the work experience required, there were some courses that nobody finished. V-levels are not as big. Yes, I did find out the figure. It was only one course. The V-level will fit slightly more easily into the existing system, but can we make sure that it works? The BTEC qualification, which has generally been accepted, seems to be the primary target. You are going to get a diverse set of qualifications for a diverse workplace. Even if they have the same name, they will be very different, because they have to be. Can we make sure that we get things that are appropriate and that people have appropriate pathways?
The great engine of social mobility, certainly one that was preached to me, was university. At the moment, universities are getting very bad press. You will get in a big debt with it. There is not much support. The Government are taking steps to make sure that they remain attractive.
However, universities have also become a sacred cow. We all had to get to university, or half of us had to, and we elbowed out levels 4 and 5 HND and NVQ courses. They were devalued by that drive. Newer universities, when they stopped being polytechnics or colleges, tended to push those aside and dump them. Can we encourage universities to take on some of these level 4 and 5 qualifications? Let us bring them all up to the same social status. Many of them were there, and non-graduating courses are an important part of the history of our universities. Can we bring that in to make sure they have the social status and support they need? We need to make sure they are going through.
However, all this is impossible unless you are letting people know what is there, and careers advice is mentioned in the report. It is one of my personal favourites, so I would have liked to see that made a little bigger but hey, you can only do so much. Can we make sure we get this information to the parents or the carers in these groups, because they are the important ones? Some of those we are talking about here may not have people who are engaged in this.
It is about social mobility; if you come from a group which has low attainment in academia, you are less likely to acquire it yourself. You are also less likely to acquire somebody who is pushing you forward to do it. Have the Government given any thought to how you get people to engage with that advice, or give it properly, to make sure that from a fairly early age you know what the options are?
Age 16 is effectively too late in this context. You have to get somebody who is geared up and prepared to take on that effort, that investment of time, energy and money, to get themselves there, particularly if you do not find it easy or you have extra problems. I refer back to my comments on dyslexia; other special educational needs are available, I am told. Can we make sure that we actually have somebody who knows what is going on, and structures to try to reach people? This is not easy. We are talking about parents who may have found that their own educational experience was something best forgotten. If we can start to do that, much of the work of this Government and the previous ones becomes, shall we say, so much easier. That engagement will lead us to some real results. It is a big ask, but I hope the Minister will give us a positive response and tell us how this is at least being started.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for leading this debate, and I thank all members of the Social Mobility Policy Committee for producing such a thoughtful and important report. Its title, Local Roots, Lasting Change, captures particularly well the central point that I want to focus on today. As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, this subject matter could not be more important.
Noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have raised many key points. I promise your Lordships I will not repeat them, but I will just list them so that we all understand them: the size and the scale of the problem; the relevance to that scale of those who are economically inactive; and the economy. If we know nothing else, it is that only employers create jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made the very important point that the best way to have an impact on social mobility is to have a robust economy. Long may we get one.
There is also the impact of operating costs on business, the business rate increase, and the VAT and national insurance contribution increase. Vacancies are through the floor, and if there are no vacancies, although we can prepare young people for work, where will they get it? The one thing that has come out loud and clear is the importance of data—as I learned when I was at the DWP under the direction of my noble friend Lady Coffey. When you understand the data and when you can analyse it, you know best where to focus your efforts. I consider data to be absolutely critical.
Turning to place and partnerships, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, alongside others, raised the importance of place. I always say that anything we deliver must be known nationally, designed and delivered locally, and felt personally. I ask the Minister—who may not be able to do this, but I will ask anyway—to be brave about budgets. Spend the money where you get the best outcomes.
When I was running my charity, Tomorrow’s People, we were sponsored by Diageo, which decided to conduct an analysis of our work to see what we were delivering. The outputs were phenomenal and the cost per job was phenomenal. When he was compiling his report, Alan Milburn asked organisations he met, “What is the impact of the work that you do? What do you deliver? What are the outcomes?” He said he was astounded that so many of them could not say. Let us fully endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Young about trailblazers placing budgets locally rather than centrally. We may then see some lasting impact on the lives of the young people we are trying to help.
One thing that has not been raised today—I am not criticising, as it was not in the report—is the importance of having a mentor. Some of our young people have a mum and a dad and a granddad at home who encourage them. They do not just tell the young person what it was like in their day; they encourage them to do well and give them advice. The young people I have dealt with have no hope. How does it feel to go home after being on a programme and say to a parent or guardian, “I’m going to get a job” and they say, “For goodness’ sake, don’t do that”. What can we do when young people are given this information? It flattens them all the time.
I give credit to a lady I used to employ, who loved the young people she worked with so much. I am not saying that others do not, but she loved them. She would take them to job interviews. I remember this lady standing outside an employer’s premises with a young person and she said, “Take your jacket off and wear mine. You’ll look better”. It was that level. When she got a call in the middle of the night from a young person from the police station because they were in a pickle, what did she do? She got dressed and went to the police station to get them out.
There are some young people who have this level of support, and some who do not. We need services and people to get them on the right road, but we also need them to keep them there. That would be right. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made the point about having a primary school teacher—I can still remember mine—who knows their pupils, but the pupils move on. It is critical that a young person works with someone who knows them and stays with them. Getting a young person into work is an output; keeping them there is an outcome. That is where we need to be. I have talked about the cost of employing people, so I will not go on to that.
I want to be robust in my points about the Social Mobility Commission. What an organisation it is and what great things it has added. It is led by Alun Francis, a great giant of social mobility—my noble friend Lady Stowell has already explained his impact. The work in Blackpool is a credit to him and his team, and a blueprint for others to build on and adapt to the place they are in. They have data, and I am convinced of their use. Can I ask, in the nicest terms, what the Minister is thinking about: getting rid of them or taking them out? If that is correct, please can the Minister explain it? [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that. We do not believe everything we read in the newspaper—I should have learned that lesson by now. Can the Minister tell us whether she is planning to get rid of them, and how will young people benefit from that?
Let me ask the Minister some other questions. Where a mayor or local authority can demonstrate clear leadership, strong partnerships and the capacity to deliver, will the Government transfer real control over skills, employment, careers provision and budgets, or will Whitehall continue to hold the levers while asking local leaders to carry responsibility? How will the Government ensure that areas outside mayoral combined authorities—especially rural and coastal communities, where the barriers are often most severe—are not left behind? What is the plan for those places that do not fit neatly into the Government’s preferred devolution model?
The committee places significant responsibility on the DWP, jobcentres and the proposed jobs and careers service. Will local leaders have meaningful influence over DWP and jobcentre budgets? Will those budgets be capable of being pooled with local skills funding? Will the Government provide multi-year settlements rather than expecting long-term partnerships to be built on short-term pilots? Given that economic inactivity now accounts for the majority of NEETs, what action will the Government take on the growing number of young people who face no work requirements when claiming incapacity benefit—a feature not shared by countries with lower NEET rates? Does the Minister accept the findings of the Resolution Foundation’s report Lost in Transition? If so, what reforms might follow?
Finally, vacancies are falling, costs are rising and employers are becoming more cautious. What is the Government’s plan to increase the demand for young workers? How will they ensure that Saturday jobs and junior roles—the first chance to prove yourself—do not continue to disappear? Unless the Government can answer these questions clearly, devolution risks becoming little more than the administration of centrally designed programmes, and young people will continue to pay the price. We owe them more.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for both her leadership of the committee and securing this debate. I thank the committee for the careful and constructive way in which it considered the issues about which we have talked today and which are reflected so well in the report. There is no excuse for the time taken by the Government to respond; I am sorry for that.
The inquiry goes to the heart of a question that should concern every part of government and this House: how can we ensure that background, geography or early disadvantage do not determine a young person’s future? The committee rightly calls for stronger local partnerships, better data, earlier support for those who are at risk of becoming NEET, clearer routes through education and training, and closer links between skills and employment. The Government share those aims. We may differ on some aspects of delivery, but we are united in wanting every young person, wherever they live, to participate, progress and build a good life. Yet too many still leave education without a secure route into further learning, training or work.
The task that we have started, therefore, is to build a nationally coherent but locally responsive system that works around the learner, supports local growth and expands opportunity in every part of the country. The debate and the report have rightly placed a strong focus on place and devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has identified, the Prime Minister has set out a very clear approach to the way in which we will rewire the state and go far further than ever before in devolving power and budgets to those places that, with greater understanding and bigger ability, will be able both to bring together agencies in the way described by the noble Baroness and to deliver on local priorities. The Government will set out more detail on how that will work in a White Paper in the autumn.
