Lords Grand Committee
Thursday 17th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To me, as a person who lived in social housing and as a person whose eldest daughter was a squatter in in Brixton and who got into social housing through squatting empty buildings and being involved in the squatting movement in the 70s. I'm very, very interested in what you might call resources that are never used correctly. Now, every government that I have known since the early days of the Big Issue, when we set out on the road not only to get people off the streets, but to get them into housing, we found that one of the big stumbling blocks was, and this is every government, including the wonderful government of Sir George Young, who was the Minister of Housing when the stumbling block was that there seemed to be so many legal reasons why you could not grab hold of the.
Of the hundreds and thousands of social housing, of empty housing that could be used for social good. Now come forward 35 years because it's our 35th anniversary last week, you come to the realization that you've got this absolutely brilliant means of helping the government to push up its its targets of providing as many people as possible with social housing. But the stumbling block is planning is local authority is ownership.
And it's a whole plethora of reasons why, a reasons why, why you can't just say, here's a person in need or a family in need, and here is a property in need in the sense that it's empty, it's vacuous. It's not. It's not carrying out any social purpose and melding them together. There's so many impediments to this actually happening. So when the Big Issue started 35 years ago, we were very involved in the Empty Homes movement.
We were very involved because we could see not just from our own experience, but we could see that you had a wasted, a completely wasted resource that society should grasp and do two things. One is house people and the other is to get rid of waste, get rid of redundant property, get rid of the idea that there were people out there who could, just as much as they needed housing, could not use the opportunity to, to, to take over these properties.
So the big issue in the early days was, was a pain in the rear. We were doing things, we were occupying things, we were shouting, we were demonstrating in, in, in Parliament Square and doing all those sorts of things. And very little changed in the sense if you look at the problem that whatever government comes in, they always tell you why they cannot achieve this very, very simple thing, which is to put need with resources.
So the reason I have been campaigning and will be at the various conferences that are going on at the end of the month and early next month, I will be campaigning to do something very simple to the problem of social housing. Now, we know that over the last 40 years it is nearly 2 million houses have been removed from the social sector and sold on. Because we because Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes.
Of the hundreds and thousands of social housing, of empty housing that could be used for social good. Now come forward 35 years because it's our 35th anniversary last week, you come to the realization that you've got this absolutely brilliant means of helping the government to push up its its targets of providing as many people as possible with social housing. But the stumbling block is planning is local authority is ownership.
And it's a whole plethora of reasons why, a reasons why, why you can't just say, here's a person in need or a family in need, and here is a property in need in the sense that it's empty, it's vacuous. It's not. It's not carrying out any social purpose and melding them together. There's so many impediments to this actually happening. So when the Big Issue started 35 years ago, we were very involved in the Empty Homes movement.
We were very involved because we could see not just from our own experience, but we could see that you had a wasted, a completely wasted resource that society should grasp and do two things. One is house people and the other is to get rid of waste, get rid of redundant property, get rid of the idea that there were people out there who could, just as much as they needed housing, could not use the opportunity to, to, to take over these properties.
So the big issue in the early days was, was a pain in the rear. We were doing things, we were occupying things, we were shouting, we were demonstrating in, in, in Parliament Square and doing all those sorts of things. And very little changed in the sense if you look at the problem that whatever government comes in, they always tell you why they cannot achieve this very, very simple thing, which is to put need with resources.
So the reason I have been campaigning and will be at the various conferences that are going on at the end of the month and early next month, I will be campaigning to do something very simple to the problem of social housing. Now, we know that over the last 40 years it is nearly 2 million houses have been removed from the social sector and sold on. Because we because Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes.
12:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Action on empty homes is now alive and well, doing valuable work under the leadership of Rebecca Moore and Chris Bailey. So that was one initiative. Another one I launched in. We also worked with local authorities. They were in many ways easier to get on with, and we got their numbers of vacancies down by 40,000 over a five year period. 1991 involved flats over shops. At that point there were 100,000 empty flats over shops, and we embarked on a three year campaign to bring them into use.
And we put £25 million on the table for local authorities to adapt the schemes, in many cases providing separate entrances to the flats above the shops. And again, that had a big impact. Many of the solutions, either existing or suggested by the noble Lords, involve an element of compulsion empty dwelling management orders Cpos works in lieu in force sale, or they involve public expenditure and being a conservative and cautious about increasing public expenditure and cautious about more regulation.
The third approach I tried was different, making the owners of empty properties a deal they couldn't refuse, but with no compulsion and with no extra public expenditure. And it was called Hammer Housing Associations as managing agent. And the deal was this. A local housing association would say to somebody who owned an empty property, somebody who didn't want the hassle of renting, didn't want the risk of a tenant who didn't pay, or a tenant who might trash the property.
The housing association would say, we will manage the property for you. We will find a tenant. We will guarantee the rent. We will return the property to you in the same condition as we found it, and we will remove the tenant. At what point you want the property back, and if the property needed some work and some of it did, the housing association would do the work and then recoup the money from the rent.
Now the rent the owner received was below market rent because it was a fantastic deal, because there was no risk. And so the lower rent saved money for the housing association or the local authority who might otherwise have had to pay a market rent for a similar property. We launched five pilot schemes with housing associations, and I recall going to the first property in Paddington, worked in conjunction with the Notting Hill Housing Trust.
My Lords, I was then either sacked or promoted and I lost sight of the scheme. I did some googling yesterday and it seems to have sunk without any trace at all. And the minister, whose heart I know is in the right place on homelessness and empty properties, might just to ask her office to look through the records and see whether this is something that might be. If it is, I'd like to go to the first launch of it.
And we put £25 million on the table for local authorities to adapt the schemes, in many cases providing separate entrances to the flats above the shops. And again, that had a big impact. Many of the solutions, either existing or suggested by the noble Lords, involve an element of compulsion empty dwelling management orders Cpos works in lieu in force sale, or they involve public expenditure and being a conservative and cautious about increasing public expenditure and cautious about more regulation.
The third approach I tried was different, making the owners of empty properties a deal they couldn't refuse, but with no compulsion and with no extra public expenditure. And it was called Hammer Housing Associations as managing agent. And the deal was this. A local housing association would say to somebody who owned an empty property, somebody who didn't want the hassle of renting, didn't want the risk of a tenant who didn't pay, or a tenant who might trash the property.
The housing association would say, we will manage the property for you. We will find a tenant. We will guarantee the rent. We will return the property to you in the same condition as we found it, and we will remove the tenant. At what point you want the property back, and if the property needed some work and some of it did, the housing association would do the work and then recoup the money from the rent.
Now the rent the owner received was below market rent because it was a fantastic deal, because there was no risk. And so the lower rent saved money for the housing association or the local authority who might otherwise have had to pay a market rent for a similar property. We launched five pilot schemes with housing associations, and I recall going to the first property in Paddington, worked in conjunction with the Notting Hill Housing Trust.
My Lords, I was then either sacked or promoted and I lost sight of the scheme. I did some googling yesterday and it seems to have sunk without any trace at all. And the minister, whose heart I know is in the right place on homelessness and empty properties, might just to ask her office to look through the records and see whether this is something that might be. If it is, I'd like to go to the first launch of it.
12:39
12:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Sorry. Well, thanks. It's great to be back. Speaking again. It's been some time for me . Since I've made a contribution in this House. I've had some challenges, but it's wonderful to be speaking on a topic secured by the noble Lord, Lord bird and I have to congratulate. Join in the chorus of congratulations. 35 years tackling homelessness. 35 years dealing with successive governments, being frustrated and you're now at the beginning stage of a new government.
And you and you, you're you're giving huge praise to the current Prime minister and this government. You see huge opportunities. And I'm sure you're drawn to the fact that this Prime Minister has made his very first pledge, seeing the end of rough sleeping and and wants to ensure that everyone's in by Christmas. And I think that's a very noble endeavour. However, it reminds me, I had echoes.
I've heard this before. And I remember in January 2009, when I was council leader in Hammersmith and Fulham, the then mayor of London, Boris Johnson, summoned me to the Broadway Centre in in my borough in Shepherd's Bush to launch his campaign to end rough sleeping. And at the time, Boris set the ambitious target of ending rough sleeping in London by 2012. Some years later, that pledge has not been met by successive by him and successive mayors.
And then, when he was prime minister, he also made the same pledge for England to end rough sleeping. And unfortunately, we haven't seen the end of rough sleeping, neither by 2024 or when Theresa May want to end it. We're not going to see it by 2027. So these are challenges that are here for some time. And it's important to come up with concrete policies that address these issues. It is a timely debate because I'm interested in data and statistics, and the numbers aren't good.
The numbers are not good. The trends around the numbers of homeless people who we owe a duty to help has increased from 269,000 in 2019 to a record number of 330,410. Lord noble, my noble friend Lord young has mentioned the number of children in temporary accommodation. Numbers in temporary accommodation has hiked from 95,000 to 135,000 people in temporary accommodation, and the numbers of rough sleepers is now at a record level 4793 in autumn on a single night, up from 2443 in 2021.
So the numbers are going up, and it's not for lack of housing support and the amount of money that's going in. Direct housing benefit and the housing element of Universal Credit is ratcheting up all the time. It's now at £39 billion, up from £27 billion in 20 1819. So it's right to set.
And you and you, you're you're giving huge praise to the current Prime minister and this government. You see huge opportunities. And I'm sure you're drawn to the fact that this Prime Minister has made his very first pledge, seeing the end of rough sleeping and and wants to ensure that everyone's in by Christmas. And I think that's a very noble endeavour. However, it reminds me, I had echoes.
I've heard this before. And I remember in January 2009, when I was council leader in Hammersmith and Fulham, the then mayor of London, Boris Johnson, summoned me to the Broadway Centre in in my borough in Shepherd's Bush to launch his campaign to end rough sleeping. And at the time, Boris set the ambitious target of ending rough sleeping in London by 2012. Some years later, that pledge has not been met by successive by him and successive mayors.
And then, when he was prime minister, he also made the same pledge for England to end rough sleeping. And unfortunately, we haven't seen the end of rough sleeping, neither by 2024 or when Theresa May want to end it. We're not going to see it by 2027. So these are challenges that are here for some time. And it's important to come up with concrete policies that address these issues. It is a timely debate because I'm interested in data and statistics, and the numbers aren't good.
The numbers are not good. The trends around the numbers of homeless people who we owe a duty to help has increased from 269,000 in 2019 to a record number of 330,410. Lord noble, my noble friend Lord young has mentioned the number of children in temporary accommodation. Numbers in temporary accommodation has hiked from 95,000 to 135,000 people in temporary accommodation, and the numbers of rough sleepers is now at a record level 4793 in autumn on a single night, up from 2443 in 2021.
So the numbers are going up, and it's not for lack of housing support and the amount of money that's going in. Direct housing benefit and the housing element of Universal Credit is ratcheting up all the time. It's now at £39 billion, up from £27 billion in 20 1819. So it's right to set.
12:56
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
An initiative provided over £2 billion to help rough sleepers find work. These things made a big, big difference. But actually the previous government's rough sleeping access services and secure accommodation. So it was a long term fix. It wasn't just this revolving door. What's more, they allocated £11 billion to the Affordable Homes programme from 21 to 26 and met the promise to build 1 million new homes over the last Parliament.
However, when the new Prime Minister's pledge was made, there was no detail on how it would be achieved, how much it would cost or where the money would come from. My Lords, these are not just technicalities to be ironed out further down the line. Furthermore, it's not the first time the Prime Minister has made the pledge. He did the same as Mayor of Manchester, where the number of rough sleepers proceeded to rise.
He set up a bed every night scheme and then the Housing First scheme. How exactly will get everyone in at Christmas scheme differ from and work better than those two schemes? Is the National Plan to End Homelessness, only published last December by the government still being followed, or is that now been shelved? In addition, the Prime Minister has called for the biggest council housing programme since the post-war period, but then backtracked on his proposal for the government's £10 billion, ten year affordable homes programme to be spent entirely on social housing.
Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify exactly how many social hounds they're planning to build during the passage of the Social Housing Act? And, of course, many of you in this room were on that journey. We on these benches made constructive proposals to enable the building of more social homes and to reduce waiting lists. For example, an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied. And I know it's a big thing that I have and an issue that I feel needs resolve in the government themselves.
Estimate that 5800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short term letting programmes, and we did hear some comments earlier on about some short term lettings. Yet in 2425 , there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. When there are people out there on the streets in genuine need, this is unacceptable. Those are British people for whom the welfare state should reform. I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could clarify this government's plans, how they will be funded and exactly what they will do to achieve the numbers.
I look forward to hearing her response.
However, when the new Prime Minister's pledge was made, there was no detail on how it would be achieved, how much it would cost or where the money would come from. My Lords, these are not just technicalities to be ironed out further down the line. Furthermore, it's not the first time the Prime Minister has made the pledge. He did the same as Mayor of Manchester, where the number of rough sleepers proceeded to rise.
He set up a bed every night scheme and then the Housing First scheme. How exactly will get everyone in at Christmas scheme differ from and work better than those two schemes? Is the National Plan to End Homelessness, only published last December by the government still being followed, or is that now been shelved? In addition, the Prime Minister has called for the biggest council housing programme since the post-war period, but then backtracked on his proposal for the government's £10 billion, ten year affordable homes programme to be spent entirely on social housing.
Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify exactly how many social hounds they're planning to build during the passage of the Social Housing Act? And, of course, many of you in this room were on that journey. We on these benches made constructive proposals to enable the building of more social homes and to reduce waiting lists. For example, an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied. And I know it's a big thing that I have and an issue that I feel needs resolve in the government themselves.
Estimate that 5800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short term letting programmes, and we did hear some comments earlier on about some short term lettings. Yet in 2425 , there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. When there are people out there on the streets in genuine need, this is unacceptable. Those are British people for whom the welfare state should reform. I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could clarify this government's plans, how they will be funded and exactly what they will do to achieve the numbers.
I look forward to hearing her response.
12:59
12:59
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, I'm most grateful to the noble Lord bird for opening this debate in his usual powerful way. And for. And can I echo the tribute that other noble Lords have paid to his fantastic work towards homelessness and rough sleeping over many decades? It is an enormous, an enormous record of supporting those who who have to sleep on our streets or who are facing homelessness. As the powerful testimony from my noble friend Lord Griffiths explained.
Can I also welcome back the noble Lord greenhouse? I remember meetings with him when he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham, and it's great to see him back here following his his.
Can I also welcome back the noble Lord greenhouse? I remember meetings with him when he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham, and it's great to see him back here following his his.
13:00
13:00
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And can I thank Baroness Thornhill for all her work on the with the Watford homeless charity. I know she does marvellous work and the noble Lord young for his constant contributions to housing. Today's debate has shown our shared determination to tackle homelessness and to make better use of the existing housing stock. There's never any argument about that amongst any of the political parties. Everyone should have a safe, secure and affordable home, and we should make the best possible use of the homes we already have.
