Lords Chamber
Friday 11th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 9 hours, 9 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:05
10:05
Legislation: Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill - third reading
-
Legislation: Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill - third reading
My Lords, I beg to move that >> My Lords, I beg to move that this bill is now read a third time. >> Is this bill be now read a third time? As many as our opinion will say content contrary, not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. My Lords, I beg that this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg that this bill. I beg to move that this bill do now I beg to move that this bill do now pass. My Lords, before I take my seat back, can I just thank, seat back, can I just thank, firstly, the Minister for her
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. My Lords, I beg that this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg that this bill. I beg to move that this bill do now I beg to move that this bill do now pass. My Lords, before I take my seat back, can I just thank, seat back, can I just thank, firstly, the Minister for her
10:06
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
firstly, the Minister for her positive engagement in this. Bill in terms of engaging with myself before the Second Reading and since. And I also want to thank Adam from our Lib Dem office for his help and advice in drafting the bill, because all I picked up was there was a need in the country for burial space. He helped me draft it, and the Minister positively engaged. And she she does rise. I'm sure she will let the House know of the positive outcome that we've been able to achieve.
So with that, I now sit down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise briefly to help send this bill on to another place. In this case, it's not a spiritual In this case, it's not a spiritual euphemism, it's merely a reference to the House of Commons, where, of course, a very important debate is taking place today. And on Wednesday this week, we had a question about the funeral industry not wholly unconnected with the not wholly unconnected with the matter before us in this bill, and one of those who spoke at Second Reading in support.
And it's interesting that no amendments have
So with that, I now sit down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise briefly to help send this bill on to another place. In this case, it's not a spiritual In this case, it's not a spiritual euphemism, it's merely a reference to the House of Commons, where, of course, a very important debate is taking place today. And on Wednesday this week, we had a question about the funeral industry not wholly unconnected with the not wholly unconnected with the matter before us in this bill, and one of those who spoke at Second Reading in support.
And it's interesting that no amendments have
10:07
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
interesting that no amendments have been put down. This means that the House of Commons can have the maximum chance to debate it and take it forward. I'd just add that one of the issues raised, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Mohammed for bringing it forward, is that clearly different communities have different attitudes to burial and broadly speaking, and it is a broad brush statement. Some communities, over a period of 100 years or more, have become increasingly used to and comfortable with cremation.
But there are other communities in this country that prefer individual burial. And with a rising population that is putting increasing pressure on burial spaces. So I wish the bill well, and it's not much of a prediction to say that this is an issue that is not going away. I'd like to congratulate my noble friend because I can call him that Lord Mohammed, because until last May he was my local councillor, and I hope he achieves as much in this place as he did in mine.
But there are other communities in this country that prefer individual burial. And with a rising population that is putting increasing pressure on burial spaces. So I wish the bill well, and it's not much of a prediction to say that this is an issue that is not going away. I'd like to congratulate my noble friend because I can call him that Lord Mohammed, because until last May he was my local councillor, and I hope he achieves as much in this place as he did in mine.
10:08
Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
Lord Blunkett (Labour)
My Lords, I would like to thank >> My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for managing this Bill's passage through your Lordships House and all noble Lords who have contributed so constructively. How we bury our dead is a hugely important issue, but an issue which is too often overlooked, or which people feel uncomfortable in talking about it shouldn't be so. Edmund Burke said that society is a partnership of the dead, the living and the the unborn.
It is only right that we can lay our loved ones to rest with dignity, and
It is only right that we can lay our loved ones to rest with dignity, and
10:09
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
therefore right that local authorities make the necessary provisions for burial space. Just provisions for burial space. Just last month, it was reported that 17 local authorities in London will run out of space by 2040, and run out of space by 2040, and Camden, Hackney and Tower Hamlets already have. So, as the noble Lord already have. So, as the noble Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley says, there is a need for this. And this is a timely bill which promises to is a timely bill which promises to address a gap in our planning framework to ensure these issues are addressed, and we look forward to its progress in the Other place.
10:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
My Lords, I would like to >> My Lords, I would like to firstly thank the noble Lord Mohammed for bringing this very important matter through this important matter through this private member's Bill and for the timeliness of his private member's bill, which helpfully coincided bill, which helpfully coincided with the publication of a new National Planning Policy framework. It remains the government's position that local matters such as burial space, are best addressed in local plans rather than in legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs of their local communities.
And I, I appreciate the comments from my noble friend Lord Ben and speaking that some of the events we heard about the other day in the chamber, genuinely shocking events that took place, I think, highlighted for all of us that this is an issue where, of course, local authorities play a key part, but there in terms of regulation and so on, there may be further work for government to do on this, and I would like to echo the thoughts that were expressed in the chamber to the families of those affected by that recent scandal.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectations for what should be considered in local plans and in decision making, and I'm pleased to update that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on the 17th of August this year. The definition of community facilities in the NPF has been updated to explicitly include cemeteries and burial grounds. In recognition of concerns raised that these local assets had not been sufficiently recognised in national planning policy. This means that all relevant policies in the NPF relating to community facilities also apply to cemeteries and burial grounds.
This includes that development plans should be informed by an understanding of any existing deficits and additional requirements expected in the availability of community facilities and, where appropriate, should allocate land specifically for community facilities, and that applies as well to local authorities in London. Of course, I hope that the recent changes made to the NPF provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the concerns he has raised have been carefully considered. They were extremely important and that they are now reflected more clearly in national planning policy.
And I, I appreciate the comments from my noble friend Lord Ben and speaking that some of the events we heard about the other day in the chamber, genuinely shocking events that took place, I think, highlighted for all of us that this is an issue where, of course, local authorities play a key part, but there in terms of regulation and so on, there may be further work for government to do on this, and I would like to echo the thoughts that were expressed in the chamber to the families of those affected by that recent scandal.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectations for what should be considered in local plans and in decision making, and I'm pleased to update that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on the 17th of August this year. The definition of community facilities in the NPF has been updated to explicitly include cemeteries and burial grounds. In recognition of concerns raised that these local assets had not been sufficiently recognised in national planning policy. This means that all relevant policies in the NPF relating to community facilities also apply to cemeteries and burial grounds.
This includes that development plans should be informed by an understanding of any existing deficits and additional requirements expected in the availability of community facilities and, where appropriate, should allocate land specifically for community facilities, and that applies as well to local authorities in London. Of course, I hope that the recent changes made to the NPF provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the concerns he has raised have been carefully considered. They were extremely important and that they are now reflected more clearly in national planning policy.
10:12
-
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill is not to now pass. this Bill is not to now pass. >> The Bill. Do now pass as many as our opinion will say, content contrary, not content to be content, contrary, not content to be content, and it. Second Reading of the Second Reading of a leasehold remediation. Building safety Bill Baroness Pinnock.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord. I beg to move that this bill is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that this bill is now read a second time. My Lords,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord. I beg to move that this bill is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that this bill is now read a second time. My Lords,
10:12
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
put and still puts lives at risk. The estimate from the Commons Public Accounts Committee is that 3 million people may be affected. There are between 5900 and 7400 buildings over 11m, with unsafe cladding and a National Audit Office estimate of between 9000 and 12,000 buildings of 11m, or five storeys or more, with fire safety defects. Of those with unsafe cladding. The latest government figures show that there are over 2200 buildings of 11m or more that have not even started remediation.
The impact on leaseholders is profound. Inside housing reported that 1 in 5 contemplated suicide when faced with the enormity of the safety scandal. Insurance premiums soared, with some leaseholders paying up to £2,000 for a flat and the average being 56% higher than those without defects, service charges and waking watch costs add to the significant financial burden on leaseholders. So leaseholders are paying a very high price when they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
The bricks mortar, dangerous cladding are not theirs, others are or have profited from this scandal. The construction companies, the contractors, the materials suppliers, my private member's bill seeks final and swift justice for the thousands of leaseholders whose lives have been forever harmed by this scandal of deliberate wrongdoing by others. The principles underlying the bill are these first, that leaseholders will not be liable for any costs incurred by remediation of building safety defects.
Second, that leaseholders must not have costs included into their service charges and any that have already fallen foul of this dubious practice can apply to the first tier tribunal for repayment. Thirdly, that all leaseholders, all leaseholders, will be covered by the provisions in this bill. Whatever the height of their building. The government has always argued that buildings below 11m are a much lower risk and so are not covered by the Building Safety Act. However, one leaseholder in the low rise block has a bill of over £65,000 for remediation.
Under the provisions of this bill, the 1.3 million leaseholders in low rise flats will leaseholders in low rise flats will also rightly be protected. Fourthly, all systemic defects are covered by this bill, as well as unsafe cladding and are listed in clause three. Those four principles form the bedrock of the Bill. The second part of the bill defines liability and for the first time includes the manufacturers or suppliers of materials that contributed to a systemic defect.
The manufacturers of the highly flammable cladding that contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire have so far escaped liability. The Grenfell inquiry report spells out their culpability, and the police have yet to bring prosecutions. This bill writes that wrong. The government has focussed its efforts on the removal of unsafe cladding, the failure to also concentrate on other safety defects, such as the lack of fire stopping or compartmentalisation, has resulted in buildings being deemed safe once cladding has been removed.
When they are not. Part three of the bill deals with getting the work done by setting a clear legal time frame for work to be completed. Leaseholders, thousands of them, are living in dangerous buildings. Nearly ten years on from the Grenfell fire. This will not do. People deserve much better than the procrastination that has been permitted. The government's Remediation Acceleration Plan demonstrates an understanding of the need, but is inadequate in failing to enforce timely action.
This bill radically changes that approach by expecting a remediation plan within 28 days of the building safety regulator confirming that systemic defects exist. Further, the government is required to publish a new and more demanding remediation acceleration plan, including target date for the completion of work. Clause 17 details the time frame time frame for completion of remediation once a plan has been issued, there are 24 months to get the work done and where the defects are identified as being urgent.
Six months. There are penalties too, for a non-compliant developer in this bill, as they will be banned from involvement in any residential building work and from applying for such. So far, manufacturers of, for example, the ACM cladding that largely contributed to the deaths of 72 people, have avoided financial penalties from their failures, some of which were deliberate under clause 12, those responsible for remediation will be able to recoup costs from manufacturers where the product failed to meet the relevant British standard or European harmonised standard.
Such action is long overdue. In order to protect residents from future building disasters. Any new development over 11m or five storeys has to hold a developer's licence from the building safety regulator. Part five of the bill enhances the rights of leaseholders to vital information about the building and any defects. A protected leaseholder under this Bill will also have new rights to claim against the responsible person for any loss as a result of a systemic defect.
An award from the first tier tribunal can include damages due to identified losses and any remediation costs already already paid by the leaseholder. Leaseholders have for too long been battling for justice without direct support from an unidentified person. The bill creates a leaseholder remediation ombudsman to do just that. My Lords, this bill puts the rights of leaseholders first and foremost. For the first time, all buildings of whatever height are included.
The bill lays the responsibility and the costs of remediation where it belongs. Developers, contractors, material manufacturers, leaseholders have new legally enforceable rights and have dedicated support where needed, and leaseholders will be fully protected from all remediation costs, with a legal route for recouping those already charged. I have many to thank for their knowledge and expertise in forming this comprehensive measure. The Property Institute End Our Cladding Scandal, but in particular Adam Ball and Mark Fisher.
This bill demands that justice for leaseholders is at the heart of putting right the scandalous and disastrous behaviour of those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsible. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is this Bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this Bill be now read a second time. Well, I. Congratulate Baroness Pinnock on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Congratulate Baroness Pinnock on introducing this bill, and I welcome Baroness Blake to her new responsibilities on the front bench. responsibilities on the front bench. My Lords, at the moment there is legislation that protects leaseholders and shared owners, but not all buildings are protected. Not all leaseholders are protected and not all safety defects are protected. And it's just worth making the point that the people we're talking about did what every noble Lord in this building would
The impact on leaseholders is profound. Inside housing reported that 1 in 5 contemplated suicide when faced with the enormity of the safety scandal. Insurance premiums soared, with some leaseholders paying up to £2,000 for a flat and the average being 56% higher than those without defects, service charges and waking watch costs add to the significant financial burden on leaseholders. So leaseholders are paying a very high price when they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
The bricks mortar, dangerous cladding are not theirs, others are or have profited from this scandal. The construction companies, the contractors, the materials suppliers, my private member's bill seeks final and swift justice for the thousands of leaseholders whose lives have been forever harmed by this scandal of deliberate wrongdoing by others. The principles underlying the bill are these first, that leaseholders will not be liable for any costs incurred by remediation of building safety defects.
Second, that leaseholders must not have costs included into their service charges and any that have already fallen foul of this dubious practice can apply to the first tier tribunal for repayment. Thirdly, that all leaseholders, all leaseholders, will be covered by the provisions in this bill. Whatever the height of their building. The government has always argued that buildings below 11m are a much lower risk and so are not covered by the Building Safety Act. However, one leaseholder in the low rise block has a bill of over £65,000 for remediation.
Under the provisions of this bill, the 1.3 million leaseholders in low rise flats will leaseholders in low rise flats will also rightly be protected. Fourthly, all systemic defects are covered by this bill, as well as unsafe cladding and are listed in clause three. Those four principles form the bedrock of the Bill. The second part of the bill defines liability and for the first time includes the manufacturers or suppliers of materials that contributed to a systemic defect.
The manufacturers of the highly flammable cladding that contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire have so far escaped liability. The Grenfell inquiry report spells out their culpability, and the police have yet to bring prosecutions. This bill writes that wrong. The government has focussed its efforts on the removal of unsafe cladding, the failure to also concentrate on other safety defects, such as the lack of fire stopping or compartmentalisation, has resulted in buildings being deemed safe once cladding has been removed.
When they are not. Part three of the bill deals with getting the work done by setting a clear legal time frame for work to be completed. Leaseholders, thousands of them, are living in dangerous buildings. Nearly ten years on from the Grenfell fire. This will not do. People deserve much better than the procrastination that has been permitted. The government's Remediation Acceleration Plan demonstrates an understanding of the need, but is inadequate in failing to enforce timely action.
This bill radically changes that approach by expecting a remediation plan within 28 days of the building safety regulator confirming that systemic defects exist. Further, the government is required to publish a new and more demanding remediation acceleration plan, including target date for the completion of work. Clause 17 details the time frame time frame for completion of remediation once a plan has been issued, there are 24 months to get the work done and where the defects are identified as being urgent.
Six months. There are penalties too, for a non-compliant developer in this bill, as they will be banned from involvement in any residential building work and from applying for such. So far, manufacturers of, for example, the ACM cladding that largely contributed to the deaths of 72 people, have avoided financial penalties from their failures, some of which were deliberate under clause 12, those responsible for remediation will be able to recoup costs from manufacturers where the product failed to meet the relevant British standard or European harmonised standard.
Such action is long overdue. In order to protect residents from future building disasters. Any new development over 11m or five storeys has to hold a developer's licence from the building safety regulator. Part five of the bill enhances the rights of leaseholders to vital information about the building and any defects. A protected leaseholder under this Bill will also have new rights to claim against the responsible person for any loss as a result of a systemic defect.
An award from the first tier tribunal can include damages due to identified losses and any remediation costs already already paid by the leaseholder. Leaseholders have for too long been battling for justice without direct support from an unidentified person. The bill creates a leaseholder remediation ombudsman to do just that. My Lords, this bill puts the rights of leaseholders first and foremost. For the first time, all buildings of whatever height are included.
The bill lays the responsibility and the costs of remediation where it belongs. Developers, contractors, material manufacturers, leaseholders have new legally enforceable rights and have dedicated support where needed, and leaseholders will be fully protected from all remediation costs, with a legal route for recouping those already charged. I have many to thank for their knowledge and expertise in forming this comprehensive measure. The Property Institute End Our Cladding Scandal, but in particular Adam Ball and Mark Fisher.
This bill demands that justice for leaseholders is at the heart of putting right the scandalous and disastrous behaviour of those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsible. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is this Bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this Bill be now read a second time. Well, I. Congratulate Baroness Pinnock on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Congratulate Baroness Pinnock on introducing this bill, and I welcome Baroness Blake to her new responsibilities on the front bench. responsibilities on the front bench. My Lords, at the moment there is legislation that protects leaseholders and shared owners, but not all buildings are protected. Not all leaseholders are protected and not all safety defects are protected. And it's just worth making the point that the people we're talking about did what every noble Lord in this building would
10:23
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
have done before they bought. They employed qualified solicitors, qualified surveyors, none of whom qualified surveyors, none of whom found any problem at all. And likewise, the lenders who supplied likewise, the lenders who supplied the mortgage did exactly the same. So the people we're talking about are in no way responsible for the are in no way responsible for the problems that confront them. What are these problems? Non cladding defects not being fully funded in defects not being fully funded in government schemes, leaving buildings half safe.
Non-Qualifying leaseholders facing ruinous costs, not the position in Wales where they have no such exclusion. Eye watering, eye watering building, insurance premiums, high service charges and costly and ineffective waking watches. And unlike other homeowners, they can't sell and move if they need to move for a new job or their family has grown. One particular injustice touched on by the noble Baroness is of leaseholders in a building below 11m, with unsafe cladding, perhaps the same cladding as Grenfell had.
Where the insurers insist on remediation as a condition of insurance. But those are those leaseholders are not protected by the bill and, as Baroness Pinnock said, progress has been unacceptably slow. 2146 buildings are still waiting to start, and of the 101,833 that have been completed, many have been incompletely completed because the fat. Only the funding for the cladding has been granted. Now. The previous government did a lot, but not enough, and they were rightly held to account by the then opposition.
Before the election. Baroness Taylor spoke, I quote of the utmost importance that this building safety issue moves forward without any further delay. And, crucially, she didn't confine the crisis to cladding. She referred to families trapped with dangerous, flammable defects, whether that is cladding, missing fire breaks or wooden balconies. But perhaps more relevant is a commitment made from the then opposition frontbench. On April 22nd 19, 2022, when Baroness Hayman spoke in support of a of a opposition amendment.
This is what she said. We on these benches have consistently argued that all leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediating historical cladding and cladding defects and the associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstance. She then criticised the then government in sticking rigidly to the position that a minority of leaseholders will have to pay sums that, although capped, are still significant in order to resolve a scandal that they played no part in causing. We believe that the government are not acting equitably and will ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders will be protected and concluded if the Minister is unable to accept it.
We will seek to divide the House with a view to ensuring that all leaseholders are protected. So when the government produces its own bill and it would be good to hear when that might happen, I hope the Bill will fulfil all the commitments that I've just mentioned. In fairness to the new administration, Baroness Taylor has recognised the stress and emotional upset caused by these issues and particularly referred to Vista Tower, where leaseholders are facing a second round of works to fix the cladding defects left untouched and during the first remedial project.
So my Lord, what is needed is this all leaseholders and shared owners to be protected from building safety costs with no arbitrary height, residency wealth or ownership exclusions, all serious building safety defects to be covered, including internal and structural defects, and then a government delivery and funding backstop across all funding schemes, which fixes first and then recovers from responsible parties later. So people have certainty and confidence restored to the housing market. So, my Lords, nine years after Grenfell, leaseholders and shared owners should not still be navigating a maze of height thresholds, qualifying leases, partial schemes and voluntary promises.
This bill begins with the right moral and practical principle innocent leaders, innocent leaseholders did not cause the problem. They must not pay for it.
Non-Qualifying leaseholders facing ruinous costs, not the position in Wales where they have no such exclusion. Eye watering, eye watering building, insurance premiums, high service charges and costly and ineffective waking watches. And unlike other homeowners, they can't sell and move if they need to move for a new job or their family has grown. One particular injustice touched on by the noble Baroness is of leaseholders in a building below 11m, with unsafe cladding, perhaps the same cladding as Grenfell had.
Where the insurers insist on remediation as a condition of insurance. But those are those leaseholders are not protected by the bill and, as Baroness Pinnock said, progress has been unacceptably slow. 2146 buildings are still waiting to start, and of the 101,833 that have been completed, many have been incompletely completed because the fat. Only the funding for the cladding has been granted. Now. The previous government did a lot, but not enough, and they were rightly held to account by the then opposition.
Before the election. Baroness Taylor spoke, I quote of the utmost importance that this building safety issue moves forward without any further delay. And, crucially, she didn't confine the crisis to cladding. She referred to families trapped with dangerous, flammable defects, whether that is cladding, missing fire breaks or wooden balconies. But perhaps more relevant is a commitment made from the then opposition frontbench. On April 22nd 19, 2022, when Baroness Hayman spoke in support of a of a opposition amendment.
This is what she said. We on these benches have consistently argued that all leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediating historical cladding and cladding defects and the associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstance. She then criticised the then government in sticking rigidly to the position that a minority of leaseholders will have to pay sums that, although capped, are still significant in order to resolve a scandal that they played no part in causing. We believe that the government are not acting equitably and will ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders will be protected and concluded if the Minister is unable to accept it.
We will seek to divide the House with a view to ensuring that all leaseholders are protected. So when the government produces its own bill and it would be good to hear when that might happen, I hope the Bill will fulfil all the commitments that I've just mentioned. In fairness to the new administration, Baroness Taylor has recognised the stress and emotional upset caused by these issues and particularly referred to Vista Tower, where leaseholders are facing a second round of works to fix the cladding defects left untouched and during the first remedial project.
So my Lord, what is needed is this all leaseholders and shared owners to be protected from building safety costs with no arbitrary height, residency wealth or ownership exclusions, all serious building safety defects to be covered, including internal and structural defects, and then a government delivery and funding backstop across all funding schemes, which fixes first and then recovers from responsible parties later. So people have certainty and confidence restored to the housing market. So, my Lords, nine years after Grenfell, leaseholders and shared owners should not still be navigating a maze of height thresholds, qualifying leases, partial schemes and voluntary promises.
This bill begins with the right moral and practical principle innocent leaders, innocent leaseholders did not cause the problem. They must not pay for it.
10:28
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I'd also like to congratulate Baroness Pinnock for this Building safety Bill. I admire this Building safety Bill. I admire it for its hard line radicalism, for firmly establishing that if a residential leasehold building has serious systemic defects, the leaseholder who did not design, build or sign off the works should not be the person who pays for the clean up. One proposed change is quite radical, as we have heard, is the no minimum height or storey threshold.
Although I tend to agree with both this Labour government and the Tories before them that there is less fire safety issues in lower level buildings. I'd rather the law was less rigid about risk assessment than using the tape measure approach and fetishising 11m, and I also appreciate the Bill is aiming to expand protections for all leaseholders when it comes to building safety and regardless of which story their flat is on. But one concern could this backfire and share the miseries caused by the building safety regime downwards even to ground floor flats? And why this matters is because of the unintended consequences of excessive, risk averse regulations.
After the tragedy of Grenfell, there was a rush to caution that was understandable, but that then sometimes led to the law, resulting in unnecessary works being commissioned under the banner of safety. I tried to push back against the remediation at all costs mentality, driving debates on the Building safety bill, and that well-intentioned legislation has created layers and layers of costly bureaucracy. Think part four, and has contributed to spiralling and exorbitant exhaustion. I can't say it. Service charges and maintenance costs for buildings over 18m.
This, in turn, has had a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and even leasehold property market. According to Hamptons, 37% of England's leasehold flats have service charges exceeding a threshold at which many mortgage lenders will not lend, leaving affected flats effectively unmanageable. Hard to ensure and extremely difficult to sell. Do not let us make lower storey leasehold flats fall into that sort of quagmire. I appreciate this bill intends to move building safety away from service charge recovery towards a more punitive enforcement mechanism to make developers construction, the supply chain, etc.
pay. But all the time I was reading the bill, I kept considering that the real culprit here is leasehold itself, and leaseholders want to take responsibility for their own homes. But can't you bought your home? You assume you'll have control over ensuring its safe, but then you discover that due to some feudal legacy, your tenant in bondage to a landlord or freeholder dependent on them to decide what actions are needed to keep you and your home safe. What we really need to do is to end leasehold for good.
But although we have been talking about abolishing leasehold really since the 1880s, and the inherent draconian unfairness of the system has been accepted by Ministers from all parties and championed, indeed so eloquently and frequently by our own Chief Whip. Well, when he was in opposition, abolition then, was a totemic commitment to the Labour manifesto and I was excited. But here we are, depending on Baroness Pinnock to pick up the rotten pieces of another government reneged promise that, to be honest, is bleeding people dry and causing widespread misery for millions of householders, the personal tragedies this causes are documented very well by groups like Free Householders campaign and it's just shameful.
So we are reduced to trying to make ever greater numbers of organisations liable for flat safety to take the pressure off leaseholders. But even if this bill does deliver leaseholders better rights, certainly it does on paper, with its. I'm worried that it's sweeping powers to make everyone else pay will create other regressive social consequences. For example, building owners want with information requests or developers facing pipeline paralysis, or the floodgates being opened to multiple litigation disputes. And at a time when house holding is so low and it's actually a crisis that we are not building enough houses.
I would like the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock to respond to how she believes we can balance the warning from the law firm Devonshire that some of the sanctions on the bill will grind construction of new homes to a halt and put a pause on ongoing works until every deficit is rectified. And isn't that just the sort of barrier to growth that we do not need when it comes to urgently needed house building, and the country needs that kind of growth to happen and and to finish as the bill takes a convenience, conversions and refurbishments as well.
It won't just be big construction, but small building firms, construction contractors, all could be in scope for blame. And that just worries me.
Although I tend to agree with both this Labour government and the Tories before them that there is less fire safety issues in lower level buildings. I'd rather the law was less rigid about risk assessment than using the tape measure approach and fetishising 11m, and I also appreciate the Bill is aiming to expand protections for all leaseholders when it comes to building safety and regardless of which story their flat is on. But one concern could this backfire and share the miseries caused by the building safety regime downwards even to ground floor flats? And why this matters is because of the unintended consequences of excessive, risk averse regulations.
After the tragedy of Grenfell, there was a rush to caution that was understandable, but that then sometimes led to the law, resulting in unnecessary works being commissioned under the banner of safety. I tried to push back against the remediation at all costs mentality, driving debates on the Building safety bill, and that well-intentioned legislation has created layers and layers of costly bureaucracy. Think part four, and has contributed to spiralling and exorbitant exhaustion. I can't say it. Service charges and maintenance costs for buildings over 18m.
This, in turn, has had a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and even leasehold property market. According to Hamptons, 37% of England's leasehold flats have service charges exceeding a threshold at which many mortgage lenders will not lend, leaving affected flats effectively unmanageable. Hard to ensure and extremely difficult to sell. Do not let us make lower storey leasehold flats fall into that sort of quagmire. I appreciate this bill intends to move building safety away from service charge recovery towards a more punitive enforcement mechanism to make developers construction, the supply chain, etc.
pay. But all the time I was reading the bill, I kept considering that the real culprit here is leasehold itself, and leaseholders want to take responsibility for their own homes. But can't you bought your home? You assume you'll have control over ensuring its safe, but then you discover that due to some feudal legacy, your tenant in bondage to a landlord or freeholder dependent on them to decide what actions are needed to keep you and your home safe. What we really need to do is to end leasehold for good.
But although we have been talking about abolishing leasehold really since the 1880s, and the inherent draconian unfairness of the system has been accepted by Ministers from all parties and championed, indeed so eloquently and frequently by our own Chief Whip. Well, when he was in opposition, abolition then, was a totemic commitment to the Labour manifesto and I was excited. But here we are, depending on Baroness Pinnock to pick up the rotten pieces of another government reneged promise that, to be honest, is bleeding people dry and causing widespread misery for millions of householders, the personal tragedies this causes are documented very well by groups like Free Householders campaign and it's just shameful.
So we are reduced to trying to make ever greater numbers of organisations liable for flat safety to take the pressure off leaseholders. But even if this bill does deliver leaseholders better rights, certainly it does on paper, with its. I'm worried that it's sweeping powers to make everyone else pay will create other regressive social consequences. For example, building owners want with information requests or developers facing pipeline paralysis, or the floodgates being opened to multiple litigation disputes. And at a time when house holding is so low and it's actually a crisis that we are not building enough houses.
I would like the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock to respond to how she believes we can balance the warning from the law firm Devonshire that some of the sanctions on the bill will grind construction of new homes to a halt and put a pause on ongoing works until every deficit is rectified. And isn't that just the sort of barrier to growth that we do not need when it comes to urgently needed house building, and the country needs that kind of growth to happen and and to finish as the bill takes a convenience, conversions and refurbishments as well.
It won't just be big construction, but small building firms, construction contractors, all could be in scope for blame. And that just worries me.
10:33
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I'd like to take this opportunity to, for the first time, to welcome the noble Lady to to her post. My Lords, I rise to support post. My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and in doing so I must first pay tribute to my noble friend Baroness Pinnock as our local government spokesperson. She has lived and breathed building safety for years. I, on the other hand, am the housing spokesman, which means that while she does the heavy lifting and gets to grips with the complex technicalities, I get the distinct pleasure of standing up here and loudly agreeing with her.
So let's be honest, my Lords, agreeing with Baroness Pinnock on this issue is probably the easiest job in Parliament today because we on these benches believe she is entirely and profoundly right. We all have an interest in ensuring that any legislative framework is workable, of course proportionate, and that takes into account what you've just said. Baroness Fox, and capable of being delivered to many leaseholders continue to face uncertainty, financial hardship and lengthy delays while defects remain unresolved.
Campaigners have argued that stronger protections, clearer obligations are required if confidence is to be restored and remediation accelerated. And I noticed for some latest figures, it's not surprising that sales of flats have stalled. This really is a big sword of Damocles hanging over their construction, and I'd like to strongly agree with the comments of the noble Lord Young of Cookham regarding both leaseholders and those in shared ownership, for whom he is a great champion, and I can only just do the nodding dog in the back of the car.
But I do welcome his expertise in this. Now, my Lords, there is much common ground between this bill and the government's forthcoming remediation legislation. Both seek to ensure that unsafe buildings are remediated tick, and that those responsible are held to account. The difference is largely one of emphasis. The government's bill, I expect, will focus on getting buildings fixed as quickly as possible. My noble friend is focussed on making sure that the people living in them are treated fairly while it happens.
Frankly, we need both. A building can be remediated without a leaseholder being protected, but that would still leave an injustice unresolved. These two bills are rifle, not rifles. They complement each other. The Building Safety Act of 2022 was a decent start, but it left behind gaps so wide you could drive a fire engine through them. The most glaring of these is the arbitrary 11 metre high rule. As has already been mentioned. Now, I've spent a lot of time looking at housing, and I'm still searching for the scientific evidence showing that smoke checks the height of a building before it decides to be dangerous.
If you live in a flat that is 11.1m high, the law shields your wallet. If your flat is 10.9m high, the law essentially says best of luck. Here's a five figure bill for repairs. It is absurd a building's height shouldn't dictate human safety, and this bill sensibly strips that artificial barrier away. We also have to talk about what counts as a defect. The current system seems to assume that if the cladding is safe, the building is Paradise. But leaseholders are routinely hit with massive bills for things like rotting wooden balconies, faulty fire doors, internal wiring that looks like it was put together by an optimistic amateur.
My Noble Friend's bill introduces the concept of systemic defects. It says, quite simply, the developer. If the developer builds it badly or wrong, the leaseholders shouldn't have to pay to fix it. My Lords, imagine you buy a brand new car and several hundred miles down the road it breaks down while you're in the driving seat and you are told, well, it was a defect that was caused in the factory, but you've got to fit the bill to put it right. I think you would quite rightly have a few choice words to say.
That is why I hope Ministers would look carefully at some of the strongest features of this bill, its wider protections for leaseholders, its broader approach to building safety defects and its challenge to the current height thresholds all have the potential to strengthen the government's own legislation. Ministers have a wonderful opportunity here to stop tweaking at the edges. Look at what we are proposing today and actually steel their nerves. They can absorb these provisions, scrap the height limits, expand the definition of defects and give their own upcoming legislation some real teeth.
I agree with Baroness Fox regarding leasehold tenure and look forward to looking working with her in the forthcoming bill. I'm delighted to support my noble friend, and I urge the government to steal the best possible.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All of them. My Lords. It's a great pleasure to welcome the Minister to her new role, and the Minister to her new role, and it's a great pleasure also to follow the noble Lady Baroness Thornhill, who reinforced the very Thornhill, who reinforced the very strong case that Baroness Pinnock has set out. My Lords, could I declare my interest as chair of a charity pro bono that owns a student accommodation in London,
So let's be honest, my Lords, agreeing with Baroness Pinnock on this issue is probably the easiest job in Parliament today because we on these benches believe she is entirely and profoundly right. We all have an interest in ensuring that any legislative framework is workable, of course proportionate, and that takes into account what you've just said. Baroness Fox, and capable of being delivered to many leaseholders continue to face uncertainty, financial hardship and lengthy delays while defects remain unresolved.
Campaigners have argued that stronger protections, clearer obligations are required if confidence is to be restored and remediation accelerated. And I noticed for some latest figures, it's not surprising that sales of flats have stalled. This really is a big sword of Damocles hanging over their construction, and I'd like to strongly agree with the comments of the noble Lord Young of Cookham regarding both leaseholders and those in shared ownership, for whom he is a great champion, and I can only just do the nodding dog in the back of the car.
But I do welcome his expertise in this. Now, my Lords, there is much common ground between this bill and the government's forthcoming remediation legislation. Both seek to ensure that unsafe buildings are remediated tick, and that those responsible are held to account. The difference is largely one of emphasis. The government's bill, I expect, will focus on getting buildings fixed as quickly as possible. My noble friend is focussed on making sure that the people living in them are treated fairly while it happens.
Frankly, we need both. A building can be remediated without a leaseholder being protected, but that would still leave an injustice unresolved. These two bills are rifle, not rifles. They complement each other. The Building Safety Act of 2022 was a decent start, but it left behind gaps so wide you could drive a fire engine through them. The most glaring of these is the arbitrary 11 metre high rule. As has already been mentioned. Now, I've spent a lot of time looking at housing, and I'm still searching for the scientific evidence showing that smoke checks the height of a building before it decides to be dangerous.
If you live in a flat that is 11.1m high, the law shields your wallet. If your flat is 10.9m high, the law essentially says best of luck. Here's a five figure bill for repairs. It is absurd a building's height shouldn't dictate human safety, and this bill sensibly strips that artificial barrier away. We also have to talk about what counts as a defect. The current system seems to assume that if the cladding is safe, the building is Paradise. But leaseholders are routinely hit with massive bills for things like rotting wooden balconies, faulty fire doors, internal wiring that looks like it was put together by an optimistic amateur.