Every young person should be able to see a clear pathway from education into further learning, skilled employment and adult life. Academic, technical and vocational education will be complementary parts of one high-quality offer. As we recently announced, new technical pathways from age 14 will reflect local needs, giving young people earlier access to technical skills, work experience and employers. Here again, regional mayors, schools, colleges and employers will shape those pathways around local industries and growth sectors—from advanced manufacturing, AI and digital technology to clean energy, life sciences, construction, health and care and the creative industries. Mayors will have the powers, flexibility and accountability to bring education, employment, health and local support closer together. We will work with strategic authorities, providers, employers and local government to implement this approach and to ensure that new freedoms translate into better routes to apprenticeships, higher education, high-level skills and employment.
Some noble Lords who contributed today also contributed yesterday to a lengthy debate on many of these issues. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that it was a debate initiated by a Labour Peer. However, whether in yesterday’s discussion or today’s, there is a common recognition that we face a serious challenge with the numbers of young people who are neither earning nor learning. Almost 1 million young people are in that position. That is not simply a statistic. It represents individual young lives, their ambitions and the potential for them to be held back. That is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to examine the deep-seated drivers of youth inactivity, unemployment and sickness. His interim report was a clear call to action. We will consider the recommendations from the next phase of his work carefully.
However, we are not waiting. Across the DfE and the DWP, the Get Britain Working White Paper and the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper set out a joined-up approach to participation, skills and employment. An important guiding principle is that prevention is better than cure. Once a young person becomes disconnected, re-engagement is much harder. We are therefore strengthening the role of school in supporting successful post-16 transitions so that every young person leaves with a clear destination and those most at risk receive timely help. We are also piloting a post-16 backstop to connect young people without a confirmed place or plan quickly with appropriate educational training, with the wraparound support needed to stay engaged. While it was not the topic of this report, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is right about the significance of early years and primary and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right that we need to focus on key stage 3 in the early years of secondary, which we are doing.
The report is also right that better data is central to that effort. Too often problems are identified only after a young person has disengaged. Through the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, we are investing in risk of NEET indicator tools, improving data sharing and strengthening attendance monitoring in further education. When young people are outside work or education, we constrain labour supply, limit productivity and store up long-term costs for individuals, the Exchequer and the economy. That is why the Government are investing an additional £2.5 billion over three years into the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy to support nearly 1 million young people and unlock up to 500,000 jobs, training and learning opportunities and 300,000 work experience places as part of that.
The committee rightly stresses that social mobility is often delivered locally, as I have referenced. Blackpool shows what can happen when leaders have the right data, can convene partners and can act early. The youth guarantee trailblazers are testing innovative local approaches to supporting young people into education, training and employment. However, one of the reasons why we will not necessarily continue those trailblazers in the same format is that, having learned some of the lessons, we are determined that they inform wider policy. We have introduced a national youth guarantee but will ensure that it is delivered in a way that enables local and regional design and use of the links that need to be made between employment support, apprenticeships and education.
We do not believe that one model can be imposed everywhere. It is absolutely right to say that the barriers facing a coastal town, rural community, post-industrial area or major city differ, but the best local practice should shape national reform. Prevention must also be matched by a post-16 system that is clear, high-quality and understood by learners, parents, employers and providers. That is why our reforms will create three clear level 3 routes and, importantly, new level 2 pathways will provide clearer stepping stones for students.
The committee also raised English and maths. Those skills are essential for work, further study and wider life, but repeated resits can become a barrier rather than a bridge. That is why the Curriculum and Assessment Review has emphasised strong foundations in reading, writing and maths, alongside improvements at key stage 3, and we are introducing new 16 to 19 level 1 English and maths qualifications, helping students to consolidate and build the foundation of knowledge that will enable them to progress.
Apprenticeships are an essential route into opportunity. That is why we are prioritising youth starts through the growth and skills levy to reverse the 40% decline in starts by young people over the past decade. We will now fully fund apprenticeships for 16 to 24 year-olds for employers of all sizes. From 1 October, eligible small businesses will also receive a £2,000 payment when they recruit an apprentice aged 16 to 24.
As I said, the youth guarantee will also expand work experience and training placements, work coach support and pathways into employment, apprenticeships, further learning and workplace training. Careers education, information, advice and guidance must sit alongside these reforms, as the report makes clear. Through the Careers & Enterprise Company, a national network of careers hubs reaches the great majority of secondary schools and colleges in England, connecting young people with employers, local labour market opportunities and informed choices about their next steps.
Higher education remains another important route into opportunity. We want everybody with the desire and aptitude to enter it to be empowered to do so, but access gaps remain too wide. Through Uni Connect and the Office for Students’ wider work on access and participation, we are supporting stronger local collaboration to connect people’s ambitions with opportunities and skills needs in their communities, creating clearer pathways from education into good employment.
The access and participation task and finish group is developing proposals for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and underserved areas, with its work continuing through to January 2027. Maintenance loans have now risen by 2.71% for the 2026-27 academic year; we will of course reintroduce maintenance grants to support young people into higher education.
The committee is right that this must be a genuinely cross-government effort. Skills, employment support, welfare, health, local growth and social mobility cannot be treated as separate silos. As Skills Minister across DfE and DWP, I am driving a joined-up approach through the youth guarantee, the Jobs and Careers Service, apprenticeships and skills reform and support for young people on universal credit, as well as the work reforming the curriculum and supporting further and higher education. As a Government, we are working with strategic authorities, local authorities, schools, colleges, employers and the voluntary sector, because improving opportunity requires concerted action at every level.
Our task is to move more young people from inactivity into opportunity, with the confidence to take their next step, the skills to enter work and the chance to fulfil their potential, while supplying the talent our economy needs to grow. I thank noble Lords on the committee for their work, which rightly challenges the Government to go further and faster, and we will take up that challenge.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
I am very grateful for the positive reaction to our report around the House, even if some noble Lords understandably emphasised some slightly different things and where they think the committee has not quite got the emphasis right. I wondered whether, as I am speaking at the end, I would want to challenge anything anybody had said, but actually I think pretty well all the contributions have been helpful, constructive and have supported what we have been trying to say.
This is not surprising. Many noble Lords came into politics or, in my case and others, into public service, to improve the lives of our people. What we were looking at was a tremendous waste: people becoming a drain on the economy rather than contributing to it. I am encouraged today by the number of people across the House who agree that this is of critical importance.
I have to say that I am rather closer to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, than the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on maths and English, having had substantial problems passing maths myself. This did not prevent me running a charity that, at the time I left, had a budget of £30 billion—despite my lack of numeracy, not because of my fiscal skills. When 40% of young people fail GCSE maths and English, we must have a slightly different approach. That is not to say that these skills are not very important, and we must have high expectations of people rather than dumb down, but we need to think of different ways of doing it.
I welcome what the Government are saying. Those of us on the committee and others will watch and hope and challenge. I will end with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: please loosen the apron strings. It is not just delivery locally, or money and power; it is also encouraging local freedom on policy, because that is where we felt the change would come.
Lord Addington (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I must apologise to the House. I forgot to declare my interest as chair of Microlink plc, which deals in assistive technology.
Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains (JCHR Report)
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House takes note of the Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains (6th Report, HL Paper 159, Session 2024-26).
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to introduce this report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains. I pay tribute to my hard-working Joint Committee on Human Rights colleagues, two of whom will be speaking in the debate, and to our committee team—its clerks, Rhiannon Hollis and Moriyo Aiyeola, and the specialist Laura Fatah.
I am also grateful to the Library and to the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, who was introduced and made his maiden speech only yesterday, and will give the ministerial response this afternoon. He is a very welcome addition to your Lordships’ House. I also thank his officials and the committee’s witnesses, including the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Border Force, BSI, NCA, Solar Taskforce, the courageous Rahima Mahmut of the World Uyghur Congress and the noble Baroness, Lady May, the principal driver of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Having visited Tibet and western China, where 12 million overwhelmingly Muslim Uyghur people face state-imposed forced labour and genocide, I make no apology for remaining focused on Xinjiang. President Xi Jinping explicitly framed his labour policies around ethnic minorities, telling his cadres to “guide them to integrate into modern urban life”—a campaign which, researchers note, masks coercive labour transfers.
For exposing this, the Minister’s noble friend and Scottish compatriot, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I, in an attempt, I suppose, to try to silence us, were sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party regime. In part, this report is a riposte. But Uyghurs are not the only victims. Globally, around 50 million people endure modern slavery, generating some £174 billion annually in illegal profits. The charity Walk Free has identified state-imposed forced labour across 17 countries.