But there is still work to do. Our government inherited inherited a profound homelessness challenge. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. And as my noble friend Lord Griffiths highlighted, it's just just one of those issues which is causing that is people fleeing domestic abuse. And there are many, many issues. And this government has had to start with a raft of legislation to start tackling both the causes and the and the solutions to that problem of homelessness.
It is unacceptable and we need urgent intervention. And that's why we've invested more than £4 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including our National Plan to End Homelessness and the Rough Sleeping Programme, which is certainly not in abeyance. I would answer to the noble lady, Baroness O'Neill. We're investing £950 million through the local authority housing Fund and offering the biggest boost to social housing in a generation through the 39 billion social and Affordable Homes programme.
But preventing homelessness fundamentally depends on having enough suitable homes, and that means building new homes and, of course, making the best possible use of those we already have. The noble Lord bird is quite right about right to buy, and our recent social housing bill is starting to action the loss of social homes. And we don't we haven't decided not to abandon right to buy. But what we have said is that when a social home is sold, we must build a replacement.
And that's why we've decided that 100% of the receipts from those homes should go back to councils, and that new homes that councils build should not be sold for 35 years after they've been built, so that councils have a chance to recoup through the rent, the money they've spent on them. And this brings us to the role of empty homes. Homelessness and empty homes are distinct challenges, and bringing an empty property back into use will not always provide a swift solution to those who are in immediate need of housing, but where we are able to bring previously empty properties back into use, it can provide temporary or settled accommodation and help relieve pressure on local housing markets.
The noble Lord young mentioned a number of initiatives from local government and housing associations. These continue to evolve and I see them all the time when I'm going around the country visiting our local councils. So I would thank the noble Lord for bringing this question before the House and for highlighting in his speech the frustration that everyone feels in this sector and everyone who cares about housing, that we have empty homes, sometimes long term empty homes at the same time as we have people sleeping on our streets.
And an enormous bill for temporary accommodation, as mentioned by the noble Baroness Thornhill, there are around 303,000 homes on long term empty in England, and the government wants to see more of these homes brought back into use. And that brings me to the proposal at the heart of today's debate a national empty homes strategy. Let me first be clear that our government shares Lord bird's objective. Bringing empty homes back into use can provide homes for people who need them, support regeneration and help relieve pressure on local housing markets.
But recognising the importance of the issue doesn't necessarily mean that a new national strategy is the right response. As the noble Baroness Thornhill identified, empty homes arise for many different reasons. Properties vary in their condition, ownership and the cost of bringing them back into use. Local housing pressures and property markets also differ considerably. A single national approach could therefore be overly prescriptive and may not reflect what will work in each area.
It could create additional reporting and administrative requirements from councils, and that in itself would draw away resources from the practical work of identifying empty homes, engaging owners and returning properties into use. We already have national strategies which address the wider challenges to which empty homes contribute, including our National plan to End homelessness. Crucially, councils are already taking action and are best placed to understand why homes are empty in their areas and decide which course of action will be most effective.
Many councils already have their own empty homes strategies reflecting local circumstances and priorities, and I commend those and hope that those councils who have not yet considered an empty homes strategy will do so going forward. The central challenge is therefore not a lack of recognition or another layer of strategy. It's making sure councils can make effective use of the tools available to them and match the right intervention to the right property. For some empty homes, financial incentives, such as the council tax premium, may encourage homeowners to bring their property back into use, where owners are unwilling to act stronger.
Enforcement powers such as enforced sale, compulsory purchase or empty dwelling management orders may be used, as we have outlined in the English Devolution White Paper, that we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes, and we will provide further detail in due course. And can I just say to noble Lords, I hate that term in due course, but I can assure noble Lords in this case, in due course means very soon where the objective is to use empty homes to provide accommodation for people who are homeless, funding is often required and councils can access a range of funding opportunities for this purpose.
Every part of the toolkit has a role by encouraging, enabling or requiring more empty homes to return to occupation. These levers can improve the use of existing housing stock, increase local supply and help ease wider housing pressures. I do want to make some specific comments about funding, because a number of noble Lords, everybody that spoke actually mentioned this. So Lord young, Lord Griffiths and Lord greenhouse, in particular, local authorities and registered providers can access funding such as through the local authority Housing fund or Social and Affordable Homes programme to bring empty homes back into use.
Both can use state funds to purchase market housing for affordable housing, and bids are assessed on individual merit by Homes England and the GLA. The £950 million fourth round of the local authority housing Fund is for councils in England to increase their supply of better quality temporary accommodation. It also provides safe and suitable housing for some families. For example, on the Afghan resettlement programme, councils can partner with registered providers to use funding to purchase existing properties, including empty homes, and that's a big resource in some areas, empty homes can help reduce reliance on expensive and unsuitable temporary accommodation by bringing existing housing back into use quickly.
The noble Baroness Thornhill, commented on the nearly £3 billion that spent on temporary accommodation, and we want to make sure that we bring those empty homes returning long term vacant properties to occupation to increase housing supply that will vary from area to area. Of course, Lord bird, Lord Griffiths and Lord greenhouse all referred to the rise of children in temporary accommodation. This is an absolute scandal that we had that huge rise and it's unacceptable that the number of children in temporary accommodation is increasing numbers.
I would say that numbers in the most harmful form of accommodation that's bed and breakfast accommodation are decreasing each quarter. And since the peak on the 30th of June, families in bed and breakfast over six weeks has fallen by 75% to 1000 households on the 31st of March 2026. But that's 1000 households too many for me. I want to see that figure down to zero. And this encouraging progress follows the £30 million investment over three years into the emergency accommodation reduction programme.
I'm running out of time now, so I'm going to conclude by saying that I'm sure the purpose of this debate was to draw attention to the importance of empty homes. And let me be unequivocal to the noble Lord bird. Our government believes that bringing suitable empty properties back into use is an essential piece of this puzzle, but we believe the most effective approach is to empower and encourage councils to act locally, supported by appropriate national powers and funding, rather than imposing what might appear to be a one size fits all national strategy.
So we will respond formally to the noble Lord mayor's policy paper that he sent to the department. But in closing, can I thank all members across the House for their very important contributions to this important debate?
But there is still work to do. Our government inherited inherited a profound homelessness challenge. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. And as my noble friend Lord Griffiths highlighted, it's just just one of those issues which is causing that is people fleeing domestic abuse. And there are many, many issues. And this government has had to start with a raft of legislation to start tackling both the causes and the and the solutions to that problem of homelessness.
It is unacceptable and we need urgent intervention. And that's why we've invested more than £4 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including our National Plan to End Homelessness and the Rough Sleeping Programme, which is certainly not in abeyance. I would answer to the noble lady, Baroness O'Neill. We're investing £950 million through the local authority housing Fund and offering the biggest boost to social housing in a generation through the 39 billion social and Affordable Homes programme.
But preventing homelessness fundamentally depends on having enough suitable homes, and that means building new homes and, of course, making the best possible use of those we already have. The noble Lord bird is quite right about right to buy, and our recent social housing bill is starting to action the loss of social homes. And we don't we haven't decided not to abandon right to buy. But what we have said is that when a social home is sold, we must build a replacement.
And that's why we've decided that 100% of the receipts from those homes should go back to councils, and that new homes that councils build should not be sold for 35 years after they've been built, so that councils have a chance to recoup through the rent, the money they've spent on them. And this brings us to the role of empty homes. Homelessness and empty homes are distinct challenges, and bringing an empty property back into use will not always provide a swift solution to those who are in immediate need of housing, but where we are able to bring previously empty properties back into use, it can provide temporary or settled accommodation and help relieve pressure on local housing markets.
The noble Lord young mentioned a number of initiatives from local government and housing associations. These continue to evolve and I see them all the time when I'm going around the country visiting our local councils. So I would thank the noble Lord for bringing this question before the House and for highlighting in his speech the frustration that everyone feels in this sector and everyone who cares about housing, that we have empty homes, sometimes long term empty homes at the same time as we have people sleeping on our streets.
And an enormous bill for temporary accommodation, as mentioned by the noble Baroness Thornhill, there are around 303,000 homes on long term empty in England, and the government wants to see more of these homes brought back into use. And that brings me to the proposal at the heart of today's debate a national empty homes strategy. Let me first be clear that our government shares Lord bird's objective. Bringing empty homes back into use can provide homes for people who need them, support regeneration and help relieve pressure on local housing markets.
But recognising the importance of the issue doesn't necessarily mean that a new national strategy is the right response. As the noble Baroness Thornhill identified, empty homes arise for many different reasons. Properties vary in their condition, ownership and the cost of bringing them back into use. Local housing pressures and property markets also differ considerably. A single national approach could therefore be overly prescriptive and may not reflect what will work in each area.
It could create additional reporting and administrative requirements from councils, and that in itself would draw away resources from the practical work of identifying empty homes, engaging owners and returning properties into use. We already have national strategies which address the wider challenges to which empty homes contribute, including our National plan to End homelessness. Crucially, councils are already taking action and are best placed to understand why homes are empty in their areas and decide which course of action will be most effective.
Many councils already have their own empty homes strategies reflecting local circumstances and priorities, and I commend those and hope that those councils who have not yet considered an empty homes strategy will do so going forward. The central challenge is therefore not a lack of recognition or another layer of strategy. It's making sure councils can make effective use of the tools available to them and match the right intervention to the right property. For some empty homes, financial incentives, such as the council tax premium, may encourage homeowners to bring their property back into use, where owners are unwilling to act stronger.
Enforcement powers such as enforced sale, compulsory purchase or empty dwelling management orders may be used, as we have outlined in the English Devolution White Paper, that we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes, and we will provide further detail in due course. And can I just say to noble Lords, I hate that term in due course, but I can assure noble Lords in this case, in due course means very soon where the objective is to use empty homes to provide accommodation for people who are homeless, funding is often required and councils can access a range of funding opportunities for this purpose.
Every part of the toolkit has a role by encouraging, enabling or requiring more empty homes to return to occupation. These levers can improve the use of existing housing stock, increase local supply and help ease wider housing pressures. I do want to make some specific comments about funding, because a number of noble Lords, everybody that spoke actually mentioned this. So Lord young, Lord Griffiths and Lord greenhouse, in particular, local authorities and registered providers can access funding such as through the local authority Housing fund or Social and Affordable Homes programme to bring empty homes back into use.
Both can use state funds to purchase market housing for affordable housing, and bids are assessed on individual merit by Homes England and the GLA. The £950 million fourth round of the local authority housing Fund is for councils in England to increase their supply of better quality temporary accommodation. It also provides safe and suitable housing for some families. For example, on the Afghan resettlement programme, councils can partner with registered providers to use funding to purchase existing properties, including empty homes, and that's a big resource in some areas, empty homes can help reduce reliance on expensive and unsuitable temporary accommodation by bringing existing housing back into use quickly.
The noble Baroness Thornhill, commented on the nearly £3 billion that spent on temporary accommodation, and we want to make sure that we bring those empty homes returning long term vacant properties to occupation to increase housing supply that will vary from area to area. Of course, Lord bird, Lord Griffiths and Lord greenhouse all referred to the rise of children in temporary accommodation. This is an absolute scandal that we had that huge rise and it's unacceptable that the number of children in temporary accommodation is increasing numbers.
I would say that numbers in the most harmful form of accommodation that's bed and breakfast accommodation are decreasing each quarter. And since the peak on the 30th of June, families in bed and breakfast over six weeks has fallen by 75% to 1000 households on the 31st of March 2026. But that's 1000 households too many for me. I want to see that figure down to zero. And this encouraging progress follows the £30 million investment over three years into the emergency accommodation reduction programme.
I'm running out of time now, so I'm going to conclude by saying that I'm sure the purpose of this debate was to draw attention to the importance of empty homes. And let me be unequivocal to the noble Lord bird. Our government believes that bringing suitable empty properties back into use is an essential piece of this puzzle, but we believe the most effective approach is to empower and encourage councils to act locally, supported by appropriate national powers and funding, rather than imposing what might appear to be a one size fits all national strategy.
So we will respond formally to the noble Lord mayor's policy paper that he sent to the department. But in closing, can I thank all members across the House for their very important contributions to this important debate?
13:09
13:14
13:14
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lord, I had the privilege and honour of serving under the Blair government, the Richard Caborn and Tessa Jowell for five years , being in the. The private discussions over the Olympic legacy and the Olympic Park . And the one thing more than anything that I took from that was that the creation of a sports park was itself an economic generator, and I don't think we've learned the lessons from that in terms of what that means.
Now, if we look at and I'll take just one sport, but this could apply not in as big a way, but it could apply to any sport and at any level. But if I take one sport, I financially and economically most successful part of UK sport, which is the English Premier League, according to the. The Forbes list five of the top clubs in the world in terms of wealth are from the English Premier League.
11 of the top 30 from the Deloitte's list, which is calculated on a different basis but using the same kinds of principles of which are the most successful clubs financially. Six of the top ten in the world are English Premier League, nine of the top 2015 of the top 30 and interestingly, the farthest. And the Deloitte list in terms of the clubs don't totally overlap. So if we take the Premier League and some clubs who aspire and sometimes are in and out of the Premier League as business entities, we're talking a huge amount of money.
We get the transfer window. For the last two years, the Premier League just on players one asset, 1.5 billion. What we haven't done is see this in the wider economic sphere and in the economic sphere. The stadia are a key part of it. I was over at the World Cup. Seen the way in which the Americans have configured this. I don't think they've done it very cleverly.
I don't see what the community benefit in their new stadiums are, and I don't see what the. There is an economic regeneration model, but it's not a sports park model. And I think there's a way we could do it in this country really effectively, really quickly. And in doing so, leveraging a huge amount of additional capital as investment into the country. You see football's big money investors, through various different means, are keen on our football clubs are keen on investing, getting money in to the sport of football, particularly at the higher levels, has been relatively easy and indeed there are many people seeking to buy low level clubs at Level clubs at the moment and doing so with investments, often from overseas with the same aim.
They think they can at least break even, perhaps make a bit of money. However, we're only getting in sports money. We take some of the examples because there are sports stadia that are wanting to develop, need to develop all over the Premier League and all over the country. I'll take some I know well, I'll take the one I know the best Leeds United football club where the investors there are also building a small amount of housing, smaller 2300 units.
Not that small. Alongside and on the land in the development area that the club controls. If we took the economy of the city and we took the potential and we looked at what was done in a very different model by Manchester City or other investors behind Manchester City in the city of Manchester, it's a different model because the stadium was already there. They inherited the Commonwealth Sports Park and then developed economically beyond it.
But it's a good synergy to look and compare with the Olympic Park. Again, a sports park. There is no sports park proposed in Leeds. The land is not sufficient, but the land between the city centre and the football stadium as the major arena, which is going to be developing in size by about a third in capacity in the immediate future, is seen as a stadium development with all the complexities of transport etc.
rather than a community development or rather than a city development. If a club like that had the option of having some kind of special enterprise zone status, the way in which we've done and I worked on the the deals in the past with Nissan and Komatsu, there have been other ones that we've done for major industries elsewhere, and critically gave the master planning powers to the investors in cooperation, not least now with the mayors and the use of mayors to sign off the overall plan, but then allow the detail to go through.