My Noble Friend's bill introduces the concept of systemic defects. It says, quite simply, the developer. If the developer builds it badly or wrong, the leaseholders shouldn't have to pay to fix it. My Lords, imagine you buy a brand new car and several hundred miles down the road it breaks down while you're in the driving seat and you are told, well, it was a defect that was caused in the factory, but you've got to fit the bill to put it right. I think you would quite rightly have a few choice words to say.
That is why I hope Ministers would look carefully at some of the strongest features of this bill, its wider protections for leaseholders, its broader approach to building safety defects and its challenge to the current height thresholds all have the potential to strengthen the government's own legislation. Ministers have a wonderful opportunity here to stop tweaking at the edges. Look at what we are proposing today and actually steel their nerves. They can absorb these provisions, scrap the height limits, expand the definition of defects and give their own upcoming legislation some real teeth.
I agree with Baroness Fox regarding leasehold tenure and look forward to looking working with her in the forthcoming bill. I'm delighted to support my noble friend, and I urge the government to steal the best possible.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All of them. My Lords. It's a great pleasure to welcome the Minister to her new role, and the Minister to her new role, and it's a great pleasure also to follow the noble Lady Baroness Thornhill, who reinforced the very Thornhill, who reinforced the very strong case that Baroness Pinnock has set out. My Lords, could I declare my interest as chair of a charity pro bono that owns a student accommodation in London,
10:39
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative)
student accommodation in London, some of which are falls within the current limits under the Building Safety Act, and obviously would certainly fall within the extended limits of this proposed legislation. Baroness Pinnock certainly knows a thing or two about this area. She. She was led the council in in Kirklees and she spoke from those benches at the time of Grenfell nearly ten years ago. I recall that because I was the Minister in the Lords who spoke on that area, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham was was also in the Department at that time.
I little thought that ten years later we'd still be looking at issues that are unfulfilled, promises that were made and unfulfilled, and successive governments must take a share of the blame for that. There is there is no doubt of that. Some constructive measures, certainly in the Building Safety Act and much compensation paid. But there's much that remains to be done in, in my view. And I'll say a little bit about that later, if I might. But in terms of the civil liability that this legislation essentially deals with under 11m, it's it's impossible, I think, to think of a constructive case against it, that obviously there's a lot of detail to be looked at in terms of how it applies and capacity issues and so on.
But the fact that below 11m less serious issues are confronted, and I accept that doesn't mean that there isn't individual harm done to many leaseholders, many people who are affected by this and that. That should certainly be rectified. And I, I back that wholly. I back particularly actually clause 12 of this proposed legislation, which makes provision for liability on manufacturers who, in my view, have much to do to fill in some of the gaps that remain about liability. Governments. Local government certainly has a share of responsibility, but in my view, a lot of the providers of of the material have yet to step up to the plate to, to share some of the responsibility that is there.
And I have no hesitation in saying that. And therefore, I would like to move, if I might, to say something about some very clear issues about the criminal liability which is still to be dealt with and which this legislation obviously doesn't deal with that issue. And I understand that. But here we are, ten years, nearly ten years after the Grenfell fire, and nobody has been held responsible for this. It's absolutely astounding. Nobody has been held responsible for this. No company has been prosecuted.
And that has added complications because the provider of the cladding, Arconic, who were in the Hackitt review, haven't been banned by the government. There's still a supply to the government, as far as I can tell. Answers to me indicate that they are still supplying. And the government's answer to that, and no doubt rooted in some legal advice, is that they can't be banned because it's subjudice. And if they were banned, that would have an effect on the possible prosecutions, which aren't happening.
So the whole thing is circular. And I have to say, it hasn't stopped the Kensington, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea putting them on a list. So they're not used there. So I encourage the government to ban them. It seems to me I'm you know, that's what needs to be done. And in terms of their liability, they have been held liable in damages. They've come forward or their insurers have and they have paid some compensation. But at the same time, shareholders are doing very well out of it.
They've been paid massive dividends. And I'm a capitalist. I think we all are in favour of a market economy, but it only works if people are held responsible for what they're doing. And that hasn't happened. And I encourage the Minister, and I certainly don't blame her. She's new in post now, nor do I blame the government. It's successive governments, but it really does need tackling. And something needs to be done on this because justice delayed is justice denied, as we all know.
And there's, as I say, that outstanding issue of no prosecutions after ten years and memories fade, witnesses die, victims die. This really does. This really does need tackling. So the government they're they're the people who can put this right, need to need to do something about that. But in the meantime, I'm strongly in favour of this legislation. As I as I say, there is much detail that needs to be looked at as it as it moves forward. But I'm sure we're all behind the principle of the legislation and need to look to the detail, either in this legislation or the government's proposed legislation, to make sure that we draw an end to this, for the for the victims of Grenfell, and make sure that they feel satisfied that we've done something about it and for the future that no future Grenfell has dealt with in the same way that this one has been.
I little thought that ten years later we'd still be looking at issues that are unfulfilled, promises that were made and unfulfilled, and successive governments must take a share of the blame for that. There is there is no doubt of that. Some constructive measures, certainly in the Building Safety Act and much compensation paid. But there's much that remains to be done in, in my view. And I'll say a little bit about that later, if I might. But in terms of the civil liability that this legislation essentially deals with under 11m, it's it's impossible, I think, to think of a constructive case against it, that obviously there's a lot of detail to be looked at in terms of how it applies and capacity issues and so on.
But the fact that below 11m less serious issues are confronted, and I accept that doesn't mean that there isn't individual harm done to many leaseholders, many people who are affected by this and that. That should certainly be rectified. And I, I back that wholly. I back particularly actually clause 12 of this proposed legislation, which makes provision for liability on manufacturers who, in my view, have much to do to fill in some of the gaps that remain about liability. Governments. Local government certainly has a share of responsibility, but in my view, a lot of the providers of of the material have yet to step up to the plate to, to share some of the responsibility that is there.
And I have no hesitation in saying that. And therefore, I would like to move, if I might, to say something about some very clear issues about the criminal liability which is still to be dealt with and which this legislation obviously doesn't deal with that issue. And I understand that. But here we are, ten years, nearly ten years after the Grenfell fire, and nobody has been held responsible for this. It's absolutely astounding. Nobody has been held responsible for this. No company has been prosecuted.
And that has added complications because the provider of the cladding, Arconic, who were in the Hackitt review, haven't been banned by the government. There's still a supply to the government, as far as I can tell. Answers to me indicate that they are still supplying. And the government's answer to that, and no doubt rooted in some legal advice, is that they can't be banned because it's subjudice. And if they were banned, that would have an effect on the possible prosecutions, which aren't happening.
So the whole thing is circular. And I have to say, it hasn't stopped the Kensington, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea putting them on a list. So they're not used there. So I encourage the government to ban them. It seems to me I'm you know, that's what needs to be done. And in terms of their liability, they have been held liable in damages. They've come forward or their insurers have and they have paid some compensation. But at the same time, shareholders are doing very well out of it.
They've been paid massive dividends. And I'm a capitalist. I think we all are in favour of a market economy, but it only works if people are held responsible for what they're doing. And that hasn't happened. And I encourage the Minister, and I certainly don't blame her. She's new in post now, nor do I blame the government. It's successive governments, but it really does need tackling. And something needs to be done on this because justice delayed is justice denied, as we all know.
And there's, as I say, that outstanding issue of no prosecutions after ten years and memories fade, witnesses die, victims die. This really does. This really does need tackling. So the government they're they're the people who can put this right, need to need to do something about that. But in the meantime, I'm strongly in favour of this legislation. As I as I say, there is much detail that needs to be looked at as it as it moves forward. But I'm sure we're all behind the principle of the legislation and need to look to the detail, either in this legislation or the government's proposed legislation, to make sure that we draw an end to this, for the for the victims of Grenfell, and make sure that they feel satisfied that we've done something about it and for the future that no future Grenfell has dealt with in the same way that this one has been.
10:44
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
Yes. >> My Lords Baroness Brinton, he's participating remotely, and I invite Baroness Brinton to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite Baroness Brinton to speak. My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Pinnock on presenting her Lady Pinnock on presenting her private member's bill. Leaseholder remediation, Building Safety Bill to your Lordships House, and it's a vital tool in remedying the remaining outstanding issues arising from the failures that led to the Grenfell Tower fire and many other fires over many years. But I also want to thank her for her determined campaign over the years to resolve the issues for leaseholders, not just in your Lordships House, but broadly across the country and working with the leaseholder groups.
I declare my interest as a vice chair of the all party Fire Safety and Rescue Group. Lady Pinnock's Bill stands as a reminder of the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, in which 72 died, 70 were injured and 223 escaped, and also the Lack and Hull House fire of 2009, in which six died and 20 were injured, and survivors whose lives were all irrevocably changed. And as others have already said, thousands of buildings remain unsafe and that government funding only covers the replacement of cladding.
Lord Bourne, of Aberystwyth, rightly said just now that the criminal liability following the Grenfell Tower has not been resolved and this must continue to be a priority for the Met Police. I understand that there are still a large number of open cases which should be encouraging, but I hope that they include manufacturers of construction products to. I want to focus on how this bill clarifies and strengthens where responsibilities sit, especially for leaseholders who have, through no fault of their own, been severely let down by the state for not closing loopholes and to the failures in the builders and housing sector.
And my Lords, it is needed because despite many reports, reviews including acts of Parliament such as the Building Safety Bill of Building Safety Act, Beg Your Pardon of 2022 and Building standard safety instruments, Statutory Instruments. The developers and builders are still refusing to shoulder the responsibility for their failings or for their suppliers and subcontractors, and expecting everyone else to do so, including leaseholders who are not just faced with inexplicable bills for failures by others. But because of that, their flats are mortgageable, unsellable and unelectable.
It is an absolute scandal and it is extraordinary that it requires a private member's bill to remedy the issue. Given that the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Hackett report made it clear how standards need to change urgently, and who was responsible. It's worth remembering that the problems uncovered after Grenfell included cladding panels on the outside of the building that were not appropriately fireproofed but were sold as such, and which contractors put up on the building, some of which were not inspected properly.
There is no doubt that this was against regulations, and the Judith Hackitt report exposed many other breaches of regulation, not just at Grenfell, but as more buildings were checked post Grenfell across buildings recently built or recently renovated, scandals have been uncovered across the country. In one tower block, a whistleblower reported that the week before a fire inspection, all the fire doors by the stairs on each floor were removed and replaced by approved ones. And a few days after the inspection, the new ones were removed and the old ones were returned.
This wasn't a few pockets of bad practice. This was illegal practice. In order to save money. Illegal practice that could cost the lives of residents in the event of a fire, as happened at Grenfell. The last conservative government believed that the Building Safety Act remedied the legal loopholes loopholes. But as my noble friend Lady Thornhill and others have said, it excludes buildings below 11m in height, as if they never catch fire, as if illegal cladding is safer at a lower level, the Grenfell Tower fire started on the fourth floor and was immediately dangerous at that level and above.
Lady Thornhill also listed the other building defects not covered by the BSA, of which there are many. We need to face up to the fact that the remediation work on the 4000 plus buildings over 11m is still nowhere near complete, but under 11m is where thousands of leaseholders are still caught in a catch 22, with unsafe blocks of flat with non-compliant ACM cladding. Developers insisting that leaseholders should pay rather than those that actually put up the illegal cladding.
And Lady Pennock's bill addresses these points and puts the responsibility where it lies back with those developer and construction companies, this bill clearly sets out the liability and recovery arrangements, remediation obligations, the responsible parties and contractual arrangements. Lady Pinnock and others outlined the appalling effect this remediation crisis has had on leaseholders who have watched their flats lose substantial value. So many are now in negative equity as well as a sale market. Sales market that's just stultified. Some leaseholders are also being asked to pay for 24 hour fire watch on their building, even though it's clear that the responsibility for the defective work that has made their building unsafe should be the responsibility of the developer or the contractor.
And this bill remedies that. The other problem is that it is evident that in many cases, there are still no real deadlines or timelines for making homes safe. The G 15 organisation representing the largest housing associations in and around Greater London, say that it will take them up until 2036 to complete all their remediations. Nearly two decades after the dreadful fire at Grenfell Tower. But other owners of large amounts of housing aren't even saying when their work will be completed.
And I say to the Minister, if the government doesn't accept Lady Pinnock's bill, the current slew of lawfare will continue and possibly grow. And the courts have already had a number of cases in Urs Corporation Limited versus b w trading. A developer sought to recover the costs of remedial work undertaken to address the structural defects in residential development. This, my Lords, was in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rightly disagreed. My noble friend Lady Pinnock referred to the massive hike in insurance costs for leaseholders in Tobias versus Grosvenor freeholds, the central.
At a first tier tribunal in which a landlord had the benefit of an insurance backed scheme which could have provided a route to remediation costs. And the tribunal said that the availability of insurance did not take away the responsibility. Under a statutory regime of remediation of defects. So one party was saying they didn't need to pay as the other party had insurance, even though the responsibility was clearly theirs. This bill provides the clarity about that responsibility. I cited very briefly these cases to illustrate a key point.
My Lords, nine years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, some parts of the industry are still trying to get out of their responsibilities, especially financial, often leaving leaseholders in the firing line. My Lords, this short, clear bill closes many of the legal and contractual responsibilities which will resolve the issues for leaseholders of today and tomorrow and ensure that developers, builders, contractors, housing bodies must take responsibility for their roles under law and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the government will provide the justice that leaseholders deserve and agree to leaseholders deserve and agree to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the progress of this bill. My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate today in the place of Lord Jamieson and Baroness Mone Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. And just for today, I should add, and I too welcome the noble Lady, the Minister, to her place. And I would just also like place. And I would just also like to pay tribute to Baroness Pinnock.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite Baroness Brinton to speak. My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Pinnock on presenting her Lady Pinnock on presenting her private member's bill. Leaseholder remediation, Building Safety Bill to your Lordships House, and it's a vital tool in remedying the remaining outstanding issues arising from the failures that led to the Grenfell Tower fire and many other fires over many years. But I also want to thank her for her determined campaign over the years to resolve the issues for leaseholders, not just in your Lordships House, but broadly across the country and working with the leaseholder groups.
I declare my interest as a vice chair of the all party Fire Safety and Rescue Group. Lady Pinnock's Bill stands as a reminder of the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, in which 72 died, 70 were injured and 223 escaped, and also the Lack and Hull House fire of 2009, in which six died and 20 were injured, and survivors whose lives were all irrevocably changed. And as others have already said, thousands of buildings remain unsafe and that government funding only covers the replacement of cladding.
Lord Bourne, of Aberystwyth, rightly said just now that the criminal liability following the Grenfell Tower has not been resolved and this must continue to be a priority for the Met Police. I understand that there are still a large number of open cases which should be encouraging, but I hope that they include manufacturers of construction products to. I want to focus on how this bill clarifies and strengthens where responsibilities sit, especially for leaseholders who have, through no fault of their own, been severely let down by the state for not closing loopholes and to the failures in the builders and housing sector.
And my Lords, it is needed because despite many reports, reviews including acts of Parliament such as the Building Safety Bill of Building Safety Act, Beg Your Pardon of 2022 and Building standard safety instruments, Statutory Instruments. The developers and builders are still refusing to shoulder the responsibility for their failings or for their suppliers and subcontractors, and expecting everyone else to do so, including leaseholders who are not just faced with inexplicable bills for failures by others. But because of that, their flats are mortgageable, unsellable and unelectable.
It is an absolute scandal and it is extraordinary that it requires a private member's bill to remedy the issue. Given that the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Hackett report made it clear how standards need to change urgently, and who was responsible. It's worth remembering that the problems uncovered after Grenfell included cladding panels on the outside of the building that were not appropriately fireproofed but were sold as such, and which contractors put up on the building, some of which were not inspected properly.
There is no doubt that this was against regulations, and the Judith Hackitt report exposed many other breaches of regulation, not just at Grenfell, but as more buildings were checked post Grenfell across buildings recently built or recently renovated, scandals have been uncovered across the country. In one tower block, a whistleblower reported that the week before a fire inspection, all the fire doors by the stairs on each floor were removed and replaced by approved ones. And a few days after the inspection, the new ones were removed and the old ones were returned.
This wasn't a few pockets of bad practice. This was illegal practice. In order to save money. Illegal practice that could cost the lives of residents in the event of a fire, as happened at Grenfell. The last conservative government believed that the Building Safety Act remedied the legal loopholes loopholes. But as my noble friend Lady Thornhill and others have said, it excludes buildings below 11m in height, as if they never catch fire, as if illegal cladding is safer at a lower level, the Grenfell Tower fire started on the fourth floor and was immediately dangerous at that level and above.
Lady Thornhill also listed the other building defects not covered by the BSA, of which there are many. We need to face up to the fact that the remediation work on the 4000 plus buildings over 11m is still nowhere near complete, but under 11m is where thousands of leaseholders are still caught in a catch 22, with unsafe blocks of flat with non-compliant ACM cladding. Developers insisting that leaseholders should pay rather than those that actually put up the illegal cladding.
And Lady Pennock's bill addresses these points and puts the responsibility where it lies back with those developer and construction companies, this bill clearly sets out the liability and recovery arrangements, remediation obligations, the responsible parties and contractual arrangements. Lady Pinnock and others outlined the appalling effect this remediation crisis has had on leaseholders who have watched their flats lose substantial value. So many are now in negative equity as well as a sale market. Sales market that's just stultified. Some leaseholders are also being asked to pay for 24 hour fire watch on their building, even though it's clear that the responsibility for the defective work that has made their building unsafe should be the responsibility of the developer or the contractor.
And this bill remedies that. The other problem is that it is evident that in many cases, there are still no real deadlines or timelines for making homes safe. The G 15 organisation representing the largest housing associations in and around Greater London, say that it will take them up until 2036 to complete all their remediations. Nearly two decades after the dreadful fire at Grenfell Tower. But other owners of large amounts of housing aren't even saying when their work will be completed.
And I say to the Minister, if the government doesn't accept Lady Pinnock's bill, the current slew of lawfare will continue and possibly grow. And the courts have already had a number of cases in Urs Corporation Limited versus b w trading. A developer sought to recover the costs of remedial work undertaken to address the structural defects in residential development. This, my Lords, was in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rightly disagreed. My noble friend Lady Pinnock referred to the massive hike in insurance costs for leaseholders in Tobias versus Grosvenor freeholds, the central.
At a first tier tribunal in which a landlord had the benefit of an insurance backed scheme which could have provided a route to remediation costs. And the tribunal said that the availability of insurance did not take away the responsibility. Under a statutory regime of remediation of defects. So one party was saying they didn't need to pay as the other party had insurance, even though the responsibility was clearly theirs. This bill provides the clarity about that responsibility. I cited very briefly these cases to illustrate a key point.
My Lords, nine years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, some parts of the industry are still trying to get out of their responsibilities, especially financial, often leaving leaseholders in the firing line. My Lords, this short, clear bill closes many of the legal and contractual responsibilities which will resolve the issues for leaseholders of today and tomorrow and ensure that developers, builders, contractors, housing bodies must take responsibility for their roles under law and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the government will provide the justice that leaseholders deserve and agree to leaseholders deserve and agree to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the progress of this bill. My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate today in the place of Lord Jamieson and Baroness Mone Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. And just for today, I should add, and I too welcome the noble Lady, the Minister, to her place. And I would just also like place. And I would just also like to pay tribute to Baroness Pinnock.
10:53
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
to pay tribute to Baroness Pinnock. We speak often on our third floor, and she has spoken out tirelessly and from the heart on these matters for a very long time, and it really is a very long time, for the house knows only too well why we are here. More than nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the consequences of systemic building failures are still being felt across the country. The Public Accounts Committee estimates that up to 3 million people may have been affected by the cladding crisis as of this year, and as we have heard from Baroness Pinnock, between 5900 and 7400 residential buildings of at least 11m in height have or had unsafe cladding requiring work, yet only 38% have completed remediation, 16% have started.
But the truly appalling figure, 47% have not begun at all. My Lords, this is clearly not good enough, and I think we'd like to accept from these benches this is an issue that successive governments have struggled with. But we also have to accept that this is not progress. With many thousands of residents and leaseholders living in unsafe or unsaleable homes. We therefore welcome the intention behind this bill, which seeks to extend protections, impose enforceable duties on freeholders and developers, and give leaseholders meaningful routes to secure remediation when others fail to act.
My Lords, we agree that leaseholders must be protected and the pace of remediation must accelerate dramatically. However, the bill does raise some significant questions. Firstly, on scope, the bill applies to any residential building containing one or more leasehold properties with no minimum height or storey threshold. As we have heard, many speakers have spoken about the benefit of this. But my Lords, does the government know how many additional buildings this would bring into scope? And does it have an assessment of the cost implications, and does it have a plan to ensure that the system can cope with the increased case load? Which brings me to enforcement.
The bill substantially expands the powers of the building safety regulator, but the building safety regulator is already under intense pressure over significant backlogs and regulatory delays. I think we should say that under the stewardship of the law of Lord Roe of West Wickham, decision rates are showing signs of improvement and new turnaround targets have been set. But in this context, there is a question as to whether it is wise to increase the regulator's powers further at this point, or would the government ensure that the regulator has the capacity to administer the expanded responsibilities this bill would create? Thirdly, the government's own housing targets Ministers have pledged to build 1.5 million homes in this parliament.
Yet last year only 208, 600, 208,600 net additional properties were delivered a fall from the previous year. On current trends, the government is on course to miss its target by 400 000 homes. My Lords, what assessment has been made of the impact of this bill on housing supply? My Lords, leaseholders should not bear the cost of historic failures. They did not create. The previous conservative government established that principle through the Building Safety Act, remediation orders, contribution orders and the Responsible Actors Scheme.
Over 50 developers signed the Building Safety Repair Repair Repairs pledge. Yet progress has been and remains far too slow, as we have said, because let's not forget that behind every statistic is a family living with fear, uncertainty and financial strain. People unable to sell their homes, people facing unaffordable insurance premiums, people receiving service charge demands they cannot pay. I think, as everybody has said in this chamber, people who have done nothing wrong, who have done everything right, saved, brought responsibility and bought responsibly, invested in their future, only to find themselves trapped by failures they did not cause.
This bill seeks to address those failures, and we on these benches support its aims. And on a personal note and echoing Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, I really do applaud the inclusion of manufacturers for the first time. But as His Majesty's opposition, we will scrutinise its implications carefully and hope that the government will do the same. Because I think we can all agree that leaseholders deserve clarity, competence and urgency, not another cycle of delay. And so we must be sure that this legislation would deliver the protection, accountability and acceleration that has eluded us all for far too long.
And if it is not this legislation that the government's own legislation will properly address the wrongs that Baroness Pinnock bill seeks to put right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to thank the the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this private member's Bill to the House on all these important issues, and can I thank all those who have contributed for their very contributed for their very thoughtful and sensitive contributions? The tragedy of the contributions? The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which of course claimed 72 lives, was a profound failure that should never profound failure that should never have happened. And we must ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are
But the truly appalling figure, 47% have not begun at all. My Lords, this is clearly not good enough, and I think we'd like to accept from these benches this is an issue that successive governments have struggled with. But we also have to accept that this is not progress. With many thousands of residents and leaseholders living in unsafe or unsaleable homes. We therefore welcome the intention behind this bill, which seeks to extend protections, impose enforceable duties on freeholders and developers, and give leaseholders meaningful routes to secure remediation when others fail to act.
My Lords, we agree that leaseholders must be protected and the pace of remediation must accelerate dramatically. However, the bill does raise some significant questions. Firstly, on scope, the bill applies to any residential building containing one or more leasehold properties with no minimum height or storey threshold. As we have heard, many speakers have spoken about the benefit of this. But my Lords, does the government know how many additional buildings this would bring into scope? And does it have an assessment of the cost implications, and does it have a plan to ensure that the system can cope with the increased case load? Which brings me to enforcement.
The bill substantially expands the powers of the building safety regulator, but the building safety regulator is already under intense pressure over significant backlogs and regulatory delays. I think we should say that under the stewardship of the law of Lord Roe of West Wickham, decision rates are showing signs of improvement and new turnaround targets have been set. But in this context, there is a question as to whether it is wise to increase the regulator's powers further at this point, or would the government ensure that the regulator has the capacity to administer the expanded responsibilities this bill would create? Thirdly, the government's own housing targets Ministers have pledged to build 1.5 million homes in this parliament.
Yet last year only 208, 600, 208,600 net additional properties were delivered a fall from the previous year. On current trends, the government is on course to miss its target by 400 000 homes. My Lords, what assessment has been made of the impact of this bill on housing supply? My Lords, leaseholders should not bear the cost of historic failures. They did not create. The previous conservative government established that principle through the Building Safety Act, remediation orders, contribution orders and the Responsible Actors Scheme.
Over 50 developers signed the Building Safety Repair Repair Repairs pledge. Yet progress has been and remains far too slow, as we have said, because let's not forget that behind every statistic is a family living with fear, uncertainty and financial strain. People unable to sell their homes, people facing unaffordable insurance premiums, people receiving service charge demands they cannot pay. I think, as everybody has said in this chamber, people who have done nothing wrong, who have done everything right, saved, brought responsibility and bought responsibly, invested in their future, only to find themselves trapped by failures they did not cause.
This bill seeks to address those failures, and we on these benches support its aims. And on a personal note and echoing Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, I really do applaud the inclusion of manufacturers for the first time. But as His Majesty's opposition, we will scrutinise its implications carefully and hope that the government will do the same. Because I think we can all agree that leaseholders deserve clarity, competence and urgency, not another cycle of delay. And so we must be sure that this legislation would deliver the protection, accountability and acceleration that has eluded us all for far too long.
And if it is not this legislation that the government's own legislation will properly address the wrongs that Baroness Pinnock bill seeks to put right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to thank the the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this private member's Bill to the House on all these important issues, and can I thank all those who have contributed for their very contributed for their very thoughtful and sensitive contributions? The tragedy of the contributions? The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which of course claimed 72 lives, was a profound failure that should never profound failure that should never have happened. And we must ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are
10:59
Baroness Blake of Leeds, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blake of Leeds, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
learned. It is right that all those affected are at the forefront of our thoughts while while dealing our thoughts while while dealing with the issues before us, I. I have to start by being completely have to start by being completely open and honest. I completely share the concerns of noble Lords about the concerns of noble Lords about the ongoing cladding safety crisis. Over 4000 buildings have been Over 4000 buildings have been identified, as we've heard, as requiring remediation, and too many residents still face uncertainty about their homes and their finances.
As a result, this crisis continues to leave people stuck in unsuitable homes. Whilst some of those responsible have yet to contribute towards the costs. As we've heard throughout this, the discussions, that is why the government has committed in our manifesto to accelerating remediation, making those responsible pay and better protecting leaseholders from costs through the Remediation Acceleration Plan. While the government shares the noble Baroness objectives. The question before us is not one of intent, but of whether the mechanisms proposed in this bill are the right means of achieving these objectives.
The government's position is that they are not. Some proposals in the Bill could create worse outcomes for people affected. For example, the noble Baroness Bill seeks to prevent leaseholders from contributing towards remediation costs in all circumstances, as put forward in clauses 1 to 5. While this is an understandable ambition, it risks creating significant legal and practical challenges. A blanket prohibition is likely to give rise to delays due to concerns around property rights and risks. Greater uncertainty over how remediation remediation will be financed.
This proposal also overlaps with existing leaseholder protections established by the Building Safety Act 2022, creating uncertainty about how the different statutory schemes interact. So whilst the government shares the objective of further protecting leaseholders from costs, we do not believe the blanket approach is appropriate. And with reference to the noble Lord, Lord young, the government is considering how we can go further to protect leaseholders from current and future building safety issues, particularly groups not covered by existing protections.
There are proposals in this bill that have already been delivered through changes made since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. For example, we share the noble Baroness ambition that developers should be strongly incentivised to remediate. As proposed in clause 11, the previous government, and full credit to them, introduced the Responsible Actors Scheme in the Building Safety Act, which led 53 developers to sign a contract with government to remediate or pay to remediate over 2600 buildings at a cost to themselves of around £4.2 billion.
Any developer that has signed that contract and fails to meet its remediation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Obligations. Faces severe commercial consequences. We are commercial consequences. We are also concerned that clause 11 could have significant unintended have significant unintended consequences. In practice, it could prevent developers with outstanding remediation liabilities from remediation liabilities from building new homes until defects defects have been remediated and defects have been remediated and funded. And as has been outlined by Baroness Fox and Baroness Sanderson, this risks reducing housing supply and undermining the resources available to support remediation itself.
The government also recognises the proposals to strengthen enforcement in clauses seven, eight and 17, and we strongly agree to all those who have raised this point and Lord born in particular, that construction product manufacturers should play their part in meeting the costs of remediating unsafe buildings where their products have played a part in making buildings unsafe. As highlighted in clause 12 in the noble Baroness Bill, while we share these objectives, we do not consider the approach that those approaches would most effectively achieve her desired outcomes.
Which brings me to the forthcoming remediation Bill. The government will be seeking to address these issues through legislation and wider work within the department, and, of course, a specific response to Lord Leong when parliamentary time allows. The objectives of this bill are fulfilled. First, we will create certainty over which buildings require cladding, remediation and the standard to which this remediation must be completed. Second, the bill will give regulators the powers they need to hold blockers to account, ensuring those responsible for addressing failures do so more quickly.
Third, we will strengthen the law so that construction product manufacturers, as I've said, can be held to account, and those who have paid remediation have a clearer route to recover their costs. Finally, the bill will ensure all residents have a route to cladding remediation, even where responsible entities fail, disappear or refuse to act. So whilst I thank the noble Baroness Goudie for bringing attention to so many important matters, our focus is on delivering solutions through the existing framework and the remediation Bill.
Just very briefly, there is enormous concern from across the House about the buildings under 11m. I want to reassure the House that we have launched new funding, delivered through an extension of the Cladding Safety Scheme, providing access to funding for remediation of unsafe cladding on a number of multi occupied residential buildings under 11m in England. This will be prioritised towards high risk buildings, focusing those on with the most serious cladding and fire defects. In terms of leasehold protections, those responsible for historic building safety defects must pay for them.
And and again, we are very mindful of the regime established by the Building Safety Act. And we have to make sure we strike a careful balance between the rights of all parties. And we have to recognise that some freeholders have no connection to the original defects in terms of internal defects. All leaseholders can access support for cladding remediation. Most leaseholders cannot be charged for internal building safety defects through their service charge. Beyond specified annual caps. And obviously, there is has been enormous concern expressed about the wider leasehold system reform.
I don't have time to go into that, but of course it will be an issue that we pick up very, very seriously as we go forward. The and I cannot emphasise enough the the need for construction product manufacturers redress. I don't think there has been a single contribution towards the. The work so far from that avenue. So I think my time is coming to an end. And of my time is coming to an end. And of course, I just would like to stress that we do share.
And we've had a conversation about this. We do share the ambitions and the concerns, but we are determined to find the most deliverable way of delivering on the objectives. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to begin discussing this with noble Lords. I hope she will understand that the government are unable to support the Bill, but I do respectfully look forward to engaging with noble Lords from across the House as we take these important measures forward, and particularly when the remediation bill is published.
As a result, this crisis continues to leave people stuck in unsuitable homes. Whilst some of those responsible have yet to contribute towards the costs. As we've heard throughout this, the discussions, that is why the government has committed in our manifesto to accelerating remediation, making those responsible pay and better protecting leaseholders from costs through the Remediation Acceleration Plan. While the government shares the noble Baroness objectives. The question before us is not one of intent, but of whether the mechanisms proposed in this bill are the right means of achieving these objectives.
The government's position is that they are not. Some proposals in the Bill could create worse outcomes for people affected. For example, the noble Baroness Bill seeks to prevent leaseholders from contributing towards remediation costs in all circumstances, as put forward in clauses 1 to 5. While this is an understandable ambition, it risks creating significant legal and practical challenges. A blanket prohibition is likely to give rise to delays due to concerns around property rights and risks. Greater uncertainty over how remediation remediation will be financed.
This proposal also overlaps with existing leaseholder protections established by the Building Safety Act 2022, creating uncertainty about how the different statutory schemes interact. So whilst the government shares the objective of further protecting leaseholders from costs, we do not believe the blanket approach is appropriate. And with reference to the noble Lord, Lord young, the government is considering how we can go further to protect leaseholders from current and future building safety issues, particularly groups not covered by existing protections.
There are proposals in this bill that have already been delivered through changes made since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. For example, we share the noble Baroness ambition that developers should be strongly incentivised to remediate. As proposed in clause 11, the previous government, and full credit to them, introduced the Responsible Actors Scheme in the Building Safety Act, which led 53 developers to sign a contract with government to remediate or pay to remediate over 2600 buildings at a cost to themselves of around £4.2 billion.
Any developer that has signed that contract and fails to meet its remediation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Obligations. Faces severe commercial consequences. We are commercial consequences. We are also concerned that clause 11 could have significant unintended have significant unintended consequences. In practice, it could prevent developers with outstanding remediation liabilities from remediation liabilities from building new homes until defects defects have been remediated and defects have been remediated and funded. And as has been outlined by Baroness Fox and Baroness Sanderson, this risks reducing housing supply and undermining the resources available to support remediation itself.
The government also recognises the proposals to strengthen enforcement in clauses seven, eight and 17, and we strongly agree to all those who have raised this point and Lord born in particular, that construction product manufacturers should play their part in meeting the costs of remediating unsafe buildings where their products have played a part in making buildings unsafe. As highlighted in clause 12 in the noble Baroness Bill, while we share these objectives, we do not consider the approach that those approaches would most effectively achieve her desired outcomes.
Which brings me to the forthcoming remediation Bill. The government will be seeking to address these issues through legislation and wider work within the department, and, of course, a specific response to Lord Leong when parliamentary time allows. The objectives of this bill are fulfilled. First, we will create certainty over which buildings require cladding, remediation and the standard to which this remediation must be completed. Second, the bill will give regulators the powers they need to hold blockers to account, ensuring those responsible for addressing failures do so more quickly.
Third, we will strengthen the law so that construction product manufacturers, as I've said, can be held to account, and those who have paid remediation have a clearer route to recover their costs. Finally, the bill will ensure all residents have a route to cladding remediation, even where responsible entities fail, disappear or refuse to act. So whilst I thank the noble Baroness Goudie for bringing attention to so many important matters, our focus is on delivering solutions through the existing framework and the remediation Bill.
Just very briefly, there is enormous concern from across the House about the buildings under 11m. I want to reassure the House that we have launched new funding, delivered through an extension of the Cladding Safety Scheme, providing access to funding for remediation of unsafe cladding on a number of multi occupied residential buildings under 11m in England. This will be prioritised towards high risk buildings, focusing those on with the most serious cladding and fire defects. In terms of leasehold protections, those responsible for historic building safety defects must pay for them.