Last year alone, the United Kingdom imported around £20 billion-worth of goods at high risk of exposure to forced labour—shamefully built on the broken backs and broken lives of men, women and children. The committee identified high-risk sectors right across our economy. These include renewable energy components, such as solar panels, which I raised as an all-party amendment to the Great British Energy Act 2025, alongside seafood, coffee, tea, chocolate, PPE, garments and critical minerals, where our committee cited the widespread and shocking use of child labour in Congolese cobalt mines.
Although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was ground-breaking, our legislative architecture has completely and utterly failed to keep up with the escalating challenges. We found that our reliance on a patchwork of regulations randomly and erratically applied opens the door to tainted goods bearing the fingerprints of slavery. Compliance with transparency rules is dangerously low, as companies can legally report taking zero steps without facing penalties. The noble Baroness, Lady May, wrote to the committee saying that
“there is growing acceptance that mandatory human rights due diligence, aligned with the UN Guiding Principles, is the best approach”.
That requires changes to Section 54 of the Act.
The UK must implement mandatory due diligence and stay in lockstep with our international allies. Failing to do so leaves a yawning regulatory gap that puts the UK at risk of becoming a dumping ground—the top safe haven for forced labour goods that cannot be legally sold elsewhere. Adding to that danger, note that as of 3 August, United States tariff policy has led to 13 countries responding to US pressure to address slave labour products. With so many countries robustly scrutinising products that enter their countries, UK exports will be at higher risk of exclusion because there is no mechanism in place to exclude forced labour imports from entering UK manufacturing supply chains.
For anyone who believes in national resilience and less dependency on slave-based economies, we must tackle both those things. Let me add to the list: this is also about protecting United Kingdom workers. Forced labour artificially deflates the price of goods, creating unfair competition for UK companies. It is not too late to reverse the irresponsible emasculation of our manufacturing base and the wanton destruction of British jobs. Automotive, aerospace and pharmaceutical jobs continue to be at extremely high risk from state-imposed forced labour. I commend a recently published Henry Jackson Society report into the doubling of dependency on China for active pharmaceutical ingredients, many manufactured in Xinjiang. This is a strategic risk.
Reducing dependency can also bring gains. In the US, when solar modules made with polysilicon made by forced labour were banned from import, the US solar market exploded. After a decade of decline and the loss of thousands of jobs, the US solar industry has made a striking comeback, producing solar modules for consumers who prefer products that are not made from forced labour. Segments of the solar industry require a short lead time and could become a growth industry in the United Kingdom too. In this instance, the ethical and moral choice can coincide with self-interest and the national interest.
Under Section 3(2) of the Great British Energy Act 2025, GBE is required to encourage and participate in measures to ensure that
“slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains”.
The JCHR recommended that GBE reported to our committee on what it had done to cleanse its supply chains, and last month it constructively wrote to us with an update. It says it will use various
“levers to drive meaningful change within a constrained context”.
This is what happens when the chairman of a company, in this case Jürgen Maier, makes a welcome and deeply personal commitment. It is even better when they have the sense to appoint people of the calibre of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey and Sarah Champion Member of Parliament to the GBE ethical supply chains advisory group, something I greatly welcome.
More generally, the JCHR found that the Government’s Solar Roadmap and the Solar Taskforce fail to address forced labour in solar supply chains. In recommendations 26 to 28, we urge the Government to evaluate the work of these failed initiatives and develop a viable strategy to address the risks of forced labour in the UK’s solar supply chain. I hope that the Minister, fresh as he is to his post, will nevertheless give us an update on that.
In a letter to the committee of 26 August—one of the first he must have written in post—the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, gave a welcome pledge:
“The Government believes that progress towards our clean energy and net zero ambitions must not come at the expense of human rights. The Government is clear that the UK’s ambitions for energy security, bill affordability, and clean power must go hand-in-hand with HMG’s longstanding position towards protecting human rights domestically and in its supply chains”.
However, note that Professor Laura Murphy categorically states:
“It is possible to trace these goods to identify which are at higher risk of forced labour, but currently, the UK has no apparatus to do so”.
To tackle that, I will summarise our main recommendations. The committee calls on the Government to examine targeted import bans to prevent goods linked to forced labour entering the UK market. It calls for mandatory human rights due diligence, a legal requirement forcing companies to actively map out, clean up and audit their supply chains, backed by financial penalties for non-compliance. It calls for civil liability—that is, a legal duty to prevent—and, where a company fails to take adequate steps to prevent exploitation, for clearer access to justice and civil remedies for victims in the UK courts.
We commend to the Minister best practice elsewhere. See the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act 2021 in the United States, which introduced a rebuttable presumption banning goods produced wholly or in part by forced labour in Xinjiang, unless the importer can prove otherwise. Following suit, the EU forced labour regulation will come into force in 2027. That bans the sale, import and export of goods made with forced labour. Once again, if we are not in lockstep and do not do the same, it will further exacerbate the risk of the UK being a dumping ground. This is urgent.
To achieve our recommendations, we call for comprehensive new legislation. Many of us were justifiably disappointed not to see that hope realised in this year’s King’s Speech, but we welcome measures in the Immigration and Asylum Bill implementing JCHR recommendations 3 to 5 to strengthen and expand the transparency and supply chains reporting duty under Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. It will be a good start, but there is still much more to do, which is why we still argue that a new Bill is urgently needed.
While we await comprehensive legislation, there are, of course, other things that we can do. The committee examined the historic 2024 UK Court of Appeal ruling, in a court case brought by Rahima Mahmut, that the UK’s National Crime Agency had applied the wrong test in deciding whether to investigate the importation of cotton products produced by forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang. Those powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act have too rarely been used to confiscate goods linked to forced labour. The National Crime Agency and Border Force appeared before our committee, and the NCA wrote to us stating that it does not have a clear mandate to confiscate goods linked to forced labour. After an exchange of correspondence, we have only today had a letter from the NCA, which I will ask the Joint Committee to publish and will of course share with the Minister.
I can say that it adds weight to the committee’s view that the Government need to get a grip on this issue. We are clear, in recommendation 31, that the Government should explore further ways of using the existing proceeds of crime powers to prevent goods linked to forced labour being sold in the UK and should go on to seize assets linked to forced labour. The Government should not use the lame excuse that they cannot direct independent law enforcement bodies. They can give them a legislative mandate—they have done so before. This House amended the Health and Care Act to prohibit the NHS from sourcing products, such as PPE, made with slave labour. However, given the 2024 finding that 21% of NHS suppliers had a “high risk” of exposure to forced labour, I hope the Minister will commit to a review of whether and how the NHS has implemented those legal obligations.
It also became worryingly clear during our inquiry—backed up by some brilliant journalism in the Financial Times—that the UK does not bother to collect or publish data that would enable risks of forced labour in supply chains to be identified. I am referring specifically to shipping manifest data. It provides only less detailed, aggregate data, in contrast to many other states, including, for instance, Kazakhstan and the United States. On 15 July, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, the Minister of State at the Home Office, confirmed:
“Home Office does not routinely assess whether goods entering the UK may have been produced using forced labour”.
If other jurisdictions can assess this, I hope the Minister will commit to thinking again about creating comparable transparency.
The JCHR also recommended the creation of greater corporate responsibilities, including enhanced transparency reporting obligations and mandatory human rights due diligence duties, to be implemented with new regulatory arrangements, including penalties for non-compliance overseen by either the Supply Chain Centre or the Office for Responsible Business Conduct. In his letter to us of 26 August, the Minister said that the Government are considering their response to the responsible business review. Can he say whether he has a preliminary view on whether the ORBC should have a regulatory role and when he imagines that the response will be published?
I conclude by returning to the people who have been subject to forced labour and who provided evidence to the inquiry. They described a lawless existence, where they have been denied food and water. Wounds were left untreated. They sustained permanent injuries, and they were abandoned destitute, without papers. Some survivors reported their exploitation to local authorities, but nothing was done. Even after reaching safety, survivors expressed experience of psychological difficulties, such as PTSD and addiction.
In recommendation 54, the JCHR calls for improved access to justice for survivors. Corporations should be subject to a civil cause of action generated by a failure to prevent forced labour. I say to those who talk about slavery as a problem of the past that, despite the hopes of William Wilberforce and many others, it remains a contemporary challenge. Modern-day slavery is not a problem simply in far-away countries; it affects all parts of the world, despite us too rarely hearing about it.
Sadly, most of the items and products that we use and buy every single day are, to a smaller or larger degree, tainted with modern slavery: the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the computers and phones we use, and the food we eat. But, as a country, we are still a long way from eradicating it. We must try harder. We must do more to focus on victims, Governments, companies and consumers. I am particularly grateful to the Wilberforce Society at Cambridge University, which is working on proposals for me on the empowerment of consumers in challenging modern-day slavery. We can do far more.