I think far more investment would go into those sports villages economically in terms of housing, in terms of industry, but also in terms of community and social benefit, because if you do that, then I mean, it's the old kind of section 106 concept rather than building roundabouts, the ideal place to have community football facilities in the City of Leeds would be under the banner of Leeds United Football Club. That would go for all our big football clubs.
We don't do that. The obvious place to have GP facilities would be precisely there and build a health village as part of it to get people in . In the way the Olympic Sports Village does works and has proven to work, and so we're denying that capital possibility. If you put money into Leeds United, it's into the stadium as is on a restricted basis. That goes with most of our other clubs and even those who've managed deals and the ones that have in Manchester and in Birmingham.
We should bear in mind they are large city councils who employ lots of planners and can afford to get the top planners the capacity in planning. If you take it around, the rest of the country is far less. The ability for planners. Even in big cities like Leeds in Nottingham, where the stadium again is a bit. Seven years to get it through in Nottingham. Hopefully it goes through this this month, but then there'll be further problems.
There is not a way of drawing inward investment in to one of our successful parts of the economy and building the community assets alongside as part of the deal. And if we look at where the world's going, take the league's example again. Driverless cars, driverless multi-purpose vehicles. You want to move people to a large stadium beat for football, be it for concerts, a big venue, a big centre, then outside of London. The way to do that in the future is going to include driverless vehicles moving large numbers of people.
That can't be done by the sports club owners because they don't have the economic powers. And I put it to to the the House that there are many examples from clubs the size of Leeds and cities the size of Leeds to clubs the size of Port Vale with huge amounts of development land around the stadium to the much smaller clubs, even the Worksop towns, the lower level clubs where this possibility would drive investment into the country and of course, would benefit the community and benefit our sports clubs.
My Lords.
Now, if we look at and I'll take just one sport, but this could apply not in as big a way, but it could apply to any sport and at any level. But if I take one sport, I financially and economically most successful part of UK sport, which is the English Premier League, according to the. The Forbes list five of the top clubs in the world in terms of wealth are from the English Premier League.
11 of the top 30 from the Deloitte's list, which is calculated on a different basis but using the same kinds of principles of which are the most successful clubs financially. Six of the top ten in the world are English Premier League, nine of the top 2015 of the top 30 and interestingly, the farthest. And the Deloitte list in terms of the clubs don't totally overlap. So if we take the Premier League and some clubs who aspire and sometimes are in and out of the Premier League as business entities, we're talking a huge amount of money.
We get the transfer window. For the last two years, the Premier League just on players one asset, 1.5 billion. What we haven't done is see this in the wider economic sphere and in the economic sphere. The stadia are a key part of it. I was over at the World Cup. Seen the way in which the Americans have configured this. I don't think they've done it very cleverly.
I don't see what the community benefit in their new stadiums are, and I don't see what the. There is an economic regeneration model, but it's not a sports park model. And I think there's a way we could do it in this country really effectively, really quickly. And in doing so, leveraging a huge amount of additional capital as investment into the country. You see football's big money investors, through various different means, are keen on our football clubs are keen on investing, getting money in to the sport of football, particularly at the higher levels, has been relatively easy and indeed there are many people seeking to buy low level clubs at Level clubs at the moment and doing so with investments, often from overseas with the same aim.
They think they can at least break even, perhaps make a bit of money. However, we're only getting in sports money. We take some of the examples because there are sports stadia that are wanting to develop, need to develop all over the Premier League and all over the country. I'll take some I know well, I'll take the one I know the best Leeds United football club where the investors there are also building a small amount of housing, smaller 2300 units.
Not that small. Alongside and on the land in the development area that the club controls. If we took the economy of the city and we took the potential and we looked at what was done in a very different model by Manchester City or other investors behind Manchester City in the city of Manchester, it's a different model because the stadium was already there. They inherited the Commonwealth Sports Park and then developed economically beyond it.
But it's a good synergy to look and compare with the Olympic Park. Again, a sports park. There is no sports park proposed in Leeds. The land is not sufficient, but the land between the city centre and the football stadium as the major arena, which is going to be developing in size by about a third in capacity in the immediate future, is seen as a stadium development with all the complexities of transport etc.
rather than a community development or rather than a city development. If a club like that had the option of having some kind of special enterprise zone status, the way in which we've done and I worked on the the deals in the past with Nissan and Komatsu, there have been other ones that we've done for major industries elsewhere, and critically gave the master planning powers to the investors in cooperation, not least now with the mayors and the use of mayors to sign off the overall plan, but then allow the detail to go through.
I think far more investment would go into those sports villages economically in terms of housing, in terms of industry, but also in terms of community and social benefit, because if you do that, then I mean, it's the old kind of section 106 concept rather than building roundabouts, the ideal place to have community football facilities in the City of Leeds would be under the banner of Leeds United Football Club. That would go for all our big football clubs.
We don't do that. The obvious place to have GP facilities would be precisely there and build a health village as part of it to get people in . In the way the Olympic Sports Village does works and has proven to work, and so we're denying that capital possibility. If you put money into Leeds United, it's into the stadium as is on a restricted basis. That goes with most of our other clubs and even those who've managed deals and the ones that have in Manchester and in Birmingham.
We should bear in mind they are large city councils who employ lots of planners and can afford to get the top planners the capacity in planning. If you take it around, the rest of the country is far less. The ability for planners. Even in big cities like Leeds in Nottingham, where the stadium again is a bit. Seven years to get it through in Nottingham. Hopefully it goes through this this month, but then there'll be further problems.
There is not a way of drawing inward investment in to one of our successful parts of the economy and building the community assets alongside as part of the deal. And if we look at where the world's going, take the league's example again. Driverless cars, driverless multi-purpose vehicles. You want to move people to a large stadium beat for football, be it for concerts, a big venue, a big centre, then outside of London. The way to do that in the future is going to include driverless vehicles moving large numbers of people.
That can't be done by the sports club owners because they don't have the economic powers. And I put it to to the the House that there are many examples from clubs the size of Leeds and cities the size of Leeds to clubs the size of Port Vale with huge amounts of development land around the stadium to the much smaller clubs, even the Worksop towns, the lower level clubs where this possibility would drive investment into the country and of course, would benefit the community and benefit our sports clubs.
My Lords.
13:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The broadband makes a very good case and I hope that what I say is interpreted as being very supportive of it, and my support for Brighton and Hove Albion is well known in the House, but I do declare it as a relevant interest in the in this debate. In fact, I've often thought that I should , if I should see if it's possible to change my title to Lord Grantham of Brighton and Hove Albion. I think it would be a novel thing to do, but there's a serious point behind all of that, and it's a delight, actually, that the noble Baroness Taylor's replied to this short debate, because I know from our many conversations that she loves football like I do, and is a big Stevenage borough, as it were.
Big Stevenage FC fan and understands the economic benefits that football clubs bring to an area. Lord Man asks the question about recognising the economic benefits of sports clubs and linking them to enterprise zones. These, as we know, are confer several advantages to businesses who choose to operate with them, as do freeports and investment zones. Most of the advantages are tax and business costs related, and it is possible to get 100% business rate relief, other tax reliefs and easier and simplified planning permissions make a very strong case.
Major beneficiaries of enterprise zones are usually SMEs, which make up some 99% of businesses generally and some 60% of the private sector workforce. There's some debate about the relative merits of enterprise zones, with some observers believing that the estimated number of jobs created by them is lower than was originally anticipated. However, in 2025, the government claimed freeports and investment zones had attracted over £64 billion in private investment. And in 2024, all it was thought that some 100,000 jobs had come directly and indirectly from freeports and investment and enterprise zones.
We know that Sport England believed that the combined social and economic benefits of sport and physical activity in England is valued at somewhere in the region of £125 billion, and DCMs in 2024 also reported that sport contributed £20.6 billion to the economy and 0.8% of GVA taking the Premier League as a case study. They believe that the combined value of the clubs operating in that league is worth nearly £9 billion in 2020 324 and contributed over 100,000 jobs and £4.4 billion in tax benefits.
The government acknowledges this and has stated that they also deliver indirect economic benefits to the local communities that the clubs serve, attracting visitors and bringing increased footfall for the hospitality, retail and transport sectors. There are downsides, particularly if you're a football fan. You have to suffer the benefits of losing and winning. Mostly winning in my case. But there we are. Brighton Hove Albion case is an interesting one in point.
Had the club lost its league status in the 90s, the impact on the city would have been, in my view, catastrophic as it was, we were able to rescue the club as a local authority and happy, and I was happy to play a part in bringing the club back to Brighton from Gillingham and ultimately helping it secure its new home at Falmouth. Rightly, the club has undertaken over the years economic impact studies on its impact on the city's economy.
After its first year in the Premier League, it was calculated to have brought an additional £20 million to the local economy and to have created 1000 jobs directly and indirectly. And that was back in 2018. And I have little doubt that if the study was repeated now, those figures would be bigger, not least because the club itself has invested heavily in training facilities, merchandising and hospitality. Probably the figure would be closer to £500 million a year.
And when they bring back the women's team from Crawley to our new stadium, which is going to be designed with women in mind and for women alone, I think those figures will grow again. I'm very much in favour of creating centres of sporting excellence, and so far the City of Brighton and Hove has argued that there is a potential to add that second women's stadium adjacent to the Amex and alongside the successful Brighton Aldridge Cricket Academy, which is on the other side of the stadium to the west.
So there is an opportunity in my city to create a sports zone. Along with the former academic corridor. We already have a major sports centre there, and I think the sort of benefits that Lord man talked about bringing sports science and physical sciences in alongside of that will be tremendous. So it begs the question, would they or could they benefit from being designated as an enterprise or investment zone? Well, clearly they could, particularly if the planning process was speeded up.
And no doubt, being the good entrepreneur he is, Tony Bloom would very much welcome a reduction in his business rates. I think that football clubs outside the Premier League and the Championship that are essentially SMEs alongside rugby, rugby league and professional cricket clubs and perhaps some of the other track and field sports discipline stadia would get considerable benefit too. So, my Lords, I'm very tempted by the noble Lord man's idea and I can see a particular benefit to football clubs and other sporting institutions where the economic margins can be brighter.
I think it would work well for those clubs in the leagues below the Championship particularly, and also those in non non-league football, the National League, North and South, etc. so I think this is an idea well worth exploring. And I think the benefits that it brings to many of our hard oppressed communities would be well worth having and could unlock substantial extra investment. This Lord man says there are plenty of entrepreneurs and investors seeking now to invest in the lower league clubs, Wrexham being a particularly good example and that regenerative that regenerative effect has a multiplier which benefits communities much more widely.
Big Stevenage FC fan and understands the economic benefits that football clubs bring to an area. Lord Man asks the question about recognising the economic benefits of sports clubs and linking them to enterprise zones. These, as we know, are confer several advantages to businesses who choose to operate with them, as do freeports and investment zones. Most of the advantages are tax and business costs related, and it is possible to get 100% business rate relief, other tax reliefs and easier and simplified planning permissions make a very strong case.
Major beneficiaries of enterprise zones are usually SMEs, which make up some 99% of businesses generally and some 60% of the private sector workforce. There's some debate about the relative merits of enterprise zones, with some observers believing that the estimated number of jobs created by them is lower than was originally anticipated. However, in 2025, the government claimed freeports and investment zones had attracted over £64 billion in private investment. And in 2024, all it was thought that some 100,000 jobs had come directly and indirectly from freeports and investment and enterprise zones.
We know that Sport England believed that the combined social and economic benefits of sport and physical activity in England is valued at somewhere in the region of £125 billion, and DCMs in 2024 also reported that sport contributed £20.6 billion to the economy and 0.8% of GVA taking the Premier League as a case study. They believe that the combined value of the clubs operating in that league is worth nearly £9 billion in 2020 324 and contributed over 100,000 jobs and £4.4 billion in tax benefits.
The government acknowledges this and has stated that they also deliver indirect economic benefits to the local communities that the clubs serve, attracting visitors and bringing increased footfall for the hospitality, retail and transport sectors. There are downsides, particularly if you're a football fan. You have to suffer the benefits of losing and winning. Mostly winning in my case. But there we are. Brighton Hove Albion case is an interesting one in point.
Had the club lost its league status in the 90s, the impact on the city would have been, in my view, catastrophic as it was, we were able to rescue the club as a local authority and happy, and I was happy to play a part in bringing the club back to Brighton from Gillingham and ultimately helping it secure its new home at Falmouth. Rightly, the club has undertaken over the years economic impact studies on its impact on the city's economy.
After its first year in the Premier League, it was calculated to have brought an additional £20 million to the local economy and to have created 1000 jobs directly and indirectly. And that was back in 2018. And I have little doubt that if the study was repeated now, those figures would be bigger, not least because the club itself has invested heavily in training facilities, merchandising and hospitality. Probably the figure would be closer to £500 million a year.
And when they bring back the women's team from Crawley to our new stadium, which is going to be designed with women in mind and for women alone, I think those figures will grow again. I'm very much in favour of creating centres of sporting excellence, and so far the City of Brighton and Hove has argued that there is a potential to add that second women's stadium adjacent to the Amex and alongside the successful Brighton Aldridge Cricket Academy, which is on the other side of the stadium to the west.
So there is an opportunity in my city to create a sports zone. Along with the former academic corridor. We already have a major sports centre there, and I think the sort of benefits that Lord man talked about bringing sports science and physical sciences in alongside of that will be tremendous. So it begs the question, would they or could they benefit from being designated as an enterprise or investment zone? Well, clearly they could, particularly if the planning process was speeded up.
And no doubt, being the good entrepreneur he is, Tony Bloom would very much welcome a reduction in his business rates. I think that football clubs outside the Premier League and the Championship that are essentially SMEs alongside rugby, rugby league and professional cricket clubs and perhaps some of the other track and field sports discipline stadia would get considerable benefit too. So, my Lords, I'm very tempted by the noble Lord man's idea and I can see a particular benefit to football clubs and other sporting institutions where the economic margins can be brighter.
I think it would work well for those clubs in the leagues below the Championship particularly, and also those in non non-league football, the National League, North and South, etc. so I think this is an idea well worth exploring. And I think the benefits that it brings to many of our hard oppressed communities would be well worth having and could unlock substantial extra investment. This Lord man says there are plenty of entrepreneurs and investors seeking now to invest in the lower league clubs, Wrexham being a particularly good example and that regenerative that regenerative effect has a multiplier which benefits communities much more widely.
13:30
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, I thank the Grand Committee for allowing me to speak in the gap. My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord man for this disappointingly short but important debate. Important because it is clear how much sports clubs contribute to civil society, to our health and to our economy. Lord Mann mentioned the Premier League and obviously it is my dearest hope that Wrexham will be promoted from the Championship to the Premier League soon and thanks to the patronage of Ryan and Rob, the whole city has benefited from that regeneration and the money they have brought.