And and again, we are very mindful of the regime established by the Building Safety Act. And we have to make sure we strike a careful balance between the rights of all parties. And we have to recognise that some freeholders have no connection to the original defects in terms of internal defects. All leaseholders can access support for cladding remediation. Most leaseholders cannot be charged for internal building safety defects through their service charge. Beyond specified annual caps. And obviously, there is has been enormous concern expressed about the wider leasehold system reform.
I don't have time to go into that, but of course it will be an issue that we pick up very, very seriously as we go forward. The and I cannot emphasise enough the the need for construction product manufacturers redress. I don't think there has been a single contribution towards the. The work so far from that avenue. So I think my time is coming to an end. And of my time is coming to an end. And of course, I just would like to stress that we do share.
And we've had a conversation about this. We do share the ambitions and the concerns, but we are determined to find the most deliverable way of delivering on the objectives. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to begin discussing this with noble Lords. I hope she will understand that the government are unable to support the Bill, but I do respectfully look forward to engaging with noble Lords from across the House as we take these important measures forward, and particularly when the remediation bill is published.
11:08
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
I would like to thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and for the wide, in fact, unanimous support, certainly in principle, if support, certainly in principle, if not in practice, from all those who have contributed. I have deliberately in what I've said and in the Bill, not pointed the finger of responsibility or blame at any particular government. That's not what this is about. This is about seeking to get justice for leaseholders. And it is a difficult issue.
It complicated, but at the end, what we what this House and this government needs to do with support from across the House, is to finally address the issues in favour of leaseholders. So I thank very much for the noble Lord young for his expertise that he has again shared, including what the opposition now government said at the time about the importance of finally nailing this issue. I thank the noble Lord Vaughan for an issue that I feel very strongly about, that the manufacturers have so far evaded responsibility, and if that doesn't come through the courts, it's got to come through this.
The Parliament. And so we look forward to seeing whether there are criminal prosecutions brought to the noble Baroness Fox. Now, I like being radical. The challenge he gave of, well, if you do this to the the building sector, they will not have the capacity to build the new homes. We need. So my challenge back is this. Oh, by the way, that you quoted described the bill as powerful. That'll do. And the challenge I would give is this if any other industry.
Let's take the car industry. Whenever there is a systemic problem, brakes or something, they they call them in, deal with it, face the consequences, sometimes in billions of pounds and do it quickly. And people's homes, ten years on. And we're still saying we're still protecting or seeking to protect the building industry and others. I thank the noble Baroness Thornhill for her, her praise. I've I don't think I deserve that. And Baroness Brinton, for pointing out some of the legal issues that are now coming.
So I'm just sorry that the government and the opposition have been a bit lukewarm in saying, yeah, we agree, but we don't agree. Look, all I want is for this issue to be finally dealt with properly in favour of leaseholders. That's what I want. And I shall continue raising in this House on that score. So I've got these words, my Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Yes. Oh, oh, have I done this wrong? What have I got to do? I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, you need to move to the read a second time. If that's agreed, then commit a Committee of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the whole House. I beg to move that this film be now read a second time. Great.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Great. Is that this bill be now read a second time, as many as are of that opinion to say content to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion to say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My moment. My Lords, I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My moment. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as of that opinion will say many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it, my Lords, we'll just have a moment for I I think probably the moment may have passed. Second Reading of the Creative Education Access Bill Baroness Featherstone.
It complicated, but at the end, what we what this House and this government needs to do with support from across the House, is to finally address the issues in favour of leaseholders. So I thank very much for the noble Lord young for his expertise that he has again shared, including what the opposition now government said at the time about the importance of finally nailing this issue. I thank the noble Lord Vaughan for an issue that I feel very strongly about, that the manufacturers have so far evaded responsibility, and if that doesn't come through the courts, it's got to come through this.
The Parliament. And so we look forward to seeing whether there are criminal prosecutions brought to the noble Baroness Fox. Now, I like being radical. The challenge he gave of, well, if you do this to the the building sector, they will not have the capacity to build the new homes. We need. So my challenge back is this. Oh, by the way, that you quoted described the bill as powerful. That'll do. And the challenge I would give is this if any other industry.
Let's take the car industry. Whenever there is a systemic problem, brakes or something, they they call them in, deal with it, face the consequences, sometimes in billions of pounds and do it quickly. And people's homes, ten years on. And we're still saying we're still protecting or seeking to protect the building industry and others. I thank the noble Baroness Thornhill for her, her praise. I've I don't think I deserve that. And Baroness Brinton, for pointing out some of the legal issues that are now coming.
So I'm just sorry that the government and the opposition have been a bit lukewarm in saying, yeah, we agree, but we don't agree. Look, all I want is for this issue to be finally dealt with properly in favour of leaseholders. That's what I want. And I shall continue raising in this House on that score. So I've got these words, my Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Yes. Oh, oh, have I done this wrong? What have I got to do? I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, you need to move to the read a second time. If that's agreed, then commit a Committee of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the whole House. I beg to move that this film be now read a second time. Great.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Great. Is that this bill be now read a second time, as many as are of that opinion to say content to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion to say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My moment. My Lords, I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My moment. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as of that opinion will say many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it, my Lords, we'll just have a moment for I I think probably the moment may have passed. Second Reading of the Creative Education Access Bill Baroness Featherstone.
11:14
Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
her all the very best. A gentle start. I hope, my Lords, this Bill start. I hope, my Lords, this Bill has the support of many organisations, and I give thanks to the Cultural Learning Alliance, the the Cultural Learning Alliance, the National Society for education in Art and design, the National Theatre, the Independent Society of Musicians, Arts and Minds, the Independent Schools Council, the Independent Schools Council, the National Education Union, amongst many others. So for far too long, creative education has been treated as an optional extra in our schools, a luxury to be squeezed in when time and budgets allow.
And yet, creativity is not just some sort of enrichment activity. It is a fundamental human capacity and one of the defining strengths of the British economy. And by creative education I mean music, art, drama, dance, creative writing, design, film, digital media, as well as newer areas such as gaming and other forms of creative technology. These subjects matter in their own right, but they also help develop, help children develop, you know, confidence, imagination, communication, collaboration, and problem solving.
And they give children the chance to actually make things, to perform, to experiment, to take risks, and to find out what they are capable of. And for some children, that can be particularly important because a child who struggles in one part of school life can discover through music and drama and dance and art and design that they are good at something. And that discovery can affect how they see themselves and how they approach literally the rest of their lives. Now, in too many schools, creative subjects have come under pressure from crowded timetables, accountability measures, financial constraints and the misguided view that creativity is a nice to have.
My Lords, there is another hugely important challenge. There is deep, deep inequality in this country. Depending on wealth or location. And so often where there is a creative deficit, families who can pay for music lessons and dance classes and theatre trips and art materials or other opportunities outside of school. Of course they do. Or they send their children to private school when that provision is is regarded as truly important. But many cannot. And for those children, school may be the only place where they get the chance to pick up an instrument, perform paint design, write creatively or experience live theatre, dance or music.
And that is why access matters so much. A child's opportunity to discover and develop a creative ability should never, ever depend on their parents income, where they live or which school they happen to attend. Now, the cultural and the Cultural Learning Alliance found that almost half of teachers in independent primary schools report more than 2.5 hours of art teaching a week. But in state primaries, only 6% do. That is a gap that is totally unacceptable and we must not ignore.
And at Key Stage three, the overall direction is a loss of curriculum time for creative subjects. And that decline is reflected in the teaching workforce. The Cultural Learning Alliance also found that while the overall secondary teacher workforce grew by nearly 7% between 2011 and 2023, the number of teachers in expressive arts subjects fell by 27% 27%. In design and technology, the fall was more than half, and in drama, more than a fifth. We have to make sure that we have the teachers with the skills and confidence to teach it.
So the five hours a week this bill proposes at key stages one and two and four hours at Key Stage three are deliberately ambitious and are intended to give creative education its proper place in the school week, rather than leaving it to compete for whatever time is left over. Of course, I'm not suggesting that every school should deliver those hours in exactly the same way. Schools obviously need flexibility, and there will be different ways of providing a strong, strong creative education.
But there must be protected space for that. The bill also provides for a creative access guarantee, financial assistance, inspection, partnerships with the creative sector and better information about creative careers and apprenticeships. Those wider provisions are important because creative education is not just about what happens in the classroom, and we are so, so very fortunate in this country to have an extraordinary range of theatres and galleries and museums, orchestras, dance companies, film makers, designers, artists, games companies and other creative organisations.
There needs to be much, much stronger links between those organisations and our schools. A visit to the theatre, to a gallery or concert or creative workplace can make an idea real for a child in a way that a classroom teaching alone cannot. And so many children do not come from backgrounds where they can get that any other way. And my Lords, there is also a powerful economic argument. The creative industries are one of the UK's major economic successes.
The latest government figures show that the creative industries contributed nearly 146 billion to the UK economy in 2024. That's around 5.5% of our total economic output and nearly seven times the contribution of the automotive manufacturing industry. And the creative industries grew more than four times as fast as the economy as a whole last year. And if this government is interested in growth, I suggest they do everything my bill says. This is already one of the bills, one of Britain's great economic strengths, and if we want it to remain so, we have to make sure that the next generation has the opportunity to develop the creativity and skills on which those industries depend.
And young people from every background need to see that creative careers are open to them, and to have the opportunity to develop the skills that those careers will require. But the case for creative education doesn't rest on jobs that it may lead to, because most children who learn music are not going to become musicians, and most who take part in the school play will not become actors. Although I used to do a lot of school plays, and they do say that politics is showbiz for ugly people.
That's what they say. Anyway. That's not the point. These subjects are a part of a rounded education and have a value in their own right. And right now we have even more challenges ahead of us. The world of work is changing quickly, particularly with the development of artificial intelligence and automation, and we don't really know for sure what many jobs are going to look like in 10 or 20 years time. If we're alive. The but imagination, originality. Yes. Sorry if no one knew that reference.
Sorry. It's just the prediction that there's a 10% chance that AI is going to kill us within the next ten years. Sorry, I assumed everyone keeps up with the news. But originality, imagination, adaptability, and the ability to make connections between different ideas are unlikely to become less important. Indeed, as AI becomes capable of producing words and images and music and ideas in seconds, there is a risk, and I would say a likelihood. Having read some things that AI has written, there is a risk that more and more of what we see and hear begins to look and sound the same.
Human originality will be at a premium, and I know that the government recognises many of these concerns, and there is already work underway on the curriculum and on improving access to creative subjects, and I welcome that. And I particularly welcome the government's decision to move away from the dreadful EBacc. So I'm kind of dovetailing with the government here, and I very much hope and trust that the government will see this bill as being very much in the same territory and as an opportunity to strengthen what the government themselves are trying to achieve.
But at a younger age, there will be questions, obviously, about the number of hours proposed, about resources, about inspection and implementation, and I'm open to those discussions. But obviously, the purpose of the Second Reading is to establish whether the principle of the bill is one that the House supports, and I hope that there will be broad agreement on the principle. Creative education should have a secure place in our schools, and every child should have the opportunity to discover what they can do.
My Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Second time. As many as are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry. No, I don't have to ask you. My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone on noble Lady Baroness Featherstone on her bill and on the way she opened this Second Reading debate. And I also welcome my noble friend, the also welcome my noble friend, the Minister, to her place. I look forward to her maiden speech today and to working with her. Last week we had a debate on the on the we had a debate on the on the government's priorities, and I focussed on creative education and on the importance of making changes to improve the uptake of music in our school, in our state schools.
Our Labour government inherited an education system in which the EBacc had squeezed music, education and other arts education from the
And yet, creativity is not just some sort of enrichment activity. It is a fundamental human capacity and one of the defining strengths of the British economy. And by creative education I mean music, art, drama, dance, creative writing, design, film, digital media, as well as newer areas such as gaming and other forms of creative technology. These subjects matter in their own right, but they also help develop, help children develop, you know, confidence, imagination, communication, collaboration, and problem solving.
And they give children the chance to actually make things, to perform, to experiment, to take risks, and to find out what they are capable of. And for some children, that can be particularly important because a child who struggles in one part of school life can discover through music and drama and dance and art and design that they are good at something. And that discovery can affect how they see themselves and how they approach literally the rest of their lives. Now, in too many schools, creative subjects have come under pressure from crowded timetables, accountability measures, financial constraints and the misguided view that creativity is a nice to have.
My Lords, there is another hugely important challenge. There is deep, deep inequality in this country. Depending on wealth or location. And so often where there is a creative deficit, families who can pay for music lessons and dance classes and theatre trips and art materials or other opportunities outside of school. Of course they do. Or they send their children to private school when that provision is is regarded as truly important. But many cannot. And for those children, school may be the only place where they get the chance to pick up an instrument, perform paint design, write creatively or experience live theatre, dance or music.
And that is why access matters so much. A child's opportunity to discover and develop a creative ability should never, ever depend on their parents income, where they live or which school they happen to attend. Now, the cultural and the Cultural Learning Alliance found that almost half of teachers in independent primary schools report more than 2.5 hours of art teaching a week. But in state primaries, only 6% do. That is a gap that is totally unacceptable and we must not ignore.
And at Key Stage three, the overall direction is a loss of curriculum time for creative subjects. And that decline is reflected in the teaching workforce. The Cultural Learning Alliance also found that while the overall secondary teacher workforce grew by nearly 7% between 2011 and 2023, the number of teachers in expressive arts subjects fell by 27% 27%. In design and technology, the fall was more than half, and in drama, more than a fifth. We have to make sure that we have the teachers with the skills and confidence to teach it.
So the five hours a week this bill proposes at key stages one and two and four hours at Key Stage three are deliberately ambitious and are intended to give creative education its proper place in the school week, rather than leaving it to compete for whatever time is left over. Of course, I'm not suggesting that every school should deliver those hours in exactly the same way. Schools obviously need flexibility, and there will be different ways of providing a strong, strong creative education.
But there must be protected space for that. The bill also provides for a creative access guarantee, financial assistance, inspection, partnerships with the creative sector and better information about creative careers and apprenticeships. Those wider provisions are important because creative education is not just about what happens in the classroom, and we are so, so very fortunate in this country to have an extraordinary range of theatres and galleries and museums, orchestras, dance companies, film makers, designers, artists, games companies and other creative organisations.
There needs to be much, much stronger links between those organisations and our schools. A visit to the theatre, to a gallery or concert or creative workplace can make an idea real for a child in a way that a classroom teaching alone cannot. And so many children do not come from backgrounds where they can get that any other way. And my Lords, there is also a powerful economic argument. The creative industries are one of the UK's major economic successes.
The latest government figures show that the creative industries contributed nearly 146 billion to the UK economy in 2024. That's around 5.5% of our total economic output and nearly seven times the contribution of the automotive manufacturing industry. And the creative industries grew more than four times as fast as the economy as a whole last year. And if this government is interested in growth, I suggest they do everything my bill says. This is already one of the bills, one of Britain's great economic strengths, and if we want it to remain so, we have to make sure that the next generation has the opportunity to develop the creativity and skills on which those industries depend.
And young people from every background need to see that creative careers are open to them, and to have the opportunity to develop the skills that those careers will require. But the case for creative education doesn't rest on jobs that it may lead to, because most children who learn music are not going to become musicians, and most who take part in the school play will not become actors. Although I used to do a lot of school plays, and they do say that politics is showbiz for ugly people.
That's what they say. Anyway. That's not the point. These subjects are a part of a rounded education and have a value in their own right. And right now we have even more challenges ahead of us. The world of work is changing quickly, particularly with the development of artificial intelligence and automation, and we don't really know for sure what many jobs are going to look like in 10 or 20 years time. If we're alive. The but imagination, originality. Yes. Sorry if no one knew that reference.
Sorry. It's just the prediction that there's a 10% chance that AI is going to kill us within the next ten years. Sorry, I assumed everyone keeps up with the news. But originality, imagination, adaptability, and the ability to make connections between different ideas are unlikely to become less important. Indeed, as AI becomes capable of producing words and images and music and ideas in seconds, there is a risk, and I would say a likelihood. Having read some things that AI has written, there is a risk that more and more of what we see and hear begins to look and sound the same.
Human originality will be at a premium, and I know that the government recognises many of these concerns, and there is already work underway on the curriculum and on improving access to creative subjects, and I welcome that. And I particularly welcome the government's decision to move away from the dreadful EBacc. So I'm kind of dovetailing with the government here, and I very much hope and trust that the government will see this bill as being very much in the same territory and as an opportunity to strengthen what the government themselves are trying to achieve.
But at a younger age, there will be questions, obviously, about the number of hours proposed, about resources, about inspection and implementation, and I'm open to those discussions. But obviously, the purpose of the Second Reading is to establish whether the principle of the bill is one that the House supports, and I hope that there will be broad agreement on the principle. Creative education should have a secure place in our schools, and every child should have the opportunity to discover what they can do.
My Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Second time. As many as are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry. No, I don't have to ask you. My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone on noble Lady Baroness Featherstone on her bill and on the way she opened this Second Reading debate. And I also welcome my noble friend, the also welcome my noble friend, the Minister, to her place. I look forward to her maiden speech today and to working with her. Last week we had a debate on the on the we had a debate on the on the government's priorities, and I focussed on creative education and on the importance of making changes to improve the uptake of music in our school, in our state schools.
Our Labour government inherited an education system in which the EBacc had squeezed music, education and other arts education from the
11:24
Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Keeley (Labour)
curriculum in music. This damaged both music teacher recruitment and retention and contributed to retention and contributed to declining GCSE and A-level entries. Recruitment targets for music teacher training were missed for 11 teacher training were missed for 11 out of 12 years, and the number of out of 12 years, and the number of music teachers fell by 850 between 2011 and 2023. Now A-level music remains in crisis. Entries have remains in crisis. Entries have fallen by 41% since 2013, to a record low of 4635 students, while GCSE music entries are around 27% lower than they were in 2010.
And this decline has not affected all young people equally. As the hon. Lady has said in her opening speech, music has one of the largest disadvantage attainment gaps of any subject. Schools in the most deprived fifth of local authorities are more likely to have no entries. In some arts. GCSE 54% of state schools in those areas have no GCSE music entries, compared with 21% in the least deprived authorities. And I do thank Professor Adam Whittaker of the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, and Doctor Anthony Anderson of Birmingham City University, for the research they do on disadvantaged related attainment, gaps in music education and providing briefings on it.
Their work found that in 18 local authorities, either only one school offered a music qualification, a level or vocational, or, in the worst cases, none in that area do, and the list of authorities includes Knowsley, Hartlepool, South Tyneside, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside, as well as four London boroughs. And I have to say, as a former Salford MP, it breaks my heart to see Salford local authority included in that list. Now, the Social Mobility Commission found that children from poorer backgrounds are three times less likely to learn an instrument, sing in a choir or play in an orchestra.
Recently I attended an event hosted by the excellent Royal Philharmonic Society, where three of our most gifted young musicians, Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Ben Goldscheider and Jess Gillam, discussed the state of music education and these musicians were worried that music education is not in a great place, he said. It's not what it was. Like many musicians, they do what they can to support music in our schools, but they cannot as individuals, solve these issues. It falls to us in this place to create a better future for both arts and music education in our state schools and the United Kingdom.
Music industry is actually one of our greatest success stories. It generates £8 billion for the economy, and it supports 220,000 jobs. And every performer, composer, producer, sound engineer, technician, and educator begins somewhere. If we weaken music education and arts education more broadly, we weaken the talent pipeline that feeds our universities, conservatoires orchestras and our creative industries. Now, I welcome the government's commitment to removing the EBacc performance measure. But removing a barrier is only the first step. We must rebuild the music teacher workforce.
We must restore effective teacher training incentives such as the bursary, expand access to instrumental tuition, and ensure that children in disadvantaged communities have the same opportunities as those elsewhere. Because music education is about far more than producing professional musicians, it helps young people to develop creativity, confidence, resilience and collaboration. My hope is that we can create an education system where every child and young person, whatever their background, has the chance to choose music and to benefit from all that it offers.
My Lords, today's Second Reading debate brings a welcome focus on the subject of creative education and the issues and challenges of restoring it after the damage done in recent years. And I do thank the noble Lady, Baroness Featherstone for enabling that focus through this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I look forward to the maiden speech of Baroness McKenzie of Sherwood. I note that the DCMs of Sherwood. I note that the DCMs Minister is answering education debate. I hope that is a sign that joined up thinking is finally going joined up thinking is finally going to be a thing. My Lords, I very much support every part of this bill and congratulate Baroness bill and congratulate Baroness Featherstone on introducing it. Arts education in schools is important on many levels. The arts
And this decline has not affected all young people equally. As the hon. Lady has said in her opening speech, music has one of the largest disadvantage attainment gaps of any subject. Schools in the most deprived fifth of local authorities are more likely to have no entries. In some arts. GCSE 54% of state schools in those areas have no GCSE music entries, compared with 21% in the least deprived authorities. And I do thank Professor Adam Whittaker of the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, and Doctor Anthony Anderson of Birmingham City University, for the research they do on disadvantaged related attainment, gaps in music education and providing briefings on it.
Their work found that in 18 local authorities, either only one school offered a music qualification, a level or vocational, or, in the worst cases, none in that area do, and the list of authorities includes Knowsley, Hartlepool, South Tyneside, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside, as well as four London boroughs. And I have to say, as a former Salford MP, it breaks my heart to see Salford local authority included in that list. Now, the Social Mobility Commission found that children from poorer backgrounds are three times less likely to learn an instrument, sing in a choir or play in an orchestra.
Recently I attended an event hosted by the excellent Royal Philharmonic Society, where three of our most gifted young musicians, Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Ben Goldscheider and Jess Gillam, discussed the state of music education and these musicians were worried that music education is not in a great place, he said. It's not what it was. Like many musicians, they do what they can to support music in our schools, but they cannot as individuals, solve these issues. It falls to us in this place to create a better future for both arts and music education in our state schools and the United Kingdom.
Music industry is actually one of our greatest success stories. It generates £8 billion for the economy, and it supports 220,000 jobs. And every performer, composer, producer, sound engineer, technician, and educator begins somewhere. If we weaken music education and arts education more broadly, we weaken the talent pipeline that feeds our universities, conservatoires orchestras and our creative industries. Now, I welcome the government's commitment to removing the EBacc performance measure. But removing a barrier is only the first step. We must rebuild the music teacher workforce.
We must restore effective teacher training incentives such as the bursary, expand access to instrumental tuition, and ensure that children in disadvantaged communities have the same opportunities as those elsewhere. Because music education is about far more than producing professional musicians, it helps young people to develop creativity, confidence, resilience and collaboration. My hope is that we can create an education system where every child and young person, whatever their background, has the chance to choose music and to benefit from all that it offers.
My Lords, today's Second Reading debate brings a welcome focus on the subject of creative education and the issues and challenges of restoring it after the damage done in recent years. And I do thank the noble Lady, Baroness Featherstone for enabling that focus through this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I look forward to the maiden speech of Baroness McKenzie of Sherwood. I note that the DCMs of Sherwood. I note that the DCMs Minister is answering education debate. I hope that is a sign that joined up thinking is finally going joined up thinking is finally going to be a thing. My Lords, I very much support every part of this bill and congratulate Baroness bill and congratulate Baroness Featherstone on introducing it. Arts education in schools is important on many levels. The arts
11:28
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
important on many levels. The arts are an integral component of a democratic society and it is the right of young people, indeed a UN right of the child to have both access to the arts and an opportunity to engage with them at an early age. We talk a lot about literacy, about conventional literacy, digital literacy, even about financial literacy, but less about cultural and visual literacy, or indeed oral a URAL literacy. Within that context, I want to make a particular point about neurodivergent students.
There are estimates that perhaps up to a third or even more NEETs have some form of neurodivergence. So the question must arise if we know there is a connection between creativity and neurodivergent conditions, how much the decline in creative education in schools and those lack of opportunities are, at least in part, responsible for the high numbers of NEETs. I am not convinced that putting a lot of these young people into retail is necessarily the right long term answer. However, research into these areas is sparse, though what there is points in a certain direction.
So I ask the Minister whether the government might themselves consider commissioning research into this whole area, which would be of help to both education and employment. One of the things that many would want to change is the negative perception of those with neurodivergent conditions. What is a negative is that, and that is the narrow belief that the academic route should necessarily represent the gold standard or only approach to education. My Lords, the major problem that creative education in schools currently has is the structural deficit from so many years of a decline, which is still continuing despite the removal of the EBacc.
The. As the arts and minds point out, GCSE entries to creative subjects is down by 47% since 2010. In many schools, there is now an institutionalised bias away from the arts that needs to be reversed and that will be difficult. This bill puts the hours in place, but there are also the shortage of specialist art teachers, including in primary schools. We need, as has been said, to bring back it, bursaries for art subjects and in a big way.
The reference point should not be the last year, but 2010, since when there has been a huge loss in arts teachers. There must be much more money to be spent on arts in schools. So we get back musical instruments, art materials and studios. The bill says May, but it ought to be must. School libraries are also important. Books are not just about the written word. They include art books and. As Julia Donaldson at the Publishers Association reception on Wednesday pointed out, we also need school librarians to point students in the right direction.
Right. This. This bill encourages partnerships with theatres, museums, galleries and established artists. My Lords, in my question on Monday, on the 100% cuts to the government's day to day funding of higher education creative courses, my noble friend Lord Hampton made the pertinent point that if we start losing graduates in the creative industries, where will the next generation of specialist school teachers come from? We would not, of course, expect everyone who has a creative education to have a creative career, as Baroness Featherstone said.
But those opportunities should be there from the outset. What affects he will feed back into schools, just as what happens in schools will determine the demand for the arts in higher education. So we can either have a virtuous circle or a destructive cycle. What surely is required is an overall strategy for creative education that looks closely at the effect of such decision making across the whole education ecosystem, including the excellent recommendations that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill makes. My Lords, it's a pleasure to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Earl, the Earl of Clancarty, and I the Earl of Clancarty, and I congratulate to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on this important private member's this important private member's bill, which, as we know, will enable access to creative and cultural education in state funded cultural education in state funded schools. I will return to this a little later, but I also want to
There are estimates that perhaps up to a third or even more NEETs have some form of neurodivergence. So the question must arise if we know there is a connection between creativity and neurodivergent conditions, how much the decline in creative education in schools and those lack of opportunities are, at least in part, responsible for the high numbers of NEETs. I am not convinced that putting a lot of these young people into retail is necessarily the right long term answer. However, research into these areas is sparse, though what there is points in a certain direction.
So I ask the Minister whether the government might themselves consider commissioning research into this whole area, which would be of help to both education and employment. One of the things that many would want to change is the negative perception of those with neurodivergent conditions. What is a negative is that, and that is the narrow belief that the academic route should necessarily represent the gold standard or only approach to education. My Lords, the major problem that creative education in schools currently has is the structural deficit from so many years of a decline, which is still continuing despite the removal of the EBacc.
The. As the arts and minds point out, GCSE entries to creative subjects is down by 47% since 2010. In many schools, there is now an institutionalised bias away from the arts that needs to be reversed and that will be difficult. This bill puts the hours in place, but there are also the shortage of specialist art teachers, including in primary schools. We need, as has been said, to bring back it, bursaries for art subjects and in a big way.
The reference point should not be the last year, but 2010, since when there has been a huge loss in arts teachers. There must be much more money to be spent on arts in schools. So we get back musical instruments, art materials and studios. The bill says May, but it ought to be must. School libraries are also important. Books are not just about the written word. They include art books and. As Julia Donaldson at the Publishers Association reception on Wednesday pointed out, we also need school librarians to point students in the right direction.
Right. This. This bill encourages partnerships with theatres, museums, galleries and established artists. My Lords, in my question on Monday, on the 100% cuts to the government's day to day funding of higher education creative courses, my noble friend Lord Hampton made the pertinent point that if we start losing graduates in the creative industries, where will the next generation of specialist school teachers come from? We would not, of course, expect everyone who has a creative education to have a creative career, as Baroness Featherstone said.
But those opportunities should be there from the outset. What affects he will feed back into schools, just as what happens in schools will determine the demand for the arts in higher education. So we can either have a virtuous circle or a destructive cycle. What surely is required is an overall strategy for creative education that looks closely at the effect of such decision making across the whole education ecosystem, including the excellent recommendations that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill makes. My Lords, it's a pleasure to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Earl, the Earl of Clancarty, and I the Earl of Clancarty, and I congratulate to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on this important private member's this important private member's bill, which, as we know, will enable access to creative and cultural education in state funded cultural education in state funded schools. I will return to this a little later, but I also want to
11:32
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
pay tribute and welcome my noble friend, the Lady Baroness, Baroness Mackenzie. She is someone I have Mackenzie. She is someone I have known for many years, my Lords, and her work and commitment to the arts goes back decades. She has encouraged bold, inclusive work that has pulled in creators and that has pulled in creators and audiences, and I remember my own experience when she helped to give birth to the remarkable work by birth to the remarkable work by Phelim McDermott and his company at Nottingham Playhouse in the early 1990s.
We are indeed fortunate to have her in the House, and I look forward to her maiden speech. My Lords, this bill is crucial and I hope that the government will have the good sense to adopt it. I argue this from a personal perspective, that there can be no greater start in life than access to the arts and the creative industries. At the age of 11, I was written off because I failed my 11 plus an exam I did not even know I was taking, and I was shunted off, as with so many others, to a secondary modern education.
And I was in a place where I felt I just did not belong. It was painful and I became a rebel. But thankfully, due to my mimicry and my sense of mischief, which my Lords, I have not lost, I came to the attention of the drama teacher and my life changed. I was no longer the rebel. I had an outlet for my imagination and an outlet for my energy. There, behind that tatty, faded red curtain in the Assembly hall of Cardinal Griffin School in east London, I discovered another world that I didn't know existed, and it was a world that I did not want to end.
It lifted me from the pain and the confusion that was around me, and it gave me options that I had never dreamed of access to these classes, my Lords literally changed my life. I was discovered in the school show impersonating Eartha Kitt and Bud Flanagan, the outrageous and the sublime. The talent scout spotted me, and I ended up starring Oliver in the West End of London at the age of 12, my life changed, but my arts education could not be maintained in the school, and I went to an art school and learned in detail about the English language, drama, dance, ballet, music, elocution and improvisation.
Improvisation, my Lords, that sets the mind free and the mind is like a parachute. It works best when it is open. Creative access ignites the imagination and enables us to imagine and to enter other worlds, and indeed, the ability to stand in the shoes of others. And we are all the better for it. As your Lordships have probably gathered, I'm passionate about this issue because in arts, education and access to the arts are not luxuries. They are essential to the way we live and the way we engage with others, and particularly how we engage with the unknown.
An active imagination, learning and using language skills. Confidence skills these are the necessary skills for life and lifelong learning. The ability to actively listen because only then can we properly engage life skills. My Lords, that will outlive artificial intelligence. Finally, my Lords, the other essential part of an arts based creative education is recognising that there is no such thing as failure. Yet all too often in politics, I hear from one Dispatch Box or the other how it's problematic to bring about a suggested solution.
So withdrawal. Well, my Lords, I entered politics to solve problems, not to create them, nor just talk about them. And maybe, just maybe, if more of us were more willing to work together to engage cross-party and not be terrified of failure and seek solutions instead of highlighting problems, politics might just might be seen in a much more positive way, my Lords, I cannot welcome this private member's bill more passionately because it has the ability to change young people's lives and change them for the better.
We are indeed fortunate to have her in the House, and I look forward to her maiden speech. My Lords, this bill is crucial and I hope that the government will have the good sense to adopt it. I argue this from a personal perspective, that there can be no greater start in life than access to the arts and the creative industries. At the age of 11, I was written off because I failed my 11 plus an exam I did not even know I was taking, and I was shunted off, as with so many others, to a secondary modern education.
And I was in a place where I felt I just did not belong. It was painful and I became a rebel. But thankfully, due to my mimicry and my sense of mischief, which my Lords, I have not lost, I came to the attention of the drama teacher and my life changed. I was no longer the rebel. I had an outlet for my imagination and an outlet for my energy. There, behind that tatty, faded red curtain in the Assembly hall of Cardinal Griffin School in east London, I discovered another world that I didn't know existed, and it was a world that I did not want to end.
It lifted me from the pain and the confusion that was around me, and it gave me options that I had never dreamed of access to these classes, my Lords literally changed my life. I was discovered in the school show impersonating Eartha Kitt and Bud Flanagan, the outrageous and the sublime. The talent scout spotted me, and I ended up starring Oliver in the West End of London at the age of 12, my life changed, but my arts education could not be maintained in the school, and I went to an art school and learned in detail about the English language, drama, dance, ballet, music, elocution and improvisation.
Improvisation, my Lords, that sets the mind free and the mind is like a parachute. It works best when it is open. Creative access ignites the imagination and enables us to imagine and to enter other worlds, and indeed, the ability to stand in the shoes of others. And we are all the better for it. As your Lordships have probably gathered, I'm passionate about this issue because in arts, education and access to the arts are not luxuries. They are essential to the way we live and the way we engage with others, and particularly how we engage with the unknown.
An active imagination, learning and using language skills. Confidence skills these are the necessary skills for life and lifelong learning. The ability to actively listen because only then can we properly engage life skills. My Lords, that will outlive artificial intelligence. Finally, my Lords, the other essential part of an arts based creative education is recognising that there is no such thing as failure. Yet all too often in politics, I hear from one Dispatch Box or the other how it's problematic to bring about a suggested solution.
So withdrawal. Well, my Lords, I entered politics to solve problems, not to create them, nor just talk about them. And maybe, just maybe, if more of us were more willing to work together to engage cross-party and not be terrified of failure and seek solutions instead of highlighting problems, politics might just might be seen in a much more positive way, my Lords, I cannot welcome this private member's bill more passionately because it has the ability to change young people's lives and change them for the better.
11:37
Baroness Bousted (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Bousted (Labour)
A my. >> Forward this Bill. >> And I look very much forward to the noble Ministers, Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood's maiden speech, and I have to say, following Lord Cashman speech, that was just marvellous, and so I'll do was just marvellous, and so I'll do my best. I declare my interest as chair of the Teaching Commission, established now for two years, consisting of teachers, leaders, policy specialists with representatives from the unions and the Chartered College of Teaching. I was also in a previous incarnation, General Secretary of the National Education Union, who have run a fantastic Arts and Minds campaign to promote education in the creative arts for all children of all backgrounds.
The Teaching Commission's second report, published in July of this year, is titled Curriculum and Assessment for all, and it has a question mark at the end of that. The report examines the required conditions to successfully implement the new national curriculum in 2028. Commissioners welcome the ambition and vision of the 2028 curriculum. It signals a fundamental shift towards a more physical, practical, social and developmental experience of schooling for children and young people, along with a focus on inclusion, belonging and joy for all pupils.