In welcoming the Minister to his new role, I hope that he will keep this report on his desk and its recommendations in his in-tray. I welcome him to his post and thank all noble Lords who will speak today. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his committee on this important report and on securing this debate. I add my warm welcome to my noble friend the Minister.
I chaired the House of Lords committee that examined the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It recommended the introduction of much more robust due diligence standards, aligned to those emerging from the EU. I was so pleased to see that echoed in this report. Will my noble friend the Minister signal support today for the approach advocated by the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is backed by both business and unions, as set out in the excellent Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Young?
I also have an interest in the debate, as we have heard, as Great British Energy’s board member with lead responsibility for a just transition for workers and to combat modern slavery. Basic human rights are severely threatened by climate change too. So the answer cannot be putting the brakes on decarbonisation. GBE is committed to becoming an anti-slavery leader, helping to cut industry reliance on minerals and products from companies or regions that use forced labour. In the short term, we are finalising a code of conduct on which investments and grants will be conditional. But ultimately I agree that the best way forward is to invest in the development of alternative technologies and to build supply chains and decent jobs here in the UK.
As a country, we must also learn from history. Globally, the last great advance against forced labour came after the Second World War, when many former colonies won independence and set about dismantling colonial systems of indentured labour. In the British Empire alone, an estimated 1 million Indian workers and hundreds of thousands of Chinese labourers had been brutally controlled through drugs, debt bondage and the criminalisation of desertion.
My point is that today the root causes of forced labour are the same: unaccountable state or corporate power; poverty, racism and discrimination; and weak labour rights. Workers organised into free and independent trade unions play a vital role in holding companies and their supply-chain policies to account. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that new UK rules on due diligence will recognise and strengthen that trade union role.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate to the House and I commend the Joint Committee on Human Rights for a report that is both sobering and constructive. Its central conclusion, that goods produced through forced labour are entering UK supply chains, should concern us all. As the report argues, in comparison with our main international trading partners, the UK is falling behind. A country that rightly takes pride in its leadership on modern slavery must ensure that its own market does not become a route for exploitation.
I approach this debate with two principles held together: our responsibility to tackle forced labour and uphold human rights, and the need for a regulatory environment that supports responsible business rather than placing unnecessary burdens on it. The committee is right to highlight that many British companies are already investing significant time and resource into tracing suppliers, improving transparency and mitigating risks. They do so because it is morally right but also because their consumers increasingly expect it. Yet these responsible firms can find themselves undercut by competitors which take a less rigorous approach. That is not fair competition and is one reason why this debate matters.
At the same time, we must recognise the pressures that businesses face. Many sectors are navigating inflation, supply-chain disruption and tight margins. Additional mandatory requirements, particularly if introduced without careful design, could impose substantial new costs. The committee’s proposals on mandatory human rights due diligence and import controls are serious and deserve consideration, but they would mark a shift in the UK’s regulatory landscape. So, before moving in that direction, we need clarity, evidence and a full understanding of the economic implications, as well as ensuring their efficacy in tackling forced labour.
I welcome the Minister to his position and would be grateful if he could address three points. I am happy to take his responses in writing. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked, when will the Government publish their responsible business conduct review and the national baseline assessment on the UN guiding principles? Those documents will be essential for informed policy-making. Secondly, how will the cumulative impact of potential new due diligence requirements on small and medium-sized enterprises be assessed? Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that any future proposals, whether on due diligence or import controls, will be developed in close consultation with business, with a clear understanding of sector-specific risks and the need to maintain competitiveness?
The UK should never be a market for goods produced through coercion or abuse, but our response must be effective, targeted, proportionate and workable. The task before us is to protect those being exploited, while supporting responsible business. I hope that today’s debate helps us move closer to achieving both.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the Minister to his seat. I hope that he will not mind my sharing that, before his introduction yesterday, we were chuckling that wandering about this place for the first time felt a bit like wandering around Hogwarts. My hope, if I may say so, is that he will fight as passionately for justice as the heroes of those stories.
I am also not alone in welcoming this report wholeheartedly. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his colleagues for the extraordinarily good and profound work that has been done here. I am proud to be part of a nation that, 10 years ago, introduced—for the first time anywhere in the world, I believe—ground-breaking legislation. However, we have not gone far enough. This matters, morally, legally, economically and in terms of human rights. I suspect—to think of my day job—that I am preaching to choir in terms of the moral case for this. We have only to glimpse the basics of forced labour to see that this is not good enough. Although that is part of the problem: we do not glimpse it, and we do not have the public outrage that we need.
Others will make the economic case far better than I could. I refer the House to the work of charities such as Unseen, which reckons that around £60 billion a year is added to the British economy by dealing with these issues. Imagine the effect of money being taken out of the criminal economy and put into the mainstream economy. If I may speak up for the Church Commissioners, I am glad that our responsible investment team has been working for a number of years on this.
I would say that I am a bear of little brain, so my reflections are focused on two very clear questions. The first is how, in tackling this injustice, do we make sure that we do not transfer inequity from one group to another? I suspect that to most in this Chamber, it would make very little difference if 10% were added to the cost of a new sweater or other items of clothing, but it would matter hugely to many of the people I am privileged to serve. In researching this, I have been surprised and delighted to find that many of the most cost-effective clothing providers in our society today have some of the strongest policies in this regard. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing in response to these recommendations, but particularly in ensuring that cost is not added to the most impoverished parts of our economy?
My second question, which has really absorbed me, is how do we raise public awareness of this issue, so that people know when there is forced labour in the supply chain when they go to buy a new pair of socks or whatever it happens to be? Where are the Greta Thunbergs or—if you are of a particular generation—the Bob Geldofs who will raise these things and raise public irritation to a point where we must do something about it, not only legislatively but by changing our society?
This question matters morally, legally and economically. It matters to the very soul of our nation. I thank the committee for this report and urge the Government to respond.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am co-chair of the parliamentary group on modern slavery and vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was transformational in its ambitions, but it was a long time ago and much of what came from it has not really been implemented, or has been positively discouraged. The two recent reports, particularly the excellent one we are debating today, set out sensible recommendations, but they are not yet implemented by the Government. That really is what I will talk about today.
There is no provision in the Act for enforcement and we are now, as has already been said, out of step with many other countries, including Australia, the United States, Norway and France, and with the EU. I remember discussing with United States border control officers, over a web link, how they stopped “hot goods”, as they call them, very effectively. Why are we not looking at how the Americans deal with hot goods?
The EU has a due diligence directive. That is going to affect our big companies, because we deal hugely with the with EU, as we do with the United States. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, are we going to find that our goods are rejected because we cannot be clear that they are safe? We have the Procurement Act 2023; excellent in idea, but not yet effective. We have an Immigration and Asylum Bill that will increase transparency and reporting, but it has no due diligence directives, mandatory provisions, or duty to identify, prevent and address forced labour. Quite simply, we do not have anything effective to deal with the companies, many of which are working extremely hard to do the right thing, which means they are at a financial disadvantage compared with all too many companies that are not doing anything to prevent forced labour.
My view is that the mandatory provisions should apply and that they should have financial implications. We should use SMEs, as well as the very big companies, with a right degree of proportionality. Trade negotiations should include consideration of modern slavery and cleaning the supply chains. There are issues across government departments, so there should be clarity and responsibility. This is urgent. The Government need to get on with it.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this report and securing this debate. I also thank those who worked on the committee, my noble friend Lady O’Grady for the work her committee has done, and others in this House who are working on this issue. I have a long-standing interest in today’s discussion. As an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Human Rights Committee’s report, Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains.
The figures provided by the International Labour Organization are beyond disturbing: every single day, an estimated 27.6 million people are trapped into forced labour conditions—nearly double the populations of London, Manchester and Birmingham combined. Of course, this travesty is not gender neutral. Of the 6.3 million people in forced commercial sexual exploitation, nearly four out of five are women and girls. Children—who are the most vulnerable and deserve care from their communities—make up 3.3 million of those stuck inside forced labour situations, of which over half a million are commercially sexually exploited. No one who has been sexually exploited lives a long life; we ought to realise that. Every single one of these people deserves our efforts to secure them the freedoms they deserve.
The nature of supply chains means that many of these cases are deliberately obscured and hidden beneath layers of supply chain contracts, and ultimately also hidden within British homes and workplaces. Our current framework asks only companies with a turnover of £36 million to report on supply chains. The committee noted that due diligence currently takes a voluntary approach that disregards businesses that take this responsible approach but do not always publish. I support the committee’s call for mandatory human rights due diligence throughout the supply chain and would want to ensure that safe reporting mechanisms for victims are prioritised at every level, including the right to autonomy and protections of the dignity of the people who have experienced this trauma. I also support the call for businesses to have a duty to prevent, meaning that victims have a route to a civil claim if they are wronged. I hope the Government will look again at establishing a survivor advisory council. Those who have lived through this terrible form of exploitation understand the truth of its mechanisms more than any legislator ever could.