The football brings into the town in. In 2022, DCMs estimated that sports sector contributed 18.1 billion to the UK economy, supporting 550,000 jobs and outpacing the growth of the national economy. The previous government invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots school and elite sports, as well as a sports survival package during the Covid 19 pandemic, which provided £600 million of emergency funding to sports clubs and organisations impacted by spectator restrictions. However, this government has hammered businesses with higher business rates and higher employers.
National insurance The Sport and Recreation Alliance, which represents more than 100 national governing bodies, has highlighted the damaging impact of business rates across the centre sector, both for grassroots groups and larger facilities. The chair of the culture, Media and Sports Committee and The Other Place has warned that business rate rises translates to rising participation fees, some by as much as 85%. Does the government recognise that higher business rates are making sport less accessible to those who cannot afford these increases? My Lords, we've consistently warned the government about the negative impacts its economic policies are having on the sports sector.
During the Sporting Events Bill, we highlighted the calls from stakeholders to address increasing employment costs and higher business rates. What impact has the Employment Rights Act had on sport, where work is often seasonal and contracts need to be flexible? Can the government give an explanation why it gave a 20% cut in business rates to pubs, clubs and live music venues but failed to include sports venues? What assessments were done to analyze their impacts? Both Lord Bassam and Lord Mann mentioned the enterprise zones.
We currently have 48 enterprise zones in England, which allow businesses to benefit from incentives such as business rate discounts. Furthermore, all business rates growth above an agreed baseline are retained by the local authority to be reinvested in the local area, the Chancellor has said. The autumn budget will introduce greater fiscal devolution with greater business rates, retention for local councils and strategic authorities. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, provide any further detail on these plans? In addition, what plans does the government have for any new and existing enterprise zones more broadly? Businesses benefit from certainty and those in existing enterprise zones will want to know which benefits will continue or if there will be changes.
My Lords, we must all be on the side of businesses, including our sports clubs, large and small. I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, what action the government is taking to support them, and what impact assessments have been taken of their economic policies so far.
The football brings into the town in. In 2022, DCMs estimated that sports sector contributed 18.1 billion to the UK economy, supporting 550,000 jobs and outpacing the growth of the national economy. The previous government invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots school and elite sports, as well as a sports survival package during the Covid 19 pandemic, which provided £600 million of emergency funding to sports clubs and organisations impacted by spectator restrictions. However, this government has hammered businesses with higher business rates and higher employers.
National insurance The Sport and Recreation Alliance, which represents more than 100 national governing bodies, has highlighted the damaging impact of business rates across the centre sector, both for grassroots groups and larger facilities. The chair of the culture, Media and Sports Committee and The Other Place has warned that business rate rises translates to rising participation fees, some by as much as 85%. Does the government recognise that higher business rates are making sport less accessible to those who cannot afford these increases? My Lords, we've consistently warned the government about the negative impacts its economic policies are having on the sports sector.
During the Sporting Events Bill, we highlighted the calls from stakeholders to address increasing employment costs and higher business rates. What impact has the Employment Rights Act had on sport, where work is often seasonal and contracts need to be flexible? Can the government give an explanation why it gave a 20% cut in business rates to pubs, clubs and live music venues but failed to include sports venues? What assessments were done to analyze their impacts? Both Lord Bassam and Lord Mann mentioned the enterprise zones.
We currently have 48 enterprise zones in England, which allow businesses to benefit from incentives such as business rate discounts. Furthermore, all business rates growth above an agreed baseline are retained by the local authority to be reinvested in the local area, the Chancellor has said. The autumn budget will introduce greater fiscal devolution with greater business rates, retention for local councils and strategic authorities. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, provide any further detail on these plans? In addition, what plans does the government have for any new and existing enterprise zones more broadly? Businesses benefit from certainty and those in existing enterprise zones will want to know which benefits will continue or if there will be changes.
My Lords, we must all be on the side of businesses, including our sports clubs, large and small. I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, what action the government is taking to support them, and what impact assessments have been taken of their economic policies so far.
13:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, when I first saw the title of this, I immediately asked myself which sports clubs I. My reflex was small amateur sports clubs, the backbone of many a social structure. Their own sort of micro structures for employment, etc. going down. Then two seconds thought said no, we must be looking at senior sports clubs.
13:34
13:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Then I remembered back to those heady and wonderful days in committee and report on the Football Regulation Bill and said, definitely this man will be talking about professional football. So indeed, Lord, man was and I should have remembered it was Leeds who had the special place in his heart. So having done those, those that quick bounce around which took, I'm afraid, only took all of about 2 or 3 minutes. I started thinking about what this actually means.
Now, it is undoubtedly true that professional sports clubs, which have. They have an inherent advantage. The fact that they have a hard core of people who feel attracted to them. That is true of the virtually all sports clubs, professional sports clubs which attract any form of regular audience. You've got your fan base, you've got people down there, people who will associate with it. In the case of football and possibly rugby league in the right towns and parts of the north of England, you will have a guaranteed support and even rugby union is starting to develop it as a professional game.
It's not that old and it has taken time to develop that crowd, but it's their cricket to an extent as well. So they have this potential of doing things. But the model was I kept my mind kept being drawn back to some of the discussions we had on the football Regulation bill. Our clubs are tend to be built in specific areas in inner cities, and fans do not like them being moved.
So you have somewhere classically that you could walk to from an urban environment and they don't like moving from it. And indeed, there are many cases going back many years of people trying to do a deal on getting that bit of ground for redevelopment and fans resisting. So there are pressures here about economic development and the history of these clubs, which is so important, must be remembered in any project. The enterprise zone, whether it is a, shall we say, it is a thing of yesterday or not.
We shall have confirmed later on. But are we going to adapt the idea of actually using these very good brands for developing business and developing social impact? Everybody agrees we should. It's just a case of it's so varied in the environments you're in that you are probably not going to have one model, and devolution may. If whatever it means, it may be an opportunity to go through this. And indeed, I found myself taking part in the things about the tourist proposed tourist levy and tying in.
How do you work these things in together? How do they work properly? How do they come together? How can the exemptions from them? It is not an easy one size fits all project because all those people which have come into it, all those institutions, all have individual stories to tell. And if you have done something like, for instance, Manchester City with a Commonwealth Games history or the West Ham Stadium with the Olympics, there are things which probably should be considered for some form of zoning.
It doesn't really matter what you call it going through, but they are specifics. Most of the clubs we have got don't fit this, but most of them have tried to do something with it. I was brought up in Norwich. As I've said, I'm not a great football fan, but they managed to have a very successful hotel stuck at the back of the graves. You can do it. There is opportunity here.
You can do stuff like this, but it's a case of how do you encourage this without overburdening and how you don't impinge on the traditions . And the things that make this attractive. Is that great challenge to everybody. How do you make sure that the primary objective of a football club, which, let's face it, is to win matches and provide entertainment and win things, or at least try to at least give the promise of it.
And let's face it, in our system, we have actually embraced the fact that you can also lose your status and be demoted. And that is all part of the drama we have actually accepted as being intrinsic to most of our sporting traditions, even if it is incredibly inconvenient and certain sporting bodies try and get out of it. I talk about rugby union for a start. If you've got this going on, how do you work this in together would be an interesting idea.
Where can it work? Does this enterprise zone have to be attached to the actual playing zone? But if it could, but it may well have to be removed. Brighton, whose I remember being taken to Brighton declaring a bit of interest last time the Liberal Democrats were at our conference down there a couple of years ago. I'm afraid I won't be there this year down there, but then saying, but we've got to get on the bus to go out and see it.
There is, I believe, a long story, which I got half way through before the dessert arrived. I think about the history of why they've ended up out there. Probably not ideal. How do you create a model that gets the best out of this? Have the government given it any thought would be what we try and get out of this today? And just saying, recognising the fact that there will be so many different stories, you will have to have a flexible structure that goes out there.
It won't always be football in all places. And how are you going to work through this and how are you going to encourage it? Also, are we going to encourage people to play sport in these instructors and environments? That means bringing in smaller clubs without taking away their identity. Maybe it is, we say, a legal nicety with a linkage, which means you don't have to sell up your ground, which in many places people have actually bought over years and is a genuine asset to that group and that community, which may be several miles away, but take some benefit from it.
These are things which we must always think about because if we don't, we are in danger of actually causing damage to some, at least some of them. It is a complicated situation, a situation which has many, shall we say, threads pulling across and sometimes against each other on this. But how the government proposes. Indeed, if they have given any thought to how they get the economic benefit out of something, with this great brand awareness and status of a big sporting club, it's something which everybody has had a look at.
Everybody said great idea, then backed away from. It is my experience of having covered this several decades now. Nobody quite knows how to do it. And if the current government has some ideas on this, I for one, would be very interested to hear it.
Now, it is undoubtedly true that professional sports clubs, which have. They have an inherent advantage. The fact that they have a hard core of people who feel attracted to them. That is true of the virtually all sports clubs, professional sports clubs which attract any form of regular audience. You've got your fan base, you've got people down there, people who will associate with it. In the case of football and possibly rugby league in the right towns and parts of the north of England, you will have a guaranteed support and even rugby union is starting to develop it as a professional game.
It's not that old and it has taken time to develop that crowd, but it's their cricket to an extent as well. So they have this potential of doing things. But the model was I kept my mind kept being drawn back to some of the discussions we had on the football Regulation bill. Our clubs are tend to be built in specific areas in inner cities, and fans do not like them being moved.
So you have somewhere classically that you could walk to from an urban environment and they don't like moving from it. And indeed, there are many cases going back many years of people trying to do a deal on getting that bit of ground for redevelopment and fans resisting. So there are pressures here about economic development and the history of these clubs, which is so important, must be remembered in any project. The enterprise zone, whether it is a, shall we say, it is a thing of yesterday or not.
We shall have confirmed later on. But are we going to adapt the idea of actually using these very good brands for developing business and developing social impact? Everybody agrees we should. It's just a case of it's so varied in the environments you're in that you are probably not going to have one model, and devolution may. If whatever it means, it may be an opportunity to go through this. And indeed, I found myself taking part in the things about the tourist proposed tourist levy and tying in.
How do you work these things in together? How do they work properly? How do they come together? How can the exemptions from them? It is not an easy one size fits all project because all those people which have come into it, all those institutions, all have individual stories to tell. And if you have done something like, for instance, Manchester City with a Commonwealth Games history or the West Ham Stadium with the Olympics, there are things which probably should be considered for some form of zoning.
It doesn't really matter what you call it going through, but they are specifics. Most of the clubs we have got don't fit this, but most of them have tried to do something with it. I was brought up in Norwich. As I've said, I'm not a great football fan, but they managed to have a very successful hotel stuck at the back of the graves. You can do it. There is opportunity here.
You can do stuff like this, but it's a case of how do you encourage this without overburdening and how you don't impinge on the traditions . And the things that make this attractive. Is that great challenge to everybody. How do you make sure that the primary objective of a football club, which, let's face it, is to win matches and provide entertainment and win things, or at least try to at least give the promise of it.
And let's face it, in our system, we have actually embraced the fact that you can also lose your status and be demoted. And that is all part of the drama we have actually accepted as being intrinsic to most of our sporting traditions, even if it is incredibly inconvenient and certain sporting bodies try and get out of it. I talk about rugby union for a start. If you've got this going on, how do you work this in together would be an interesting idea.
Where can it work? Does this enterprise zone have to be attached to the actual playing zone? But if it could, but it may well have to be removed. Brighton, whose I remember being taken to Brighton declaring a bit of interest last time the Liberal Democrats were at our conference down there a couple of years ago. I'm afraid I won't be there this year down there, but then saying, but we've got to get on the bus to go out and see it.
There is, I believe, a long story, which I got half way through before the dessert arrived. I think about the history of why they've ended up out there. Probably not ideal. How do you create a model that gets the best out of this? Have the government given it any thought would be what we try and get out of this today? And just saying, recognising the fact that there will be so many different stories, you will have to have a flexible structure that goes out there.
It won't always be football in all places. And how are you going to work through this and how are you going to encourage it? Also, are we going to encourage people to play sport in these instructors and environments? That means bringing in smaller clubs without taking away their identity. Maybe it is, we say, a legal nicety with a linkage, which means you don't have to sell up your ground, which in many places people have actually bought over years and is a genuine asset to that group and that community, which may be several miles away, but take some benefit from it.
These are things which we must always think about because if we don't, we are in danger of actually causing damage to some, at least some of them. It is a complicated situation, a situation which has many, shall we say, threads pulling across and sometimes against each other on this. But how the government proposes. Indeed, if they have given any thought to how they get the economic benefit out of something, with this great brand awareness and status of a big sporting club, it's something which everybody has had a look at.
Everybody said great idea, then backed away from. It is my experience of having covered this several decades now. Nobody quite knows how to do it. And if the current government has some ideas on this, I for one, would be very interested to hear it.
13:41
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, I'm very pleased to respond to this. And can I thank Lord Mann for opening this debate and and securing this debate? Because firstly, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about football, which is never a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. But also it's a very important issue. And I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Lord Mann raises a very interesting question.
Sports clubs have not been given special enterprise zone status, and enterprise zones were not designed as a designation for individual organisations. They. Rather they were place based interventions intended to support economic growth and regeneration within defined geographic areas. However, Lord Mann's question raises a broader and important issue, and that's the contribution that sporting institutions can make to economic growth, regeneration and community development. And I don't think we should ever underestimate that. According to DCMs Sport Satellite account published in September 24th, the sports sector contributed an estimated 53.6 billion direct to the UK economy in 2021, equivalent to 2.6% of total UK gross value added.
That's a fantastic contribution and this demonstrates how significant the role that sport plays is as an economic sector in its own right. Professional football has a particularly strong relationship with place. Unlike many other major economic sectors. Football clubs and stadiums, of course, are distributed across cities and towns throughout the country. Clubs can support employment, local businesses, visitor spending and investment, while stadiums can provide a focal point for wider regeneration.
I think that sits at the heart of what my noble friend Lord Mann is discussing. And so that important contribution is really vital here, both for the opportunities it provides, but also for volunteering, participation, community cohesion and sport does make that very important contribution right across the United Kingdom. And I've seen this very close at hand in my own area, my own football team, which the noble Lord bass and my noble friend has already kindly mentioned. And I would say to him, if he made himself Lord Bassam of Brighton and Hove Albion, that would be probably a first in your lordships House.
I'm lucky enough that my team and my town share the same name, so I can have both designations in my title. But my my football club makes an enormous contribution to our community in youth football right through the ages, actually, from youth football to walking football right across our community to social events. They opened a nursery. They just opened an all weather training facility. And during Covid, our club played an absolutely key role at the heart of our community because they were there.
First team players were taking out lunches to our older residents and it just brightened people's days so much. So it's a really key role. The government position today is that sports clubs have an important role to play in supporting growth, but the most effective approach is to integrate sporting assets within broader plans for regeneration and local economic development. The government's already acting on the opportunity presented by stadium led regeneration. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed his commitment to a stadium regeneration accelerator through which the Minister for growth and the Minister for sport will work with mayors to help major sports led projects bring jobs, investment and housing to local areas.