The commissioners, along with many others, strongly welcome the significant broadening of the taught curriculum and in particular the revitalising of art subjects with a requirement for breadth and more depth in detailed programmes of study in the foundation subjects of art, drama and music. Very welcome also is the establishment of a new National Centre for Arts and Music Education, promoting arts education and enabling high quality teaching through a teacher development offer. These are all excellent developments to achieve the government's ambition to enable all children and young people to gain access to the creative arts as part of their education.
However, there are challenges which must be addressed and recognised. The broadening of the school curriculum to incorporate a much greater focus on creative subjects must also take into account the challenges that schools currently face and will face more acutely in the near future. In employing teachers who are qualified and expert in the teaching of those subjects. In this respect, creative subjects face a particular challenge. Since 2010 and after the introduction of the EBacc accountability measure, art subjects have seen a precipitous 42% decline in applications for initial teacher training, reflecting a trend where more than 40% of English state schools are no longer entering any pupils.
For music and drama GCSEs, these teachers have been lost from the system and the training pipeline has dried up. The key group conducted a small survey of secondary school leaders for the commission, which revealed that 40% of secondary school respondents reported that they would have difficulty offering a wider offer in art because of lack of specialist subject staff for drama. 40% of secondary respondents reported a lack of specialist drama teachers, and 45% reported that from music.
It's also the unfortunate truth that the teacher supply challenges are not evenly spread across the education system. Schools serving the most disadvantaged communities find it much more difficult than those serving affluent pupil intakes to recruit and retain teachers across the curriculum. The issue of the teaching quality gap is a subject of an Education Policy Institute 2025 report, Closing the Workforce Quality Gap, which reveals that teachers in disadvantaged schools are increasingly less likely to have a relevant degree. With disadvantaged schools now trailing affluent schools by 15 percentage points in the percentage of lessons taught by a subject specialist.
Good teacher supply is essential not only to match the increased demands of a broader curriculum. It's also a social justice issue so that the most deprived pupils have as much chance of being taught by teachers qualified in the subjects they are teaching as their more advantaged peers. If the broadening subject base of the 2028 curriculum is to be well taught by qualified teachers, a new approach to initial teacher training recruitment targets must be developed by the DfE, which should take account of previous declines in applications and reductions in initial teacher training targets for arts subjects, and the number of teachers teaching out the subject, the subject area for which they are qualified.
Ultimately, no education system exceeds the quality of its workforce. Broadening the curriculum requires considerable analysis and planning so that it can be successfully implemented, and I urge the government to note the second Teaching Commission report and to respond to the issues and challenges in it.
The Teaching Commission's second report, published in July of this year, is titled Curriculum and Assessment for all, and it has a question mark at the end of that. The report examines the required conditions to successfully implement the new national curriculum in 2028. Commissioners welcome the ambition and vision of the 2028 curriculum. It signals a fundamental shift towards a more physical, practical, social and developmental experience of schooling for children and young people, along with a focus on inclusion, belonging and joy for all pupils.
The commissioners, along with many others, strongly welcome the significant broadening of the taught curriculum and in particular the revitalising of art subjects with a requirement for breadth and more depth in detailed programmes of study in the foundation subjects of art, drama and music. Very welcome also is the establishment of a new National Centre for Arts and Music Education, promoting arts education and enabling high quality teaching through a teacher development offer. These are all excellent developments to achieve the government's ambition to enable all children and young people to gain access to the creative arts as part of their education.
However, there are challenges which must be addressed and recognised. The broadening of the school curriculum to incorporate a much greater focus on creative subjects must also take into account the challenges that schools currently face and will face more acutely in the near future. In employing teachers who are qualified and expert in the teaching of those subjects. In this respect, creative subjects face a particular challenge. Since 2010 and after the introduction of the EBacc accountability measure, art subjects have seen a precipitous 42% decline in applications for initial teacher training, reflecting a trend where more than 40% of English state schools are no longer entering any pupils.
For music and drama GCSEs, these teachers have been lost from the system and the training pipeline has dried up. The key group conducted a small survey of secondary school leaders for the commission, which revealed that 40% of secondary school respondents reported that they would have difficulty offering a wider offer in art because of lack of specialist subject staff for drama. 40% of secondary respondents reported a lack of specialist drama teachers, and 45% reported that from music.
It's also the unfortunate truth that the teacher supply challenges are not evenly spread across the education system. Schools serving the most disadvantaged communities find it much more difficult than those serving affluent pupil intakes to recruit and retain teachers across the curriculum. The issue of the teaching quality gap is a subject of an Education Policy Institute 2025 report, Closing the Workforce Quality Gap, which reveals that teachers in disadvantaged schools are increasingly less likely to have a relevant degree. With disadvantaged schools now trailing affluent schools by 15 percentage points in the percentage of lessons taught by a subject specialist.
Good teacher supply is essential not only to match the increased demands of a broader curriculum. It's also a social justice issue so that the most deprived pupils have as much chance of being taught by teachers qualified in the subjects they are teaching as their more advantaged peers. If the broadening subject base of the 2028 curriculum is to be well taught by qualified teachers, a new approach to initial teacher training recruitment targets must be developed by the DfE, which should take account of previous declines in applications and reductions in initial teacher training targets for arts subjects, and the number of teachers teaching out the subject, the subject area for which they are qualified.
Ultimately, no education system exceeds the quality of its workforce. Broadening the curriculum requires considerable analysis and planning so that it can be successfully implemented, and I urge the government to note the second Teaching Commission report and to respond to the issues and challenges in it.
11:42
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I to welcome the noble Baroness, Baroness Mackenzie, and Baroness, Baroness Mackenzie, and I'm really looking forward to the teachings that she can give us any subjects. My starting point is that education should form the basis for a fulfilled life, not just passing exams. This is not something on which I expect any disagreement from noble Lords. I want to talk about two forms of creativity. Quite a long time ago, I was lucky enough to have the Industry and Parliament Trust arrange a creative industries fellowship.
For me, it's rather a grand term for the experience that I got. Just talking to a range of people and observing things that included contact with the Royal Shakespeare Company's education department, and I visited a couple of schools to observe their approach to teaching Shakespeare. At one secondary school, a class of 12 year olds were studying King Lear, which might sound a bit unlikely. It involved a lot of physical interpretation, and noble Lords may imagine how this lent itself to the issue of sibling rivalry, for instance, I was told of this picks up comment made by the noble Lord Earl of Clancarty that for the most challenging child in the school.
That was how they described her. This class worked wonders. She threw herself into it. The class was observed by teachers of other subjects who were enthusiastic about themselves, using similar ideas and techniques. For many years, I was a trustee of the Rose Theatre in Kingston for far too long. One should keep moving on for the good of the organisation. I only managed to leave the board by organising the excuse me, the recruitment of new directors.
I'm sure this is an experience other noble Lords have had. We had a lot of applications. I hadn't expected so many from parents of children who were or had been members of the Rose Youth Theatre. Many of them referred to how much that experience widened the child's horizons, made working in a team more doable, in particular how their confidence had been boosted not just in specific activities like creating sets, making props, speaking in front of other people, even improvisation.
But overall, in all situations to take another activity. Art. A lot falls under that heading. My noble friend referred to the expressive arts. I've not heard that term before, but it's very useful. My own experience has been that creating something occupies a different part of the brain from academic work, the creativity one can discover within oneself is tremendously rewarding, even if nobody else can actually identify it. When he produces something quite apart from making marks on paper, it prompts curiosity, expands your ways of looking at the world, at seeing.
All of this is very self-indulgent, but I am convinced that the impact of creative education can last a lifetime. And I'm ashamed to say that all that Latin and Greek for me did not. This very narrow speech. I've not attempted to address. The range of issues come from noble Lords and others, but I would say that as the years have gone on, the more keenly have I appreciated the creative activities I've been able to experience.
I congratulate my noble friend was. I thank the noble Lady. Baroness Featherstone for bringing this bill. I also welcome the noble Minister, Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood, to her position in government. I declare my interest as a former schools and colleges governor. I was for ten years vice president of the BBFC, the British Board of Film Classification and also Chancellor of Bournemouth University, which has a centre of excellence in film and performing arts. I was born and raised in a place which I think most people regard as Paradise or Utopia.
It's called Birmingham, just off the M6 motorway by the gasworks, I went to a grammar school which was known for its academic standing, but there was one fellow pupil who I recall, seemed to have a rather unusual ambition. At that time. He spoke of his intention to read architecture at university, a perfectly laudable goal, but he also mentioned his real passion to become an actor. I remember thinking at the time he would struggle because there seemed to be no obvious pathway to achieving that at school, but he obviously did find a way because Anton Lesser went on to star in Hollywood films including Pirates of the Caribbean, TV films such as Game of Thrones and numerous Shakespearean roles.
Now, I'm sure Anton would have been an excellent architect, but it is arguable that his career as an actor has inspired an even wider circle. There is someone else from my home city of Birmingham who did not find a pathway into the creative arts until long after his formal education had finished. The youngest of seven children from a very humble background, his first big break was to write radio commercials for an advertising agency, but he's now better known for creating the hit BBC TV series Peaky Blinders, and is writing the script for the next James Bond film.
He's none other than Stephen Knight CBE, now Anton Lesser and Stephen Knight were not overnight success stories. They had to find a way where there seemed no way in their formal education at school. So it makes me wonder, my Lords, how many other Anton Lesser and Stephen Knight's male and female there are out there who we've missed out on? And it does matter when you consider that the creative industries contribute £145.8 billion to the UK economy. It also matters when you consider that we're going through a fourth industrial revolution.
We've had steam, electricity, computers and now AI, artificial intelligence is bringing with it amazing benefits. We all know that, especially in the health sector. But AI also presents challenges, even dangers. Scientists speak of our brains having the left side supporting logic and analytical skills, whilst the right side supports a more creative and emotional thoughts. AI is a tool that is increasingly doing the left side factual work for us, including for our children, with their schoolwork. This is why it is all the more important for our creative skills to be protected and nurtured.
After all, each one of us has AI that is actual intelligence. During my time as a film regulator, we on the BBFC board noticed that the number of actors coming from the public school sector grew, whilst the number from less privileged state schools backgrounds decreased. The situation is even worse for black actors. Only 15 black actors have played two or more lead roles in British films over the last ten years. After school. Idris Elba Now Sir Idris Elba did find a way, but that was working as a tyre fitter before a Prince's Trust grant enabled him to enrol at the National Youth Music Theatre.
Over the years, I've been privileged to host a number of charitable events where pupils from the Brit School have performed singing and playing instruments. But of course, not every pupil who has artistic talents can enrol at the specialist Brit School. In March of last year, the government announced plans to create a National centre for arts and Music education. The centre is due to launch this month. So please, will noble Minister say what progress is being made on this? And in March of this year, the Government Whip, Baroness Blake of Leeds, stated that the government was.
Quotes not yet clear on whether a joint fund will be created to support arts activities in schools. The idea was for the Department for education, Department for culture, Media and Sport and the Arts Council. England should work together with donors, trusts and foundations to achieve this. So please, will the noble Minister also give us an update on that particular plan? Now, for this bill to be effective, it will need financial backing. Britain has a strong and historical tradition of wealthy people giving back to society in various ways, and this is why it's sad that the billionaire Christopher Ross is the latest wealthy donor to leave the UK.
I wish this bill success. Maybe as a private member's bill, it has limited chances of that. But as the saying goes, those who say it cannot be done should not try and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stop those who are doing it. My Lord. I'm so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm so. Grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone for introducing this bill and doing so introducing this bill and doing so with such passion. Her commitment to this issue is incredibly impressive, and I'm looking forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Lady, Baroness McKenzie
For me, it's rather a grand term for the experience that I got. Just talking to a range of people and observing things that included contact with the Royal Shakespeare Company's education department, and I visited a couple of schools to observe their approach to teaching Shakespeare. At one secondary school, a class of 12 year olds were studying King Lear, which might sound a bit unlikely. It involved a lot of physical interpretation, and noble Lords may imagine how this lent itself to the issue of sibling rivalry, for instance, I was told of this picks up comment made by the noble Lord Earl of Clancarty that for the most challenging child in the school.
That was how they described her. This class worked wonders. She threw herself into it. The class was observed by teachers of other subjects who were enthusiastic about themselves, using similar ideas and techniques. For many years, I was a trustee of the Rose Theatre in Kingston for far too long. One should keep moving on for the good of the organisation. I only managed to leave the board by organising the excuse me, the recruitment of new directors.
I'm sure this is an experience other noble Lords have had. We had a lot of applications. I hadn't expected so many from parents of children who were or had been members of the Rose Youth Theatre. Many of them referred to how much that experience widened the child's horizons, made working in a team more doable, in particular how their confidence had been boosted not just in specific activities like creating sets, making props, speaking in front of other people, even improvisation.
But overall, in all situations to take another activity. Art. A lot falls under that heading. My noble friend referred to the expressive arts. I've not heard that term before, but it's very useful. My own experience has been that creating something occupies a different part of the brain from academic work, the creativity one can discover within oneself is tremendously rewarding, even if nobody else can actually identify it. When he produces something quite apart from making marks on paper, it prompts curiosity, expands your ways of looking at the world, at seeing.
All of this is very self-indulgent, but I am convinced that the impact of creative education can last a lifetime. And I'm ashamed to say that all that Latin and Greek for me did not. This very narrow speech. I've not attempted to address. The range of issues come from noble Lords and others, but I would say that as the years have gone on, the more keenly have I appreciated the creative activities I've been able to experience.
I congratulate my noble friend was. I thank the noble Lady. Baroness Featherstone for bringing this bill. I also welcome the noble Minister, Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood, to her position in government. I declare my interest as a former schools and colleges governor. I was for ten years vice president of the BBFC, the British Board of Film Classification and also Chancellor of Bournemouth University, which has a centre of excellence in film and performing arts. I was born and raised in a place which I think most people regard as Paradise or Utopia.
It's called Birmingham, just off the M6 motorway by the gasworks, I went to a grammar school which was known for its academic standing, but there was one fellow pupil who I recall, seemed to have a rather unusual ambition. At that time. He spoke of his intention to read architecture at university, a perfectly laudable goal, but he also mentioned his real passion to become an actor. I remember thinking at the time he would struggle because there seemed to be no obvious pathway to achieving that at school, but he obviously did find a way because Anton Lesser went on to star in Hollywood films including Pirates of the Caribbean, TV films such as Game of Thrones and numerous Shakespearean roles.
Now, I'm sure Anton would have been an excellent architect, but it is arguable that his career as an actor has inspired an even wider circle. There is someone else from my home city of Birmingham who did not find a pathway into the creative arts until long after his formal education had finished. The youngest of seven children from a very humble background, his first big break was to write radio commercials for an advertising agency, but he's now better known for creating the hit BBC TV series Peaky Blinders, and is writing the script for the next James Bond film.
He's none other than Stephen Knight CBE, now Anton Lesser and Stephen Knight were not overnight success stories. They had to find a way where there seemed no way in their formal education at school. So it makes me wonder, my Lords, how many other Anton Lesser and Stephen Knight's male and female there are out there who we've missed out on? And it does matter when you consider that the creative industries contribute £145.8 billion to the UK economy. It also matters when you consider that we're going through a fourth industrial revolution.
We've had steam, electricity, computers and now AI, artificial intelligence is bringing with it amazing benefits. We all know that, especially in the health sector. But AI also presents challenges, even dangers. Scientists speak of our brains having the left side supporting logic and analytical skills, whilst the right side supports a more creative and emotional thoughts. AI is a tool that is increasingly doing the left side factual work for us, including for our children, with their schoolwork. This is why it is all the more important for our creative skills to be protected and nurtured.
After all, each one of us has AI that is actual intelligence. During my time as a film regulator, we on the BBFC board noticed that the number of actors coming from the public school sector grew, whilst the number from less privileged state schools backgrounds decreased. The situation is even worse for black actors. Only 15 black actors have played two or more lead roles in British films over the last ten years. After school. Idris Elba Now Sir Idris Elba did find a way, but that was working as a tyre fitter before a Prince's Trust grant enabled him to enrol at the National Youth Music Theatre.
Over the years, I've been privileged to host a number of charitable events where pupils from the Brit School have performed singing and playing instruments. But of course, not every pupil who has artistic talents can enrol at the specialist Brit School. In March of last year, the government announced plans to create a National centre for arts and Music education. The centre is due to launch this month. So please, will noble Minister say what progress is being made on this? And in March of this year, the Government Whip, Baroness Blake of Leeds, stated that the government was.
Quotes not yet clear on whether a joint fund will be created to support arts activities in schools. The idea was for the Department for education, Department for culture, Media and Sport and the Arts Council. England should work together with donors, trusts and foundations to achieve this. So please, will the noble Minister also give us an update on that particular plan? Now, for this bill to be effective, it will need financial backing. Britain has a strong and historical tradition of wealthy people giving back to society in various ways, and this is why it's sad that the billionaire Christopher Ross is the latest wealthy donor to leave the UK.
I wish this bill success. Maybe as a private member's bill, it has limited chances of that. But as the saying goes, those who say it cannot be done should not try and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stop those who are doing it. My Lord. I'm so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm so. Grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone for introducing this bill and doing so introducing this bill and doing so with such passion. Her commitment to this issue is incredibly impressive, and I'm looking forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Lady, Baroness McKenzie
11:52
Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
the noble Lady, Baroness McKenzie of Sherwood. Welcome your commitment to this cause and to the theatre generally cannot be in doubt. But, my Lords, this issue is crucial to the country and I know that we all want the best for our children. The younger generation deserve the best possible start in life. We don't want them to end up as NEETs. That's punishing for them, and it's not great for the country as we know. And as others have already pointed out, a more rounded education could actually stop another generation falling into that trap.
The need for this bill is pressing. We shouldn't overlook, however, the fact that it is important for children to have the best possible grounding in a broad education, and so I was glad to see the figures this week from Pisa. The progression for International student assessment. It would appear that there are some benefits to the education that we've been giving our children, and that the performance in traditional subjects has actually improved, particularly in science. But it's not enough if these children are going to grow into rounded human beings and they're able to put that classical benefit to use, they need a much broader education.
We've heard about the expense that this new education approach has already taken to teachers from the arts. The numbers are staggering. We need to address that, and this bill is a great step towards that. If, as the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone suggested, we do survive that 10% risk of being obliterated by AI, let's hope then we can make the most of the new technology. And in order to do that, to use it positively, the next generation will need to have the broad approach that a creative education can provide.
It will become a tool which will need to be used creatively. My Lords, the private sector already recognises exactly how important the creative skills are. Children who already have the benefit that generally take them to those schools get the increased benefit of a broad opportunity to experience the creative arts, to take part in the creative arts. And we all know that an increasing number are really worrying number of the people who are making it to drama school come from what can only be termed a privileged background.
I normally shy away from demanding legislation. I don't want to see money that the country hasn't got being squandered. But in this bill, the amount of money that would be required to implement it is tiny and the benefit would be huge. And looking at what's been achieved so far, I think there is a genuine case to legislation. The concept of creative education is incredibly broad. We know the importance, though. We need to equip our youngsters to bring design and technology skills to industry.
If the government's vision of a re industrialised country is to be realised, it will be very different to the old style industry. Its success will depend on brilliant design, on high standards of finish and slick marketing. Maths and science will play their part, but it's the creative skills that will be important and look at the importance of tourism to this industry. If the tourist levy is to really succeed, we need to bring in a constant flow of visitors to this country.
Our arts institutions already do that, but the importance
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of festivals is huge. Look at what goes on in France. There are festivals for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are festivals for everything and people flock in. My Lords, if we have a creative Lords, if we have a creative country, those festivals, new festivals can start here. We need festivals can start here. We need music, we need art, we need theatre, which will build confidence, as others have said. And my experience others have said. And my experience is that arts organisations do want to engage with schools, but sometimes it's difficult. We can make it easier for them.
And my final point, my Lords, is that if outreach is to be successful, what about reaching out to our communities? If schools put on performances, they can invite in all the people who live locally who support their work, and it will build communities and relationships. We may not really enjoy listening to too many five year olds playing the recorder. Some people will.
The need for this bill is pressing. We shouldn't overlook, however, the fact that it is important for children to have the best possible grounding in a broad education, and so I was glad to see the figures this week from Pisa. The progression for International student assessment. It would appear that there are some benefits to the education that we've been giving our children, and that the performance in traditional subjects has actually improved, particularly in science. But it's not enough if these children are going to grow into rounded human beings and they're able to put that classical benefit to use, they need a much broader education.
We've heard about the expense that this new education approach has already taken to teachers from the arts. The numbers are staggering. We need to address that, and this bill is a great step towards that. If, as the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone suggested, we do survive that 10% risk of being obliterated by AI, let's hope then we can make the most of the new technology. And in order to do that, to use it positively, the next generation will need to have the broad approach that a creative education can provide.
It will become a tool which will need to be used creatively. My Lords, the private sector already recognises exactly how important the creative skills are. Children who already have the benefit that generally take them to those schools get the increased benefit of a broad opportunity to experience the creative arts, to take part in the creative arts. And we all know that an increasing number are really worrying number of the people who are making it to drama school come from what can only be termed a privileged background.
I normally shy away from demanding legislation. I don't want to see money that the country hasn't got being squandered. But in this bill, the amount of money that would be required to implement it is tiny and the benefit would be huge. And looking at what's been achieved so far, I think there is a genuine case to legislation. The concept of creative education is incredibly broad. We know the importance, though. We need to equip our youngsters to bring design and technology skills to industry.
If the government's vision of a re industrialised country is to be realised, it will be very different to the old style industry. Its success will depend on brilliant design, on high standards of finish and slick marketing. Maths and science will play their part, but it's the creative skills that will be important and look at the importance of tourism to this industry. If the tourist levy is to really succeed, we need to bring in a constant flow of visitors to this country.
Our arts institutions already do that, but the importance
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of festivals is huge. Look at what goes on in France. There are festivals for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are festivals for everything and people flock in. My Lords, if we have a creative Lords, if we have a creative country, those festivals, new festivals can start here. We need festivals can start here. We need music, we need art, we need theatre, which will build confidence, as others have said. And my experience others have said. And my experience is that arts organisations do want to engage with schools, but sometimes it's difficult. We can make it easier for them.
And my final point, my Lords, is that if outreach is to be successful, what about reaching out to our communities? If schools put on performances, they can invite in all the people who live locally who support their work, and it will build communities and relationships. We may not really enjoy listening to too many five year olds playing the recorder. Some people will.
11:58
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
Yeah. noble friend for initiating this bill? I know and appreciate her dedication to and belief in the cultural and creative sector. And can I say she herself is creative in every way? And can I also welcome Baroness Ruth Mackenzie? I first came across her in 2012, the doughty champion of what turned out to be the magnificent Cultural Olympiad, largely down to her, I think my noble friend said her speech was narrow. I thought it was inspirational alongside Lord Cashman, and I'm afraid I'm going to be.
I'm going to be narrow because mine is much more political. We on these benches wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, desire to unleash the power of our creative industries. But for this to happen, there needs to be universal access to creative education. This government, as so many have said, inherited years of decline in the numbers of students taking GCSE and A-level arts related subjects, as well as the number of teachers who can teach them. So we very much welcome the curriculum review and its acceptance that the EBacc must go.
And I join my noble friend in applauding its abandonment. Is the steam stem argument finally won? But, my Lords, it's not totally clear that the government fully understands how to achieve their aims. My noble friend, if I might say, does. In her Bill she has laid out a clear course of action. It gives impetus and direction, and I hope the noble Baroness. The Minister agrees. As we have heard, the Bill requires state schools to increase the hours of creative education per week.
Also, schools must be transparent about what is being taught and Ofsted consider the breadth and quality. We on these benches have long believed that Ofsted inspections should only give top ratings to schools that can demonstrate excellence in creative teaching, as well as other subjects. The measures in the bill follows recommendations from the CLA, which argues that the teaching of creative subjects should be an essential, equal part of a broad and balanced curriculum, rather than an optional extra. My Lords, you may have noticed that Prince George started secondary school last week, and what does Eton offer him? Extensive opportunities across cultural and creative disciplines, seamlessly integrating these subjects into its formal academic curriculum.
This is what my noble friend Baroness Featherstone is asking for. All our children. My Lords, this should not be, as Baroness Wheatcroft was saying, the preserve of those whose parents can afford to pay. Crucially, the bill also requires that schools include careers advice about the creative industries. Recent Cambridge University research shows that many young described being steered away from creative subjects by teachers and parents, and being told that creative careers were risky or not for them. It found that students economic background impacted their likelihood of choosing the arts.
This feeds into the lack of diversity the sector suffers from. The bill also requires collaboration between schools and the arts sector, and the Secretary of State help to enable this. A creative access guarantee is. My noble friend calls it my Lord. Baroness Hodge's recent report suggests exactly this. The DfE DCMS and Arts Council England should consider working together with philanthropists, trusts and foundations to create a joint fund that would support improvements to the cultural offer in schools, and this could contribute to the cost of training for specialist teachers and transport costs to visit theatres and museums.
Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say whether this advice is going to be followed? Finally, you won't be surprised to hear I'm going to bring in the BBC. Every teacher and parent will tell you that the value that it supplies through bite size, teacher support packs, arts and music archives and many other things. Does the noble Baroness May Minister not agree that a well resourced and supported BBC is essential? My Lord, this bill provides a legislative framework of action. Much of what is.
What it says is contained in a recent report who was its recent vice Chancellor? One James Purnell. I hope he is listening to this debate, but most importantly, that the government will support my noble friends. Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a pleasure to speak in support of the noble Lady speak in support of the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone Bill to ensure all our children can benefit from a creative education. The Bill puts a deliberately ambitious proposition before us that creative proposition before us that creative education should be an entitlement, not an optional extra, including a minimum expectation for creative
I'm going to be narrow because mine is much more political. We on these benches wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, desire to unleash the power of our creative industries. But for this to happen, there needs to be universal access to creative education. This government, as so many have said, inherited years of decline in the numbers of students taking GCSE and A-level arts related subjects, as well as the number of teachers who can teach them. So we very much welcome the curriculum review and its acceptance that the EBacc must go.
And I join my noble friend in applauding its abandonment. Is the steam stem argument finally won? But, my Lords, it's not totally clear that the government fully understands how to achieve their aims. My noble friend, if I might say, does. In her Bill she has laid out a clear course of action. It gives impetus and direction, and I hope the noble Baroness. The Minister agrees. As we have heard, the Bill requires state schools to increase the hours of creative education per week.
Also, schools must be transparent about what is being taught and Ofsted consider the breadth and quality. We on these benches have long believed that Ofsted inspections should only give top ratings to schools that can demonstrate excellence in creative teaching, as well as other subjects. The measures in the bill follows recommendations from the CLA, which argues that the teaching of creative subjects should be an essential, equal part of a broad and balanced curriculum, rather than an optional extra. My Lords, you may have noticed that Prince George started secondary school last week, and what does Eton offer him? Extensive opportunities across cultural and creative disciplines, seamlessly integrating these subjects into its formal academic curriculum.
This is what my noble friend Baroness Featherstone is asking for. All our children. My Lords, this should not be, as Baroness Wheatcroft was saying, the preserve of those whose parents can afford to pay. Crucially, the bill also requires that schools include careers advice about the creative industries. Recent Cambridge University research shows that many young described being steered away from creative subjects by teachers and parents, and being told that creative careers were risky or not for them. It found that students economic background impacted their likelihood of choosing the arts.
This feeds into the lack of diversity the sector suffers from. The bill also requires collaboration between schools and the arts sector, and the Secretary of State help to enable this. A creative access guarantee is. My noble friend calls it my Lord. Baroness Hodge's recent report suggests exactly this. The DfE DCMS and Arts Council England should consider working together with philanthropists, trusts and foundations to create a joint fund that would support improvements to the cultural offer in schools, and this could contribute to the cost of training for specialist teachers and transport costs to visit theatres and museums.
Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say whether this advice is going to be followed? Finally, you won't be surprised to hear I'm going to bring in the BBC. Every teacher and parent will tell you that the value that it supplies through bite size, teacher support packs, arts and music archives and many other things. Does the noble Baroness May Minister not agree that a well resourced and supported BBC is essential? My Lord, this bill provides a legislative framework of action. Much of what is.
What it says is contained in a recent report who was its recent vice Chancellor? One James Purnell. I hope he is listening to this debate, but most importantly, that the government will support my noble friends. Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a pleasure to speak in support of the noble Lady speak in support of the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone Bill to ensure all our children can benefit from a creative education. The Bill puts a deliberately ambitious proposition before us that creative proposition before us that creative education should be an entitlement, not an optional extra, including a minimum expectation for creative
12:03
Lord Doyle (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Doyle (Non-affiliated)
minimum expectation for creative learning and stronger partnerships between schools and the creative sector. It's also a great pleasure to welcome Baroness McKenzie of Sherwood to the frontbench. My noble Friend brings immense experience from a range of cultural leadership roles, as we've been hearing, not least her role in the Cultural Olympiad. She brings that experience to this House and we are very lucky to have her. Indeed, having worked with her when we were both special advisers in the Blair government, I know I can confidently praise what will be an impressive maiden speech ahead of her actually making it later in this debate.
My Lords, we're all here today because of our passion for the arts and creative industries and because we know that access to the opportunities that the arts provide is too often determined by class, geography and money. There are welcome initiatives that are happening today to try and make up this. For example, one of our great playwrights, James Graham, is doing phenomenal work to try and bring more schoolchildren into theatre productions. And there are theatres like the Royal Shakespeare Company who are doing great work, for example, with Harriet Walter at the moment taking theatre to schools.
Now, I was lucky to be at a state school at a time when I could benefit from a great arts education, both in core hours and with after school clubs. Playing the trumpet brought me great joy, even if the same might not have always been true for my audience. Sadly, under the previous government, the arts were completely devalued as part of state education. Not only were they excluded from all important performance measures such as the EBacc and progress eight for secondary schools, but they were also squeezed out of the primary school day.
This Labour government is committed to deliver a curriculum that is rich, broad, inclusive, innovative, with creative subjects, studied both for their intrinsic value and for their ability to build confidence in essential skills such as creative thinking, critical thinking or creative problem solving and teamwork. Let me give just one example of the benefits. The Cultural Policy Unit, whose work in this area I commend, has written about the superpower of looking, that is, getting children to look at paintings and develop their critical thinking skills at a time when children will increasingly encounter AI generated images and information, the ability to look closely, interrogate what they see and exercise independent judgement is becoming an increasingly important skill.
My Lords, this shows how creative education is fundamentally a civic education. You'll find it harder to participate in democratic life and society more widely when you lack the skills that are creative education provides. To that end, I very much welcome the creation by this government of the National Centre for Arts and Music Education. It has the mandate to provide national leadership on arts education, a new continuing professional development offer for teachers, better coordination between schools and cultural organisations, promoting routes into creative careers, and also taking over oversight of music hubs from 2027.
I know that the centre was due to start this month. As has already been mentioned in the debate. Can my noble friend the Minister, update the House on how this is progressing, who the delivery partner is and when we will be able to see a detailed plan on what they will deliver and when. For example, on the core priorities of creating necessary partnerships between schools and cultural organisations, identifying areas with poor arts provision and preparing schools for the revised curriculum, there has been some concern expressed also about whether this will genuinely be an arts and music education centre, giving proper weight to drama, dance, art, design alongside music, rather than being predominantly led by its role in overseeing music hubs.
My Lords, it would be wonderful to think that we don't need to legislate to ensure the level of arts and creative provision we want to see for our children, and I look forward to my noble friend, the Minister, being able to reaffirm the government's commitment in that regard today, because I don't doubt we have a Prime Minister and a government that is a champion of the creative industries. I hope my noble friend will understand that any anxiety that is being expressed across the whole of the House is because we want to pin down how the honourable intentions are being translated into practice, and that is only motivated by our ambition for our children and our creative industries.
And I look forward to supporting my noble friend, the Minister, to deliver on this vital work.
My Lords, we're all here today because of our passion for the arts and creative industries and because we know that access to the opportunities that the arts provide is too often determined by class, geography and money. There are welcome initiatives that are happening today to try and make up this. For example, one of our great playwrights, James Graham, is doing phenomenal work to try and bring more schoolchildren into theatre productions. And there are theatres like the Royal Shakespeare Company who are doing great work, for example, with Harriet Walter at the moment taking theatre to schools.
Now, I was lucky to be at a state school at a time when I could benefit from a great arts education, both in core hours and with after school clubs. Playing the trumpet brought me great joy, even if the same might not have always been true for my audience. Sadly, under the previous government, the arts were completely devalued as part of state education. Not only were they excluded from all important performance measures such as the EBacc and progress eight for secondary schools, but they were also squeezed out of the primary school day.
This Labour government is committed to deliver a curriculum that is rich, broad, inclusive, innovative, with creative subjects, studied both for their intrinsic value and for their ability to build confidence in essential skills such as creative thinking, critical thinking or creative problem solving and teamwork. Let me give just one example of the benefits. The Cultural Policy Unit, whose work in this area I commend, has written about the superpower of looking, that is, getting children to look at paintings and develop their critical thinking skills at a time when children will increasingly encounter AI generated images and information, the ability to look closely, interrogate what they see and exercise independent judgement is becoming an increasingly important skill.
My Lords, this shows how creative education is fundamentally a civic education. You'll find it harder to participate in democratic life and society more widely when you lack the skills that are creative education provides. To that end, I very much welcome the creation by this government of the National Centre for Arts and Music Education. It has the mandate to provide national leadership on arts education, a new continuing professional development offer for teachers, better coordination between schools and cultural organisations, promoting routes into creative careers, and also taking over oversight of music hubs from 2027.
I know that the centre was due to start this month. As has already been mentioned in the debate. Can my noble friend the Minister, update the House on how this is progressing, who the delivery partner is and when we will be able to see a detailed plan on what they will deliver and when. For example, on the core priorities of creating necessary partnerships between schools and cultural organisations, identifying areas with poor arts provision and preparing schools for the revised curriculum, there has been some concern expressed also about whether this will genuinely be an arts and music education centre, giving proper weight to drama, dance, art, design alongside music, rather than being predominantly led by its role in overseeing music hubs.
My Lords, it would be wonderful to think that we don't need to legislate to ensure the level of arts and creative provision we want to see for our children, and I look forward to my noble friend, the Minister, being able to reaffirm the government's commitment in that regard today, because I don't doubt we have a Prime Minister and a government that is a champion of the creative industries. I hope my noble friend will understand that any anxiety that is being expressed across the whole of the House is because we want to pin down how the honourable intentions are being translated into practice, and that is only motivated by our ambition for our children and our creative industries.
And I look forward to supporting my noble friend, the Minister, to deliver on this vital work.