Finally, I briefly bring attention to the fact that our principal trading partners are moving forward in this area. The EU will be banning the sale, import and export of goods made with forced labour from December 2027. While that is a while away yet, it is a strong and decisive move, and one that we must bear in mind to avoid goods that are rejected over the channel being simply redirected to be sold at our stores. A year has passed since the committee’s recommended timetable for legislation, and we now have a new Government. Both give us a real opportunity for fresh leadership on this matter. Can my noble friend the Minister say when the Government expect to set out their legislative plans? I congratulate the Minister on being with us today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My noble friend Lord Alton’s commendable inquiry has shone a light in dark places. Abuses occur beyond first-tier suppliers, affecting women and the environment in particular. It made us think, and his opening speech today will have made us think further.
As the NHS is one of the largest commercial organisations in the country, and the fifth-biggest employer in the world, I want to focus on its supply chain. Antibiotics alone constitute about half of NHS primary care prescriptions, mostly penicillin based. Their manufacture depends on the precursor 6-APA, for which 85% to 90% of global manufacture is in China. In the NATO area, Sandoz in Kundl, Austria, is the only producer of 6-APA for penicillins, which it manufactures.
The surgical equipment supply is similarly worrying. Over one-fifth of equipment, especially disposables, is produced in northern Pakistan, with supplier companies in Europe or the US. Labourers manufacturing surgical instruments are often paid less than $1 per day and have poor job security and woefully inadequate health and safety protection, and many employees are children, some as young as seven.
Some 150 billion pairs of disposable gloves are produced every year, mostly in Malaysia, Thailand and a few other Asian countries, from factories often known already for their serial labour rights concerns. In Malaysia, migrant workers producing surgical gloves have reported unsafe factory conditions, confiscation of passports, illegal withholding of pay, and debt bondage from high recruitment fees paid to agents to secure the job.
In 2016, procurement agencies for the NHS started introducing contractual requirements. But our “strategic vulnerability” was evident in Covid, buying £150 million-worth of equipment from Chinese companies whose factories were using Uyghur and North Korean forced labour with extensive links to human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The report’s recommendations warrant action. Our short-term approach, with procurement based on price, leaves us complicit with human rights abuses and perilously vulnerable to disruptions in critical health supplies. In Sweden, procurement directors included effective labour clauses into a regional contract with an Indian healthcare uniforms manufacturer. It can be done, it must be done, and I hope the new Minister, who I congratulate, will urgently press for the supply of medical instruments and medicines to be tackled across ministries.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He has always represented the best of the Scottish Labour tradition, that of building people up rather than trying to tear things down.
I am strongly in favour of what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about Xinjiang. It is worth looking not only at the horror of what happens there, but the exportability of it. An algorithm monitors you for antisocial behaviour. What is antisocial behaviour? Growing a beard, covering your hair, observing the fast, talking to foreigners, accessing the wrong websites. The algorithm can then sentence you to re-education. I hope it is common to all of us in this House that that is abominable behaviour.
Equally, I hope it is common to everyone on every side that forced labour is an atrocity. It offends all our deepest moral sensibilities. I wish we would spend more time eliminating the remaining pockets of slavery in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Mauritania, and so on, rather than fretting over who owned a share in the Royal African Company in the 18th century.
The problem that arises from this report is that we should not judge policies only by their intentions. We need to look at their consequences, and there are reasons why we have generally, in trade policy, restricted ourselves to the finished product, rather than trying to police the production of any given good or service, whether it is to do with net zero, animal welfare, or whatever it is. It is an incredibly difficult and intrusive thing to try and police, and it is usually very ineffective.
To the extent that there is an impact, it is very often negative. With a trade sanction of any kind—refusing to buy certain products and then having to go through a bureaucracy to see which products they are is, if you like, the loosest form of trade sanction—who does that hurt? It hurts ordinary people in the other country and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester reminded us, in our own country, and it generally drives support to the regime of which you disapprove. It strengthens its control of the economy and makes it easier for it to put its cronies in positions of power. So there is a real danger that we elide from saying, “I disapprove of this practice”, or “I disapprove of this regime”, whether it is Iran, China or wherever else, into saying, “Therefore, let’s have some kind of trade sanction”. Actually, I think we need stronger sanctions: not commercial sanctions but political and legal sanctions aimed at the individuals responsible.
We should not use trade as a kind of dustbin into which we put all our desiderata. It is rather like the last debate, when people were talking this way about the school curriculum: “I want my particular thing in the school curriculum—I want there to be more financial literacy, more climate change”. If you put in everything that everyone wants in the school curriculum, there would be no English, maths or science.
Similarly, if trade deals become about women’s rights and workers’ rights, net zero and indigenous rights and all the rest of it, there will not be room in them for what they really for, which is the removal of obstacles to increase mutual prosperity. I have to say that, historically, the thing that really did for slavery was rising prosperity, which made it obsolete, and if you look at the list of countries where it still persists, they are poor countries. The best thing we can do is to allow them to trade their way to wealth.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, like all the rest of us in the Chamber, I thank my noble friend of over 40 years for his incredibly diligent work and for the work of his committee, which, as we have said, has shone a light on this very painful area: an entangled web of cheap and forced labour, modern slavery and migrant and asylum issues, all of which are in a mess.
I do not wish to trivialise the issue in any way, but if your Lordships fancy a cinema trip, the current film “Mutiny”, available in cinemas now and featuring Jason Statham, is all about a conspiracy of international slavery proportions—and in fact, a great British actor exposes the best way to deal with the issue. It is quite violent, I have to say, but never mind; it is there to be seen.
We are having this debate in the week in which we discover that 660 British companies have underpaid their workers—not even minimum wage, barely living wage and having to return £4 million to 27,000 people for trying to get them to do things on the cheap in the UK. This is the kind of disgrace we are focused on.
I noted in particular that the report from the noble Lord’s brilliant committee states that state-imposed forced labour is an issue, and it is. When a state seeks to either criminalise, reduce or push people to the margins, it forces not just forced labour activity but wrong labour activity. This very week a young man, of British origin but of African parentage, was arrested on the streets of London and bunged behind bars again for a minor offence—nothing to do with violence or other people—simply because, as an asylum seeker trying to get the Home Office to do its job and because of its failure to do so, he found the only way to get some income to feed himself was to sell minor category B drugs. Now the taxpayer will shell out £120,000 over the next two years by simply saying that keeping him in prison is better than letting him work. That is a nonsense. That is state-imposed forced labour absence, and I hope the committee will consider in its brilliant future thinking how these minor aspects of our policy and failed government departments trap people rather than liberate and build them up.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my first remark is that I find it slightly unfortunate that the House is only now considering a report that the committee published in July 2025. But delay has been something of a feature in the long history of dealing with modern slavery and, indeed, slavery in the history of our country. As has been observed, the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, so bravely introduced by my noble friend Lady May, was a ground-breaking international instrument, which reflected in our domestic law our obligations and led the way for many countries to emulate the points that were made. That was a reflection of our nation’s long and very positive history in this area.
As long ago as 1897, Parliament passed a statute called the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act, which sought to achieve for its own time a measure of the type that is recommended in our report. One can trace a line all the way back to the great glory of the British Empire, which was the abolition of the slave trade, led so wonderfully by William Wilberforce. The recommendations of our report are, in my submission, a logical extension of that long and noble history in our country of seeking to eliminate slavery in all its forms.
I appreciate that the Minister will look at our recommendations and wish to balance them against the desire not to burden business with undue regulation, which is a real and genuine concern, given the state of burdens on businesses, but I urge him to accelerate that consideration. In doing so, I circle back to a point ably made by my noble friend Lady Sugg and the noble Lord, Lord Alton: we are awaiting a response from the Government. In June 2025, the Government announced in the UK’s Trade Strategy that they would:
“Launch a review of our approach to responsible business conduct, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK”.
The JCHR received a letter from the then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, saying that he considered that the launch of the responsible business conduct review was 30 June 2025. One of the noble Lord’s earliest acts as a Minister was writing to us on 26 August. In that letter, he said that the responsible business conduct review
“has now been completed, and the Government is considering its findings”.