The accelerator is bringing together government departments, local leaders, sporting bodies and investors around viable projects, helping to identify and address barriers to delivery. It's not a capital fund for stadium construction. Stadium redevelopment is led and funded by clubs and private investors, while government uses its convening role to help realise the wider benefits for places. As the noble Lord Mann pointed out, Leeds illustrates the scale of the opportunity here. The expansion of Elland Road is being taken forward by Leeds United, while the government and local and regional partners are working to support the wider regeneration potential around the stadium.
And this approach recognises that major sporting assets can act as anchors for regeneration and placemaking. It also reflects the government's wider local growth agenda, which seeks to empower local leaders and support regeneration that responds to the needs and ambitions of individual places. In some places, mayoral development corporations can complement this work by coordinating planning, land assembly and infrastructure delivery across complex regeneration areas, and this appropriate model will depend on local circumstances and must support a broader plan for the place, rather than simply the commercial interests of an individual club.
But of course, that doesn't mean that football clubs and other stakeholders are key players, with mayors and local councillors in driving that regeneration forward, alongside support for regeneration and growth. I know the noble Lord Addington is particularly interested in grassroots sport, and the government continues to invest in grassroots sport and community facilities. At least £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities over the next four years, while Sport England invest more than £250 million each year through Exchequer and National Lottery funding to support participation and to tackle inactivity in communities across the country.
And there are also forms of support available to many community sports organisations through existing tax business rates and funding arrangements. Community amateur sports clubs that meet the relevant eligibility criteria can benefit from charitable rate relief, providing 80% relief on their business rates. Bill and sports clubs may be eligible for the lower retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers, and I think this probably answers the noble Baroness Bloomfield's question, where they are open to visiting members of the public eye.
Now, I know the noble Baroness Bloomfield won't expect me to comment specifically on any budget proposals that are coming forward. She wouldn't have done that when she was a minister either, but we are already undertaking a lot to support sport so that new, permanently lower multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and the wider 4.3 million budget support package. So the small business, retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier is set at 38.2 pence in £2,627.05 below the national Small Business multiplier, and the standard multiplier is set at £0.43 £0.05 below the national standard multiplier.
And they are also eligible for the other benefits that I spoke about earlier on. And I would also wish to challenge the issue around NICs again, as I've had to do many times. The NICs rise doesn't apply to young people. So when businesses, whether they're small businesses or others, they don't need to pay the additional charges on NICs for young people who are employed. The noble Baroness Bloomfield, Lord Mann and Lord Addington referred to what lessons the government's learned from previous enterprise zones, and how these have informed current local growth policies.
I think it's important to say the experience of enterprise zones has directly informed what we're doing in government around newer Special economic zone programmes. The noble Lord Bassam mentioned freeports, investment zones and they've all been informed by the enterprise zone experience. Officials identified five factors as critical to success in any such zone a clear strategic sector focus, compelling value proposition for investors, including infrastructure and skills, strong local governance and genuine integration with the surrounding local economy and coordinated investment promotion.
And all of these were built into the freeports model to address displacement directly. Freeport tax reliefs apply only to new investment and business rates. Relief can be subject to a displacement test, a direct response to the evidence from enterprise zones that in. It was felt that in enterprise zones, often you were just moving people locally, not bringing in investment from outside. Freeports and investment zones have been brought together as industrial strategy zones, now offering potential investors a more streamlined and coherent package.
So I hope that answers members questions in relation to mayoral development corporations. These are developing all the time, and they can enable mayors to use significant private sector investment in world class sports facilities facilities to unlock that wider regeneration potential, including housing, jobs and facilities for local residents and communities utilising powers such as planning, CPO and infrastructure provision. I probably shouldn't mention Manchester at the moment. I think Manchester United are probably having a bit of a tough time, so I'm not going to step on any sores there.
But there is a big project in Manchester around the Old Trafford. Regeneration mayoral Development Corporation is acting as a driving force there, so I do think that, as the noble Lord Baston referred to planning the steps we've taken, both through the revised NPF and through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we recently took through the House, introducing more clearer rules based process for planning. I do think that will help with some of this regeneration, whether it's around football grounds or anywhere else or any other sports facility.
In closing, I do want to thank all noble Lords across the House for the very important contributions to this debate, and our thinking is emerging on this. So I've listened with interest to what all noble peers have had to say.
Sports clubs have not been given special enterprise zone status, and enterprise zones were not designed as a designation for individual organisations. They. Rather they were place based interventions intended to support economic growth and regeneration within defined geographic areas. However, Lord Mann's question raises a broader and important issue, and that's the contribution that sporting institutions can make to economic growth, regeneration and community development. And I don't think we should ever underestimate that. According to DCMs Sport Satellite account published in September 24th, the sports sector contributed an estimated 53.6 billion direct to the UK economy in 2021, equivalent to 2.6% of total UK gross value added.
That's a fantastic contribution and this demonstrates how significant the role that sport plays is as an economic sector in its own right. Professional football has a particularly strong relationship with place. Unlike many other major economic sectors. Football clubs and stadiums, of course, are distributed across cities and towns throughout the country. Clubs can support employment, local businesses, visitor spending and investment, while stadiums can provide a focal point for wider regeneration.
I think that sits at the heart of what my noble friend Lord Mann is discussing. And so that important contribution is really vital here, both for the opportunities it provides, but also for volunteering, participation, community cohesion and sport does make that very important contribution right across the United Kingdom. And I've seen this very close at hand in my own area, my own football team, which the noble Lord bass and my noble friend has already kindly mentioned. And I would say to him, if he made himself Lord Bassam of Brighton and Hove Albion, that would be probably a first in your lordships House.
I'm lucky enough that my team and my town share the same name, so I can have both designations in my title. But my my football club makes an enormous contribution to our community in youth football right through the ages, actually, from youth football to walking football right across our community to social events. They opened a nursery. They just opened an all weather training facility. And during Covid, our club played an absolutely key role at the heart of our community because they were there.
First team players were taking out lunches to our older residents and it just brightened people's days so much. So it's a really key role. The government position today is that sports clubs have an important role to play in supporting growth, but the most effective approach is to integrate sporting assets within broader plans for regeneration and local economic development. The government's already acting on the opportunity presented by stadium led regeneration. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed his commitment to a stadium regeneration accelerator through which the Minister for growth and the Minister for sport will work with mayors to help major sports led projects bring jobs, investment and housing to local areas.
The accelerator is bringing together government departments, local leaders, sporting bodies and investors around viable projects, helping to identify and address barriers to delivery. It's not a capital fund for stadium construction. Stadium redevelopment is led and funded by clubs and private investors, while government uses its convening role to help realise the wider benefits for places. As the noble Lord Mann pointed out, Leeds illustrates the scale of the opportunity here. The expansion of Elland Road is being taken forward by Leeds United, while the government and local and regional partners are working to support the wider regeneration potential around the stadium.
And this approach recognises that major sporting assets can act as anchors for regeneration and placemaking. It also reflects the government's wider local growth agenda, which seeks to empower local leaders and support regeneration that responds to the needs and ambitions of individual places. In some places, mayoral development corporations can complement this work by coordinating planning, land assembly and infrastructure delivery across complex regeneration areas, and this appropriate model will depend on local circumstances and must support a broader plan for the place, rather than simply the commercial interests of an individual club.
But of course, that doesn't mean that football clubs and other stakeholders are key players, with mayors and local councillors in driving that regeneration forward, alongside support for regeneration and growth. I know the noble Lord Addington is particularly interested in grassroots sport, and the government continues to invest in grassroots sport and community facilities. At least £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities over the next four years, while Sport England invest more than £250 million each year through Exchequer and National Lottery funding to support participation and to tackle inactivity in communities across the country.
And there are also forms of support available to many community sports organisations through existing tax business rates and funding arrangements. Community amateur sports clubs that meet the relevant eligibility criteria can benefit from charitable rate relief, providing 80% relief on their business rates. Bill and sports clubs may be eligible for the lower retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers, and I think this probably answers the noble Baroness Bloomfield's question, where they are open to visiting members of the public eye.
Now, I know the noble Baroness Bloomfield won't expect me to comment specifically on any budget proposals that are coming forward. She wouldn't have done that when she was a minister either, but we are already undertaking a lot to support sport so that new, permanently lower multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and the wider 4.3 million budget support package. So the small business, retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier is set at 38.2 pence in £2,627.05 below the national Small Business multiplier, and the standard multiplier is set at £0.43 £0.05 below the national standard multiplier.
And they are also eligible for the other benefits that I spoke about earlier on. And I would also wish to challenge the issue around NICs again, as I've had to do many times. The NICs rise doesn't apply to young people. So when businesses, whether they're small businesses or others, they don't need to pay the additional charges on NICs for young people who are employed. The noble Baroness Bloomfield, Lord Mann and Lord Addington referred to what lessons the government's learned from previous enterprise zones, and how these have informed current local growth policies.
I think it's important to say the experience of enterprise zones has directly informed what we're doing in government around newer Special economic zone programmes. The noble Lord Bassam mentioned freeports, investment zones and they've all been informed by the enterprise zone experience. Officials identified five factors as critical to success in any such zone a clear strategic sector focus, compelling value proposition for investors, including infrastructure and skills, strong local governance and genuine integration with the surrounding local economy and coordinated investment promotion.
And all of these were built into the freeports model to address displacement directly. Freeport tax reliefs apply only to new investment and business rates. Relief can be subject to a displacement test, a direct response to the evidence from enterprise zones that in. It was felt that in enterprise zones, often you were just moving people locally, not bringing in investment from outside. Freeports and investment zones have been brought together as industrial strategy zones, now offering potential investors a more streamlined and coherent package.
So I hope that answers members questions in relation to mayoral development corporations. These are developing all the time, and they can enable mayors to use significant private sector investment in world class sports facilities facilities to unlock that wider regeneration potential, including housing, jobs and facilities for local residents and communities utilising powers such as planning, CPO and infrastructure provision. I probably shouldn't mention Manchester at the moment. I think Manchester United are probably having a bit of a tough time, so I'm not going to step on any sores there.
But there is a big project in Manchester around the Old Trafford. Regeneration mayoral Development Corporation is acting as a driving force there, so I do think that, as the noble Lord Baston referred to planning the steps we've taken, both through the revised NPF and through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we recently took through the House, introducing more clearer rules based process for planning. I do think that will help with some of this regeneration, whether it's around football grounds or anywhere else or any other sports facility.
In closing, I do want to thank all noble Lords across the House for the very important contributions to this debate, and our thinking is emerging on this. So I've listened with interest to what all noble peers have had to say.
13:51
13:51
13:51
13:51
14:14
14:15
14:15
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
to begin by thanking all noble lords who are speaking because I won't have an opportunity to thank them later. And I promise I'll take careful note of everything that is said today. There's much evidence about polarization across the country in recent years. This isn't about politics or parties. I refer to something much more pervasive, a sense of the state itself, exemplified by our public services, isn't there for all of us.
And that irrespective of what a party's manifesto says or what voters expect, nothing much changes. There are all the same is the mantra that describes being let down here in Parliament. The only sameness that we all want is to do better by the country, which is why we're here. That may apply to our public servants too, but it isn't evidenced in public trust. The OECD's most recent public trust survey , across more than 30 countries, shows Britain falling behind on the trust table.
Only 33% of us have moderate or high trust in government, a term which itself incorporates all public services. The OECD average of 40% is itself low, presumably as newer democracies are still rebuilding after authoritarianism. Another survey, called Two Britons, describes how divergent public servants views are from those of the public, something I've mentioned before. Currently, we have the largest number of public inquiries underway to establish wrongdoing. Too frequently they find their public servants didn't do their jobs properly, ostensibly because some internal value or culture led them to believe that appearing racist or Islamophobic had to be avoided at all costs, including the cost of justice for victims.
The groupthink that distorts professionalism is what I call progressive conformity, a state where, in order to be accepted in the prevailing culture of the organization, individuals don't speak their mind. They aren't sufficiently curious when they should be or hold back, as they could be denied advancement if they had a different approach to the culture pervading that body. At HRC, where I was chair, I saw this on appointment in 2020. Without breaching confidentiality, I can say that within three months I had to commission impartiality training across the whole organisation.
There was enormous pushback on policy agreed by commissioners, and individual commissioners had to show great resilience for the board's decisions to prevail. So my experience is that there is a real and serious problem in delivery and downstream from Parliament and policy making with accountability too, in our public services. So I welcome the new review of the civil service. And a much needed focus is on more effective delivery, which I hope will prevail.
So far, so good. And I'm hopeful that what previous Prime ministers haven't achieved, ergo, a sufficient shift in capabilities, culture and outcomes will indeed transpire. We're told that the Cabinet Secretary is to be guided by an advisory group. So my question to the minister is whether that has been established and whether its composition is in place. It should be for accountability and transparency. But Dame Antonia Romeo needs to take a hard look at the civil service code itself.
Its core values integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality appear worthy but irrelevant. Let me explain. Integrity requires, inter alia, for accurate record keeping, for accountability and transparency. However, we're told in written exchanges in the Commons that the records relating to the recently announced policy of anti-Muslim hostility, which will apply right across government, have been destroyed. So, my Lords, evidence for a controversial policy has no audit trail about who was involved and what was said.
This smells and I predict it will end up in court at some point. Honesty requires a staffer not influenced by improper pressure from others. Yet we know about the reach of advocacy groups across government. An example is the influence of Stonewall, the charity Sex Matters has produced an entire dossier about Ehrc staff, improperly allowing them to influence decisions without the knowledge of commissioners. This was, of course, before my time.
Government departments themselves apply what is known as Stonewall law instead of equality law, which adds considerable costs to the public purse in settlements. The Cabinet Office does not appear to have changed its policy. It was government after the Supreme Court ruling of 17 months ago, in order to protect single sex spaces. Can the minister confirm that its policy is still in breach of the Equality Act? New codes should emphasize that conformity within the law is not an optional extra, but is mandatory.
I'm sorry, I meant to say conformity with the law is not an optional extra, but mandatory. So will the minister restate that it applies to local government as well? Impartiality is described in these values is the most contradictory. It's overly narrow in that personal political views aren't permissible, but it's silent on non-political views. For me, all personal views should be impossible impermissible if they influenced decisions.
Some of the most contested debates in recent times are not political in an ideological sense. Racism, sex based rights speech. My Lords, these these aren't culture wars. They go to the heart of expectations of what is legal, fair, and just. Those latter values, fairness and justice, are described as a requirement for staff in the code. Yet they aren't defined. So we have a situation where individuals are allowed to be adjudicators of what is fair and just.