12:08
Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Gill (Labour)
Hear, hear. noble Baroness Featherstone on securing this debate, because we are standing at a dangerous are standing at a dangerous crossroads for our children's imaginations. Art, music, drama and imaginations. Art, music, drama and dance have been treated, as we've heard already, as optional subjects for far too long. The principle behind this bill challenges this head on, reminding us that every single child, regardless of their background where they live, deserves a rich and meaningful creative education.
The vital importance of this principle is not something I need to be persuaded of. I experience its transformative potential myself. As a secondary school pupil, I attended a state school like many others, in one of the more challenging parts of my neighbourhood. When the school got its first purpose built, music room announcements were made at an assembly inviting pupils to take up an instrument well for a young girl who otherwise would have been standing around in a cold playground, the offer was too tempting to resist.
I signed up at once to learn the clarinet. It opened up horizons that I could scarcely have imagined. I soon joined the school orchestra and before too long, became part of the small group that our music teacher, Mrs. Fellowes, took to concerts and even to watch operas at the Royal Opera House and Sadler's Wells. Those experiences introduced me to a world well beyond the immediate environment of my neighbourhood and my school. I am still, to this day, enormously grateful to Mrs.
Fellowes and to Mr. Baldwin, my English teacher, who both played an important part in shaping my education and ultimately, much of what I've achieved in life. So my own experience is a powerful reminder that creative education is not an optional extra. As many Lordship Lords have said before, it can and does expand a child's horizons, builds confidence and open doors, as I said, and possibilities that might otherwise never be encountered. When we look at our peers on a global stage, we see that embedding culture into education is a standard practice for high performing societies.
Look at South Korea, which built a modern economic superpower by deliberately dedicating nearly 10% of overall school time to creative projects. Look at our European neighbours. Finland seamlessly integrates arts into everyday learning to cultivate flexible, highly capable minds. In Germany, extensive regional networks link cultural institutions directly into the school week, while Austria focuses deeply on multidisciplinary, imagination led pedagogy. Yet here in Britain, we are sitting on a gold mine that we are failing to replenish.
You rightly pointed out to a noble Baroness Featherstone that our creative industries generate a staggering 125 billion annually to our economy, and account for one in every 14 UK jobs, from the soundstages of Pinewood to the West End. British talent is our greatest export, but we cannot expect to remain a global leader. If we stop feeding the pipeline. We cannot harvest the crops if we refuse to sow the seeds in our state schools. So it's precisely because I believe so strongly in that principle that I have some reservations about the mechanisms proposed in this bill, because I believe that we do need to properly consult the teaching profession, and I don't believe in imposing reforms on a sector with which could struggle on the ground.
And I think it's important that we don't have a top down statutory mandates without consulting. As we've heard already, the supply of specialist teacher, you know, the ability to timetable and the resources that are available. And I welcome that. This government has already made clear commitment to improving access to creative education and enrichment, and is actively pursuing wider systemic reforms to its curriculum. Can I finally also welcome the noble Baroness McKenzie to her place and look forward to her maiden speech? Here? Here.
The vital importance of this principle is not something I need to be persuaded of. I experience its transformative potential myself. As a secondary school pupil, I attended a state school like many others, in one of the more challenging parts of my neighbourhood. When the school got its first purpose built, music room announcements were made at an assembly inviting pupils to take up an instrument well for a young girl who otherwise would have been standing around in a cold playground, the offer was too tempting to resist.
I signed up at once to learn the clarinet. It opened up horizons that I could scarcely have imagined. I soon joined the school orchestra and before too long, became part of the small group that our music teacher, Mrs. Fellowes, took to concerts and even to watch operas at the Royal Opera House and Sadler's Wells. Those experiences introduced me to a world well beyond the immediate environment of my neighbourhood and my school. I am still, to this day, enormously grateful to Mrs.
Fellowes and to Mr. Baldwin, my English teacher, who both played an important part in shaping my education and ultimately, much of what I've achieved in life. So my own experience is a powerful reminder that creative education is not an optional extra. As many Lordship Lords have said before, it can and does expand a child's horizons, builds confidence and open doors, as I said, and possibilities that might otherwise never be encountered. When we look at our peers on a global stage, we see that embedding culture into education is a standard practice for high performing societies.
Look at South Korea, which built a modern economic superpower by deliberately dedicating nearly 10% of overall school time to creative projects. Look at our European neighbours. Finland seamlessly integrates arts into everyday learning to cultivate flexible, highly capable minds. In Germany, extensive regional networks link cultural institutions directly into the school week, while Austria focuses deeply on multidisciplinary, imagination led pedagogy. Yet here in Britain, we are sitting on a gold mine that we are failing to replenish.
You rightly pointed out to a noble Baroness Featherstone that our creative industries generate a staggering 125 billion annually to our economy, and account for one in every 14 UK jobs, from the soundstages of Pinewood to the West End. British talent is our greatest export, but we cannot expect to remain a global leader. If we stop feeding the pipeline. We cannot harvest the crops if we refuse to sow the seeds in our state schools. So it's precisely because I believe so strongly in that principle that I have some reservations about the mechanisms proposed in this bill, because I believe that we do need to properly consult the teaching profession, and I don't believe in imposing reforms on a sector with which could struggle on the ground.
And I think it's important that we don't have a top down statutory mandates without consulting. As we've heard already, the supply of specialist teacher, you know, the ability to timetable and the resources that are available. And I welcome that. This government has already made clear commitment to improving access to creative education and enrichment, and is actively pursuing wider systemic reforms to its curriculum. Can I finally also welcome the noble Baroness McKenzie to her place and look forward to her maiden speech? Here? Here.
12:13
5
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
5
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Can I first of all thank my noble friend Baroness Featherstone for winning the ballot or getting for winning the ballot or getting in the top, top 20? I have every confidence this will go the full confidence this will go the full length because, you know, Baroness Featherstone has a track record. She fought to make sure that the Equal Marriage Bill got through Parliament. She brought to Parliament. She made sure it got through Parliament. And I think you'll be successful on this as well.
And I look forward very much to hearing the maiden speech from Baroness McKenzie of Sherwood. My Lords, the supreme art of a teacher is to awaken the joy in creative education and knowledge. I didn't say that Albert Einstein said that, and he went on to say that education should inspire curiosity for very young children. The best way to learn is through play at the sand tray or the water tray. They. They can learn to cooperate. They can learn to share.
They can even learn to discuss with construction toys. They can learn to assemble, to develop new skills. But as we get older, it very much becomes fact based. There's nothing wrong in my view, of learning facts, but it should be about also asking why. It should also be about challenging. Education should not be about just regurgitating a whole series of information, but using the facts to understand and think critically. Of course, in creative education, the approach is for students to use their imagination and critical thinking to develop new ideas and solutions to the problems, and to build new thoughts.
Instead of just memorising those facts. Core concepts like divergent thinking. For example, one of my favourite films is The History Boys, where these disaffected young lads have a bit of a teacher who's a bit of a rebel, but he motivates them. He motivates them by by drama. He motivates them by reading out aloud. He motivates them by challenging. And that should be almost the hallmarks of our own education system. When we think of the cultural side of creative education, we think particularly of the arts, as we know the government introduced.
And we've heard that from virtually every peer. The infamous EBacc, which specified which suite of subjects schools should be taken at GCSE, not one of those subjects, of course, was a creative arts subject. Surprisingly, given how much the creative industries earned for the economy, so headteachers chief executives of multi-academy trusts under budgetary pressures, or themselves perhaps not realising the value of arts subjects, deciding many schools to reduce the number of creative subjects taught, or even abandon them completely to save money.
Schools also face the difficulty of getting a qualified teacher in these subjects, whether it be music or dance or drama or design or technology. The EBacc, as Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Bonham-Carter rightly said, the EBacc wrecked havoc on the creative and performing arts in England. The results are there for all of us to see. In music. There is a severe and worsening shortage of teachers. The number of music trainees fell by 51% between 2010 and 20 2425.
And over the decade, the number of entrants to study music dropped by 41%. Arts and design saw qualified teachers drop by 27% in design technology, from 1500 teachers to 6300 teachers, and believed to be heading to 4500 teachers. The same picture for drama, the same picture for dance. There are less qualified teachers and less students taking GCSEs in the creative arts than ever before, so of course, less students going to university, so less graduates going into teaching to create those creative subjects.
Very much a vicious circle created by government. Of course, the the. The same is not true of the independent sector. The answer from government has been, oh, we have created these local various hubs. Now, I'm sure hubs are important. I have to say I've never been to a hub, so I'm talking blind here, but I want every school to be a hub of creative arts. I want to give you an example of something that changed my life in terms of the arts.
When I was, I'm sorry to say, go on about this. When I was leader of Liverpool City Council, we bid to become European Capital of Culture and we won that bid. But we created a programme called Creative Partnerships, which was to give money directly to communities. And one of the grants that was given actually was life changing for those young students. It was a church secondary school in the 11 to 16 church secondary school in the city centre. It had appalling deprivation in the area, high levels of antisocial behaviour, high levels of truancy and absenteeism.
The boys wanted to make a film. Why not? So we gave them a grant in which they employed a film director. The film was produced. It was called I Think It's All OK. They had the premiere of the film Black Tie, Red carpet. I went along, the film was OK, but it was important that the skills they learnt from that. The teacher was Miss Jones and after the success of that film or the work they collaboratively did together, they said, we'd like to become teachers ourselves, which 11 to 16 school.
We don't want to go to an Fe college. It's. We want to stay in our in our community, in our school. So Miss Jones offered to come in, come in on a Saturday morning and teach those lads to do drama. And I think it was English. And of those boys, three of them became teachers. So through the arts, through pump priming, that actually happened. I, in this debate listened to so many wise words from from colleagues. It's not just a course about what happens in schools.
It's giving young people right across the board the opportunity in the arts. I developed my passion in the arts by going to the Floral Pavilion in New Brighton and seeing a number of shows, and then being taken by my parents to the Playhouse. By the way, the country's oldest rep theatre. I remember seeing Vivien Leigh and being inspired by actors. I used to take my pupils to museums, to art galleries, but if you're in a deprived community, how do you do that? How do you afford that? As we've heard, I think from Lord Gill, we can bring theatre companies into schools and that's good, but it's not the only way of doing it.
And we need to find ways of actually providing those opportunities for all children. A number of people said a number of your Lordship said, so many wise words have just said I was interested in Lord Cashman I too fell my 11 plus. So we. We share something in common. And I agree with you that arts can be life changing and I love the analogy of the. The parachute. It works best when when it's open. I agree with Baroness Wheatcroft about the importance of design technology in creating skills.
I never know it's Earl or Lord Glenarthur these days. It doesn't matter. And I. You're right. I think in many schools there is now an institutional bias against the arts. And we have to get back not just art teaching, but all the paraphernalia that goes with it the equipment, the materials, the kiln for doing pottery, etc. I was interested in Baroness Bastard, who also made the point about the pipeline as almost is drying up if we're not careful. And that's so, so important.
And of course, my noble friend Baroness Bonham-Carter of course wrote the BBC and I worry about the BBC, is that yes, it does these fantastic arts programmes, you know, from the Proms to Glastonbury, but every time it makes cuts, everybody blames the BBC. It's not the BBC that are making the cuts. It's we are making the cuts because we're not funding the BBC properly and please government, get a move on with this because you know death by a thousand cuts if we're not careful.
My old friend Baroness Hamwee was right to talk about the expressive arts and absolutely right about it's not just passing exams. And I mentioned Lord Gill. Sorry. Was it? No, it's Baroness Gill who talked about learning a musical instrument. I think you're absolutely right. That can open up new instrument, new horizons that one oboe can change a world for you. And finally, I started with Baroness Featherstone. Schools might be the only place, she said, and quite rightly. And it links into Baroness Gill, where somebody can pick up a musical instrument or perform in a play.
Young people from every background, from every background, deserve the right to have creative part running right through their school.
And I look forward very much to hearing the maiden speech from Baroness McKenzie of Sherwood. My Lords, the supreme art of a teacher is to awaken the joy in creative education and knowledge. I didn't say that Albert Einstein said that, and he went on to say that education should inspire curiosity for very young children. The best way to learn is through play at the sand tray or the water tray. They. They can learn to cooperate. They can learn to share.
They can even learn to discuss with construction toys. They can learn to assemble, to develop new skills. But as we get older, it very much becomes fact based. There's nothing wrong in my view, of learning facts, but it should be about also asking why. It should also be about challenging. Education should not be about just regurgitating a whole series of information, but using the facts to understand and think critically. Of course, in creative education, the approach is for students to use their imagination and critical thinking to develop new ideas and solutions to the problems, and to build new thoughts.
Instead of just memorising those facts. Core concepts like divergent thinking. For example, one of my favourite films is The History Boys, where these disaffected young lads have a bit of a teacher who's a bit of a rebel, but he motivates them. He motivates them by by drama. He motivates them by reading out aloud. He motivates them by challenging. And that should be almost the hallmarks of our own education system. When we think of the cultural side of creative education, we think particularly of the arts, as we know the government introduced.
And we've heard that from virtually every peer. The infamous EBacc, which specified which suite of subjects schools should be taken at GCSE, not one of those subjects, of course, was a creative arts subject. Surprisingly, given how much the creative industries earned for the economy, so headteachers chief executives of multi-academy trusts under budgetary pressures, or themselves perhaps not realising the value of arts subjects, deciding many schools to reduce the number of creative subjects taught, or even abandon them completely to save money.
Schools also face the difficulty of getting a qualified teacher in these subjects, whether it be music or dance or drama or design or technology. The EBacc, as Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Bonham-Carter rightly said, the EBacc wrecked havoc on the creative and performing arts in England. The results are there for all of us to see. In music. There is a severe and worsening shortage of teachers. The number of music trainees fell by 51% between 2010 and 20 2425.
And over the decade, the number of entrants to study music dropped by 41%. Arts and design saw qualified teachers drop by 27% in design technology, from 1500 teachers to 6300 teachers, and believed to be heading to 4500 teachers. The same picture for drama, the same picture for dance. There are less qualified teachers and less students taking GCSEs in the creative arts than ever before, so of course, less students going to university, so less graduates going into teaching to create those creative subjects.
Very much a vicious circle created by government. Of course, the the. The same is not true of the independent sector. The answer from government has been, oh, we have created these local various hubs. Now, I'm sure hubs are important. I have to say I've never been to a hub, so I'm talking blind here, but I want every school to be a hub of creative arts. I want to give you an example of something that changed my life in terms of the arts.
When I was, I'm sorry to say, go on about this. When I was leader of Liverpool City Council, we bid to become European Capital of Culture and we won that bid. But we created a programme called Creative Partnerships, which was to give money directly to communities. And one of the grants that was given actually was life changing for those young students. It was a church secondary school in the 11 to 16 church secondary school in the city centre. It had appalling deprivation in the area, high levels of antisocial behaviour, high levels of truancy and absenteeism.
The boys wanted to make a film. Why not? So we gave them a grant in which they employed a film director. The film was produced. It was called I Think It's All OK. They had the premiere of the film Black Tie, Red carpet. I went along, the film was OK, but it was important that the skills they learnt from that. The teacher was Miss Jones and after the success of that film or the work they collaboratively did together, they said, we'd like to become teachers ourselves, which 11 to 16 school.
We don't want to go to an Fe college. It's. We want to stay in our in our community, in our school. So Miss Jones offered to come in, come in on a Saturday morning and teach those lads to do drama. And I think it was English. And of those boys, three of them became teachers. So through the arts, through pump priming, that actually happened. I, in this debate listened to so many wise words from from colleagues. It's not just a course about what happens in schools.
It's giving young people right across the board the opportunity in the arts. I developed my passion in the arts by going to the Floral Pavilion in New Brighton and seeing a number of shows, and then being taken by my parents to the Playhouse. By the way, the country's oldest rep theatre. I remember seeing Vivien Leigh and being inspired by actors. I used to take my pupils to museums, to art galleries, but if you're in a deprived community, how do you do that? How do you afford that? As we've heard, I think from Lord Gill, we can bring theatre companies into schools and that's good, but it's not the only way of doing it.
And we need to find ways of actually providing those opportunities for all children. A number of people said a number of your Lordship said, so many wise words have just said I was interested in Lord Cashman I too fell my 11 plus. So we. We share something in common. And I agree with you that arts can be life changing and I love the analogy of the. The parachute. It works best when when it's open. I agree with Baroness Wheatcroft about the importance of design technology in creating skills.
I never know it's Earl or Lord Glenarthur these days. It doesn't matter. And I. You're right. I think in many schools there is now an institutional bias against the arts. And we have to get back not just art teaching, but all the paraphernalia that goes with it the equipment, the materials, the kiln for doing pottery, etc. I was interested in Baroness Bastard, who also made the point about the pipeline as almost is drying up if we're not careful. And that's so, so important.
And of course, my noble friend Baroness Bonham-Carter of course wrote the BBC and I worry about the BBC, is that yes, it does these fantastic arts programmes, you know, from the Proms to Glastonbury, but every time it makes cuts, everybody blames the BBC. It's not the BBC that are making the cuts. It's we are making the cuts because we're not funding the BBC properly and please government, get a move on with this because you know death by a thousand cuts if we're not careful.
My old friend Baroness Hamwee was right to talk about the expressive arts and absolutely right about it's not just passing exams. And I mentioned Lord Gill. Sorry. Was it? No, it's Baroness Gill who talked about learning a musical instrument. I think you're absolutely right. That can open up new instrument, new horizons that one oboe can change a world for you. And finally, I started with Baroness Featherstone. Schools might be the only place, she said, and quite rightly. And it links into Baroness Gill, where somebody can pick up a musical instrument or perform in a play.
Young people from every background, from every background, deserve the right to have creative part running right through their school.
12:24
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
My Lords, for today and today only, I speak from the frontbench in the place of my noble friend in the place of my noble friend Baroness Cash. My Lords, may I firstly congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone on her Baroness Featherstone on her success in the private Member's Bill ballot, and I thank all noble Lords for their powerful Lords for their powerful contributions to this very interesting debate. A very warm welcome to the noble Lady, Baroness McKenzie, who comes to this House and her new job with years of relevant experience, and I join with others in looking forward to her maiden speech today and further contributions in the years ahead.
As we have heard, this bill seeks to mandate a minimum number of hours for creative and cultural education in schools, with five hours weekly for pupils in key stages one and two and four hours weekly for those in key stage three. It would also require schools to take steps to ensure pupils have access to live, cultural or creative experiences, to partner with the creative sector and to provide pupils with information regarding creative and cultural careers. On top of that, it would also introduce a report on the state of creative and cultural education to be published by the Secretary of State at least once a year, when school timetables are already very full, there is concern about what schools would have to remove from their timetables in order to accommodate this requirement.
I echo the view of my right hon. Friend Laura Trott, shadow education Secretary, who said in relation to the government's proposals to change the national curriculum that when everything is a priority, nothing is. This bill risks adding an unnecessary additional requirement that could put the core educational lessons at risk. It is of critical importance to focus on these core educational subjects in order to give pupils the best possible chance of success. It was this strategy under the previous government that led to pupils in England rising to fourth and the highest in the Western world for reading, as well as 11th in the world for maths.
With both positions having risen up the ranks since 2018. These rankings speak for themselves and highlight the progress in improving school standards. Sadly, this improvement does not apply in Scotland or Wales. In order to include the mandated hours of creative education, schools would have to sacrifice time spent on the most important subjects. It is crucial that pupils are given the chance to excel in these core subjects, as the skill they skills they provide are not only essential for employment, but for the life skills they teach.
On top of that, it's flexibility that allows schools to appropriately allocate time across subjects as they see fit, adding further rigidity into the national curriculum does the opposite of trusting teachers to decide how much time is right for this creative education. In fact, this flexibility in the current curriculum was praised in Professor Becky Francis curriculum and assessment review by arts teachers themselves, who commented that they, quote, relish the flexibility of the present curriculum across all key stages.
And indeed, the only changes suggested by the review for key stages 1 to 3 was that the programme of study could, quote, clarify the knowledge and skills that pupils are expected to develop again in the recommendations for music programmes, although further specificity was recommended, there was no suggestion of mandating a set number of hours. Why then, if these teachers are not asking for it, would another national curriculum requirement be introduced? To look at a specific example, the school with the highest progress eight score in the country is Michaela in North London, a school which has held that title for three consecutive years.
A successful school that is able to have flexibility over its curriculum, showing that best practice should not be to introduce more requirements that will force schools to dilute their curriculum. Pupils need core skills. Mandating a specific number of hours for creative education is not the best way to do that. This bill risks diluting the curriculum, drawing focus away from the core subjects taught in schools. Despite many passionate arguments we've heard this morning on this side of the House, we cannot support this bill.
As we have heard, this bill seeks to mandate a minimum number of hours for creative and cultural education in schools, with five hours weekly for pupils in key stages one and two and four hours weekly for those in key stage three. It would also require schools to take steps to ensure pupils have access to live, cultural or creative experiences, to partner with the creative sector and to provide pupils with information regarding creative and cultural careers. On top of that, it would also introduce a report on the state of creative and cultural education to be published by the Secretary of State at least once a year, when school timetables are already very full, there is concern about what schools would have to remove from their timetables in order to accommodate this requirement.
I echo the view of my right hon. Friend Laura Trott, shadow education Secretary, who said in relation to the government's proposals to change the national curriculum that when everything is a priority, nothing is. This bill risks adding an unnecessary additional requirement that could put the core educational lessons at risk. It is of critical importance to focus on these core educational subjects in order to give pupils the best possible chance of success. It was this strategy under the previous government that led to pupils in England rising to fourth and the highest in the Western world for reading, as well as 11th in the world for maths.
With both positions having risen up the ranks since 2018. These rankings speak for themselves and highlight the progress in improving school standards. Sadly, this improvement does not apply in Scotland or Wales. In order to include the mandated hours of creative education, schools would have to sacrifice time spent on the most important subjects. It is crucial that pupils are given the chance to excel in these core subjects, as the skill they skills they provide are not only essential for employment, but for the life skills they teach.
On top of that, it's flexibility that allows schools to appropriately allocate time across subjects as they see fit, adding further rigidity into the national curriculum does the opposite of trusting teachers to decide how much time is right for this creative education. In fact, this flexibility in the current curriculum was praised in Professor Becky Francis curriculum and assessment review by arts teachers themselves, who commented that they, quote, relish the flexibility of the present curriculum across all key stages.
And indeed, the only changes suggested by the review for key stages 1 to 3 was that the programme of study could, quote, clarify the knowledge and skills that pupils are expected to develop again in the recommendations for music programmes, although further specificity was recommended, there was no suggestion of mandating a set number of hours. Why then, if these teachers are not asking for it, would another national curriculum requirement be introduced? To look at a specific example, the school with the highest progress eight score in the country is Michaela in North London, a school which has held that title for three consecutive years.
A successful school that is able to have flexibility over its curriculum, showing that best practice should not be to introduce more requirements that will force schools to dilute their curriculum. Pupils need core skills. Mandating a specific number of hours for creative education is not the best way to do that. This bill risks diluting the curriculum, drawing focus away from the core subjects taught in schools. Despite many passionate arguments we've heard this morning on this side of the House, we cannot support this bill.
12:29
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Labour)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone for bringing forward this bill, which raises forward this bill, which raises vital issues on widening access to creative education, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We have heard a really stimulating and rich discussion this morning for which I am so grateful. I'm honoured that my first speech in your Lordships House should be on such an important topic, which has been a lifelong passion for me.
May I start by thanking my supporting noble friends, Baroness Nye and Baroness Hunter of Achonry. Apologies in advance to my noble friend. I must also thank Garter King of Arms. Black Rod and his team are excellent doorkeepers, catering staff, the whips office of the government, my noble friends on the front bench and noble Lords across your Lordship house for your generous and kind welcome. I understand it's customary to introduce myself briefly. My parents, Kenneth Mackenzie and Myrna Blumberg, were South African journalists, writers, activists fighting for the abolition of apartheid after the massacre at Sharpeville, when a state of emergency was announced, my mother, along with many other activists, was imprisoned without charge or trial.
As a journalist, she was luckier than many others, and her newspaper helped secure her release. As a result, we fled to London, where I was brought up in London as a child. I spent what felt like every Sunday with my parents protesting in Trafalgar Square outside the South African Embassy. The rest of us. I realised this embedded in me the values of equality and the tenacity needed to make change happen. My London childhood also gave me access to the outstanding free music education of the Inner London Education Authority, so that I could learn several musical instruments, play and sing in the choir and orchestra, as well as developing practical creative skills across the arts.
As a result, my first job was in a professional touring theatre company, working with young people in youth clubs, community centres, sometimes parks, offering practical theatre and music workshops to young people, intensive residencies and performances. Our principle was that young people decided what skills they wanted to learn, the subjects they wanted to tackle, and our job was to serve them, provide the training and support they needed. We were led by the young people, the specific priorities they had in their local communities and their ambitions.
This place based, community led approach guided me throughout my career, running theatres, cultural organisations and festivals in Bradford, Nottingham, Glasgow, Chichester, Manchester, London, Amsterdam, Paris and most recently Adelaide, South Australia. Please don't panic, my noble Lords. I will mention only two places in my career which were particularly crucial for my creative education. Nottingham Playhouse was the first large theatre I led, supported by outstanding leadership from the City of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Education Authority, who encouraged us to become a teaching theatre like a teaching hospital where we not only had a dedicated theatre company working in every school, offering creative skills, workshops and performances, but we also set up two full time two year courses for 16 plus and 18 plus young people to develop their theatre skills and creative talents.
The communities of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire pushed us to work with them on an ambitious programme of world class international theatre and dance, encouraging international stars from around the world. Established and emerging UK artists and, above all, local talent. I lived in Sherwood at the time and I celebrate my time in Nottingham through the name I have taken in your Lordships' House. My recent work in South Australia gave me the chance to work extensively with brilliant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and communities, including the Naranga artistic leader Jacob Boehme, his creative team and above all, his elders on a large scale creation.
This was based on the stories in their 65000 year continuous cultural history, and on the country in which they lived and worked. It opened at the Adelaide International Festival. It's still touring international. My understanding of how place shapes culture and creative education, how innovation springs from deep roots in your community and the land on which you live, has been transformed by these artists and these elders who exceptionally and generously made me an honorary elder. I feel confident I am the only person in this noble house who can say that the noble Lady Baroness Lea Baroness Featherstone bill includes a vision of creative partnerships to support young people, develop their creative skills with the support of their local arts and cultural organisations, from libraries to museums, music venues to youth centres.
And our Prime Minister is challenging us to achieve growth in every postcode. Our ambition is to activate in every postcode, the creative partners, to support the young people, to find their talent, to develop their skills and to contribute to the growth of our creative industries. The UK's creative industries. As many of my noble colleagues have mentioned already, are in the top eight priorities of the UK Industrial Strategy and contribute. We've heard many figures. My figure is 145.8 billion in GVA to the UK economy in 2024, but opportunities, as we have heard, are currently unequally distributed across postcodes and across socio economic groups.
In 2024, 55% of the Creative Workshop workforce apologies was from advantaged background, compared to 45% for the economy as a whole. Post 16 economically disadvantaged students are less likely, as we have already heard, to choose creative paths and under-representation of students from lower socio economic and culturally diverse backgrounds continues at higher education level, starting with the power of place, the strength of communities in each postcode, the advantages of growing up in the place you know with the support to experiment, innovate risk, which, as we have heard from the noble Lord Cashman, is one of the key elements in the process of creation.
This is, for me, a vision that can allow our next generation of creative workers and creative start-ups to flourish in every postcode. The government is committed to effective, place based delivery of creative opportunities for all young people. Building growth in every postcode supported by partners at regional and national level. Some important starting points at national level, many of which have been referred to today already, include revitalising arts education through our new curriculum. Scrapping the EBacc performance measures, removing unnecessary constraints on subject choice for young people, launching a new National Centre for Arts and Music Education, publishing the new enrichment framework for schools and colleges, and investing £132.5 million of dormant assets.
Funding through the Every Child Can programme young people's access to enrichment opportunities, allowing me to play a small part in the presentation of her bill. Whilst I must express reservations on the Bill on behalf of the government, I hope I have outlined that we do share the values and the intention behind it, and we are working to ensure the government delivers better creative education for all of our young people. I join the noble Lady in her commitment to empowering our young people to lead the future of the creative, creative growth in every postcode.
Many of the points that my noble Lords have raised, I hope I have covered in my speech. I have just a few points to refer to and if I leave out anyone, I hope my noble Lord Wood excuse me, I'd be very happy to pick up any points I omit later. I would like just to start with the noble Earl Lord Callanan, who raised a very important point about neurodivergent students and the need for research. This is something I would like to reflect on, and I would like to take up with colleagues in government, if I may.
I just wish to make a quick point about Lord Cashman wonderful contribution, just to say that when he kindly referred to Nottingham Playhouse and his time working with with me and with Phelim McDermott, he omitted to say that he was in fact performing Mephistopheles in Doctor Faustus. And of course he cannot say, but I can that he was absolutely outstanding. I'd like also, just to pick up on the point he made about failure. That's a very serious point.
And just refer him to the famous line of Samuel Beckett, which is fail again, fail better. I'd like just to make the point to Baroness the honourable. The noble. I beg your pardon, Baroness Bousted, that we are committed, that I will commit. I beg your pardon to reading the Teaching Commission report, curriculum and assessment for all, and was very interested in those points, and I'd like to follow them up once I know what I'm talking about.
And could I also say to Lord Taylor of Warwick, and to Lord the noble Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Lord Doyle, that the National Centre for Art and education will be launched later this year, and we will all know more at that point. And I'd like also, just to refer to the point that Baroness Bonham-Carter, the noble Baroness Bonham-Carter, made and paid tribute to my friend the noble Baroness Hodge, for the excellent, outstanding work she has done on the Hodge report for the Arts Council, as many of you will.
As many of your noble Lords will know, we have accepted and welcomed the Hodge report and its recommendations and we, alongside colleagues in the Department of Education, where I will be having a meeting next week and with the Arts Council, are now working through the many excellent ideas that she has proposed. And just to finish picking up a couple of general points, including in particular, a point that that the noble Baroness Featherstone raised, but which several other noble colleagues have also referred to about AI and how it poses both dangers and opportunities.
I think that this is, of course, a topic in which the noble House is debating the dangers and opportunities under many headings, but I would stress that for all of us who believe in the power of art and artists and creators, as with many areas, actually many of our artists and creators are doing exceptional work themselves using AI, adapting AI, finding ways to to make it a force for good and without being overoptimistic about the 90% chance that we're not eliminated by AI, I would suggest that we put our faith and as we should always in the creativity of our creative industries and artistic sectors and hope that they will help us to continue to have life changing moments in a positive sense.
As so many of your noble Lords have referred to in relation to this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
topic. OK. Well, my Lords, I think that was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my Lords, I think that was a marvellous maiden speech, and I really do. And I think you have the most exquisite voice as well, which most exquisite voice as well, which gives you a bit of an advantage, I would say. And, you know, I know would say. And, you know, I know you're on our side in this. And I would simply say, given my noble friend on the front bench mentioned friend on the front bench mentioned the fact that I'm the originator and architect of the same sex marriage law.
I was a junior Minister, the only Lib Dem
May I start by thanking my supporting noble friends, Baroness Nye and Baroness Hunter of Achonry. Apologies in advance to my noble friend. I must also thank Garter King of Arms. Black Rod and his team are excellent doorkeepers, catering staff, the whips office of the government, my noble friends on the front bench and noble Lords across your Lordship house for your generous and kind welcome. I understand it's customary to introduce myself briefly. My parents, Kenneth Mackenzie and Myrna Blumberg, were South African journalists, writers, activists fighting for the abolition of apartheid after the massacre at Sharpeville, when a state of emergency was announced, my mother, along with many other activists, was imprisoned without charge or trial.
As a journalist, she was luckier than many others, and her newspaper helped secure her release. As a result, we fled to London, where I was brought up in London as a child. I spent what felt like every Sunday with my parents protesting in Trafalgar Square outside the South African Embassy. The rest of us. I realised this embedded in me the values of equality and the tenacity needed to make change happen. My London childhood also gave me access to the outstanding free music education of the Inner London Education Authority, so that I could learn several musical instruments, play and sing in the choir and orchestra, as well as developing practical creative skills across the arts.
As a result, my first job was in a professional touring theatre company, working with young people in youth clubs, community centres, sometimes parks, offering practical theatre and music workshops to young people, intensive residencies and performances. Our principle was that young people decided what skills they wanted to learn, the subjects they wanted to tackle, and our job was to serve them, provide the training and support they needed. We were led by the young people, the specific priorities they had in their local communities and their ambitions.
This place based, community led approach guided me throughout my career, running theatres, cultural organisations and festivals in Bradford, Nottingham, Glasgow, Chichester, Manchester, London, Amsterdam, Paris and most recently Adelaide, South Australia. Please don't panic, my noble Lords. I will mention only two places in my career which were particularly crucial for my creative education. Nottingham Playhouse was the first large theatre I led, supported by outstanding leadership from the City of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Education Authority, who encouraged us to become a teaching theatre like a teaching hospital where we not only had a dedicated theatre company working in every school, offering creative skills, workshops and performances, but we also set up two full time two year courses for 16 plus and 18 plus young people to develop their theatre skills and creative talents.
The communities of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire pushed us to work with them on an ambitious programme of world class international theatre and dance, encouraging international stars from around the world. Established and emerging UK artists and, above all, local talent. I lived in Sherwood at the time and I celebrate my time in Nottingham through the name I have taken in your Lordships' House. My recent work in South Australia gave me the chance to work extensively with brilliant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and communities, including the Naranga artistic leader Jacob Boehme, his creative team and above all, his elders on a large scale creation.
This was based on the stories in their 65000 year continuous cultural history, and on the country in which they lived and worked. It opened at the Adelaide International Festival. It's still touring international. My understanding of how place shapes culture and creative education, how innovation springs from deep roots in your community and the land on which you live, has been transformed by these artists and these elders who exceptionally and generously made me an honorary elder. I feel confident I am the only person in this noble house who can say that the noble Lady Baroness Lea Baroness Featherstone bill includes a vision of creative partnerships to support young people, develop their creative skills with the support of their local arts and cultural organisations, from libraries to museums, music venues to youth centres.
And our Prime Minister is challenging us to achieve growth in every postcode. Our ambition is to activate in every postcode, the creative partners, to support the young people, to find their talent, to develop their skills and to contribute to the growth of our creative industries. The UK's creative industries. As many of my noble colleagues have mentioned already, are in the top eight priorities of the UK Industrial Strategy and contribute. We've heard many figures. My figure is 145.8 billion in GVA to the UK economy in 2024, but opportunities, as we have heard, are currently unequally distributed across postcodes and across socio economic groups.