I ask the Minister: could he publish the review now, prior to the Government publishing their consideration of its findings? In so doing, I welcome the Minister to his place.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, together with his 11 fellow members of the committee, is to be congratulated on this insightful and timely report. The action on it has been delayed. Nevertheless, it is a very timely report. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on securing the debate and, most importantly, on the masterful way in which he introduced it. The issues that the report raises are live issues. They are not something in the past; they are going on and on. Somehow, we have to find a way of stopping them. His Majesty’s Government’s response to the report is centred on the recommendations of the report. In my short contribution to the debate, I will ask questions on the Government’s response to the first and sixth recommendations.
The first recommendation deals with UK domestic law. It recommends a new law that would ensure that the UK’s market is protected from goods tainted by forced labour. It would do this by clearly stating
“that it is unlawful to import or sell goods linked to forced labour”.
I Timothy 5:18 says:
“For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward”—
his wages and his hire Forced labour pays peanuts to its workers, almost treating them as if they were squirrels and less than human. That is what forced labour does to people.
The challenge that His Majesty’s Government now face is that the Joint Committee on Human Rights asked for the new legislation to be introduced within one year of the publication of the report. The Government’s response was that there was a review. Can the Minister, whom I welcome most warmly to the Front Bench, tell your Lordships’ House where we are on this? My concern is that delay will result in the innocent becoming complicit in unlawful importing or selling of goods that are linked to forced labour. We all know that ignorance is not a defence. Furthermore, those who are carrying out forced labour have the time to find devious ways of getting away with it. If we do not do something, we are allowing them to get away with it. In all these areas where the reviews are announced in the report, who is persistently urging and chivvying the reviewers to complete the work? The time to act is now.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, talk about being thrown in at the deep end. My noble friend the Minister was introduced just yesterday and I welcome him to your Lordships’ House and to his post. My noble friend is not a new friend. We first met so long ago that he was probably a teenager at the time. Much water has flown under many bridges since then. Maintaining the aquatic theme, I am sure that he will take to your Lordships’ House as a duck to water and excel here.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the members of his committee on their report, which builds on the report to which my noble friend Lady O’Grady referred. I was a member of that committee two years ago, conducting a post-legislative review of the 2015 Act. One of our recommendations was that the Government should introduce sanctions for companies that fail to comply with supply chain requirements. Unfortunately, the Government’s response in December 2024 was that the status quo should be retained with a voluntary aspect to it. Evidence shows that this is simply not enough. Without it being made compulsory, there will not be any meaningful change.
Section 54 of the 2015 Act requires companies to publicly disclose their efforts to tackle forced labour and human trafficking within their business and supply chains. However, Section 54 only requires companies to report action on forced labour in supply chains, not to take action. That is bizarre. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, taking no action complies with the Act. If the Government are serious about ethical supply chains, as I believe they are, they must make sure that those companies with a poor record on supply chains involving forced labour and human trafficking show what action they are taking. Otherwise, this is in effect siding with those companies. It then distorts competition by denying companies that act responsibly a level playing field. That cannot be right.
In their response to our report, the Government said that they were reviewing how they can strengthen penalties for non-compliance and create a proportionate enforcement regime. That was a year and nine months ago. In June 2025, Minister Bryant said that the Government had launched a review into the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct. That was a year and three months ago. Two months ago, in answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Stockwood said:
“The Government is considering the review’s findings and will set out its plans in due course”.
That sequence of events brings to mind the rather acid comment of my noble friend Lord Blunkett when he said of Tony Blair’s first Government, of which he was a senior member, that it had “hit the ground reviewing”. That was one of the criticisms that Keir Starmer’s Government also received—an often overcautious approach characterised by incrementalism. The early signs are that Prime Minister Andy Burnham will be much less risk averse. One way of demonstrating that would be to introduce legislation to make human rights due diligence of supply chains mandatory. It is long overdue and absolutely necessary.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as an honorary associate professor in the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham, which has done so much work in this area, and as a member of the Great British Energy advisory group on ethical supply chains. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for including me in that structure.
I point out—and I thank noble Lords who have mentioned it—that I have a Private Member’s Bill, the Commercial Organisations and Public Authorities Duty (Human Rights and Environment) Bill, to prevent forced labour and environmental harms in all their operations and throughout their value chains. I am waiting on a date for Second Reading for that. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, and invite him to have a meeting to discuss that, because my belief and that of many others is that it covers 99% of what people have been asking for for some time in legislation in this area. Of course, I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Alton for his role in the fight against modern slavery, in which he has been engaged for so long.
I want to have a deeper understanding of the Government’s response to the recommendations, and that is one of the reasons why I would like to have that meeting. I believe that we can clarify and find out whether there is a way of working together to a common end. I do not want to fight the Government on these issues, but I want to be critical of, first, the slowness with which they have approached them and the confusion which has been sown. This is caused by not being clear about what the approach is, where we want to go, how the different parts of the legislation that has been enacted so far fit together, and how that legislation will be incorporated into this area of business responsibility.
I want to say something about the issue of placing a burden, which noble Lords have referred to. I wonder who is really bearing a burden. Who are the people suffering most from this inaction? Businesses should be addressing some of these issues through standard business risk mitigation. It is not about introducing a whole slew of bureaucratic structures to make people feel better about themselves; we want to change the landscape substantially.
I have been working recently with the construction industry, and I raise this because the Government have a very ambitious programme of building not just homes but other parts of infrastructure. Yet again, people tell me that they want to engage with due diligence and to ensure that they are aligned with the EU and other countries, but they do not know what is going on here, so they do not know what they can do. This represents a good opportunity for leadership from the Government to ensure that the kinds of structures and principles we are discussing today can be incorporated into this rebuilding of Britain.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to speak in the gap. I join noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, to this House, and we look forward to working with him. Given his new responsibility as a Trade Minister, I will ask a question or two. I do not mind receiving a reply in writing if he cannot answer the questions now. What assessment has his department made of forced labour in UK supply chains in India? India is one of the most important trading partners, with bilateral trade worth over £40 billion. But according to the Global Slavery Index, India has one of the highest absolute numbers of people in modern slavery, and the ILO and UK modern slavery assessments have repeatedly flagged up high-risk sectors, including textiles and garments, brick kilns, agriculture and leather.
My questions are threefold. First, what due diligence does the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade require of UK firms importing from high-risk regions in India? Secondly, under the developing UK-India free trade agreement, what binding labour provisions will ensure that trade does not profit from forced labour? Thirdly, what practical support, not just guidance, are the Government providing to help British SMEs which do not have large compliance teams to audit their supply chains, remediate where abuse is found and source ethically?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we started the week by giving a Second Reading to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, and we end it with a debate on the JCHR report. So ethics have permeated the week, as they should, but there is quite a crossover between specific issues as well.
I was not a member of the committee when it held its inquiry. I was a member in the previous incarnation—of the committee, not me—in 2017, when it published its report on Human Rights and Business. Its summary said:
“When UK companies source or manufacture goods in less developed countries where there are weaker mechanisms for protecting human rights … serious violations can occur. Human rights are just as important abroad … The Modern Slavery Act in 2015 has raised the profile of … modern slavery within UK companies and their supply chains abroad. However, more action is needed … the Government could make a positive start by facilitating the passage of Baroness Young of Hornsey’s Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill”.
Well, that was then and this is now. It went on to urge the Government to “consider what extra resources” various organisations may require. As the Minister will realise, that is Lords-speak for, “They are badly underresourced”. We also commented on human rights being a matter for so many government departments, which should be communicating with each other on this. A lot of the 2025 report, therefore, was familiar to me.
In the course of many debates, noble Lords have remarked that, at the time of the 2015 Act, we regarded our country as world leading on modern slavery and that, over the years, we have not kept up with international partners. I recall that, when that legislation was going through, I made the rather naive point that public awareness was valuable. We talked about business following the example of the most ethical and best organised, without properly acknowledging that they cannot be precisely emulated by those with smaller margins. I am not making an excuse for unethical behaviour, but I am taking up a point referred to by other noble Lords. In the context where you can be disadvantaged by doing the right thing—as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asks a very pertinent question on this.
Promoting a product on, or partly on, the basis of green credentials is easier than of there being no forced labour, although I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said on this, reporting what evidence has shown. The sector still battles the notion that it does not happen here. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who so skilfully chaired our post-legislative inquiry, brought that out very strongly. It does happen here; it happens here, and it happens there. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is difficult when you do not see it starkly and immediately, and it is difficult when you cannot really envisage it, which is perhaps a difference from the green credentials point, which I think we find a bit easier to get our heads around—or perhaps allow ourselves to think about. We do not want to think about modern slavery.
The predecessor committee visited an office where we were given a presentation on the UN guiding principles, and it felt like completely unfamiliar territory to all of us, I think. Was that because of a failure to promote the UN GPs or because of our own lack of awareness? Maybe it was both.