It follows that some staff networks use their beliefs to advocate for certain causes, whether at home or abroad. Another problem is the code's reach. It permits individual departments and related albs to adopt their own values alongside it. While
And that irrespective of what a party's manifesto says or what voters expect, nothing much changes. There are all the same is the mantra that describes being let down here in Parliament. The only sameness that we all want is to do better by the country, which is why we're here. That may apply to our public servants too, but it isn't evidenced in public trust. The OECD's most recent public trust survey , across more than 30 countries, shows Britain falling behind on the trust table.
Only 33% of us have moderate or high trust in government, a term which itself incorporates all public services. The OECD average of 40% is itself low, presumably as newer democracies are still rebuilding after authoritarianism. Another survey, called Two Britons, describes how divergent public servants views are from those of the public, something I've mentioned before. Currently, we have the largest number of public inquiries underway to establish wrongdoing. Too frequently they find their public servants didn't do their jobs properly, ostensibly because some internal value or culture led them to believe that appearing racist or Islamophobic had to be avoided at all costs, including the cost of justice for victims.
The groupthink that distorts professionalism is what I call progressive conformity, a state where, in order to be accepted in the prevailing culture of the organization, individuals don't speak their mind. They aren't sufficiently curious when they should be or hold back, as they could be denied advancement if they had a different approach to the culture pervading that body. At HRC, where I was chair, I saw this on appointment in 2020. Without breaching confidentiality, I can say that within three months I had to commission impartiality training across the whole organisation.
There was enormous pushback on policy agreed by commissioners, and individual commissioners had to show great resilience for the board's decisions to prevail. So my experience is that there is a real and serious problem in delivery and downstream from Parliament and policy making with accountability too, in our public services. So I welcome the new review of the civil service. And a much needed focus is on more effective delivery, which I hope will prevail.
So far, so good. And I'm hopeful that what previous Prime ministers haven't achieved, ergo, a sufficient shift in capabilities, culture and outcomes will indeed transpire. We're told that the Cabinet Secretary is to be guided by an advisory group. So my question to the minister is whether that has been established and whether its composition is in place. It should be for accountability and transparency. But Dame Antonia Romeo needs to take a hard look at the civil service code itself.
Its core values integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality appear worthy but irrelevant. Let me explain. Integrity requires, inter alia, for accurate record keeping, for accountability and transparency. However, we're told in written exchanges in the Commons that the records relating to the recently announced policy of anti-Muslim hostility, which will apply right across government, have been destroyed. So, my Lords, evidence for a controversial policy has no audit trail about who was involved and what was said.
This smells and I predict it will end up in court at some point. Honesty requires a staffer not influenced by improper pressure from others. Yet we know about the reach of advocacy groups across government. An example is the influence of Stonewall, the charity Sex Matters has produced an entire dossier about Ehrc staff, improperly allowing them to influence decisions without the knowledge of commissioners. This was, of course, before my time.
Government departments themselves apply what is known as Stonewall law instead of equality law, which adds considerable costs to the public purse in settlements. The Cabinet Office does not appear to have changed its policy. It was government after the Supreme Court ruling of 17 months ago, in order to protect single sex spaces. Can the minister confirm that its policy is still in breach of the Equality Act? New codes should emphasize that conformity within the law is not an optional extra, but is mandatory.
I'm sorry, I meant to say conformity with the law is not an optional extra, but mandatory. So will the minister restate that it applies to local government as well? Impartiality is described in these values is the most contradictory. It's overly narrow in that personal political views aren't permissible, but it's silent on non-political views. For me, all personal views should be impossible impermissible if they influenced decisions.
Some of the most contested debates in recent times are not political in an ideological sense. Racism, sex based rights speech. My Lords, these these aren't culture wars. They go to the heart of expectations of what is legal, fair, and just. Those latter values, fairness and justice, are described as a requirement for staff in the code. Yet they aren't defined. So we have a situation where individuals are allowed to be adjudicators of what is fair and just.
It follows that some staff networks use their beliefs to advocate for certain causes, whether at home or abroad. Another problem is the code's reach. It permits individual departments and related albs to adopt their own values alongside it. While
14:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Values alongside it. While the intention is that different service providers translate their own specific functional needs into their corporate ethos, this allows dilution of the overarching duties and ends in legal settlements in departments without any apparent learning across government. For me, the duty of impartiality should stand above the other three core values is essential. It should be clarified, strengthened and made an overarching requirement across all public services with stronger sanctions for disregarding it, irrespective of the independence of the Ndpb, where taxpayers pounds is spent.
High standards of behaviour should follow. Our tribunals are replete with cases of the police, the NHS and even government departments flouting impartiality and accountability for their actions. My Lords, the problem is here. It is palpable and it needs resolving. This is an opportunity for a proper reset, so that the public can have confidence that there will be treated as they should be, impartially and objectively and objectively. And a missing word from the code is professionally, so that we can all be sure of getting the service we deserve from our public services.
High standards of behaviour should follow. Our tribunals are replete with cases of the police, the NHS and even government departments flouting impartiality and accountability for their actions. My Lords, the problem is here. It is palpable and it needs resolving. This is an opportunity for a proper reset, so that the public can have confidence that there will be treated as they should be, impartially and objectively and objectively. And a missing word from the code is professionally, so that we can all be sure of getting the service we deserve from our public services.
14:23
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Falconer, for securing this important debate. For full disclosure, I work with civil servants as an elected Member of Parliament and Special Adviser between 2016 and 18 in Dexeu, and found the private office I work with exceptional and exemplary. However, that said, the notion of a Rolls-Royce civil service machine and the era of complacency arising from the exceptionalism of the Northcote-trevelyan dispensation is long gone. I will concentrate on two areas efficiency, effectiveness and political impartiality, and some suggestions for change.
Despite endless reviews and, of course, a plethora of delivery units, no government in the last 25 years has got a grip on the civil service. Its poor productivity, its ideological groupthink, its paucity of innovation and imagination, lack of delivery and incremental, self-interested expansion over the years rather than implementation of changes. Add that to the proliferation of quangos. We see a depressing picture of senior civil servants sometimes using the system to obfuscate the clear instructions and democratic mandate of ministers and parliament as intercessors and arbitrators in the area of recruitment, for instance, we've seen the concept of results based performance management marginalised.
Even the Institute for government describes civil service headcount as, quote, unplanned and uncontrolled. In a paper in 2025, the facts speak to a focus away from delivery. Largely frontline administrators have actually had their numbers reduced by 45% since 2010, whilst grade six and seven policy roles have increased to 78,000, up 121%. Overall, the civil service workforce has risen by 35% in the last ten years, whilst the public sector remains chronically unproductive and too large.
My Lords, others will no doubt elucidate on the lack of impartiality and and the issue of bias. Suffice to say that the misuse and abuse in terms of ultra vires actions of the Civil Service Diversity strategy from 2022 and the Civil Service Code. The pernicious influence of campaigning activist groups in the wider public sector, a liberal groupthink on things like gender ID, Brexit, net zero, patriotism, capitalism, multiculturalism and woke recruitment practices do nothing but damage the civil service reputation for impartiality, esprit de corps , fairness and efficiency.
My Lords, the leadership of the Civil Service , and particularly the Cabinet Secretary, must radically reform with alacrity a proper long term workforce plan. As the Ifg has suggested, minimum terms of service targets for reducing turnover. Greater focus on performance management, all civil service jobs to be advertised externally. An end to routine working from home in mission critical civil service functions, more specialist roles and more transparency in respect of HR data, including disciplinary issues and absence management.
And my favourite, I think, public confirmation hearings in Parliament for senior civil servants in leadership positions. Because without these radical changes, my Lords, a future government with a big or even just a small parliamentary majority will use that and orders in council to close departments, sack senior civil servants and bring in their own partisan supporters. The Civil Service should seize the opportunity voluntarily to move towards urgent reform before they are compelled, so to do.
Despite endless reviews and, of course, a plethora of delivery units, no government in the last 25 years has got a grip on the civil service. Its poor productivity, its ideological groupthink, its paucity of innovation and imagination, lack of delivery and incremental, self-interested expansion over the years rather than implementation of changes. Add that to the proliferation of quangos. We see a depressing picture of senior civil servants sometimes using the system to obfuscate the clear instructions and democratic mandate of ministers and parliament as intercessors and arbitrators in the area of recruitment, for instance, we've seen the concept of results based performance management marginalised.
Even the Institute for government describes civil service headcount as, quote, unplanned and uncontrolled. In a paper in 2025, the facts speak to a focus away from delivery. Largely frontline administrators have actually had their numbers reduced by 45% since 2010, whilst grade six and seven policy roles have increased to 78,000, up 121%. Overall, the civil service workforce has risen by 35% in the last ten years, whilst the public sector remains chronically unproductive and too large.
My Lords, others will no doubt elucidate on the lack of impartiality and and the issue of bias. Suffice to say that the misuse and abuse in terms of ultra vires actions of the Civil Service Diversity strategy from 2022 and the Civil Service Code. The pernicious influence of campaigning activist groups in the wider public sector, a liberal groupthink on things like gender ID, Brexit, net zero, patriotism, capitalism, multiculturalism and woke recruitment practices do nothing but damage the civil service reputation for impartiality, esprit de corps , fairness and efficiency.
My Lords, the leadership of the Civil Service , and particularly the Cabinet Secretary, must radically reform with alacrity a proper long term workforce plan. As the Ifg has suggested, minimum terms of service targets for reducing turnover. Greater focus on performance management, all civil service jobs to be advertised externally. An end to routine working from home in mission critical civil service functions, more specialist roles and more transparency in respect of HR data, including disciplinary issues and absence management.
And my favourite, I think, public confirmation hearings in Parliament for senior civil servants in leadership positions. Because without these radical changes, my Lords, a future government with a big or even just a small parliamentary majority will use that and orders in council to close departments, sack senior civil servants and bring in their own partisan supporters. The Civil Service should seize the opportunity voluntarily to move towards urgent reform before they are compelled, so to do.
14:27
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My Lords, it won't surprise Your lordship. The subject of my noble friend's debate caught my eye. Now, as Baroness Falkner has recognised, the new Cabinet Secretary has initiated a review, at the centre of which are the subjects in her motion, i.e. political impartiality and the delivery of public services. And cynics may say, well, we've seen all that before. We know that those are the ideals and we haven't seen much improvement.
But I really believe that Dame Antonia Romeo means it. And I'm very confident that the review that she has initiated will have an effect for good on the civil service. My Lords, it seems to me that recent history has demonstrated how damaging to effective government are leaks to the media at. Of disharmony at its centre. And it seems to me that in this respect, the new administration has made a better start.
The absence of leaks in the period leading up to the formation of the government was impressive. And I think that the review initiated by Dame Antonia has also started well. However, I want to add this and I think I'm recognising what the previous speakers have already said. The civil service, the concept of an impartial civil service which followed the Northcote-trevelyan report 150 years ago, is in greater danger than ever before.
Time has changed, but the ideal should be maintained, in my view. Like any organisation, our civil service needs to be continuously improved, particularly as times are changing so quickly. But this is most likely to be achieved in an atmosphere of mutual respect, not an atmosphere of mutual recrimination. My Lords, the summary dismissal of a series of the most senior civil servants Lord Sidwell, Tom scholar Olly Robbins, Lord Wormald was unprecedented and in my view it was quite wrong.
None of these were incompetent people. In the period ahead, as has been said, the civil service faces further threats. And not least from the policies of the Reform Party enunciated by its spokesman, Danny Kruger. Where these policies are aimed at improving the efficiency and accountability of the civil service, I support them where they are aimed at politicisation of the Civil Service. I cannot. I believe that a politically impartial civil service is a feature of our government, which we would lose at our cost.
I therefore hope that Dame Antonia's review produces a successful outcome, and that the apparently harmonious relationship between political appointees and civil servants, which I see in the new administration, continues and flourishes.
But I really believe that Dame Antonia Romeo means it. And I'm very confident that the review that she has initiated will have an effect for good on the civil service. My Lords, it seems to me that recent history has demonstrated how damaging to effective government are leaks to the media at. Of disharmony at its centre. And it seems to me that in this respect, the new administration has made a better start.
The absence of leaks in the period leading up to the formation of the government was impressive. And I think that the review initiated by Dame Antonia has also started well. However, I want to add this and I think I'm recognising what the previous speakers have already said. The civil service, the concept of an impartial civil service which followed the Northcote-trevelyan report 150 years ago, is in greater danger than ever before.
Time has changed, but the ideal should be maintained, in my view. Like any organisation, our civil service needs to be continuously improved, particularly as times are changing so quickly. But this is most likely to be achieved in an atmosphere of mutual respect, not an atmosphere of mutual recrimination. My Lords, the summary dismissal of a series of the most senior civil servants Lord Sidwell, Tom scholar Olly Robbins, Lord Wormald was unprecedented and in my view it was quite wrong.
None of these were incompetent people. In the period ahead, as has been said, the civil service faces further threats. And not least from the policies of the Reform Party enunciated by its spokesman, Danny Kruger. Where these policies are aimed at improving the efficiency and accountability of the civil service, I support them where they are aimed at politicisation of the Civil Service. I cannot. I believe that a politically impartial civil service is a feature of our government, which we would lose at our cost.
I therefore hope that Dame Antonia's review produces a successful outcome, and that the apparently harmonious relationship between political appointees and civil servants, which I see in the new administration, continues and flourishes.
14:31
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, I recognise the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, describes and will illustrate with some examples. I led Ofsted, a non-ministerial department with some 2000 staff, for seven years until 2023. I was a crown T and my appointee and my staff were all civil servants. We had statutory obligations and were bound by the frameworks for all government departments, including the public sector, equality, duty and civil service HR policies. And I saw first hand that the principle of civil service impartiality has very sadly been eroded over the years and urgently needs restoration.
And much of the decay has been driven by the worthiest impulses, especially the impulse to do all we can for those with any kind of disadvantage. Yet in practice, this means that activism has been embedded at many levels in many ways. As Chief Inspector, I was acutely aware that I did not have democratic legitimacy and must always act within the spirit as well as the letter of my powers. Early in my tenure, I ordered a review of our framework Equality plan and was relieved to find just a couple of small areas of overreach which were immediately adjusted.
But some staff were visibly puzzled. In their eyes, it was virtuous to overreach if it felt morally right. I had to do a lot of explaining, and I will say that my staff respected my lead. A little while later, I became aware of activist pressure in relation to various protected characteristics, some from external lobby groups, some from our own staff networks and some from within government. For example, our London landlord, the Ministry of Justice, wanted to make our lavatories mixed sex and after polling staff anonymously and finding strong opposition, I refused.
But I realised that MoJ officials probably wanted to score Stonewall diversity index points, and I don't think that push came from ministers. I then ordered a full review of our HR policies to identify any overreach, and the main culprit was a long standing gender identity policy that was pure self ID. It was used, but it clearly took a position that had been twice rejected by Parliament. I challenged this and was told it was good practice to go beyond the law, but I didn't accept this and withdrew the policy which I had the authority to do.