In 2024, 55% of the Creative Workshop workforce apologies was from advantaged background, compared to 45% for the economy as a whole. Post 16 economically disadvantaged students are less likely, as we have already heard, to choose creative paths and under-representation of students from lower socio economic and culturally diverse backgrounds continues at higher education level, starting with the power of place, the strength of communities in each postcode, the advantages of growing up in the place you know with the support to experiment, innovate risk, which, as we have heard from the noble Lord Cashman, is one of the key elements in the process of creation.
This is, for me, a vision that can allow our next generation of creative workers and creative start-ups to flourish in every postcode. The government is committed to effective, place based delivery of creative opportunities for all young people. Building growth in every postcode supported by partners at regional and national level. Some important starting points at national level, many of which have been referred to today already, include revitalising arts education through our new curriculum. Scrapping the EBacc performance measures, removing unnecessary constraints on subject choice for young people, launching a new National Centre for Arts and Music Education, publishing the new enrichment framework for schools and colleges, and investing £132.5 million of dormant assets.
Funding through the Every Child Can programme young people's access to enrichment opportunities, allowing me to play a small part in the presentation of her bill. Whilst I must express reservations on the Bill on behalf of the government, I hope I have outlined that we do share the values and the intention behind it, and we are working to ensure the government delivers better creative education for all of our young people. I join the noble Lady in her commitment to empowering our young people to lead the future of the creative, creative growth in every postcode.
Many of the points that my noble Lords have raised, I hope I have covered in my speech. I have just a few points to refer to and if I leave out anyone, I hope my noble Lord Wood excuse me, I'd be very happy to pick up any points I omit later. I would like just to start with the noble Earl Lord Callanan, who raised a very important point about neurodivergent students and the need for research. This is something I would like to reflect on, and I would like to take up with colleagues in government, if I may.
I just wish to make a quick point about Lord Cashman wonderful contribution, just to say that when he kindly referred to Nottingham Playhouse and his time working with with me and with Phelim McDermott, he omitted to say that he was in fact performing Mephistopheles in Doctor Faustus. And of course he cannot say, but I can that he was absolutely outstanding. I'd like also, just to pick up on the point he made about failure. That's a very serious point.
And just refer him to the famous line of Samuel Beckett, which is fail again, fail better. I'd like just to make the point to Baroness the honourable. The noble. I beg your pardon, Baroness Bousted, that we are committed, that I will commit. I beg your pardon to reading the Teaching Commission report, curriculum and assessment for all, and was very interested in those points, and I'd like to follow them up once I know what I'm talking about.
And could I also say to Lord Taylor of Warwick, and to Lord the noble Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Lord Doyle, that the National Centre for Art and education will be launched later this year, and we will all know more at that point. And I'd like also, just to refer to the point that Baroness Bonham-Carter, the noble Baroness Bonham-Carter, made and paid tribute to my friend the noble Baroness Hodge, for the excellent, outstanding work she has done on the Hodge report for the Arts Council, as many of you will.
As many of your noble Lords will know, we have accepted and welcomed the Hodge report and its recommendations and we, alongside colleagues in the Department of Education, where I will be having a meeting next week and with the Arts Council, are now working through the many excellent ideas that she has proposed. And just to finish picking up a couple of general points, including in particular, a point that that the noble Baroness Featherstone raised, but which several other noble colleagues have also referred to about AI and how it poses both dangers and opportunities.
I think that this is, of course, a topic in which the noble House is debating the dangers and opportunities under many headings, but I would stress that for all of us who believe in the power of art and artists and creators, as with many areas, actually many of our artists and creators are doing exceptional work themselves using AI, adapting AI, finding ways to to make it a force for good and without being overoptimistic about the 90% chance that we're not eliminated by AI, I would suggest that we put our faith and as we should always in the creativity of our creative industries and artistic sectors and hope that they will help us to continue to have life changing moments in a positive sense.
As so many of your noble Lords have referred to in relation to this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
topic. OK. Well, my Lords, I think that was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my Lords, I think that was a marvellous maiden speech, and I really do. And I think you have the most exquisite voice as well, which most exquisite voice as well, which gives you a bit of an advantage, I would say. And, you know, I know would say. And, you know, I know you're on our side in this. And I would simply say, given my noble friend on the front bench mentioned friend on the front bench mentioned the fact that I'm the originator and architect of the same sex marriage law.
I was a junior Minister, the only Lib Dem
12:42
Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
surrounded by conservative Ministers. When I got the idea of doing this. And now it's the law. doing this. And now it's the law. So I say, I want you to be me and push this in your department and in push this in your department and in the education department, because I was, you know. Well, I'll go on. I just thought it was marvellous, but just thought it was marvellous, but I was didn't feel the same about the conservative frontbench response, which I felt was response, which I felt was incredibly disappointed, disappointing.
And I also feel it's like clinging to a sinking ship. If you don't change and you don't move forward and you say the three R's are it forever, the world is changing. And if we do not get with it, and if we do not prepare for it, then just clinging to the old ways will not enhance our status in the world. We will not remain top of anything if we don't change our ways, and we're having enough trouble as it is. Right where I was.
And anyway, thank you to all, to all noble Lords, because I thought it was a wonderful debate. It's like stirring stories for creatives. But actually, you know, if it was left to us in this room, the world would be a better place. But sadly, there's a few other influences, so we have work to do. But thanks to all noble Lords for wonderful, wonderful creations, this Creative Education Access Bill is not simply an arts policy, it is a statement about the future well-being of our nation.
My heartfelt thanks to all
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of you. I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read. A second time, as.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A second time, as. Many of that opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say, content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. My Lords, we will allow a moment to Lords, we will allow a moment to prepare for the next business.
And I also feel it's like clinging to a sinking ship. If you don't change and you don't move forward and you say the three R's are it forever, the world is changing. And if we do not get with it, and if we do not prepare for it, then just clinging to the old ways will not enhance our status in the world. We will not remain top of anything if we don't change our ways, and we're having enough trouble as it is. Right where I was.
And anyway, thank you to all, to all noble Lords, because I thought it was a wonderful debate. It's like stirring stories for creatives. But actually, you know, if it was left to us in this room, the world would be a better place. But sadly, there's a few other influences, so we have work to do. But thanks to all noble Lords for wonderful, wonderful creations, this Creative Education Access Bill is not simply an arts policy, it is a statement about the future well-being of our nation.
My heartfelt thanks to all
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of you. I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read. A second time, as.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A second time, as. Many of that opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say, content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. My Lords, we will allow a moment to Lords, we will allow a moment to prepare for the next business.
12:46
-
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Restoration of powers and responsibilities Bill Lord Oates. >> My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I want to thank the noble Lord, the Minister and his noble Lord, the Minister and his Commons ministerial colleague, Jake Richards, for the constructive and proactive manner in which they've engaged with me and with colleagues on this bill. I also want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally, a former chair and tireless advocate for the Youth Justice Board, who had hoped to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I want to thank the noble Lord, the Minister and his noble Lord, the Minister and his Commons ministerial colleague, Jake Richards, for the constructive and proactive manner in which they've engaged with me and with colleagues on this bill. I also want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally, a former chair and tireless advocate for the Youth Justice Board, who had hoped to
12:46
12:46
-
sadly unwell. We wish him a rapid recovery, my Lords. Nearly 30 years ago, the New Labour government ago, the New Labour government revolutionised the youth justice system and laid the foundations for one of the great public policy one of the great public policy successes of our time, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established a and Disorder Act 1998 established a youth justice system with a clear principle aim preventing offending by children and young people. It created the Youth Justice Board to monitor the system, advise
12:47
12:47
Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
Wales Order 2000. At the local level, it brought together police, level, it brought together police, probation, health, education and social services in statutory youth offending teams, creating a coordinated response to youth offending on the ground for the offending on the ground for the first time. The results have been remarkable. The number of under 18 remarkable. The number of under 18 detained in the secure estate, which peaked at 3052 in 2003, has fallen to fewer than 400 today. Over the same period, proven offences by young people have fallen by nearly 90% for more than 268,000, to fewer than 36,000.
That is an extraordinary achievement. Yet instead of learning from that success and and asking how its lessons might be applied more widely throughout the justice system, we have seen three successive attempts over the past 15 years to abolish, diminish or strip responsibilities from the Youth Justice Board. The first came in 2011, during the coalition government, as part of the Treasury's bonfire of the quangos. At the time, I was Chief of Staff to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I had previously had the privilege of working at the Youth Justice Board under the inspirational leadership of our former colleague, Lord Warner, and I knew how important the board was to the success of the system.
Thanks to efforts within government and in Parliament, led by Lord Warner, my noble friend Lord McNally and many others, those proposals were happily defeated. The second attempt came in 2017, when Liz Truss was Secretary of State for justice, when responsibility for youth custody operations was transferred to the Youth Custody Service and commissioning functions to the MoJ responsibilities explicitly assigned to the YJB in the 2000 order were removed under ministerial instruction, without an amending order being laid then or since.
And now comes the third attempt. Remarkably, it comes from a Labour government. Under the government's proposals, the board will lose responsibility for national oversight, performance monitoring and administration of the Youth Justice Core grant. Its future role will largely be confined to identifying good practice and supporting local services in continuous improvement. It will have lost the principal levers through which it has been able to drive improvement across the system. Ministers will lose something equally important. Robust, independent advice from a board containing experts with practical experience of youth justice and the levers to drive change.
My bill takes a different approach. It would restore the powers and responsibilities of the board broadly, as envisaged by the Labour government and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000. It also recognises the development of devolution since the board was created. It would require the Secretary of State, the board and the Welsh Government to agree a memorandum of understanding, setting out their respective responsibilities for youth justice. It would require consultation with the Welsh Government on board appointments, extend the board's advisory role to the Welsh Government, and provide for Welsh Government approval of specified grants in Wales.
My Lords, I don't pretend that the youth justice system is perfect or that there is no room for improvement. The much smaller cohort of children now entering custody often have extraordinarily complex needs, with offending remains far too high. There is still plenty that needs to improve, but I am adamant that the changes the government are proposing would be a major step backwards. What makes their approach particularly difficult to understand is that it runs directly counter to the review of the Youth Justice Board, which the government themselves commissioned from Steve Crocker, a former director of children's services.
His conclusion was clear changing the board's current status, he said, would be risky, costly and disruptive, with no certainty that its functions would be better delivered inside the MoJ. He warned that splitting these functions across the department would create a system that was less agile, more complex and less transparent. And he specifically highlighted the importance of technical expertise and an independent voice within youth justice. So what did the government do with the review that they had commissioned? They published it, and on the very same day announced a strategy which rejected its central conclusion.
Their explanation was that the scale of change required more significant reform than the review recommended. But that is not really an explanation at all. The scale of change required was precisely what Steve Crocker had been asked to review. John Drew, the former chief executive of the YJB, has identified the danger in the government's proposals very clearly, warning that moving youth justice policy and performance monitoring exclusively into the civil service will create greater separation between practical experience and policy making, increase the likelihood of advice being given by people without experience of the system on which they're advising, and reduce the chance that Ministers will hear dissenting voices.
And surely that last point matters. Independent advice is not an inconvenience to good government. It is part of good government. The other argument advanced for these changes is that democratic accountability somehow requires these functions to be exercised directly by MoJ officials, but that simply does not make sense. The Youth Justice Board is already accountable to Ministers and through them to Parliament. The Secretary of State appoints its chair and board members. Ministers set the policy and performance framework within which it operates.
They approve its strategy and annual business plan, and the board is required to comply with ministerial directions and guidance. So the question is not whether the Youth Justice Board is democratically accountable. It plainly is. The question is whether Ministers use that accountability effectively, whether they set clear objectives, engage with the board and use its expertise to drive improvement across the system. When I worked at the Youth Justice Board, there was regular engagement between its chair, Norman Warner, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, and David Blunkett, as well as with the Prime Minister.
Indeed, the first time I ever stepped over the threshold of number ten was to represent the Youth Justice Board in discussions on youth crime. This level of engagement was key to the success of the youth justice
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reforms. Government understood that the board had an important role in board had an important role in driving systemic change. Engaged with it proactively, and resourced it properly. So I'd be interested it properly. So I'd be interested to know from the Minister how many meetings recent Secretaries of State for justice have held with the chair of the Youth Justice the chair of the Youth Justice Board, specifically to set objectives for youth justice and agree strategies for delivering agree strategies for delivering them? My Lords, there is a final question the government needs to answer.
Why would we take important functions away from an expert board with a proven track record, and transfer them into a department already overwhelmed by the crisis in the adult justice system? The reason that the Youth Justice Board was established in the first place was because in the 1990s, when oversight of youth justice was run from the Home Office, it had received little attention. Inevitably, the focus was on adults, as they represent a vastly larger contingent in the criminal justice system. The consequence was an explosion of youth offending and anti-social behaviour, and a collapse in public confidence in the system.
If the government proceeds with its transfer of oversight functions of the youth justice system to the MoJ, the same process will inevitably play out. Youth justice will be relegated to a backwater as the ministry naturally focuses on the adult criminal justice system, and in five years time, we will be back where we were before the 1998 reforms. My Lords, in contrast to the success of the youth justice system in reducing the number of young people in custody and the number of youth offenders by nearly 90% over the past 23 years.
The adult prison population has risen by around a fifth in the same period, despite crime rates falling. Our prisons are now so overcrowded that people convicted of serious violent offences are being released early, recalled to prison, are at an all time high, up 28% last year. And this. This is the department to which Ministers now propose adding responsibility for functions currently exercised by a specialist and highly successful organisation whose very purpose is youth justice. Why? What evidence is there that this will improve outcomes? How will separate separating policy making from practical expertise make the system better? And why has the government rejected the conclusions of the independent review it itself commissioned? Those questions deserve answers.
My Lords, if the government persists with these changes, the Youth Justice Board may survive in name, but in practice it will become little more than a statutory think tank, a pale shadow of the organisation that has played such an important role in one of the great public policy successes of the past 30 years. My Lords, with all the challenges in our criminal justice system, we cannot afford to dismantle the one part of it which has been an overwhelming success. We cannot and we must not go back to the past.
When an overwhelmed department neglected youth justice and youth offending spiralled out of control, bringing misery to the lives of so many law abiding
**** Possible New Speaker ****
citizens. It is not too late for Ministers to think again. My Lords, I beg to move. Hear, hear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hear, hear. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be now read a second time. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Oates for bringing forward his private member's Bill. I don't want to start on a downer or with a spoiler, but I suspect or with a spoiler, but I suspect the bill may fail to receive the support of the government. Either
That is an extraordinary achievement. Yet instead of learning from that success and and asking how its lessons might be applied more widely throughout the justice system, we have seen three successive attempts over the past 15 years to abolish, diminish or strip responsibilities from the Youth Justice Board. The first came in 2011, during the coalition government, as part of the Treasury's bonfire of the quangos. At the time, I was Chief of Staff to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I had previously had the privilege of working at the Youth Justice Board under the inspirational leadership of our former colleague, Lord Warner, and I knew how important the board was to the success of the system.
Thanks to efforts within government and in Parliament, led by Lord Warner, my noble friend Lord McNally and many others, those proposals were happily defeated. The second attempt came in 2017, when Liz Truss was Secretary of State for justice, when responsibility for youth custody operations was transferred to the Youth Custody Service and commissioning functions to the MoJ responsibilities explicitly assigned to the YJB in the 2000 order were removed under ministerial instruction, without an amending order being laid then or since.
And now comes the third attempt. Remarkably, it comes from a Labour government. Under the government's proposals, the board will lose responsibility for national oversight, performance monitoring and administration of the Youth Justice Core grant. Its future role will largely be confined to identifying good practice and supporting local services in continuous improvement. It will have lost the principal levers through which it has been able to drive improvement across the system. Ministers will lose something equally important. Robust, independent advice from a board containing experts with practical experience of youth justice and the levers to drive change.
My bill takes a different approach. It would restore the powers and responsibilities of the board broadly, as envisaged by the Labour government and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000. It also recognises the development of devolution since the board was created. It would require the Secretary of State, the board and the Welsh Government to agree a memorandum of understanding, setting out their respective responsibilities for youth justice. It would require consultation with the Welsh Government on board appointments, extend the board's advisory role to the Welsh Government, and provide for Welsh Government approval of specified grants in Wales.
My Lords, I don't pretend that the youth justice system is perfect or that there is no room for improvement. The much smaller cohort of children now entering custody often have extraordinarily complex needs, with offending remains far too high. There is still plenty that needs to improve, but I am adamant that the changes the government are proposing would be a major step backwards. What makes their approach particularly difficult to understand is that it runs directly counter to the review of the Youth Justice Board, which the government themselves commissioned from Steve Crocker, a former director of children's services.
His conclusion was clear changing the board's current status, he said, would be risky, costly and disruptive, with no certainty that its functions would be better delivered inside the MoJ. He warned that splitting these functions across the department would create a system that was less agile, more complex and less transparent. And he specifically highlighted the importance of technical expertise and an independent voice within youth justice. So what did the government do with the review that they had commissioned? They published it, and on the very same day announced a strategy which rejected its central conclusion.
Their explanation was that the scale of change required more significant reform than the review recommended. But that is not really an explanation at all. The scale of change required was precisely what Steve Crocker had been asked to review. John Drew, the former chief executive of the YJB, has identified the danger in the government's proposals very clearly, warning that moving youth justice policy and performance monitoring exclusively into the civil service will create greater separation between practical experience and policy making, increase the likelihood of advice being given by people without experience of the system on which they're advising, and reduce the chance that Ministers will hear dissenting voices.
And surely that last point matters. Independent advice is not an inconvenience to good government. It is part of good government. The other argument advanced for these changes is that democratic accountability somehow requires these functions to be exercised directly by MoJ officials, but that simply does not make sense. The Youth Justice Board is already accountable to Ministers and through them to Parliament. The Secretary of State appoints its chair and board members. Ministers set the policy and performance framework within which it operates.
They approve its strategy and annual business plan, and the board is required to comply with ministerial directions and guidance. So the question is not whether the Youth Justice Board is democratically accountable. It plainly is. The question is whether Ministers use that accountability effectively, whether they set clear objectives, engage with the board and use its expertise to drive improvement across the system. When I worked at the Youth Justice Board, there was regular engagement between its chair, Norman Warner, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, and David Blunkett, as well as with the Prime Minister.
Indeed, the first time I ever stepped over the threshold of number ten was to represent the Youth Justice Board in discussions on youth crime. This level of engagement was key to the success of the youth justice
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reforms. Government understood that the board had an important role in board had an important role in driving systemic change. Engaged with it proactively, and resourced it properly. So I'd be interested it properly. So I'd be interested to know from the Minister how many meetings recent Secretaries of State for justice have held with the chair of the Youth Justice the chair of the Youth Justice Board, specifically to set objectives for youth justice and agree strategies for delivering agree strategies for delivering them? My Lords, there is a final question the government needs to answer.
Why would we take important functions away from an expert board with a proven track record, and transfer them into a department already overwhelmed by the crisis in the adult justice system? The reason that the Youth Justice Board was established in the first place was because in the 1990s, when oversight of youth justice was run from the Home Office, it had received little attention. Inevitably, the focus was on adults, as they represent a vastly larger contingent in the criminal justice system. The consequence was an explosion of youth offending and anti-social behaviour, and a collapse in public confidence in the system.
If the government proceeds with its transfer of oversight functions of the youth justice system to the MoJ, the same process will inevitably play out. Youth justice will be relegated to a backwater as the ministry naturally focuses on the adult criminal justice system, and in five years time, we will be back where we were before the 1998 reforms. My Lords, in contrast to the success of the youth justice system in reducing the number of young people in custody and the number of youth offenders by nearly 90% over the past 23 years.
The adult prison population has risen by around a fifth in the same period, despite crime rates falling. Our prisons are now so overcrowded that people convicted of serious violent offences are being released early, recalled to prison, are at an all time high, up 28% last year. And this. This is the department to which Ministers now propose adding responsibility for functions currently exercised by a specialist and highly successful organisation whose very purpose is youth justice. Why? What evidence is there that this will improve outcomes? How will separate separating policy making from practical expertise make the system better? And why has the government rejected the conclusions of the independent review it itself commissioned? Those questions deserve answers.
My Lords, if the government persists with these changes, the Youth Justice Board may survive in name, but in practice it will become little more than a statutory think tank, a pale shadow of the organisation that has played such an important role in one of the great public policy successes of the past 30 years. My Lords, with all the challenges in our criminal justice system, we cannot afford to dismantle the one part of it which has been an overwhelming success. We cannot and we must not go back to the past.
When an overwhelmed department neglected youth justice and youth offending spiralled out of control, bringing misery to the lives of so many law abiding
**** Possible New Speaker ****
citizens. It is not too late for Ministers to think again. My Lords, I beg to move. Hear, hear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hear, hear. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be now read a second time. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Oates for bringing forward his private member's Bill. I don't want to start on a downer or with a spoiler, but I suspect or with a spoiler, but I suspect the bill may fail to receive the support of the government. Either
12:58
Lord Rook (Labour)
-
-
Lord Rook (Labour)
way. This private member's bill presents a really timely opportunity for your Lordships' House to consider the future of House to consider the future of youth justice in our country. The proposed government reforms are about clearer accountability and about clearer accountability and greater grip of the criminal justice system, where young people justice system, where young people are concerned, more localised, more personalised approach and response. A particular focus on that very A particular focus on that very small group of young people who are most at risk, and these are important aims.
And so the question is how do you realise them? Youth justice is not simply a question of administration. It reveals what the state believes about personal responsibility and indeed ultimately, humanity. What is our response to children who have experienced and caused real harm? How bright a future can we give to young people who have experienced the darker past than most of us can ever imagine? Let's be clear victims deserve protection, truth, justice. Communities have a right to safety, and no child's offending should be excused or minimised for their own sake, let alone that of society.
But we can't build an effective youth justice system on a fiction. The fiction that children are simply small versions of adults. Many who enter this system have experienced neglect, exclusion, exploitation, severe mental health difficulties, special educational needs, family breakdown, and a broken care system. None of this removes their personal responsibility, but it should inform ours and our response and the response of wider society. Our prison estate, as my noble Lord has just mentioned, is under acute pressure, and we have to be serious about reducing that systemic stress.
And to do that, we need to look upstream. Tomorrow's prisoners are formed today in childhood and adolescence. That was the key insight of the Taylor Review, and it led to the innovation of secure schools. Oasis restore, which is the country's first secure school, has a different model to most young offenders institutes. It is smaller, more relational, educational, therapeutic. But it is still secure. It holds children accountable. It helps young people to understand themselves and their situation. It develops trust, trust.
It promotes learning and life skills. It enables young people to imagine a different kind of future. I'm really struck by the testimony of one set of parents whose child was in Oasis Restore. They said for the first time, they received adequate health care encouragement into education assessment, leading to diagnosis of autism and ADHD. They had staff who really knew them, really cared for them. They were able to start taking responsibility for themselves. This is not soft justice. It's demanding justice. It's transforming justice.
However, as Steve Chalke, the founder of Oasis, warns, Oasis is in danger of creating a therapeutic island in a punitive sea of policy, compliance, assurance and accountability. We need safeguarding, inspection and accountability. But when assurance frameworks become unyielding, uncoordinated, unresponsive paperwork becomes the enemy of real work. I was really encouraged. Earlier today, I had a conversation with Kate Green, who is the deputy mayor of Manchester responsible for building stronger and safer communities, and she gave me an insight to the work that the government is doing with the Greater Manchester local authorities.
The Honourable Jake Richards, in the other place, the Minister in the Ministry of Justice has just signed an MoU with Greater Manchester in May and that will transform youth justice across that city region. It focuses on prevention and diversion from crime from the criminal justice system. It is underpinned and informed by the voice and experience of young people. Elements include the Greater Manchester Combined Authority becoming the financial administrator of the turnaround programme. Better data sharing across services, successful remand, fostering programmes which have radically reduced the young people returning into young offenders situations.
It has a youth justice practice hub which spreads good learning and good practice, and it will tackle the disproportionality and outcomes for children in the system. It is a potential blueprint which we could scale across many parts of the country, and the government should be encouraged to do so. So with this bill, the noble Lord Oates is helping us to address critical questions. How do we protect the public and reduce future victims? How do we hold children responsible without writing them off? How do we ensure that the most at risk young people receive not just more punishment and control, but better education, better assessment, better support? While the government may not support this bill, this bill makes a vital contribution to the wider debate, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as we progress this vital and timely conversation in your Lordships House.
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Oates for bringing this Bill before the House and compliment him before the House and compliment him on his unwavering devotion of the YJB. I will focus my remarks on one particular issue at the heart of this bill, namely the government's proposed changes to the Youth proposed changes to the Youth Justice Board. I share the concern. We have heard from Lord Oates that the proposed changes risk weakening the proposed changes risk weakening what is demonstrably working.
I say that with some personal experience, having seen our youth justice system from two perspectives. First, as a youth magistrate for over 20
And so the question is how do you realise them? Youth justice is not simply a question of administration. It reveals what the state believes about personal responsibility and indeed ultimately, humanity. What is our response to children who have experienced and caused real harm? How bright a future can we give to young people who have experienced the darker past than most of us can ever imagine? Let's be clear victims deserve protection, truth, justice. Communities have a right to safety, and no child's offending should be excused or minimised for their own sake, let alone that of society.
But we can't build an effective youth justice system on a fiction. The fiction that children are simply small versions of adults. Many who enter this system have experienced neglect, exclusion, exploitation, severe mental health difficulties, special educational needs, family breakdown, and a broken care system. None of this removes their personal responsibility, but it should inform ours and our response and the response of wider society. Our prison estate, as my noble Lord has just mentioned, is under acute pressure, and we have to be serious about reducing that systemic stress.
And to do that, we need to look upstream. Tomorrow's prisoners are formed today in childhood and adolescence. That was the key insight of the Taylor Review, and it led to the innovation of secure schools. Oasis restore, which is the country's first secure school, has a different model to most young offenders institutes. It is smaller, more relational, educational, therapeutic. But it is still secure. It holds children accountable. It helps young people to understand themselves and their situation. It develops trust, trust.
It promotes learning and life skills. It enables young people to imagine a different kind of future. I'm really struck by the testimony of one set of parents whose child was in Oasis Restore. They said for the first time, they received adequate health care encouragement into education assessment, leading to diagnosis of autism and ADHD. They had staff who really knew them, really cared for them. They were able to start taking responsibility for themselves. This is not soft justice. It's demanding justice. It's transforming justice.
However, as Steve Chalke, the founder of Oasis, warns, Oasis is in danger of creating a therapeutic island in a punitive sea of policy, compliance, assurance and accountability. We need safeguarding, inspection and accountability. But when assurance frameworks become unyielding, uncoordinated, unresponsive paperwork becomes the enemy of real work. I was really encouraged. Earlier today, I had a conversation with Kate Green, who is the deputy mayor of Manchester responsible for building stronger and safer communities, and she gave me an insight to the work that the government is doing with the Greater Manchester local authorities.
The Honourable Jake Richards, in the other place, the Minister in the Ministry of Justice has just signed an MoU with Greater Manchester in May and that will transform youth justice across that city region. It focuses on prevention and diversion from crime from the criminal justice system. It is underpinned and informed by the voice and experience of young people. Elements include the Greater Manchester Combined Authority becoming the financial administrator of the turnaround programme. Better data sharing across services, successful remand, fostering programmes which have radically reduced the young people returning into young offenders situations.
It has a youth justice practice hub which spreads good learning and good practice, and it will tackle the disproportionality and outcomes for children in the system. It is a potential blueprint which we could scale across many parts of the country, and the government should be encouraged to do so. So with this bill, the noble Lord Oates is helping us to address critical questions. How do we protect the public and reduce future victims? How do we hold children responsible without writing them off? How do we ensure that the most at risk young people receive not just more punishment and control, but better education, better assessment, better support? While the government may not support this bill, this bill makes a vital contribution to the wider debate, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as we progress this vital and timely conversation in your Lordships House.
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Oates for bringing this Bill before the House and compliment him before the House and compliment him on his unwavering devotion of the YJB. I will focus my remarks on one particular issue at the heart of this bill, namely the government's proposed changes to the Youth proposed changes to the Youth Justice Board. I share the concern. We have heard from Lord Oates that the proposed changes risk weakening the proposed changes risk weakening what is demonstrably working.
I say that with some personal experience, having seen our youth justice system from two perspectives. First, as a youth magistrate for over 20
13:04
Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Sater (Conservative)
years and as a former member of the Youth Justice Board, I. To pay tribute to my noble friend Lord tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally for his unrelenting and passionate work in youth justice. I was fortunate enough to serve on the board while he was chair, and I'm sorry that he is unable to be here today and I hope he makes a here today and I hope he makes a speedy recovery. My Lords, the creation of the youth offending teams, supported by the Yjb, changed the landscape of youth justice.
The yacht, now referred to as Youth Justice Service, brought together a team locally including police, probation, health, education and social care. This gave us a valuable insight into the child. A much more holistic approach to youth justice and ultimately better rehabilitation. The evidence shows that this approach has worked. Lord Oates has already reminded us of the significant fall in youth offences and youth custody, which is an extraordinary achievement. The Yjb has played a hugely important role in supporting that success, and one of its strengths has been bringing together national expertise and independence with locally delivered multi-agency services and alongside its visibility right across the system.
My Lords, I've often suggested that the adult criminal justice system could learn a great deal from the youth justice approach. And that is not simply my view. Martin Jones, His Majesty's chief inspector of Probation, told the Justice committee earlier this year that in youth justice and I quote, we have all the building blocks of success. And he goes on to say that we need to ensure that we carry that across the adult system. For me, that is an endorsement of the value of the youth justice model, and surely a reason to ask what we can learn from what is working before we weaken the structures that helped make it work.
My concern is not with the principle of reform itself. I recognise that organisations often need to involve and build on their successes. Instead, my apprehension is centred on what we might lose by moving these responsibilities from an independent specialist body, like the YJB, into the MoJ, who we already know have a lot on their plate. If the government believes that reform is needed, surely one of the first questions should be what does the yjb need? Not whether some of it should simply just be brought back into the MoJ? The question is, how can we expect to retain the YJB expertise, the value of its independence advice to Ministers, while at the same time removing some of its responsibilities? Phil Bowen, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, has made an important point here.
He says we have said to Ministers that putting end to end oversight back into the department means that you do have a different tone. A Minister could suggest an idea like reforms to the youth court, and we could provide advice as wise experts rather than a civil servant. That distinction is extremely important. I'm uneasy about any reform which could be perceived as a move away from a child first approach towards a justice first approach. My Lords, the government itself recognises that children remaining in the youth justice system are often more vulnerable and have more complex needs.
Surely that makes specialist expertise more important, not less, as Lord Oates has highlighted these proposals, these proposed reforms run counter to some of the findings of the government commissioned review by Steve Crocker. This was an important review which should be taken seriously into consideration. Therefore, could I ask the Minister whether the government is working on an impact assessment and, if not, whether they will commit today to doing so? It is imperative that any changes lead to better outcomes for children and young people in youth justice.
The combination of local delivery, practical experience, national expertise and the independent advice that follows from that is worth protecting. So my plea to government is reform where reform is needed. But please let us build on what works rather
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than risk weakening it. My Lords. I am.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am. No expert. On youth justice and I am aware that I am surrounded by people that I am surrounded by people today who are. But I have. I am supporting the noble Lord Oates supporting the noble Lord Oates bill today because I have too often experienced the results of a government thinking that by government thinking that by transferring responsibilities in-house to central government and away from an organisation specially set up to do the job, it will improve matters.
It is nearly always wrong. On the contrary, it makes the organisation often more
The yacht, now referred to as Youth Justice Service, brought together a team locally including police, probation, health, education and social care. This gave us a valuable insight into the child. A much more holistic approach to youth justice and ultimately better rehabilitation. The evidence shows that this approach has worked. Lord Oates has already reminded us of the significant fall in youth offences and youth custody, which is an extraordinary achievement. The Yjb has played a hugely important role in supporting that success, and one of its strengths has been bringing together national expertise and independence with locally delivered multi-agency services and alongside its visibility right across the system.
My Lords, I've often suggested that the adult criminal justice system could learn a great deal from the youth justice approach. And that is not simply my view. Martin Jones, His Majesty's chief inspector of Probation, told the Justice committee earlier this year that in youth justice and I quote, we have all the building blocks of success. And he goes on to say that we need to ensure that we carry that across the adult system. For me, that is an endorsement of the value of the youth justice model, and surely a reason to ask what we can learn from what is working before we weaken the structures that helped make it work.
My concern is not with the principle of reform itself. I recognise that organisations often need to involve and build on their successes. Instead, my apprehension is centred on what we might lose by moving these responsibilities from an independent specialist body, like the YJB, into the MoJ, who we already know have a lot on their plate. If the government believes that reform is needed, surely one of the first questions should be what does the yjb need? Not whether some of it should simply just be brought back into the MoJ? The question is, how can we expect to retain the YJB expertise, the value of its independence advice to Ministers, while at the same time removing some of its responsibilities? Phil Bowen, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, has made an important point here.
He says we have said to Ministers that putting end to end oversight back into the department means that you do have a different tone. A Minister could suggest an idea like reforms to the youth court, and we could provide advice as wise experts rather than a civil servant. That distinction is extremely important. I'm uneasy about any reform which could be perceived as a move away from a child first approach towards a justice first approach. My Lords, the government itself recognises that children remaining in the youth justice system are often more vulnerable and have more complex needs.
Surely that makes specialist expertise more important, not less, as Lord Oates has highlighted these proposals, these proposed reforms run counter to some of the findings of the government commissioned review by Steve Crocker. This was an important review which should be taken seriously into consideration. Therefore, could I ask the Minister whether the government is working on an impact assessment and, if not, whether they will commit today to doing so? It is imperative that any changes lead to better outcomes for children and young people in youth justice.
The combination of local delivery, practical experience, national expertise and the independent advice that follows from that is worth protecting. So my plea to government is reform where reform is needed. But please let us build on what works rather
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than risk weakening it. My Lords. I am.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am. No expert. On youth justice and I am aware that I am surrounded by people that I am surrounded by people today who are. But I have. I am supporting the noble Lord Oates supporting the noble Lord Oates bill today because I have too often experienced the results of a government thinking that by government thinking that by transferring responsibilities in-house to central government and away from an organisation specially set up to do the job, it will improve matters.
It is nearly always wrong. On the contrary, it makes the organisation often more
13:09
Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
remote. It ever looking over its shoulders at the next ministerial edict, rarely fails to recruit leaders. After the first generation has gone, it fails to recruit has gone, it fails to recruit leaders of quality and buries those responsible in civil service bureaucracy. Ministers who are bureaucracy. Ministers who are usually amateurs in the topic, although not in this House today, are often not there long enough to are often not there long enough to get to grips with the total responsibilities. Delivery deteriorates as new political priorities take centre stage.