The Minister, whom I welcome to his position—although I think he must already feel a bit of an old hand after having been thrown into it yesterday—will discover that the middle name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is “indefatigable”. He will also find an impressive level of determination in the current Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, as with her predecessors.
Most noble Lords have had a very restricted speaking time today. Although I could take quite a lot longer, that feels a bit rough on them, so I will discard the notes that I made a couple of weeks ago. I want to pick up on just a couple of the points made by Eleanor Lyons, the IASC, in her annual report of last December. She points out:
“Exploitation not only harms victims but also imposes significant financial costs on the British economy and responsible businesses. Modern slavery costs the UK an estimated £60 billion each year—around 2 per cent of GDP”.
She reminds us of the model legislative drafting,
“drawing on the engagement and expertise shared by stakeholders demonstrating how legislation could be introduced in the UK”.
As she puts it:
“The public expect decisive action: 80% want retailers to be legally required to remove products linked to forced labour, and the same proportion support tougher government rules … only 9% fully trust companies to act without oversight, while most believe profit takes priority over worker protection”.
One might say that many people would not want to be recorded as taking a different view, but these are significant figures—even allowing a reduction for my scepticism.
I was very struck by the foreword to the IASC’s report, which was written by a “survivor consultant” working with, and no doubt supported by, the charity Unseen. I quote:
“Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence … is not simply another regulatory requirement … When the law draws clear lines, exploitation has fewer places to hide. When those lines are backed by accountability, oversight, consequence, and guaranteed pathways to appropriate remedy”—
as I say, there is real crossover with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which has extensive support and will soon become law—
“we move from reacting to harm to preventing it, and from inadequate responses to just and restorative ones”.
If we as a country are to feel good about ourselves, forced labour in supply chains badly needs attention. I very much support the report, in which I had no hand.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, let me take this opportunity, first, to welcome the Minister to his place, and, if I may be so bold, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and introducing it so comprehensively. I do not think that any Member of this House needs persuading of the gravity of what we are discussing. Forced labour is obviously a grotesque abuse, and Britain, working alongside our international partners, has a genuine and important role to play in confronting it.
This has been a comprehensive debate, and there is much to agree with in what has been discussed in the past hour or so, but I shall confine my remarks to pressing the House to drill into the detail and to look beyond the moral clarity of the diagnosis towards the practical consequences of the remedies on offer. We need to be very careful about how we deal with this subject: a one-size-fits-all approach will probably not achieve the necessary objectives.
As the report notes, much forced labour takes place in middle-income and higher-income countries. As a percentage of the population, it is at its worst in the Arab states. How can that be acceptable? Perhaps the most recent high-profile case was the World Cup-related construction in Qatar. The world seemed to turn a blind eye to that, which I personally find shameful. Surely construction is one of the five sectors where forced labour is most prevalent. The solutions to that are unlikely to be corporate in this country; they have to be diplomatic. That needs to be considered when dealing with this problem.
However, we also need to acknowledge that much of the forced labour we are debating arises in nations where corruption and weak institutions prevail and where, as a consequence, poverty is endemic. In that context, further burdens placed on British businesses, whether through mandatory due diligence and reporting requirements of the kind proposed in the Immigration and Asylum Bill, or through restrictions on trade with particular suppliers or sectors, risks doing real harm to the very people we intend to protect in those areas where there are very fine distinctions between “forced” and “desperate”. We do not wish to disadvantage further those who are already in dreadful circumstances. We must, therefore, be very careful to design systems that allow for nuanced judgment; that is not to argue for inaction, but for careful and detailed consideration.
We must also be aware that small and medium-sized British businesses have faced cost after cost and millions of pounds in cumulative regulatory burdens since this Government took office. I fear that further mandatory reporting requirements will do very little to solve the problem they are aimed at while doing much to add to it. It will add cost, complexity and legal exposure to businesses trying, in good faith, to operate responsibly within an imperfect system. In many situations, supply chains are so complex that it would be practically impossible to ensure absolute due diligence and compliance.
This is not to argue for inaction—not at all—but we need to argue that these businesses, particularly SMEs, will need help to ensure that they are able to comply. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind when responding and to ensure that SMEs are taken particular care of and have the necessary support to minimise compliance costs and maximise the efficiency of their practices and solutions to this problem. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester reminded us, we do not want to end up in a situation where all we are doing is, in effect, transferring inequity from one group of disadvantaged people to another. Again, I say this not to counsel inaction but to counsel humility about the limits of regulation imposed at a distance.
The long-term and only durable solution to this problem is trade. Free and expanding trade with more international partners raises standards of living, drives development and fosters the competition—I stress that—that roots out bad practice. It is prosperity, not prohibition, that can eliminate exploitative labour practices in every economy that has escaped them, our own included—a point made extremely well by my noble friend Lord Hannan.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also made an extremely important argument about UK business, unfair competition and national resilience. I will not rehash it but, to that end, the committee’s suggestions about consistency in adding clauses on human and labour rights to international agreements should be given very careful consideration. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that recommendation.
The drive to net zero has created a substantial and, I suggest, insufficiently scrutinised reliance on imported solar panels from regions associated with forced labour. As much as 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon—the essential raw material in the overwhelming majority of solar panels—has been produced in the Xinjiang Uyghur region, and the committee noted that the solar road map does not tackle supply chain risks. The United Kingdom imports the great majority of its photovoltaic hardware and China’s percentage share of global manufacturing runs into the high 90s at some stages of production. Similarly, some 70% of the world’s cobalt—a critical component in the batteries that power renewable storage and electric vehicles—is produced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country whose record on forced and child labour in artisanal mining is well documented by the Global Slavery Index. So even where we do not import these materials directly, we still sanction their use indirectly, but unmistakeably, every time we subsidise or mandate the deployment of renewable technologies built upon them.
As others in this debate have noted, and particularly in debates on this sector, we must not overlook the fact that the public sector has a significant role to play in terms of its procurement policies, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and in the education of the public. That point was made extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The public need to be educated about the extent of the problem so that they can make better and informed choices. By definition, a lot of that education will have to come from the public sector.
This is not to say that I am arguing against the Government’s energy policy when we are talking about this aspect of the problem, but a serious conversation is still needed about how forced labour ends up in UK supply chains. I was very pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said on that because sometimes the best of domestic intentions have disastrous unintended consequences thousands of miles away, out of sight, but, I hope, because of this thoughtful and expansive debate, not out of mind.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Lord Sarwar) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords and I am pleased to respond for the Government. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this important debate and thank him for the characteristically powerful and principled arguments that he made and for the way in which he continues to campaign on this important issue.
I say right at the start that I can tell there is an impatience among noble Lords to see progress on this issue. I reassure them that I am an impatient Minister. I want us to get things done and to get them done quickly and in the interests of people right across this country and of our international obligations, too. That is a firm commitment that I want to make to Members across this Chamber.
I thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its thorough report, Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains, and all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. I will digress for just one moment to thank the doorkeepers and all the staff who made me and my family feel very welcome and made yesterday a thoroughly enjoyable and memorable day. I also thank the Whips’ Office for making sure to have me busy, not just yesterday but today and on Monday too.
I will endeavour to address as many of the points raised as possible within my allocated time. If I do not cover any points, I make a firm commitment that not only will I write to all noble Lords but also that my door is always open to any noble Lord who has raised an issue in this Chamber and wants to meet to discuss it.
Let me be absolutely clear: forced labour is an egregious abuse of human rights. I think we are all in agreement on what we want the outcomes to be. What we have to work through is how we get to those outcomes. I have served in a Parliament where we were very good at putting words in pieces of legislation, but what we were not good at was changing the outcomes. I want to make sure that we are changing outcomes for businesses in this country but also for workers right across the globe.
Forced labour strips people of their freedom, dignity and agency. It has no place in the supply chains of British businesses, goods purchased by the British Government or products sold to British consumers. The scale of the challenge is sobering. An estimated 27.6 million people worldwide are subject to forced labour, including more than 3 million children. Forced labour generates an estimated $236 billion in illegal profits annually.
Behind those statistics are human beings—workers coerced by threats, children put in danger, families separated and communities denied the basic right to live and work freely. That is why I welcome the committee’s work and share its concerns.
An estimated 70% of global trade now flows through complex supply chains. That tells us the challenge. Globalisation has delivered enormous gains in productivity, innovation and living standards, but it has made the trading system complex, and the opacity of modern supply networks can also hide exploitation. Some products may pass through thousands of suppliers across multiple jurisdictions before they reach consumers here in the UK. That means we have to think this through very carefully.