Again, I had to explain my view. This wasn't about my views about trans identifying individuals, but about the principle that the civil service sits downstream of Parliament and should never make policies that may appeal to the senior civil service and staff, but which sit in contradiction to decisions of the legislature. And I must make clear this wasn't about Ofsted. The civil service at its centre was a powerful driving force for this kind of thinking.
For example, the current civil service diversity strategy says we will use positive action where needed in relation to training, support, recruitment and promotion to ensure the broadest range of diversity is achieved. In other words, a strong push to produce equality of outcomes, not just of opportunity, which goes beyond the current legal framework. And that pressure has consequences. I know of a permanent secretary who told their senior team that they should prefer an appointable candidate from an ethnic minority, even if the candidate was not the highest performing.
And more generally, the concept of bringing your whole self to work has encouraged both senior and junior officials to believe that they're entitled to sway policy or its implementation to fit their personal political preferences. This is critical because it blinds them to their loss of impartiality, and all of this is corrosive and must end. The cabinet secretary is famously grippy, and she has some gripping to do here.
And much of the decay has been driven by the worthiest impulses, especially the impulse to do all we can for those with any kind of disadvantage. Yet in practice, this means that activism has been embedded at many levels in many ways. As Chief Inspector, I was acutely aware that I did not have democratic legitimacy and must always act within the spirit as well as the letter of my powers. Early in my tenure, I ordered a review of our framework Equality plan and was relieved to find just a couple of small areas of overreach which were immediately adjusted.
But some staff were visibly puzzled. In their eyes, it was virtuous to overreach if it felt morally right. I had to do a lot of explaining, and I will say that my staff respected my lead. A little while later, I became aware of activist pressure in relation to various protected characteristics, some from external lobby groups, some from our own staff networks and some from within government. For example, our London landlord, the Ministry of Justice, wanted to make our lavatories mixed sex and after polling staff anonymously and finding strong opposition, I refused.
But I realised that MoJ officials probably wanted to score Stonewall diversity index points, and I don't think that push came from ministers. I then ordered a full review of our HR policies to identify any overreach, and the main culprit was a long standing gender identity policy that was pure self ID. It was used, but it clearly took a position that had been twice rejected by Parliament. I challenged this and was told it was good practice to go beyond the law, but I didn't accept this and withdrew the policy which I had the authority to do.
Again, I had to explain my view. This wasn't about my views about trans identifying individuals, but about the principle that the civil service sits downstream of Parliament and should never make policies that may appeal to the senior civil service and staff, but which sit in contradiction to decisions of the legislature. And I must make clear this wasn't about Ofsted. The civil service at its centre was a powerful driving force for this kind of thinking.
For example, the current civil service diversity strategy says we will use positive action where needed in relation to training, support, recruitment and promotion to ensure the broadest range of diversity is achieved. In other words, a strong push to produce equality of outcomes, not just of opportunity, which goes beyond the current legal framework. And that pressure has consequences. I know of a permanent secretary who told their senior team that they should prefer an appointable candidate from an ethnic minority, even if the candidate was not the highest performing.
And more generally, the concept of bringing your whole self to work has encouraged both senior and junior officials to believe that they're entitled to sway policy or its implementation to fit their personal political preferences. This is critical because it blinds them to their loss of impartiality, and all of this is corrosive and must end. The cabinet secretary is famously grippy, and she has some gripping to do here.
14:34
14:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords. I welcome today's debate and I register my interest as the first Civil Service Commissioner. The Commission is an independent statutory body and plays a key role safeguarding the impartiality of our civil service. The Civil Service is professional standards underpinned by the Civil Service codes for core values, honesty, integrity, objectivity and impartiality. And impartiality is fundamental. It means to be ready to serve the government of the day, whatever its colour.
I'm supported by commissioners who have experience of private, public and charitable sectors. We serve five year non-renewable terms of office. The Commission provides oversight and assurance across the entire life cycle of a civil servants career. We ensure recruitment is open and fair and decisions are based on merit. So if a permanent secretary, as Lady Spielman referred in her speech, instructs a panel to not appoint on merit, they should let us know because that should not happen.
We act as the final appellate body for complaints raised under the Civil Service Code, and at exit, we offer independent advice to departing senior officials and special advisers under the business appointment rules. Our purpose and mandate is to safeguard an impartial civil service, and I thank the House of Lords Library for their briefing. In that briefing. It describes how the Commission handled a fundamental breach in the recruitment principles in one department, and the subsequent steps we took to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The Commission is also the appellate body for civil service complaints. Our expectation is for departments to have adequate processes in place and for them to resolve the complaints internally. We have consulted all permanent secretaries, including those of Scotland and Wales, to understand how they consider complaints, as well as giving us details on their numbers and the outcome. We value the question in the annual people survey because it enables us to check their awareness of the code and the awareness of mechanisms to raise any concerns under the code.
I am consistently impressed by civil servants professionalism and ability to deliver policy with total impartiality. But impartiality is not having no opinions. It is about the discipline of setting them aside. And this is not an unusual request and it applies to many professions. If a civil servant disagreement with any aspects of government policy or action is profound, the ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service.
And this is an honourable course, but it is a profession that can and should insist on professional standards. We see ourselves as constitutional guardians of the Civil Service Codes application. The code already extends in some areas beyond the civil servants time and post in the form of the Business Appointment rules, which are designed to protect against improper influence and information use in Post-government employment. We will soon be publishing a review of the Cabinet Office's business appointment rules, as they apply to Civil service leavers on their subsequent appointment as an independent constitutional guardian.
We operate at arm's length. We know that the government values the independence of the Commission and it has given us increased responsibilities. We will play our active and supportive role in any steps the government intends to take to strengthen impartiality in the service and delivery of public services.
I'm supported by commissioners who have experience of private, public and charitable sectors. We serve five year non-renewable terms of office. The Commission provides oversight and assurance across the entire life cycle of a civil servants career. We ensure recruitment is open and fair and decisions are based on merit. So if a permanent secretary, as Lady Spielman referred in her speech, instructs a panel to not appoint on merit, they should let us know because that should not happen.
We act as the final appellate body for complaints raised under the Civil Service Code, and at exit, we offer independent advice to departing senior officials and special advisers under the business appointment rules. Our purpose and mandate is to safeguard an impartial civil service, and I thank the House of Lords Library for their briefing. In that briefing. It describes how the Commission handled a fundamental breach in the recruitment principles in one department, and the subsequent steps we took to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The Commission is also the appellate body for civil service complaints. Our expectation is for departments to have adequate processes in place and for them to resolve the complaints internally. We have consulted all permanent secretaries, including those of Scotland and Wales, to understand how they consider complaints, as well as giving us details on their numbers and the outcome. We value the question in the annual people survey because it enables us to check their awareness of the code and the awareness of mechanisms to raise any concerns under the code.
I am consistently impressed by civil servants professionalism and ability to deliver policy with total impartiality. But impartiality is not having no opinions. It is about the discipline of setting them aside. And this is not an unusual request and it applies to many professions. If a civil servant disagreement with any aspects of government policy or action is profound, the ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service.
And this is an honourable course, but it is a profession that can and should insist on professional standards. We see ourselves as constitutional guardians of the Civil Service Codes application. The code already extends in some areas beyond the civil servants time and post in the form of the Business Appointment rules, which are designed to protect against improper influence and information use in Post-government employment. We will soon be publishing a review of the Cabinet Office's business appointment rules, as they apply to Civil service leavers on their subsequent appointment as an independent constitutional guardian.
We operate at arm's length. We know that the government values the independence of the Commission and it has given us increased responsibilities. We will play our active and supportive role in any steps the government intends to take to strengthen impartiality in the service and delivery of public services.
14:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, I thank Baroness Falkner for securing this short but important and timely debate. Lords, as we've heard, impartiality is the bedrock of our civil service. But we've also heard that it is fraying and it's been well illustrated. But my experience as the former first Civil Service Commissioner from 2000 to 2005 can this me that while the Civil Service needs to constantly change and evolve to meet the challenges and changes in society, its values of honesty, objectivity, impartiality and integrity, of course, allied with flexibility, sensitivity and commitment remain crucially important, perhaps even more so important the time of enormous upheaval.
They must remain the guiding principles. They not only do the civil service, but they also engender trust. A word more important than than ever before. When change runs deep in the environment of the civil service, but also in the very definition of public service. Development of policy. Delivery of services. Explanation of policy is taking place against very low levels of trust in government, politicians, institutions and in a less cohesive society.
So integrity of the process is therefore crucial. It is for this reason, these values are essential and not an impediment. The civil service, while by no means perfect, has come under a great deal of criticism and scrutiny. It is an organisation institution under strain. Reforms, particularly since the 1980s, have been driven response to external pressures, perceived dilemmas and political drivers rather than any continuous systematic assessment of the organisation.
Civil service, my Lords, is a national asset. It is held in trust by the government of the day for the next administration. Capability, capacity and the constitutional position of the Civil Service should not become just the domain of the government of the day. It is a matter of national interest. Over the past four decades, a view has developed that the values of the Civil service are a hindrance to reform.
This is a misconceived view. Reform of the Civil Service and these values are not incompatible. Understood properly and applied properly, they enable and not hinder change. These concerns led to the publication in 1995 of the Civil Service Code, which has been updated several times and understand will be updated against the background of the review that is being been initiated. I think this this update should not just be a paper exercise, but an opportunity to clarify, to reaffirm and reinforce and reassert these values and explain what they mean in practice.
It should be an opportunity to convey to the politicians and the civil servants and public servants their utility, and how they assist in restoring the self-worth and identity of the civil service as a professional and impartial service. I hope the noble Baroness is aware of this particular report. The Governance Project, which was published in 2024, and I should declare an interest as a member of it. This report recommended that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 should be amended to make explicit.
The civil servants have a legal obligation to act in compliance with their responsibilities under the code, and the ministers cannot direct them to act in opposition to the code. I think this is a recommendation. I think we should be acted upon if we've got to ensure that we don't have the sort of issues that have been raised in the debate today.
They must remain the guiding principles. They not only do the civil service, but they also engender trust. A word more important than than ever before. When change runs deep in the environment of the civil service, but also in the very definition of public service. Development of policy. Delivery of services. Explanation of policy is taking place against very low levels of trust in government, politicians, institutions and in a less cohesive society.
So integrity of the process is therefore crucial. It is for this reason, these values are essential and not an impediment. The civil service, while by no means perfect, has come under a great deal of criticism and scrutiny. It is an organisation institution under strain. Reforms, particularly since the 1980s, have been driven response to external pressures, perceived dilemmas and political drivers rather than any continuous systematic assessment of the organisation.
Civil service, my Lords, is a national asset. It is held in trust by the government of the day for the next administration. Capability, capacity and the constitutional position of the Civil Service should not become just the domain of the government of the day. It is a matter of national interest. Over the past four decades, a view has developed that the values of the Civil service are a hindrance to reform.
This is a misconceived view. Reform of the Civil Service and these values are not incompatible. Understood properly and applied properly, they enable and not hinder change. These concerns led to the publication in 1995 of the Civil Service Code, which has been updated several times and understand will be updated against the background of the review that is being been initiated. I think this this update should not just be a paper exercise, but an opportunity to clarify, to reaffirm and reinforce and reassert these values and explain what they mean in practice.
It should be an opportunity to convey to the politicians and the civil servants and public servants their utility, and how they assist in restoring the self-worth and identity of the civil service as a professional and impartial service. I hope the noble Baroness is aware of this particular report. The Governance Project, which was published in 2024, and I should declare an interest as a member of it. This report recommended that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 should be amended to make explicit.
The civil servants have a legal obligation to act in compliance with their responsibilities under the code, and the ministers cannot direct them to act in opposition to the code. I think this is a recommendation. I think we should be acted upon if we've got to ensure that we don't have the sort of issues that have been raised in the debate today.
14:42
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I, too, would like to thank Lady Faulkner for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I'd like to declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, the Free Speech Union, in its caseload in the last six years, has taken on 167 cases in which a civil service body, a Whitehall department, is the recorded other party, and those are cases where employees have been put through disciplinary processes, in some cases dismissed, and the largest single category in in that particular caseload are female employees who ran afoul of institutional orthodoxy on issues like access to single sex spaces.
But I thought just to bring home what it is, what kind of case the Free Speech Union typically deals with. I would tell you about one particular case, that of Anna Thomas, a mother of one who was employed at the time. This is in 2020 by the DWP. She was employed as a coach at a job centre in Portsmouth, and she was alarmed when she was directed to an anti-racism hub on the department's intranet, which encouraged civil servants to treat racism like Covid 19 and, to, quote, assume that you'd have it, unquote.
This was in the wake of George Floyd's death in Minnesota, and the hub was prefaced with a statement by Peter Schofield, then the Dwp's permanent secretary, telling staff they were, quote, responsible for being actively anti-racist and asking them to, quote, make the DWP an anti-racist organisation. As I'm sure noble lords are familiar. Anti-Racism is a central concept in critical race theory, and in case you're any in any doubt that the DWP was embracing critical race theory.
Learning resources on this hub included a diagram from the American activist Ibrahim X Kendi, one of the authors of Critical Race theory, and that diagram asked staff to admit that you deny racism as a problem and to promote and advocate for policies that leaders that are anti-racist. Staff were also directed to the work of Robin de Angelo. This is again in a hub that they were referred to by the Permanent Secretary. Robin de Angelo, as you may know, is a critical race theorist who claims that white people, including children, are inherently racist.
And she raised the alarm. She discussed this in the context of a whistleblower with various senior members of the department, and initially, her complaints were taken seriously, and her complaint was upheld. The Dwp's own behavioural science expert advised that the anti-racism hub was political, and Mr. Schofield should not have gone down the road of anti-racism. But nevertheless, the culture endured, and her fears and Thomas's fears about political bias within the DWP materialised.
When she was asked to promote an event in Portsmouth for people interested in a career in the Metropolitan Police, and white, straight white men were explicitly excluded from participating in this particular recruitment opportunity. An example of what my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough refers to as a woke recruitment practice. In due course, Anna Thomas was placed under investigation because she wouldn't keep quiet about these concerns. And in November 2021, she was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The free speech union took on her case. We brought a case in the employment tribunal against the department, claiming she was the victim of unfair dismissal, belief discrimination, victimisation as a whistleblower and harassment. And I'm pleased to say that after three preliminary hearings, the DWP settled and paid Mrs. Thomas 100 zero zero £0. An example of the kind of expense Baroness Falkner was talking about. I'd just like to say that if the noble lady the Minister would like to convey to Antonio Romeo that I'm certainly available to give evidence to her inquiry into impartiality, amongst other things, and the Civil Service.
I'd be very happy to share some of some of our data with her. Thank you.
But I thought just to bring home what it is, what kind of case the Free Speech Union typically deals with. I would tell you about one particular case, that of Anna Thomas, a mother of one who was employed at the time. This is in 2020 by the DWP. She was employed as a coach at a job centre in Portsmouth, and she was alarmed when she was directed to an anti-racism hub on the department's intranet, which encouraged civil servants to treat racism like Covid 19 and, to, quote, assume that you'd have it, unquote.