Now I understand the pattern of crime has changed. That small group that we are left with is really a very difficult group, and maybe the constituent personnel of the Youth Justice Board needs to change. But a revamp to YJB would likely to be far more effective than further centralisation, which is what we've got. It was a mystery to me why the government would want to transfer responsibilities from a successful organisation like the Youth Justice Board, albeit even if it's had some blips in its history.
All organisations do. But it has done so much to reduce youth crime. And why would we transfer those responsibilities to a Minister such as the MoJ, which, well, if challenged, if not actually failing, the government seems to have taken no notice of Steve Crocker's review, which was done only a few months ago, in January this year. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-brown, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said about their recent report into the Ministry of Justice the criminal justice system remains in crisis, end to end on legal aid.
The reforms of a decade ago are now at serious risk of going down in history as an extinction event. The entitlement to access to legal aid in large parts of the population, the issue of HMP Dartmoor is an absolute disgrace from top to bottom. And again, we all know that what's happened is the MoJ is actually leasing it again. They thought it was a sensible thing, but of course that was driven by the need for prison places. Never mind that it actually is unusable as a prison.
It's a perfect example of a department reaching for solution. Any solution in blind panic and under pressure. Then there are the other problems of the MoJ prison and probation services. Severe staff shortages, a staggering shortfall of personnel in order, you know, and those that are left, therefore, suffering from exhaustion and low morale. The early release and legislative pressures we've heard so much about in the last few days, placing an impossible burden on an already buckling community supervision network, and the government thought it would be a good idea to add more responsibilities to the MoJ.
I just cannot see it myself. Far better to do the reverse beef up the Youth Justice Board, increase its powers. Think seriously about implementing Steve Crocker's recommendations, and maybe ask them to make some recommendations about the way forward from scrutinising successful systems in Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, about how to improve youth justice. So I support this private member's bill and wish it success, although without any expectation, of course, that the government will see the light. But I look forward to the minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Oates for introducing the Bill Lord Oates for introducing the Bill and for giving the House the opportunity to consider once again the future of youth justice. The the future of youth justice. The noble Lords intentions are entirely understandable. As set out in his understandable. As set out in his opening remarks, we all want a youth justice system that's effective, properly resourced and effective, properly resourced and focussed on the welfare of children.
We know that many young people who come into contact with the justice system have experienced trauma, exploitation, poor mental health,
Now I understand the pattern of crime has changed. That small group that we are left with is really a very difficult group, and maybe the constituent personnel of the Youth Justice Board needs to change. But a revamp to YJB would likely to be far more effective than further centralisation, which is what we've got. It was a mystery to me why the government would want to transfer responsibilities from a successful organisation like the Youth Justice Board, albeit even if it's had some blips in its history.
All organisations do. But it has done so much to reduce youth crime. And why would we transfer those responsibilities to a Minister such as the MoJ, which, well, if challenged, if not actually failing, the government seems to have taken no notice of Steve Crocker's review, which was done only a few months ago, in January this year. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-brown, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said about their recent report into the Ministry of Justice the criminal justice system remains in crisis, end to end on legal aid.
The reforms of a decade ago are now at serious risk of going down in history as an extinction event. The entitlement to access to legal aid in large parts of the population, the issue of HMP Dartmoor is an absolute disgrace from top to bottom. And again, we all know that what's happened is the MoJ is actually leasing it again. They thought it was a sensible thing, but of course that was driven by the need for prison places. Never mind that it actually is unusable as a prison.
It's a perfect example of a department reaching for solution. Any solution in blind panic and under pressure. Then there are the other problems of the MoJ prison and probation services. Severe staff shortages, a staggering shortfall of personnel in order, you know, and those that are left, therefore, suffering from exhaustion and low morale. The early release and legislative pressures we've heard so much about in the last few days, placing an impossible burden on an already buckling community supervision network, and the government thought it would be a good idea to add more responsibilities to the MoJ.
I just cannot see it myself. Far better to do the reverse beef up the Youth Justice Board, increase its powers. Think seriously about implementing Steve Crocker's recommendations, and maybe ask them to make some recommendations about the way forward from scrutinising successful systems in Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, about how to improve youth justice. So I support this private member's bill and wish it success, although without any expectation, of course, that the government will see the light. But I look forward to the minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Oates for introducing the Bill Lord Oates for introducing the Bill and for giving the House the opportunity to consider once again the future of youth justice. The the future of youth justice. The noble Lords intentions are entirely understandable. As set out in his understandable. As set out in his opening remarks, we all want a youth justice system that's effective, properly resourced and effective, properly resourced and focussed on the welfare of children.
We know that many young people who come into contact with the justice system have experienced trauma, exploitation, poor mental health,
13:13
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
family instability and other forms of disadvantage. Any successful of disadvantage. Any successful youth justice system must recognise those realities and respond accordingly. However, speaking from a Welsh perspective, I'm not convinced that the restorative convinced that the restorative restoration of powers to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales fits the constitutional context in fits the constitutional context in which we now find ourselves. Earlier this year, the UK Government and Welsh Government published an agreement on youth justice and probation, committing to an expanded and clearly defined role for the Welsh Government.
More recently, the White Paper cutting Youth crime changing young Lives again pointed towards greater Welsh oversight of aspects of youth justice funding and delivery. The conversation in Wales is therefore increasingly about how responsibility can better align with devolved services, and ultimately how youth justice itself should be devolved. The debate is not principally about restoring functions to the England and Wales bodies, or a model of that kind, but from my perspective, the long term destination remains clear. We believe that justice should be fully devolved to Wales, including youth justice.
The services most closely connected to preventing youth offending and supporting vulnerable children, including education, health and social care, are already devolved and it is increasingly difficult to justify retaining responsibility for youth justice at Westminster. While so many of the services that shape outcomes for children are the responsibility of Welsh public bodies. The experience of Wales demonstrates the value of that approach. Through the Welsh Youth Justice Blueprint, partners have pursued a child first, rights based, based, trauma informed model focussed on prevention, diversion and community support.
The results are noteworthy. In 2020 223, 667 children in Wales received a caution or sentence equivalent to 2.3 children per 1000 of the population age 10 to 17, although that figure was unchanged from the previous year. It represents a reduction of 74% compared with 20 1314. Those figures suggest there is a real merit in approaches that seek to intervene earlier and keep children away from the justice system wherever possible. And against that backdrop, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister in his response.
The government have indicated that the Welsh Government will assume a stronger role in youth justice, and that responsibility for certain funding streams will transfer to Welsh oversight. Can the Minister explain what that means in practice? Which funding streams are proposed for transfer, and what proportion of overall youth justice expenditure in Wales do they represent? Will the funding be, be, be recurring and protected for the future? And more importantly, what additional powers will Welsh Ministers possess as a result? What decisions will they be able to take in April 2027 that they cannot take today? Will they have genuine discretion to set priorities and direct resources according to Welsh needs, or will they simply become responsible for administering the funding determined elsewhere? The distinction matters because a transfer of administration is not the same as a transfer of authority or accountability, and one of the clearest challenges within the system in Wales remains the use of remand.
If Wales is to have greater responsibility for youth justice funding, will Welsh Ministers have the flexibility to invest in alternatives to remand and other preventative measures that reflect the child first principles of the Wales Youth Justice Blueprint? For me, the mission should be focussed on early intervention and prevention. If Welsh Ministers are expected to play a larger role in youth justice delivery, they should have the ability to establish community alternatives to remand. Therefore, while I welcome the questions that this bill raises, I remain of the view that the most effective and democratically accountable solution is the full devolution of justice, including youth justice to Wales.
My Lords, I look forward to the rest of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
debate today and the Minister's response. My Lords. I was encouraged by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was encouraged by the Government's White Paper on Youth crime, which highlighted the relationship between complex needs relationship between complex needs and experiences of youth justice. However, the increasing prevalence However, the increasing prevalence of such needs underscores the necessity of retaining the specialist expertise of the Youth
More recently, the White Paper cutting Youth crime changing young Lives again pointed towards greater Welsh oversight of aspects of youth justice funding and delivery. The conversation in Wales is therefore increasingly about how responsibility can better align with devolved services, and ultimately how youth justice itself should be devolved. The debate is not principally about restoring functions to the England and Wales bodies, or a model of that kind, but from my perspective, the long term destination remains clear. We believe that justice should be fully devolved to Wales, including youth justice.
The services most closely connected to preventing youth offending and supporting vulnerable children, including education, health and social care, are already devolved and it is increasingly difficult to justify retaining responsibility for youth justice at Westminster. While so many of the services that shape outcomes for children are the responsibility of Welsh public bodies. The experience of Wales demonstrates the value of that approach. Through the Welsh Youth Justice Blueprint, partners have pursued a child first, rights based, based, trauma informed model focussed on prevention, diversion and community support.
The results are noteworthy. In 2020 223, 667 children in Wales received a caution or sentence equivalent to 2.3 children per 1000 of the population age 10 to 17, although that figure was unchanged from the previous year. It represents a reduction of 74% compared with 20 1314. Those figures suggest there is a real merit in approaches that seek to intervene earlier and keep children away from the justice system wherever possible. And against that backdrop, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister in his response.
The government have indicated that the Welsh Government will assume a stronger role in youth justice, and that responsibility for certain funding streams will transfer to Welsh oversight. Can the Minister explain what that means in practice? Which funding streams are proposed for transfer, and what proportion of overall youth justice expenditure in Wales do they represent? Will the funding be, be, be recurring and protected for the future? And more importantly, what additional powers will Welsh Ministers possess as a result? What decisions will they be able to take in April 2027 that they cannot take today? Will they have genuine discretion to set priorities and direct resources according to Welsh needs, or will they simply become responsible for administering the funding determined elsewhere? The distinction matters because a transfer of administration is not the same as a transfer of authority or accountability, and one of the clearest challenges within the system in Wales remains the use of remand.
If Wales is to have greater responsibility for youth justice funding, will Welsh Ministers have the flexibility to invest in alternatives to remand and other preventative measures that reflect the child first principles of the Wales Youth Justice Blueprint? For me, the mission should be focussed on early intervention and prevention. If Welsh Ministers are expected to play a larger role in youth justice delivery, they should have the ability to establish community alternatives to remand. Therefore, while I welcome the questions that this bill raises, I remain of the view that the most effective and democratically accountable solution is the full devolution of justice, including youth justice to Wales.
My Lords, I look forward to the rest of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
debate today and the Minister's response. My Lords. I was encouraged by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was encouraged by the Government's White Paper on Youth crime, which highlighted the relationship between complex needs relationship between complex needs and experiences of youth justice. However, the increasing prevalence However, the increasing prevalence of such needs underscores the necessity of retaining the specialist expertise of the Youth
13:18
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Bishops)
specialist expertise of the Youth Justice Board. In my own diocese, I have seen how those needs can draw children into crime, for example through county lines. Many young people who come into contact with these networks are not simply offenders, but often victims of exploitation and trauma. This is particularly true for Suffolks looked after children and care leavers, who are at much greater risk of poor mental health and social exclusion, and who are overrepresented in the justice system. County lines activity provides a clear example of the importance of meeting complex needs with specialist expertise.
The Youth Justice Board has long held this unique expertise, championing a child first approach which prioritises prevention and safeguarding. We should therefore be cautious about transferring significant functions away from it. The White Paper also discusses the importance of a joined up approach to youth crime prevention for victims, who rightly expect accountability from our justice system. Bringing Ministers closer to decision making is essential for maintaining public confidence, but the transfer of key functions uniquely to the Ministry of Justice risks overlooking the intersection of other issues commonly faced by vulnerable children.
The Youth Justice Board itself found that 72% of children sentenced in the youth justice system had mental health concerns, and 71% had speech, language and communication concerns. Issues with education, health and social care can therefore compound, making youth offending more likely. If we are to have real progress in the prevention of youth crime, all relevant government departments must be given a central stake in youth justice. If the Youth Justice Board is to is to play a greater role in driving improvement, it must be equipped to collaborate effectively across government more broadly.
When debating these reforms, we must resist the misconception that youth justice is characterised by undue leniency. In reality, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is one of the lowest in Europe. It's central to my Christian faith that every individual is made in the image of God, that nobody is beyond hope or redemption. The criminalisation of children and the entrenching of disadvantage through punitive measures can do much to damage the prospect that they might grow into citizens with a stake in our society.
Young people must be given the tools to develop new patterns and to flourish in society that they will one day help build. And this is something that the Youth Justice Board has historically facilitated through restorative justice. Victims want justice, but often they also want to know that what has happened to them will not happen to anyone else. Restorative justice gives victims a voice and enables offenders to confront the consequences of their actions and to turn their lives around.
I therefore ask the Minister to clarify what place restorative justice will have within the government's plans for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
youth justice. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling this bill, Lord Oates, for tabling this bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions throughout this debate. I want to start by acknowledging the position we are in with youth justice and we are in with youth justice and the excellent work done by the previous conservative government to halve the number of children in
The Youth Justice Board has long held this unique expertise, championing a child first approach which prioritises prevention and safeguarding. We should therefore be cautious about transferring significant functions away from it. The White Paper also discusses the importance of a joined up approach to youth crime prevention for victims, who rightly expect accountability from our justice system. Bringing Ministers closer to decision making is essential for maintaining public confidence, but the transfer of key functions uniquely to the Ministry of Justice risks overlooking the intersection of other issues commonly faced by vulnerable children.
The Youth Justice Board itself found that 72% of children sentenced in the youth justice system had mental health concerns, and 71% had speech, language and communication concerns. Issues with education, health and social care can therefore compound, making youth offending more likely. If we are to have real progress in the prevention of youth crime, all relevant government departments must be given a central stake in youth justice. If the Youth Justice Board is to is to play a greater role in driving improvement, it must be equipped to collaborate effectively across government more broadly.
When debating these reforms, we must resist the misconception that youth justice is characterised by undue leniency. In reality, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is one of the lowest in Europe. It's central to my Christian faith that every individual is made in the image of God, that nobody is beyond hope or redemption. The criminalisation of children and the entrenching of disadvantage through punitive measures can do much to damage the prospect that they might grow into citizens with a stake in our society.
Young people must be given the tools to develop new patterns and to flourish in society that they will one day help build. And this is something that the Youth Justice Board has historically facilitated through restorative justice. Victims want justice, but often they also want to know that what has happened to them will not happen to anyone else. Restorative justice gives victims a voice and enables offenders to confront the consequences of their actions and to turn their lives around.
I therefore ask the Minister to clarify what place restorative justice will have within the government's plans for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
youth justice. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling this bill, Lord Oates, for tabling this bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions throughout this debate. I want to start by acknowledging the position we are in with youth justice and we are in with youth justice and the excellent work done by the previous conservative government to halve the number of children in
13:22
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
halve the number of children in youth custody. In 2016, there were 939 children held in young offender institutes, and by 2024, that number had fallen to 432. The average custody population in 2010 to 2011 was 2222. But between April 24th and March 25th, this had dropped to an average of 420 children in custody at any one time. This represented the lowest number on record, and these numbers are a testament to the hard work of the previous government.
On top of that, the number of first time entrants in the system dropped from 45,519 in the year 2010 to 2011, down to just under eight 8300 in the 2425 year. I acknowledge the work done by the Youth Justice Board in that time, and thank them for their help in reducing the number of children in the youth justice system. This bill seeks to reverse the direction of the government's proposed reforms to youth justice. Clauses one and three would set out in primary legislation that the Youth Justice Board would remain primarily responsible for certain existing statutory functions, including the provision of secure training centres, certification of custody officer and escort arrangements.
Reversing the government's plan to centralise oversight to within the Ministry of Justice. Clause four seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to alter the statutory functions of the Youth Justice Board by secondary legislation, and revokes the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000, in which the Youth Justice Board's statutory functions were expanded, and powers to exercise some functions concurrently with the Secretary of State were introduced. These would have the effect of reducing future ministerial flexibility to adjust the Youth Justice Board's role.
Clauses one and two would give a formal role to Wales, with clause one requiring a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State, the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Government within six months, where the responsibility for youth justice delivery is divided, with arrangements regarding implementation to be set out within a year. Then clause two gives the Welsh Government a consultative role, separate from the existing government's plans regarding devolution. However, the landscape of youth justice has now changed and the system must adapt accordingly to reverse the government's proposals before they have taken effect and before their impact can be assessed.
Seems the wrong way to proceed. As it stands, the government needs need to ensure they focus on preventing the escalation of crime. As the data indicates, repeat young offenders tend to start with petty crimes, so the government do need to ensure that the Ministry of Justice handles its role of scrutinising the youth justice system well, and we will continue to keep an eye on that and continue to ensure there are clear punishments. The Ministry of Justice is consultation on oversight and funding of youth justice services closes today, and when the government responds to its recommendations, we will scrutinise them.
But as yet it is difficult to assess the decisions the government will make as it would pre-empt an ongoing process. Finally, as it stands, justice is not a devolved matter and to introduce that in a private member's bill with no consultation seems unwise. For these reasons, we cannot support the bill as drafted, but we look forward to scrutinising the government's response to the youth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
justice consultation in due course. My Lords, I should begin by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I should begin by declaring my interest. I was until declaring my interest. I was until March 2025, the lead non-executive director and the chair of the Agency Board of Hmpps, which was Agency Board of Hmpps, which was responsible for the youth custody
On top of that, the number of first time entrants in the system dropped from 45,519 in the year 2010 to 2011, down to just under eight 8300 in the 2425 year. I acknowledge the work done by the Youth Justice Board in that time, and thank them for their help in reducing the number of children in the youth justice system. This bill seeks to reverse the direction of the government's proposed reforms to youth justice. Clauses one and three would set out in primary legislation that the Youth Justice Board would remain primarily responsible for certain existing statutory functions, including the provision of secure training centres, certification of custody officer and escort arrangements.
Reversing the government's plan to centralise oversight to within the Ministry of Justice. Clause four seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to alter the statutory functions of the Youth Justice Board by secondary legislation, and revokes the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000, in which the Youth Justice Board's statutory functions were expanded, and powers to exercise some functions concurrently with the Secretary of State were introduced. These would have the effect of reducing future ministerial flexibility to adjust the Youth Justice Board's role.
Clauses one and two would give a formal role to Wales, with clause one requiring a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State, the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Government within six months, where the responsibility for youth justice delivery is divided, with arrangements regarding implementation to be set out within a year. Then clause two gives the Welsh Government a consultative role, separate from the existing government's plans regarding devolution. However, the landscape of youth justice has now changed and the system must adapt accordingly to reverse the government's proposals before they have taken effect and before their impact can be assessed.
Seems the wrong way to proceed. As it stands, the government needs need to ensure they focus on preventing the escalation of crime. As the data indicates, repeat young offenders tend to start with petty crimes, so the government do need to ensure that the Ministry of Justice handles its role of scrutinising the youth justice system well, and we will continue to keep an eye on that and continue to ensure there are clear punishments. The Ministry of Justice is consultation on oversight and funding of youth justice services closes today, and when the government responds to its recommendations, we will scrutinise them.
But as yet it is difficult to assess the decisions the government will make as it would pre-empt an ongoing process. Finally, as it stands, justice is not a devolved matter and to introduce that in a private member's bill with no consultation seems unwise. For these reasons, we cannot support the bill as drafted, but we look forward to scrutinising the government's response to the youth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
justice consultation in due course. My Lords, I should begin by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I should begin by declaring my interest. I was until declaring my interest. I was until March 2025, the lead non-executive director and the chair of the Agency Board of Hmpps, which was Agency Board of Hmpps, which was responsible for the youth custody
13:26
Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
services. I very much regret that Lord McNally is not the noble Lord. Lord McNally is not with us today. I was hoping that we would be able to hear what he said, and I would have the opportunity to pay tribute to his remarkable, groundbreaking work on in this area. I hope he's joining us out in in in the aether. But if not, I certainly pass on my good wishes. I want to thank all the all noble Lords for taking part in this debate today.
This is a really important subject. We may not always agree, but but it has been a very well informed and thought provoking debate, and I want to thank the noble Lord Oakes for tabling this private member's, this private member's bill, and giving us the opportunity to debate this today and to thank him and the noble Lady Baroness Hayter, for meeting with me and Minister Richards before today in what he described as a constructive conversation, and I would very much agree with that.
My Lord, I commend the work of the Youth Justice Board. It has played an important, perhaps even groundbreaking role in the formation and the development of the youth justice system. Those of us with very long memories remember what the youth, justice or juvenile justice system, as it was used to be known, was like. And this is a remarkable transformation. And it is it has transformed the lives of many children and young people, but it has transformed the way that the state works, with children overseeing, as noble Lords have said, a significant reduction in the number of children convicted of crime and sent to prison.
And I know many noble Lords, and I want to I want to say this with some feeling played an important personal role in that, and I pay tribute to their work as well as that of the board and the staff of the Youth Justice Board. Today, I want to put that firmly on the record. The youth justice system has changed profoundly since the creation of the Youth Justice Board in 1998. Today, whilst fewer children are entering the system than in the past, which is obviously a good thing.
Those who do have, as a number of speakers have noted, that the noble. My noble friend Lord Rook, the right reverend Prelate. The children that we work with are more complex and their needs are more acute, perhaps because in part because of the way the world is changing in relation to children and central government must be organised to enable to respond with clarity, focus and impact. And I'm afraid the government's view is that Lord Oates is proposition to restore the previous functions does not reflect our view of the current needs of the system.
The board did not want responsibility for the custodial estate in 2017 and does not seek it now. The structures put in place nearly three decades ago may not remain the most effective way of delivering the outcomes we need. In. Lady Slater made that point, and I think we all agree on that. But the clear position of this government is that individual arm's length, body responsibilities and funding should be transferred to local leaders or return to ministerial departments, unless Ministers can make a strong case for their retention.
That is that is the view, the government's view across the board, as noble Lords know, and it has been reaffirmed in in the comments of of the Prime Minister on rewiring the state. My Lords, the government commissioned an independent review of the Youth Justice Board, led by Steve Crocker. A number of noble Lords have referred to that. And this concluded that although, as he pointed out, the youth justice had, quote, had been said by some anyway to have lost its way, unquote, there remains a clear need for an independent body with technical expertise in the youth justice system.
But Steve Crocker recommended significant reform to meet the future needs of the system, with a stronger focus on driving efficiency, continuous improvement and providing evidence of what works. And I acknowledge what what the noble Lord Lord Oates says and others have said that we are. We aren't accepting every recommendation of Steve Crocker's work, but we. The government's position is that we're building on his work, and we certainly. And I want to be completely clear about this. We certainly have no wish to abolish the Youth Justice Board.
We want to retain an independent Youth Justice Board sharply focussed on driving continuous improvement of local practice and capability, while responsibility for system oversight, standards, performance and funding should, in our view, rest with elected Ministers who are accountable to Parliament. Transferring responsibility for digital and IT provision to government will also allow us to achieve better outcomes through linking the data on youth justice that the. The small organisation like the Youth Justice Board, simply cannot achieve.
My Lords, the Ministry of Justice will strengthen and support local services and strategic authorities. And I want to come back to the point about strategic authorities slightly later, setting clear standards and an evidence based, proportionate national oversight framework that enables effective interventions when needed. I note the comments that that many noble Lords, including Lady Murphy, have made about the Ministry of Justice and its limitations. But we do commit to that, and we want a strong youth justice board. We want professional experts to challenge the Department.
I. With respect to the noble Lord Lord Oates, I don't mind a challenge and I don't I don't mind dissenting voices, and I get plenty of them in my. In my short stint at the Ministry of Justice, which I hope will be a long stint, but I don't really accept the characterisation that. That we don't have dissenting voices and we don't welcome them. But what we want, my Lord, is for the organisation to drive local services, to improve and to achieve improved outcomes for children, particularly vulnerable children.
Our intention is to allow the Youth Justice Board to focus on what we think it does best, while providing for proper democratic accountability. Where appropriate, the reforms should see the Youth Justice Board remain an independent non-departmental body, but with a clearer focus on improving youth justice services. The Youth Justice Board will learn from the best and support the poorer performing services. This will include intervention or hands on support for struggling services, facilitating ongoing learning and peer to peer sharing of practice, and building the capacity and capability of staff for self-evaluation and improvement.
The right reverend Prelate raised with me the question of restorative justice, and I want to say that is exactly the kind of thing that we would we we would like to see the the sharing of learning. I think it has particular application in the youth justice universe. But but it has much wider applications than that. But that's a good example of the kind of thing the Youth Justice Board will build the evidence base on innovative practice and retain the ability to award grants for direct research contracts and to generate evidence.
And this will be critical for the Youth Justice Board to identify, evaluate and share what works, and provide practice ready guidance for services to use when working with children, the Youth Justice Board will maintain relationships to understand local variation and identify emerging issues. They will also target issues that are prevalent across the whole country, such as violence against women and girls, disproportionality as it affects black and minority ethnic people, and online harms, identifying causes and delivering targeted improvement to ensure that shared problems are tackled effectively.
My Lords, Youth justice is already a largely locally led system. However, there are considerable opportunities to strengthen the role strategic authorities play in preventing youth offending and supporting vulnerable children, and this is an important part of our agenda going forward. On youth justice, the Youth Justice Board will have a pivotal role in building capability and strategic authorities as they take on a greater role in youth justice and youth crime prevention. The. My noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the the example of Manchester.
And that's exactly the kind of thing. I don't say that just because it's Manchester that we. We want to see happening in in strategic authorities and I really hope whatever the whatever the fate of this bill that the noble Lord Lord Oates Baroness Hayter and many others in the chamber will work with us on the agenda of the future of work, youth justice in the strategic in strategic authorities. The reforms put together in this bill would see an expanded role for the Youth Justice Board, with restored responsibility for youth custody, which the Youth Justice Board hasn't exercised since 2017.
As I've said, I want to say a few words about our plans for the Youth Custody Service. The government has set out its intentions to publish a youth custody transformation plan in the coming months. I think we all know we need to do something about the Youth Custody Service. The youth security estate must be managed by the Youth Custody Service, which is a specialist organisation with dedicated staff and a clear focus to whom I pay tribute to those staff whom I've worked with closely for many years, and it is directly accountable to Ministers ascribing responsibility to the Youth Justice Board would dilute their remit and distract from their most important function, supporting youth justice services to improve this bill also proposes significant changes to the governance of youth justice in Wales.
The government recognises the distinct context in Wales, where many of the services that support children and the noble Lady, Baroness Smith said, including education, health and social care, are devolved and we remain committed to working closely and constructively with the Welsh Government. We are already exploring with the Welsh Government the role in youth justice. How how the role in youth justice could be expanded and we are supportive of arrangements that better reflect the devolved landscape. I can answer the question about what funds will be devolved to Wales as part of that commitment from April 27th, funding to reduce the use of remand for children, together with funding for early intervention and prevention services currently delivered through the turnaround programme, will be devolved to the Welsh Government, and discussions continue about the arrangements in Wales under the government's plans.
What Youth Justice Board will remain an independent public body? It will be a strong organisation of experts that offers precisely the practical operational support that today's systems need for today's children's and today's challenges, and a strong board offering. Frank, independent and yes, critical views to Ministers and to the government is something we welcome. I look forward to debating this further. When the government brings forth its own secondary legislation later this year. But as I've said, I hope your Lordships will work with us as we take forward our work on youth justice.
We are not in any sense complacent or passive in our approach to youth justice and and particularly, I would say, with regard to the the future of the custodial estate and the role of strategic authorities in youth justice, these will be priorities for myself and Minister Richards as as we go forward with this, I'm afraid, my Lords, the government's view is that the bill in front of us would take us backwards and load up the youth justice with a broader range of functions.
That would be a distraction from the core purpose of driving services, to improve outcomes for children and keeping our communities safe. My final comment, my Lords, is to say a number of your Lordships have talked about the intersection of the complex needs of children involved in the Youth Justice Service, and for me, the biggest prize in thinking about the way we approach, approach youth justice is if we can better meet the needs for those most vulnerable children to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
live thriving and flourishing lives. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for so many, bringing debate and for so many, bringing their unique perspectives to the discussion. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, the Minister and to the noble Lord, the Minister and his colleague, for having met with myself and the noble Baroness, Lady
This is a really important subject. We may not always agree, but but it has been a very well informed and thought provoking debate, and I want to thank the noble Lord Oakes for tabling this private member's, this private member's bill, and giving us the opportunity to debate this today and to thank him and the noble Lady Baroness Hayter, for meeting with me and Minister Richards before today in what he described as a constructive conversation, and I would very much agree with that.
My Lord, I commend the work of the Youth Justice Board. It has played an important, perhaps even groundbreaking role in the formation and the development of the youth justice system. Those of us with very long memories remember what the youth, justice or juvenile justice system, as it was used to be known, was like. And this is a remarkable transformation. And it is it has transformed the lives of many children and young people, but it has transformed the way that the state works, with children overseeing, as noble Lords have said, a significant reduction in the number of children convicted of crime and sent to prison.
And I know many noble Lords, and I want to I want to say this with some feeling played an important personal role in that, and I pay tribute to their work as well as that of the board and the staff of the Youth Justice Board. Today, I want to put that firmly on the record. The youth justice system has changed profoundly since the creation of the Youth Justice Board in 1998. Today, whilst fewer children are entering the system than in the past, which is obviously a good thing.
Those who do have, as a number of speakers have noted, that the noble. My noble friend Lord Rook, the right reverend Prelate. The children that we work with are more complex and their needs are more acute, perhaps because in part because of the way the world is changing in relation to children and central government must be organised to enable to respond with clarity, focus and impact. And I'm afraid the government's view is that Lord Oates is proposition to restore the previous functions does not reflect our view of the current needs of the system.
The board did not want responsibility for the custodial estate in 2017 and does not seek it now. The structures put in place nearly three decades ago may not remain the most effective way of delivering the outcomes we need. In. Lady Slater made that point, and I think we all agree on that. But the clear position of this government is that individual arm's length, body responsibilities and funding should be transferred to local leaders or return to ministerial departments, unless Ministers can make a strong case for their retention.
That is that is the view, the government's view across the board, as noble Lords know, and it has been reaffirmed in in the comments of of the Prime Minister on rewiring the state. My Lords, the government commissioned an independent review of the Youth Justice Board, led by Steve Crocker. A number of noble Lords have referred to that. And this concluded that although, as he pointed out, the youth justice had, quote, had been said by some anyway to have lost its way, unquote, there remains a clear need for an independent body with technical expertise in the youth justice system.
But Steve Crocker recommended significant reform to meet the future needs of the system, with a stronger focus on driving efficiency, continuous improvement and providing evidence of what works. And I acknowledge what what the noble Lord Lord Oates says and others have said that we are. We aren't accepting every recommendation of Steve Crocker's work, but we. The government's position is that we're building on his work, and we certainly. And I want to be completely clear about this. We certainly have no wish to abolish the Youth Justice Board.
We want to retain an independent Youth Justice Board sharply focussed on driving continuous improvement of local practice and capability, while responsibility for system oversight, standards, performance and funding should, in our view, rest with elected Ministers who are accountable to Parliament. Transferring responsibility for digital and IT provision to government will also allow us to achieve better outcomes through linking the data on youth justice that the. The small organisation like the Youth Justice Board, simply cannot achieve.
My Lords, the Ministry of Justice will strengthen and support local services and strategic authorities. And I want to come back to the point about strategic authorities slightly later, setting clear standards and an evidence based, proportionate national oversight framework that enables effective interventions when needed. I note the comments that that many noble Lords, including Lady Murphy, have made about the Ministry of Justice and its limitations. But we do commit to that, and we want a strong youth justice board. We want professional experts to challenge the Department.
I. With respect to the noble Lord Lord Oates, I don't mind a challenge and I don't I don't mind dissenting voices, and I get plenty of them in my. In my short stint at the Ministry of Justice, which I hope will be a long stint, but I don't really accept the characterisation that. That we don't have dissenting voices and we don't welcome them. But what we want, my Lord, is for the organisation to drive local services, to improve and to achieve improved outcomes for children, particularly vulnerable children.
Our intention is to allow the Youth Justice Board to focus on what we think it does best, while providing for proper democratic accountability. Where appropriate, the reforms should see the Youth Justice Board remain an independent non-departmental body, but with a clearer focus on improving youth justice services. The Youth Justice Board will learn from the best and support the poorer performing services. This will include intervention or hands on support for struggling services, facilitating ongoing learning and peer to peer sharing of practice, and building the capacity and capability of staff for self-evaluation and improvement.
The right reverend Prelate raised with me the question of restorative justice, and I want to say that is exactly the kind of thing that we would we we would like to see the the sharing of learning. I think it has particular application in the youth justice universe. But but it has much wider applications than that. But that's a good example of the kind of thing the Youth Justice Board will build the evidence base on innovative practice and retain the ability to award grants for direct research contracts and to generate evidence.
And this will be critical for the Youth Justice Board to identify, evaluate and share what works, and provide practice ready guidance for services to use when working with children, the Youth Justice Board will maintain relationships to understand local variation and identify emerging issues. They will also target issues that are prevalent across the whole country, such as violence against women and girls, disproportionality as it affects black and minority ethnic people, and online harms, identifying causes and delivering targeted improvement to ensure that shared problems are tackled effectively.
My Lords, Youth justice is already a largely locally led system. However, there are considerable opportunities to strengthen the role strategic authorities play in preventing youth offending and supporting vulnerable children, and this is an important part of our agenda going forward. On youth justice, the Youth Justice Board will have a pivotal role in building capability and strategic authorities as they take on a greater role in youth justice and youth crime prevention. The. My noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the the example of Manchester.
And that's exactly the kind of thing. I don't say that just because it's Manchester that we. We want to see happening in in strategic authorities and I really hope whatever the whatever the fate of this bill that the noble Lord Lord Oates Baroness Hayter and many others in the chamber will work with us on the agenda of the future of work, youth justice in the strategic in strategic authorities. The reforms put together in this bill would see an expanded role for the Youth Justice Board, with restored responsibility for youth custody, which the Youth Justice Board hasn't exercised since 2017.
As I've said, I want to say a few words about our plans for the Youth Custody Service. The government has set out its intentions to publish a youth custody transformation plan in the coming months. I think we all know we need to do something about the Youth Custody Service. The youth security estate must be managed by the Youth Custody Service, which is a specialist organisation with dedicated staff and a clear focus to whom I pay tribute to those staff whom I've worked with closely for many years, and it is directly accountable to Ministers ascribing responsibility to the Youth Justice Board would dilute their remit and distract from their most important function, supporting youth justice services to improve this bill also proposes significant changes to the governance of youth justice in Wales.