Many noble Lords mentioned Xinjiang and the abuses faced by the Uyghur communities. This Government will remain absolutely resolute in opposing human rights abuses worldwide, including in Xinjiang, where substantial evidence indicates the persecution and arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. My Ministers in the other place continue to raise these concerns directly at the very highest level.
The United Kingdom has a proud record of leading efforts to combat forced labour in supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 made us the first country in the world to require businesses to report on the steps they were taking to address modern slavery. It brought the issue into boardrooms, strengthened transparency and accountability, and prompted other countries to act. However, groundbreaking legislation should not remain unchanged. More than a decade later, we must honestly assess whether the framework is for purpose.
Many noble Lords mentioned Section 54 and how it requires larger businesses operating in the United Kingdom to publish annual statements outlining the steps they are taking to prevent modern slavery across their operations and supply chains. But analysis shows that around only 60% of companies have met those basic requirements.
Transparency is meaningful, but the outcomes should be based on the actions, and that is where we need to see progress. A statement must not become a substitute for effective due diligence, nor reporting be seen as an end in itself. That is why the Government are strengthening the regime through the forthcoming Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will establish clear reporting topics and deadlines, require the publication of statements on the modern slavery statement registry and clarify the rules governing group statements. It will also extend the reporting obligations to public authorities with budgets of £36 million or more and introduce penalties of up to £1 million or 1% of annual turnover—whichever is higher—for organisations that fail to comply. Together, these measures will raise reporting standards, strengthen accountability and help responsible businesses compete on a level playing field.
Alongside these reforms, the Government have completed the responsible business conduct review announced in the trade strategy. The review assessed the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s approach to responsible business conduct, with a particular focus on the global supply chains of businesses operating here. It considered a range of measures, including mandatory human rights due diligence and forced labour import bans, and it drew on the expertise of businesses, investors, trade unions, academics and civil society organisations. Importantly, it also heard from survivors and representatives of communities on the front line of supply chain abuses, including adults with lived experience of modern slavery.
We have also engaged with international partners that have shifted from voluntary approaches to mandatory due diligence and import restrictions, and we are carefully considering what can be learned from those systems. As noble Lords are aware, the review is complete and the Government are considering its findings. We will set out our approach in due course.
Let me reiterate that I appreciate the committee’s and noble Lords’ impatience for greater clarity. I promise that I will not test their patience, but I think noble Lords will accept that, with the formation of a new Government and new Ministers, we are looking at this with fresh eyes. I have been robustly clear with officials in my own department and beyond that I want systems that work and that change the outcomes. That is a commitment that noble Lords have from me, because any strengthened framework must change behaviour, not merely increase paperwork.
It must be clear, proportionate and enforceable. It must support responsible businesses and ensure that they are not undercut by competitors willing to profit from exploitation. Proportionality is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which lack the resources and commercial leverage of the multinational companies. That does not mean lowering our ambitions; it means establishing clear, risk-based obligations and providing businesses with the practical guidance they need to meet.
The committee’s recommendation for an import ban has been a prominent feature of today’s debate, and the Government understand the full force of that argument. An effective import measure could protect victims, responsible businesses and British consumers alike. However, it does require credible evidence, reliable traceability, clear decision-making and properly resourced enforcement. We must ensure that any measure is legally robust and operationally feasible, and genuinely disrupts forced labour, rather than merely diverting tainted goods through less transparent routes.
The Government are already using a range of other measures. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers known to use forced labour. The NHS procurement regulations require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks and take responsible and proportionate measures to address them. I note the point made about greater transparency on the outcomes of those measures, and I am happy to follow up with individual Members on that.
Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti-forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, while the developing countries trading scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations. A question was asked, for example, about the free trade agreement with India. Our agreement with India is one of the first that India has signed that includes a labour chapter. That is the kind of leadership I hope we can show in other free trade agreements.
Another issue that has been raised is clean energy supply chains and the link to forced labour. These points were powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. The transition to clean energy must not and cannot be built on exploitation. The Great British Energy Act was therefore amended to ensure that Great British Energy takes credible and proportionate measures to manage forced labour risks. We expect Great British Energy to demonstrate leadership, while the Solar Taskforce has worked to support resilient, sustainable and innovative supply chains that are free from forced labour. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked for an update on the solar road map. Since its establishment, we have established the Solar Council, which brings together key officials and Ministers with a clear commitment to deliver transparency on supply chains. I am happy to update the noble Lord on that in more detail.
We must also place victims at the centre of our response because, when exploitation is uncovered, businesses should seek to prevent further harm and secure meaningful remediation, not simply terminate a contract and abandon vulnerable workers to an even more precarious situation. No single measure, whether a reporting requirement, a due diligence report, procurement rules, trade provisions, import restrictions or criminal enforcement, will solve this problem on its own. It needs a coherent, whole-system response backed by better data, greater traceability, effective enforcement and international co-operation. The committee’s report poses a serious challenge to the Government, business and Parliament, and I do not downplay or dismiss that. I again commit to noble Lords to do everything I can to work with them and make significant progress in this area.
There were one or two other issues raised; if I do not cover them in the next 30 seconds or minute, I will happily write to individual Members. We are working with our Home Office colleagues on what more we can do to use the Proceeds of Crime Act, and I would be happy to follow up on that. On my noble friend Lady O’Grady’s question, I am looking forward to meeting the Corporate Justice Coalition very soon to discuss its campaign and what more we can do to deliver on the outcomes that it rightly demands of us. To the noble Lord who asked questions around the reports on the outcomes of the FTA with India and what assessments we have made, I am more than happy to come back on that issue.
In closing, I reiterate that this is a collective challenge to all of us. It is an obligation based on our values as a country and to those less fortunate than us right across the globe. This Government and, I am sure, this Chamber will not step back from that commitment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, in giving one of his first ministerial replies, has acquitted himself with some distinction. It is wonderful to hear a Minister describing himself as impatient, and someone who will look at things with fresh eyes. I also agree strongly with what he just said about there being no single outcome. All these different levers have to be applied, and he said that he will look at them carefully. I am very grateful to him.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, from left, right and centre. The right reverend Prelate said that we needed a greater sense of outrage; I think that has communicated itself in the speeches today. My noble friend Lady Finlay said that it is our duty to shine a light into dark places. Everyone has done that today.
It struck me, from listening to the references to William Wilberforce, that 200 years ago it was the Select Committee on which he and others appeared—including the slave-trading sea captain from Liverpool, John Newton, who changed his mind and came to describe what he had seen on those vessels—that led to the changes in the law of which this country and Parliament can be so proud. They changed hearts, they changed minds, they changed culture and they changed the law. They did that as an alliance of people who came together from commerce, the law, religious backgrounds and secular backgrounds. They worked with one another. They had campaigners such as Thomas Clarkson, who abandoned his studies at Cambridge University to spend decades trying to bring through the legislation that ultimately made such a difference to the people living in those dark places to which my noble friend referred.
I began by referring to the 50 million people who are victims. That is just a number. Behind every number and every statistic there is a story: a life that is not theirs; a suffering that no one knows about; there is pain, exhaustion and hunger; there are dreams of freedom and dignity. The victims of this blight must remain central to this debate.
In the year since we published our report, we have heard new stories on the use of modern slavery globally in supply chains. I draw attention to reports in the Times and the Independent about North Korean labourers living in conditions “worse than cattle”, and to reports about exploited workers on Chinese fishing boats, children working in deadly conditions in the DRC—as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, reminded us—and the BBC’s report, seen by the committee, of tomatoes being sold in the UK as Italian tomatoes, but which were actually grown by forced labour in Xinjiang.
You do not have to look very far to see forced labour and modern slavery. What we are going to do about it not about historic reparations; it is about action this day—as Churchill famously demanded of his officials. He was an impatient Minister too, and I hope that that dictum might become one that the Minister will have on his desk as he considers this issue further.
To conclude, it is an honour to have been the first Member of your Lordships’ House to be elected by the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as its chair. My tenure now comes to its conclusion. I have chaired around 60 sessions and produced around a dozen reports on everything from transnational repression and the failures to prosecute British nationals responsible for genocidal crimes against minorities in northern Iraq to our report, published only last week, on the human rights of children in social care.
I end by saying that the hard work of our parliamentary Select Committees in crafting challenging reports on public policy is exemplary and a rebuke to those who have only negative things to say about Parliament and parliamentarians. Joint Committees of both Houses are rarities that we need more of. I am glad to see the Government Chief Whip in his place to hear that remark. Today’s debate and our JCHR report on supply chains and modern slavery is a superb example of parliamentary work at its best. I sincerely thank all noble Lords who have participated, both in the committee and in the House today.