The government recognises the distinct context in Wales, where many of the services that support children and the noble Lady, Baroness Smith said, including education, health and social care, are devolved and we remain committed to working closely and constructively with the Welsh Government. We are already exploring with the Welsh Government the role in youth justice. How how the role in youth justice could be expanded and we are supportive of arrangements that better reflect the devolved landscape. I can answer the question about what funds will be devolved to Wales as part of that commitment from April 27th, funding to reduce the use of remand for children, together with funding for early intervention and prevention services currently delivered through the turnaround programme, will be devolved to the Welsh Government, and discussions continue about the arrangements in Wales under the government's plans.
What Youth Justice Board will remain an independent public body? It will be a strong organisation of experts that offers precisely the practical operational support that today's systems need for today's children's and today's challenges, and a strong board offering. Frank, independent and yes, critical views to Ministers and to the government is something we welcome. I look forward to debating this further. When the government brings forth its own secondary legislation later this year. But as I've said, I hope your Lordships will work with us as we take forward our work on youth justice.
We are not in any sense complacent or passive in our approach to youth justice and and particularly, I would say, with regard to the the future of the custodial estate and the role of strategic authorities in youth justice, these will be priorities for myself and Minister Richards as as we go forward with this, I'm afraid, my Lords, the government's view is that the bill in front of us would take us backwards and load up the youth justice with a broader range of functions.
That would be a distraction from the core purpose of driving services, to improve outcomes for children and keeping our communities safe. My final comment, my Lords, is to say a number of your Lordships have talked about the intersection of the complex needs of children involved in the Youth Justice Service, and for me, the biggest prize in thinking about the way we approach, approach youth justice is if we can better meet the needs for those most vulnerable children to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
live thriving and flourishing lives. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for so many, bringing debate and for so many, bringing their unique perspectives to the discussion. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, the Minister and to the noble Lord, the Minister and his colleague, for having met with myself and the noble Baroness, Lady
13:40
Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
Sattar. I admit to being a little disappointed by his response from the Dispatch Box, because I had hoped that perhaps the government would have taken on more of the arguments that were made at that meeting, and indeed have been made by almost everybody in this House. I take his point on custody and the complexities of the system, and are. I take that on board. But he's talked about more complexity. I think many of us talked about there being more complexity.
I think many noble Lords talked about the need to improve the system. I don't think any of us are saying it should just stay the same. Baroness Sater certainly mentioned that, but Baroness Murphy talked about, well, if there are new skills, bring them on board on the Youth Justice Board, etc. and. But our principal thought is this, that if those powers are taken back into the Ministry of Justice, just like before, youth justice will be forgotten because you have so much on your plate already.
Noble Lords have so much on the plate already in that department, and youth justice will suffer. I think that the youth justice reforms of 1998 are a jewel in the crown of the then Labour government, I think is a huge mistake for it to tear that up. Of course, improve it, of course. I think everybody in this House would agree with that. But don't go back to the system we had before, and that is what has been suggested by shifting the oversight.
Finally, in terms of the conservative frontbench, obviously, I'm sorry they're not supporting us or they're not terribly surprised. I would slightly caution the noble Lord, however, Lord Harlech, of claiming some partisan success on this. Actually, custody has been reduced over the Labour government. The Liberal Democrat conservative coalition and the conservative government. Actually, I think most of the credit has to go to the youth justice reforms of that government. And the one thing that people need to recall is it takes a very long time for reforms to work through the system and deliver the sort of success that they did.
That is why I'm so worried about tearing up those reforms, just at the point that they are having their effect. But I thank everybody for taking
**** Possible New Speaker ****
part in this debate. And, my Lords, I beg to move. The question. Is that this bill be now read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is that this bill be now read a second time. As many of us say, content contrary, not content. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whole House. Question is that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole process, as many of that opinion shall say, content in opinion shall say, content in contrary, not content. And they're not contents. Have it. My Lords, shall we have a short break while. Sorry, sorry. Content. Content. Sorry. Yes, my Lords, should we have a very short break? While people leave the chamber quickly Microplastic Microplastic filters.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Brackets, washing machines. Bill Lord Randall of Uxbridge. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time. Now, aside from the commencement Now, aside from the commencement date of minor drafting changes, the bill I am bringing forward to your Lordships House today is identical to the bills of the same name introduced in the other place by my hon. Friend Alberto Costa in hon. Friend Alberto Costa in previous sessions. It just goes to you that I haven't really got an original thought in my head, but I
I think many noble Lords talked about the need to improve the system. I don't think any of us are saying it should just stay the same. Baroness Sater certainly mentioned that, but Baroness Murphy talked about, well, if there are new skills, bring them on board on the Youth Justice Board, etc. and. But our principal thought is this, that if those powers are taken back into the Ministry of Justice, just like before, youth justice will be forgotten because you have so much on your plate already.
Noble Lords have so much on the plate already in that department, and youth justice will suffer. I think that the youth justice reforms of 1998 are a jewel in the crown of the then Labour government, I think is a huge mistake for it to tear that up. Of course, improve it, of course. I think everybody in this House would agree with that. But don't go back to the system we had before, and that is what has been suggested by shifting the oversight.
Finally, in terms of the conservative frontbench, obviously, I'm sorry they're not supporting us or they're not terribly surprised. I would slightly caution the noble Lord, however, Lord Harlech, of claiming some partisan success on this. Actually, custody has been reduced over the Labour government. The Liberal Democrat conservative coalition and the conservative government. Actually, I think most of the credit has to go to the youth justice reforms of that government. And the one thing that people need to recall is it takes a very long time for reforms to work through the system and deliver the sort of success that they did.
That is why I'm so worried about tearing up those reforms, just at the point that they are having their effect. But I thank everybody for taking
**** Possible New Speaker ****
part in this debate. And, my Lords, I beg to move. The question. Is that this bill be now read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is that this bill be now read a second time. As many of us say, content contrary, not content. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. I beg to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whole House. Question is that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole process, as many of that opinion shall say, content in opinion shall say, content in contrary, not content. And they're not contents. Have it. My Lords, shall we have a short break while. Sorry, sorry. Content. Content. Sorry. Yes, my Lords, should we have a very short break? While people leave the chamber quickly Microplastic Microplastic filters.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Brackets, washing machines. Bill Lord Randall of Uxbridge. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time. Now, aside from the commencement Now, aside from the commencement date of minor drafting changes, the bill I am bringing forward to your Lordships House today is identical to the bills of the same name introduced in the other place by my hon. Friend Alberto Costa in hon. Friend Alberto Costa in previous sessions. It just goes to you that I haven't really got an original thought in my head, but I
13:44
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
did think that this was a bill that was well worth presenting again, as previously I think it had been previously I think it had been introduced under the ten Minute rule bill, a movement which means rule bill, a movement which means that it did not have a Second Reading. So for many years we have Reading. So for many years we have washed our clothes of man made fibres happily in blissful ignorance of what was released into ignorance of what was released into our water and into our environment.
However, we now know that our clothes are made of millions of tiny fibres, the majority of which are plastic. These small plastic fragments, measuring five millimetres or smaller, are called microplastic fibres and are shed from synthetic clothes. When produced, washed and worn. Globally, more than 840 million domestic washing machines are used, and with every wash these microfibres are shed and released into the water. They then make their way into the environment, with many ending up in the ocean and on our beaches.
Research has estimated that between 700,000 and 7 million microfibres are released with every wash. Due to their size. Microplastic fibres are too small to be caught by standard washing machine filters. They therefore end up in a sewerage system where they are either removed during the sewage treatment process or, more worryingly, released into watercourses and potentially the sea. Researchers found that up to 650 million microplastic particles entered one wastewater treatment plant in Wales every day, with all of these ending up in sewage sludge.
However, even the microplastics that are removed during the treatment process can still end up in the ocean. They are caught in the sewage sludge, which is usually used as a fertiliser on agricultural land, meaning the microplastics are released into the soil. Once in the terrestrial environment, they too can make their way into our seas. Microplastics spread into the air, soil, ice and water and have been found in a range of ecosystems, from the deep sea to the summit of Mount Everest.
Plants and animals may absorb, inhale or ingest microplastics, which can then be transferred through the food chain. Microplastics can cause chemical harms to living things, such as through the leaching of toxic additives and physical harm, such as causing internal blockages and abrasions. An emerging evidence suggests microplastics may be associated with broader ecological impacts and indeed, human health issues such as respiratory disorders, neurological symptoms and gastrointestinal issues. The advent of technological solutions, in particular the fitting of filters within washing machines, can stop microfibers entering our wastewater, water and ultimately the ocean.
Of the estimated 12.2 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean globally every year, just under 1 million tonnes are primarily microplastics. The bill in front of the House today would go some way to rectify the situation, but I acknowledge it is far from being a silver bullet. But does that mean that we should not take measures to do what we can to radically reduce the number of these microplastics entering our environment? Now, clause one of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to introduce regulations that require manufacturers to fit microplastic filters to all new domestic and commercial washing machines in England.
These regulations could also create associated offence punishable fines. This would be done with Statutory Instruments made under the affirmative procedure, meaning meaning that both Houses of Parliament would have to approve them before they became law. Requirements on manufacturers would need to be in place by the 1st of January 2030, and filters would be required to typically catch at least 90% of the microplastics measured by mass. Clause two would confer a duty upon the Secretary of State to promote the benefits of microplastic filters and raise awareness of the consequences of microfibres shed from clothing.
This duty would extend to schools and other educational settings, and the bill would also allow the Secretary of State to publish guidance to public bodies related to these duties. A clause three would provide that the Bill would come into force on the day it was passed and extend to England and Wales, though the Bill would only apply in England. Now, I can well imagine some some of the objections to this bill, which I may be hearing a little bit later. Some will say that the cost of fitting such filters would naturally increase the price of a washing machine, and I'm sure it would.
But I would argue that the price of filters would come down with increased production. And is his literally a small price to pay for the end result? Improvements in textile manufacturers also going to be very important in resolving this issue. Others may argue that this is a burden on business, and I would say with some experience over the years, always a good excuse for doing nothing. I'm very pleased that this Bill and its precursors have had the strong support of the Women's Institute and charities such as the Marine Conservation Society.
I've been a member of the latter for many years, and I should also declare my interest as a member of the Advisory Board of. Of River action. I have not yet applied even to be a member of the Women's Institute, but there are admirable body and I thoroughly support what they are doing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I would like to thank the House of Lords Library for producing an excellent brief on the Bill. My Lords, as befits a private member's Bill, it's a simple measure that Bill, it's a simple measure that would have a major benefit. I know the governments are reticent to act about such things. I'm not completely naive about these things, but I do urge the government to but I do urge the government to give careful thought to this and not reject it out of hand, or put it into the too difficult category.
And I would say if this bill is not successful, there is ample opportunity in the forthcoming and much anticipated water bill for this or something similar to be included. I do not think this issue will be going away. I would say this is not the end of the cycle,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I beg to move. This bill, be now read a second time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. By Lords. It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and commend the noble Lord on bringing forward this bill and introducing it so powerfully. And like the noble Lord, powerfully. And like the noble Lord, I'd like to join in commending the Women's Institute, which has been campaigning campaigning on this campaigning campaigning on this issue since 2017. Indeed, the title of their campaign, Plastic Soup, is one that gave me a phrase that I use very often, and I've spoken to many grassroots members of the Women's Institute who I know are very passionate about those, as well
However, we now know that our clothes are made of millions of tiny fibres, the majority of which are plastic. These small plastic fragments, measuring five millimetres or smaller, are called microplastic fibres and are shed from synthetic clothes. When produced, washed and worn. Globally, more than 840 million domestic washing machines are used, and with every wash these microfibres are shed and released into the water. They then make their way into the environment, with many ending up in the ocean and on our beaches.
Research has estimated that between 700,000 and 7 million microfibres are released with every wash. Due to their size. Microplastic fibres are too small to be caught by standard washing machine filters. They therefore end up in a sewerage system where they are either removed during the sewage treatment process or, more worryingly, released into watercourses and potentially the sea. Researchers found that up to 650 million microplastic particles entered one wastewater treatment plant in Wales every day, with all of these ending up in sewage sludge.
However, even the microplastics that are removed during the treatment process can still end up in the ocean. They are caught in the sewage sludge, which is usually used as a fertiliser on agricultural land, meaning the microplastics are released into the soil. Once in the terrestrial environment, they too can make their way into our seas. Microplastics spread into the air, soil, ice and water and have been found in a range of ecosystems, from the deep sea to the summit of Mount Everest.
Plants and animals may absorb, inhale or ingest microplastics, which can then be transferred through the food chain. Microplastics can cause chemical harms to living things, such as through the leaching of toxic additives and physical harm, such as causing internal blockages and abrasions. An emerging evidence suggests microplastics may be associated with broader ecological impacts and indeed, human health issues such as respiratory disorders, neurological symptoms and gastrointestinal issues. The advent of technological solutions, in particular the fitting of filters within washing machines, can stop microfibers entering our wastewater, water and ultimately the ocean.
Of the estimated 12.2 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean globally every year, just under 1 million tonnes are primarily microplastics. The bill in front of the House today would go some way to rectify the situation, but I acknowledge it is far from being a silver bullet. But does that mean that we should not take measures to do what we can to radically reduce the number of these microplastics entering our environment? Now, clause one of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to introduce regulations that require manufacturers to fit microplastic filters to all new domestic and commercial washing machines in England.
These regulations could also create associated offence punishable fines. This would be done with Statutory Instruments made under the affirmative procedure, meaning meaning that both Houses of Parliament would have to approve them before they became law. Requirements on manufacturers would need to be in place by the 1st of January 2030, and filters would be required to typically catch at least 90% of the microplastics measured by mass. Clause two would confer a duty upon the Secretary of State to promote the benefits of microplastic filters and raise awareness of the consequences of microfibres shed from clothing.
This duty would extend to schools and other educational settings, and the bill would also allow the Secretary of State to publish guidance to public bodies related to these duties. A clause three would provide that the Bill would come into force on the day it was passed and extend to England and Wales, though the Bill would only apply in England. Now, I can well imagine some some of the objections to this bill, which I may be hearing a little bit later. Some will say that the cost of fitting such filters would naturally increase the price of a washing machine, and I'm sure it would.
But I would argue that the price of filters would come down with increased production. And is his literally a small price to pay for the end result? Improvements in textile manufacturers also going to be very important in resolving this issue. Others may argue that this is a burden on business, and I would say with some experience over the years, always a good excuse for doing nothing. I'm very pleased that this Bill and its precursors have had the strong support of the Women's Institute and charities such as the Marine Conservation Society.
I've been a member of the latter for many years, and I should also declare my interest as a member of the Advisory Board of. Of River action. I have not yet applied even to be a member of the Women's Institute, but there are admirable body and I thoroughly support what they are doing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I would like to thank the House of Lords Library for producing an excellent brief on the Bill. My Lords, as befits a private member's Bill, it's a simple measure that Bill, it's a simple measure that would have a major benefit. I know the governments are reticent to act about such things. I'm not completely naive about these things, but I do urge the government to but I do urge the government to give careful thought to this and not reject it out of hand, or put it into the too difficult category.
And I would say if this bill is not successful, there is ample opportunity in the forthcoming and much anticipated water bill for this or something similar to be included. I do not think this issue will be going away. I would say this is not the end of the cycle,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I beg to move. This bill, be now read a second time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. By Lords. It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and commend the noble Lord on bringing forward this bill and introducing it so powerfully. And like the noble Lord, powerfully. And like the noble Lord, I'd like to join in commending the Women's Institute, which has been campaigning campaigning on this campaigning campaigning on this issue since 2017. Indeed, the title of their campaign, Plastic Soup, is one that gave me a phrase that I use very often, and I've spoken to many grassroots members of the Women's Institute who I know are very passionate about those, as well
13:52
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
About the issue, as well as those who are actually leading the campaign. Now, I think the noble campaign. Now, I think the noble Lord said, but it is worth stressing that synthetic textiles stressing that synthetic textiles and about 60% or more of the fabrics produced in the world today fabrics produced in the world today are synthetic. They are plastic, and it tends to be broadly the cheaper clothing that is made from synthetic fibres. So this is also we're addressing an equality issue here.
In terms of that, we're going to see more synthetic fibres in poorer areas worn by poorer people, which is something that I'm going to come back to. But the figure is 9.4 trillion microplastic fibres released from clothing per week in the UK. Now that's one of those numbers that's just so large as to be almost unimaginable. But it does stress the word, the term plastic soup. Soup, as used by the Women's Institute, is exactly the right terminology. Now, the noble Lord Randall addressed some of the arguments we are inevitably going to hear against this.
I think we will also hear, and we've seen this happening internationally, where the French parliament legislated to have microfibre filters by 2025, but has failed to implement it. The California State Assembly passed a similar bill in 2023. But we've seen resistance and we've seen claims that, well, we're not really sure how much it's going to filter out what consumers are going to do with what is filtered out. All of these issues. But I think the argument is that this is talking about a major issue on which you could have an iterative process of development with the manufacturers to make sure we bring in the law, and we work out the details of exactly how it's structured, something that would appropriately happen in a Statutory Instrument.
So the government could take this forward and, as the noble Lord said, could take this forward. In terms of the the water bill coming forward now, every time I get up to speak about plastic pollution, I can report a far from comprehensive list of the new reasons for concern about the. One health impacts the interrelated human. Animal. Environmental health impacts, particularly of micro and nanoplastics. I've talked before about how the placentas from babies born prematurely have higher plastic concentrations than placentas from full term birth.
I could, of course, add a further list about 16,000 chemicals present in plastic, many of which have no. We have no idea about their impacts, but I do have a time limit. So let's see what we've learned recently about microplastic and nanoplastic pollution. Patients with lung cancer in Greece. A report published just this week had 20% more microplastics in their lung fluid samples. That's a study from the European Respiratory Society. In Lake Geneva, Switzerland, which has probably some of the world's best water treatment facilities, absolutely world leading.
They've found that the concentration of microplastics in Lake Geneva, measuring between 1 and 100 micrometers, may have been underestimated by more than 650 fold. The New York Times picking up a report from Cornell University in 2024, which found that, on average, people in Indonesia are consuming 15g of plastic particles every month. The weight of three credit cards. And The New York Times is looking into the detail of this. And if you haven't seen it, it's well worth looking at.
A large amount of that is waste from the global north that is shipped to Indonesia and dealt with inappropriately. And I declare my position as a member of the APPG on microplastics. And note that the. That group has a report just out. Reflecting on the potential impacts on food security in the UK, the microplastics in the soil. And. It's not hard to see how you go from the washing machine to the river to the soil. This is a critical issue. The planetary boundary for novel entities has been far exceeded.
We need to do everything we can. This bill is a modest step, but an important step to take, and I particularly stress the. The clause to be about raising awareness of the consequences of of microplastics in closing through the laundry cycle. Although if I was to be putting down a friendly amendment, the amendment I'd be putting down would be, let's expect the government. I'll ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if she plans to. The government has any plans for this to educate the public generally about microplastics and about the potential damage, and I refer back to the Children's Wellbeing in Schools bill, and attempts to think about what's in our school uniforms and the plastics that are absolutely.
Our school uniforms are filled with. Is the government going to do something to educate the public about microplastics generally?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing this bill before your bringing this bill before your Lordships House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her valuable Castle, for her valuable contribution to the debate. The Bill raises the issue of microplastic pollution over which microplastic pollution over which there is increasing concern. An evidence base is emerging that
In terms of that, we're going to see more synthetic fibres in poorer areas worn by poorer people, which is something that I'm going to come back to. But the figure is 9.4 trillion microplastic fibres released from clothing per week in the UK. Now that's one of those numbers that's just so large as to be almost unimaginable. But it does stress the word, the term plastic soup. Soup, as used by the Women's Institute, is exactly the right terminology. Now, the noble Lord Randall addressed some of the arguments we are inevitably going to hear against this.
I think we will also hear, and we've seen this happening internationally, where the French parliament legislated to have microfibre filters by 2025, but has failed to implement it. The California State Assembly passed a similar bill in 2023. But we've seen resistance and we've seen claims that, well, we're not really sure how much it's going to filter out what consumers are going to do with what is filtered out. All of these issues. But I think the argument is that this is talking about a major issue on which you could have an iterative process of development with the manufacturers to make sure we bring in the law, and we work out the details of exactly how it's structured, something that would appropriately happen in a Statutory Instrument.
So the government could take this forward and, as the noble Lord said, could take this forward. In terms of the the water bill coming forward now, every time I get up to speak about plastic pollution, I can report a far from comprehensive list of the new reasons for concern about the. One health impacts the interrelated human. Animal. Environmental health impacts, particularly of micro and nanoplastics. I've talked before about how the placentas from babies born prematurely have higher plastic concentrations than placentas from full term birth.
I could, of course, add a further list about 16,000 chemicals present in plastic, many of which have no. We have no idea about their impacts, but I do have a time limit. So let's see what we've learned recently about microplastic and nanoplastic pollution. Patients with lung cancer in Greece. A report published just this week had 20% more microplastics in their lung fluid samples. That's a study from the European Respiratory Society. In Lake Geneva, Switzerland, which has probably some of the world's best water treatment facilities, absolutely world leading.
They've found that the concentration of microplastics in Lake Geneva, measuring between 1 and 100 micrometers, may have been underestimated by more than 650 fold. The New York Times picking up a report from Cornell University in 2024, which found that, on average, people in Indonesia are consuming 15g of plastic particles every month. The weight of three credit cards. And The New York Times is looking into the detail of this. And if you haven't seen it, it's well worth looking at.
A large amount of that is waste from the global north that is shipped to Indonesia and dealt with inappropriately. And I declare my position as a member of the APPG on microplastics. And note that the. That group has a report just out. Reflecting on the potential impacts on food security in the UK, the microplastics in the soil. And. It's not hard to see how you go from the washing machine to the river to the soil. This is a critical issue. The planetary boundary for novel entities has been far exceeded.
We need to do everything we can. This bill is a modest step, but an important step to take, and I particularly stress the. The clause to be about raising awareness of the consequences of of microplastics in closing through the laundry cycle. Although if I was to be putting down a friendly amendment, the amendment I'd be putting down would be, let's expect the government. I'll ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if she plans to. The government has any plans for this to educate the public generally about microplastics and about the potential damage, and I refer back to the Children's Wellbeing in Schools bill, and attempts to think about what's in our school uniforms and the plastics that are absolutely.
Our school uniforms are filled with. Is the government going to do something to educate the public about microplastics generally?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing this bill before your bringing this bill before your Lordships House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her valuable Castle, for her valuable contribution to the debate. The Bill raises the issue of microplastic pollution over which microplastic pollution over which there is increasing concern. An evidence base is emerging that
13:57
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
microplastics can cause harm both ecologically and to human health. The World Health Organisation has highlighted the need for further research into its impacts, but as a precaution, we should continue to reduce plastic pollution. Indeed, consumers and producers are increasingly aware of their environmental responsibilities, and many go beyond what the government already requires. Looking at domestic washing machines, specifically the House of Lords library. In its recent research note on this bill, estimated that they discharge anything between 6490 and 87,165 tonnes of microfibres in the UK each year.
That is quite a large margin and evidence is the need for further research. The health and environmental risks do present reasons why households may want to apply microfibre filters, which can then be disposed of as solid waste. Indeed, these can be retrofitted onto existing machines too. However, the cost of these filters can vary significantly, as does their effectiveness. This bill would mandate that such filters must catch at least 90% of microplastics when measured by mass.
However, as was stated by the previous conservative government in April 2023, the effectiveness is also dependent on user behaviour. Furthermore, we need to have a clearer understanding of what costs this would impose on households as well as industry before pressing ahead with such regulations. Our position as His Majesty's loyal opposition has not changed. We expect the industry to continue innovating and developing microfibre filters, and we, of course, support efforts to research the issues more thoroughly. As a result, we do not yet believe this issue warrants primary legislation.
That is not to say we're not serious about kerbing plastic pollution. On the contrary, this bill would not tackle the sources of plastic pollution upstream. Therefore, I am pleased that this debate has allowed us to raise awareness of the issue and discuss how best we can tackle plastic pollution. And it is in that spirit that I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for his hard work. I look forward to hearing the insights of of other noble Lords and the response of the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness, the Minister. My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to today's Lords who contributed to today's debate. There clearly is strength of feeling around the concerns of microplastics and the increasing problems that we are starting to problems that we are starting to see that they are, they are causing. These are important perspectives, and the government absolutely
That is quite a large margin and evidence is the need for further research. The health and environmental risks do present reasons why households may want to apply microfibre filters, which can then be disposed of as solid waste. Indeed, these can be retrofitted onto existing machines too. However, the cost of these filters can vary significantly, as does their effectiveness. This bill would mandate that such filters must catch at least 90% of microplastics when measured by mass.
However, as was stated by the previous conservative government in April 2023, the effectiveness is also dependent on user behaviour. Furthermore, we need to have a clearer understanding of what costs this would impose on households as well as industry before pressing ahead with such regulations. Our position as His Majesty's loyal opposition has not changed. We expect the industry to continue innovating and developing microfibre filters, and we, of course, support efforts to research the issues more thoroughly. As a result, we do not yet believe this issue warrants primary legislation.
That is not to say we're not serious about kerbing plastic pollution. On the contrary, this bill would not tackle the sources of plastic pollution upstream. Therefore, I am pleased that this debate has allowed us to raise awareness of the issue and discuss how best we can tackle plastic pollution. And it is in that spirit that I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for his hard work. I look forward to hearing the insights of of other noble Lords and the response of the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness, the Minister. My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to today's Lords who contributed to today's debate. There clearly is strength of feeling around the concerns of microplastics and the increasing problems that we are starting to problems that we are starting to see that they are, they are causing. These are important perspectives, and the government absolutely
14:00
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
and the government absolutely recognises the legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them. So I do pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for bringing forward this bill and for very clearly laying out the concerns about microfibres, particularly in clothing and textiles. The government recognises the benefits of minimising pollutants at source, and to tackle the issue of microplastic pollution in our waterways. We have already taken some action. We've banned wet wipes containing plastic, and that's built on a previous ban on microbeads in products.
Those actions have marked a major step forward. There's also particular issues around wastewater that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, talked about microplastics entering the sewage system, and we are committed as a government to taking a systematic approach to tackling issues with drainage and wastewater, and that includes a real focus on tackling the root causes of sewage pollution. However, in England, wastewater treatment works do remove up to 99% of microplastics, but we want to ensure that legislation, regulatory mechanisms and funding streams do support delivery of solutions.
The government also recognises the importance of building a strong evidence base to understand pollutant sources, impacts and, of course, the most effective interventions to protect human health and the environment. In 2025, DEFRA finalised a research project on microplastics. The project assessed the impacts of intentionally added microplastics on the environment and human health. DEFRA is currently considering the results of this important analysis in order to inform our next steps. Also, the Department for business, Innovation, Science and Trade leads on requirements relating to washing machine product standards.
So we work closely together across the departments to understand the cost impacts of applying these filters, and that needs to be balanced against the environmental harm that is caused. Evidence that was presented to DEFRA in 2020 indicated variable performances of filters in trapping microplastics, as well as a range of costs associated with stalling them in or outside new machines. But I would very much welcome new evidence to assess the current state of filter technology. Recommendations have been made to industry to connect, to conduct a public willingness to pay considering the cost of living challenges we're currently undergoing, and to investigate and assess the suitability, feasibility management, disposal and costs of recycling, washing machine filters and the microplastics that are captured by those filters.
So before introducing any new legislation, we need to ensure the evidence is robust and fully reviewed. For example, it must be clear that the product has a significant environmental impact and that any new requirements would not incur excessive costs or impact on product functionality. Filters may well form part of the solution, but there are uncertainties around performance, also around cost, maintenance and disposal of captured fibres. We will consider product design, producer responsibility and end of pipe controls together, rather than impose added costs on consumers before effectiveness has been established.
The noble Lord Lord Harlech referenced the need for further understanding and and evidence. So, having said that, we do welcome the APPG second report and thank Alberto Costa, the Women's Institute and the Global Plastics Policy Centre for their work, because the report does provide a very helpful contribution to the evidence and policy debate and reflects the increasing public concern about their presence in water, soil, air and the wider environment very clearly laid out by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. And we would like to acknowledge that we recognise the report's five priority areas.
A coordinated policy framework, action on major sources, stronger producer responsibility, improved protections for wastewater, sewage sludge and soils, and better monitoring and evidence. Of course, the recommendations do cut across different policy areas and departments, so we will ensure that we come together where needed to properly consider them, because engagement with parliamentarians, industry, academia and civil society is invaluable in informing this work, and I do very much welcome the continued dialogue on this important issue. None of this, of course, diminishes the urgency of the challenge.
We've heard this very clearly this afternoon. The government is clear eyed about the growing concern on the issue of microplastics, and we're acting through engagement with stakeholders and supporting research, including on the potential role of technologies such as microfibre filters, as we've discussed today. And the noble Lady Baroness Bennett also made some important points regarding the education of the public in this matter. So again, we need to have as much information as we can. So we do very much welcome a commitment from industry to develop and implement standardised tests to provide unequivocal performance data on washing machine filters.
So in closing, can I once again thank the noble Lord for bringing this bill forward and for stimulating an important and thoughtful, thoughtful debate. Although short and while I share the ambition that motivates the Bill for the reasons stated, the government cannot support it. But I do want to assure the noble Lord that government will continue to focus on exploring opportunities to improve our understanding of the sources of microplastics and the risks they pose, and ensuring that the most effective interventions are in place to protect human health and the environment.
My Lords, can I commend the House for the quality of today's debate?
Those actions have marked a major step forward. There's also particular issues around wastewater that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, talked about microplastics entering the sewage system, and we are committed as a government to taking a systematic approach to tackling issues with drainage and wastewater, and that includes a real focus on tackling the root causes of sewage pollution. However, in England, wastewater treatment works do remove up to 99% of microplastics, but we want to ensure that legislation, regulatory mechanisms and funding streams do support delivery of solutions.
The government also recognises the importance of building a strong evidence base to understand pollutant sources, impacts and, of course, the most effective interventions to protect human health and the environment. In 2025, DEFRA finalised a research project on microplastics. The project assessed the impacts of intentionally added microplastics on the environment and human health. DEFRA is currently considering the results of this important analysis in order to inform our next steps. Also, the Department for business, Innovation, Science and Trade leads on requirements relating to washing machine product standards.
So we work closely together across the departments to understand the cost impacts of applying these filters, and that needs to be balanced against the environmental harm that is caused. Evidence that was presented to DEFRA in 2020 indicated variable performances of filters in trapping microplastics, as well as a range of costs associated with stalling them in or outside new machines. But I would very much welcome new evidence to assess the current state of filter technology. Recommendations have been made to industry to connect, to conduct a public willingness to pay considering the cost of living challenges we're currently undergoing, and to investigate and assess the suitability, feasibility management, disposal and costs of recycling, washing machine filters and the microplastics that are captured by those filters.
So before introducing any new legislation, we need to ensure the evidence is robust and fully reviewed. For example, it must be clear that the product has a significant environmental impact and that any new requirements would not incur excessive costs or impact on product functionality. Filters may well form part of the solution, but there are uncertainties around performance, also around cost, maintenance and disposal of captured fibres. We will consider product design, producer responsibility and end of pipe controls together, rather than impose added costs on consumers before effectiveness has been established.
The noble Lord Lord Harlech referenced the need for further understanding and and evidence. So, having said that, we do welcome the APPG second report and thank Alberto Costa, the Women's Institute and the Global Plastics Policy Centre for their work, because the report does provide a very helpful contribution to the evidence and policy debate and reflects the increasing public concern about their presence in water, soil, air and the wider environment very clearly laid out by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. And we would like to acknowledge that we recognise the report's five priority areas.
A coordinated policy framework, action on major sources, stronger producer responsibility, improved protections for wastewater, sewage sludge and soils, and better monitoring and evidence. Of course, the recommendations do cut across different policy areas and departments, so we will ensure that we come together where needed to properly consider them, because engagement with parliamentarians, industry, academia and civil society is invaluable in informing this work, and I do very much welcome the continued dialogue on this important issue. None of this, of course, diminishes the urgency of the challenge.
We've heard this very clearly this afternoon. The government is clear eyed about the growing concern on the issue of microplastics, and we're acting through engagement with stakeholders and supporting research, including on the potential role of technologies such as microfibre filters, as we've discussed today. And the noble Lady Baroness Bennett also made some important points regarding the education of the public in this matter. So again, we need to have as much information as we can. So we do very much welcome a commitment from industry to develop and implement standardised tests to provide unequivocal performance data on washing machine filters.
So in closing, can I once again thank the noble Lord for bringing this bill forward and for stimulating an important and thoughtful, thoughtful debate. Although short and while I share the ambition that motivates the Bill for the reasons stated, the government cannot support it. But I do want to assure the noble Lord that government will continue to focus on exploring opportunities to improve our understanding of the sources of microplastics and the risks they pose, and ensuring that the most effective interventions are in place to protect human health and the environment.
My Lords, can I commend the House for the quality of today's debate?
14:06
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
My Lord, I can't say I'm completely surprised by the reaction of both front benches, and reaction of both front benches, and I thank them for their contributions. I have to say, I just detected just slightly a slight movement by the noble Lady of the Minister. The pace of a sloth going on a go slow, that there is actually a slight movement towards us, I'm afraid my experience of government and being a government advisor. Special advisor on this is that it takes a lot to move positions.
But I remain ever hopeful and I know we will have other occasions. But I'd like to sincerely thank the noble Lady, the Baroness Bennett, because with her, when I was delighted to see her on the on the speaker's list, because she has the analytical skills and the scientific knowledge to fill in the gaps where I try to do it with just a, a passion for something that actually genuinely. I think lots of people share, particularly about the health risks to human health.
That said, I'm not going to sob myself to sleep tonight, but I'm going to think of more cunning and devious ways to get this message across. In the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
meantime, my Lords, I beg to move. Question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many as that opinion shall say. Content Of the contrary, not content. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question. My Lord, I beg to move that this bill be committed to a Committee of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. This bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as Committee of the whole House, as many opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents of it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
But I remain ever hopeful and I know we will have other occasions. But I'd like to sincerely thank the noble Lady, the Baroness Bennett, because with her, when I was delighted to see her on the on the speaker's list, because she has the analytical skills and the scientific knowledge to fill in the gaps where I try to do it with just a, a passion for something that actually genuinely. I think lots of people share, particularly about the health risks to human health.
That said, I'm not going to sob myself to sleep tonight, but I'm going to think of more cunning and devious ways to get this message across. In the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
meantime, my Lords, I beg to move. Question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many as that opinion shall say. Content Of the contrary, not content. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question. My Lord, I beg to move that this bill be committed to a Committee of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. This bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as Committee of the whole House, as many opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents of it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.