This was in the wake of George Floyd's death in Minnesota, and the hub was prefaced with a statement by Peter Schofield, then the Dwp's permanent secretary, telling staff they were, quote, responsible for being actively anti-racist and asking them to, quote, make the DWP an anti-racist organisation. As I'm sure noble lords are familiar. Anti-Racism is a central concept in critical race theory, and in case you're any in any doubt that the DWP was embracing critical race theory.
Learning resources on this hub included a diagram from the American activist Ibrahim X Kendi, one of the authors of Critical Race theory, and that diagram asked staff to admit that you deny racism as a problem and to promote and advocate for policies that leaders that are anti-racist. Staff were also directed to the work of Robin de Angelo. This is again in a hub that they were referred to by the Permanent Secretary. Robin de Angelo, as you may know, is a critical race theorist who claims that white people, including children, are inherently racist.
And she raised the alarm. She discussed this in the context of a whistleblower with various senior members of the department, and initially, her complaints were taken seriously, and her complaint was upheld. The Dwp's own behavioural science expert advised that the anti-racism hub was political, and Mr. Schofield should not have gone down the road of anti-racism. But nevertheless, the culture endured, and her fears and Thomas's fears about political bias within the DWP materialised.
When she was asked to promote an event in Portsmouth for people interested in a career in the Metropolitan Police, and white, straight white men were explicitly excluded from participating in this particular recruitment opportunity. An example of what my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough refers to as a woke recruitment practice. In due course, Anna Thomas was placed under investigation because she wouldn't keep quiet about these concerns. And in November 2021, she was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The free speech union took on her case. We brought a case in the employment tribunal against the department, claiming she was the victim of unfair dismissal, belief discrimination, victimisation as a whistleblower and harassment. And I'm pleased to say that after three preliminary hearings, the DWP settled and paid Mrs. Thomas 100 zero zero £0. An example of the kind of expense Baroness Falkner was talking about. I'd just like to say that if the noble lady the Minister would like to convey to Antonio Romeo that I'm certainly available to give evidence to her inquiry into impartiality, amongst other things, and the Civil Service.
I'd be very happy to share some of some of our data with her. Thank you.
14:47
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, my Lords. I do thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faulkner for this important debate. I want to come at impartiality from a slightly different angle, because technology is changing what we mean by an impartial state. It used to be a reasonably clear idea of where policy stopped and delivery began. Ministers made decisions, civil service implemented them. Technology is making that distinction much less clear. Clear because the design of a digital system is a policy choice.
For example, let's just quickly take fraud. When you build a system to identify suspicious claims, someone has to decide what looks suspicious. If technology helps determine access to a public service, somebody decides what information is important, who is important, who is not. Those choices may be buried inside software, but they can have a profound effect on an individual life. One of the lessons we learned when we were building gov.uk was that you could just not take an existing process and put it online.
You had to rethink services around the user. I would argue services have improved enormously, but technology and policy are now closely linked, more linked than than ever. AI takes this much further. Systems can access information and recommend what happens next. The government should use these tools. Our public services desperately need better technology, but we need to be alert to what is happening. A biased decision no longer requires a biased person.
The problem might sit in data or in software bought from a supplier. It might be an assumption that nobody has noticed. It might be built into a system, and it can be repeated across thousands of cases. Impartiality in a world of increasing digitisation and transformation cannot be left just to technologists. More than 20,000 civil servants took part in an in the government's generative AI trial last year, and that training is now aimed specifically at the senior civil service.
These are good initiatives, but for me, the harder question is whether understanding AI becomes part of the ordinary professional competence of being a civil servant, and how the parallel skills of scrutiny and critical thinking are developed. Do you do not need to be able to build a model. You need to know how and when to question one how will working in an increasingly AI first world become part of the everyday expectations of civil servants, rather than a training course that people complete? Finally, I'd like to turn to the government digital service.
Last month, when it was abolished, GDS was moved into an expanded DCMs. Like many members of this House, I believe that is completely the wrong home for it, and that decision has consequences for the civil services capacity to act impartially across government. GDS is not simply an IT function. It builds the services through which millions of people experience the state. It is the front end of policy. The choice is made in designing those services, such as who is eligible, eligible, what evidence is being required, how decisions are explained when a person can reach a human, all determine how policy works.
In practice, these questions are not merely technical. In my opinion, the only home that makes sense is the Cabinet Office. When digital systems shape how citizens experience the state, those who build them must be near the centre of power.
For example, let's just quickly take fraud. When you build a system to identify suspicious claims, someone has to decide what looks suspicious. If technology helps determine access to a public service, somebody decides what information is important, who is important, who is not. Those choices may be buried inside software, but they can have a profound effect on an individual life. One of the lessons we learned when we were building gov.uk was that you could just not take an existing process and put it online.
You had to rethink services around the user. I would argue services have improved enormously, but technology and policy are now closely linked, more linked than than ever. AI takes this much further. Systems can access information and recommend what happens next. The government should use these tools. Our public services desperately need better technology, but we need to be alert to what is happening. A biased decision no longer requires a biased person.
The problem might sit in data or in software bought from a supplier. It might be an assumption that nobody has noticed. It might be built into a system, and it can be repeated across thousands of cases. Impartiality in a world of increasing digitisation and transformation cannot be left just to technologists. More than 20,000 civil servants took part in an in the government's generative AI trial last year, and that training is now aimed specifically at the senior civil service.
These are good initiatives, but for me, the harder question is whether understanding AI becomes part of the ordinary professional competence of being a civil servant, and how the parallel skills of scrutiny and critical thinking are developed. Do you do not need to be able to build a model. You need to know how and when to question one how will working in an increasingly AI first world become part of the everyday expectations of civil servants, rather than a training course that people complete? Finally, I'd like to turn to the government digital service.
Last month, when it was abolished, GDS was moved into an expanded DCMs. Like many members of this House, I believe that is completely the wrong home for it, and that decision has consequences for the civil services capacity to act impartially across government. GDS is not simply an IT function. It builds the services through which millions of people experience the state. It is the front end of policy. The choice is made in designing those services, such as who is eligible, eligible, what evidence is being required, how decisions are explained when a person can reach a human, all determine how policy works.
In practice, these questions are not merely technical. In my opinion, the only home that makes sense is the Cabinet Office. When digital systems shape how citizens experience the state, those who build them must be near the centre of power.
14:50
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
When Faulkner earlier talked about protecting people from improper pressures, I thought there is a different aspect to that, from that which we've heard from the many varied speeches so far, which it is helpful, I think, to explore a little bit. And that is the importance of ethical standards and processes to protect impartiality from ministers and from lobbyists, good ministers, just like good leaders in any sort of organisation, inspire and lead. And they see challenging advice and robust critique of their ideas as a strength, even essential to them to do their best.
But weak leaders or poor ministers can get annoyed by it, can feel threatened when not surrounded by compliant yes people. And sadly, we have had a series of scandals, particularly involving allegations of bullying, that highlight the problems of the shortcomings in the ministerial code as an effective safeguard both for impartiality and, frankly, for treating people decently and well. Now, the ministerial code is a slightly unusual document in that it's not a law.
It's not even that sort of more nebulous but important category of a constitutional convention. And as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons described it earlier this year, it's very much the Prime Minister's document, but that's at its heart, very dependent on the Prime Minister to decide what it says, to decide when to change, what it says, to decide how to apply it. And indeed, as that House of Commons committee complained earlier this year, albeit talking about it in a slightly different respect, it seems to be possible for people to break the code, sometimes with impunity.
That was not a partisan. Indeed, it was a cross-party conclusion, and I think that remind us of the importance of having stronger foundations for the ministerial code in future and stronger enforcement, because protecting the civil services impartiality is in part about protecting civil servants from improper behaviour by ministers. And there's a similar risk with lobbying. If with the examples I've given so far, that's maybe the risk of civil servants deviating from impartiality because of the sort of the threat, the stick with lobbyists.
Perhaps it's more the carrot, the lure away from impartiality. But as we've heard, for example, in the debates earlier this year on Baroness Hayter's private member's bill about the regulation of lobbying, there are significant loopholes in the current protections that we have that we often talk about in the context of ministers and lobbyists, but actually the interaction between lobbyists and civil servants can be just as important area of risk. I think the Ethics and Integrity Commission's report earlier this year set out a very good roadmap for improving the regulation of lobbying.
And I say this as somebody who in a previous role was for a period of time covered by the existing lobbying regulations. And I have to say, they were very, very light touch. I think at the time, I quite enjoyed the fact that I didn't have huge amounts of paperwork to fill in or hugely detailed records that need keeping. But unfortunately, again, we've seen from practical examples the risks that come from that very light touch approach, the risks that come from the exclusion of in-house lobbyists, the risks that come from the exclusion of lobbying firms that are not VAT registered.
You know, if there is an improper conversation between a lobbyist and a civil servant, the fact that the lobbyist is in the house or the outhouse, whether or not the lobbyist firm pays VAT, those are not really germane to whether or not there is something in that conversation that is a risk that we need protection for. So I hope we will, in due course, hear from the noble lady and the minister what steps the government is taking to continue to be fair, the initial progress it has made, both in improving the regulation of lobbying and in strengthening the ministerial code.
But weak leaders or poor ministers can get annoyed by it, can feel threatened when not surrounded by compliant yes people. And sadly, we have had a series of scandals, particularly involving allegations of bullying, that highlight the problems of the shortcomings in the ministerial code as an effective safeguard both for impartiality and, frankly, for treating people decently and well. Now, the ministerial code is a slightly unusual document in that it's not a law.
It's not even that sort of more nebulous but important category of a constitutional convention. And as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons described it earlier this year, it's very much the Prime Minister's document, but that's at its heart, very dependent on the Prime Minister to decide what it says, to decide when to change, what it says, to decide how to apply it. And indeed, as that House of Commons committee complained earlier this year, albeit talking about it in a slightly different respect, it seems to be possible for people to break the code, sometimes with impunity.
That was not a partisan. Indeed, it was a cross-party conclusion, and I think that remind us of the importance of having stronger foundations for the ministerial code in future and stronger enforcement, because protecting the civil services impartiality is in part about protecting civil servants from improper behaviour by ministers. And there's a similar risk with lobbying. If with the examples I've given so far, that's maybe the risk of civil servants deviating from impartiality because of the sort of the threat, the stick with lobbyists.
Perhaps it's more the carrot, the lure away from impartiality. But as we've heard, for example, in the debates earlier this year on Baroness Hayter's private member's bill about the regulation of lobbying, there are significant loopholes in the current protections that we have that we often talk about in the context of ministers and lobbyists, but actually the interaction between lobbyists and civil servants can be just as important area of risk. I think the Ethics and Integrity Commission's report earlier this year set out a very good roadmap for improving the regulation of lobbying.
And I say this as somebody who in a previous role was for a period of time covered by the existing lobbying regulations. And I have to say, they were very, very light touch. I think at the time, I quite enjoyed the fact that I didn't have huge amounts of paperwork to fill in or hugely detailed records that need keeping. But unfortunately, again, we've seen from practical examples the risks that come from that very light touch approach, the risks that come from the exclusion of in-house lobbyists, the risks that come from the exclusion of lobbying firms that are not VAT registered.
You know, if there is an improper conversation between a lobbyist and a civil servant, the fact that the lobbyist is in the house or the outhouse, whether or not the lobbyist firm pays VAT, those are not really germane to whether or not there is something in that conversation that is a risk that we need protection for. So I hope we will, in due course, hear from the noble lady and the minister what steps the government is taking to continue to be fair, the initial progress it has made, both in improving the regulation of lobbying and in strengthening the ministerial code.
14:54
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
My Lords, I to begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Faulkner, for securing this important debate and for an informative and impressive speech. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the Civil Service is a central and uncontested tenet of our Constitution. That was the view of the Constitution Committee of your lordships House and the committee's 2023 report on Permanent Secretaries, a committee of which I was a member at the time. The two part principle remains uncontested.
The Civil Service cannot afford merely to act impartially. It must avoid any perception that it is falling short of that expectation. In 2014, my noble friend Lord Wood of Horsham and the late Lord, the late noble Lord, Lord Heywood of Whitehall, jointly wrote that the civil service is sometimes said to be independent or neutral. It is neither. It is wholeheartedly committed to serving the elected government of the day in devising and implementing its programme.
What is internationally unusual and often envied is the service's ability to preserve its impartiality so that it can transfer seamlessly its expertise, commitment and loyalty to a government of a different political makeup tomorrow. My Lords, that paragraph remains as true today. But there were and are conditions to preserve that ability. Civil servants must act in a way to earn and retain the confidence of ministers. And once a minister has made a decision to make a reality of that decision, they must also sustain the skills and capability of the civil service to serve future governments equally well.
Time and resources are scarce and if there is a conflict between ministerial priorities and the organisation's professional capability, the accounting officer should seek a ministerial direction. Civil servants should not pursue their own politically partial objectives at the expense of doing of actually doing their job. The Civil Service Code has correctly anticipated the ever present risk in any permanent bureaucracy. It states that civil servants must not deceive or knowingly mislead ministers, parliament or others.
It also states that civil servants must not frustrate the implementation of policies. Once decisions are taken by declining to take or abstaining from action which flows from those decisions. If there was no risk of either behaviour occurring, there would be no need to prohibit them. But there they are on the public record. These, my Lords, are the true risks to civil service impartiality, misleading those whom officials are appointed to serve and frustrating decisions once they have been taken.
Too often we have seen the will of ministers being frustrated rather than facilitated by their departments. When ministers pull levers, the machinery of government too often fails to respond. The civil service must police these risks properly. It must not reward promotion or appointment to key positions. Those who exemplify the very behaviours its own code prohibits.
The Civil Service cannot afford merely to act impartially. It must avoid any perception that it is falling short of that expectation. In 2014, my noble friend Lord Wood of Horsham and the late Lord, the late noble Lord, Lord Heywood of Whitehall, jointly wrote that the civil service is sometimes said to be independent or neutral. It is neither. It is wholeheartedly committed to serving the elected government of the day in devising and implementing its programme.
What is internationally unusual and often envied is the service's ability to preserve its impartiality so that it can transfer seamlessly its expertise, commitment and loyalty to a government of a different political makeup tomorrow. My Lords, that paragraph remains as true today. But there were and are conditions to preserve that ability. Civil servants must act in a way to earn and retain the confidence of ministers. And once a minister has made a decision to make a reality of that decision, they must also sustain the skills and capability of the civil service to serve future governments equally well.
Time and resources are scarce and if there is a conflict between ministerial priorities and the organisation's professional capability, the accounting officer should seek a ministerial direction. Civil servants should not pursue their own politically partial objectives at the expense of doing of actually doing their job. The Civil Service Code has correctly anticipated the ever present risk in any permanent bureaucracy. It states that civil servants must not deceive or knowingly mislead ministers, parliament or others.
It also states that civil servants must not frustrate the implementation of policies. Once decisions are taken by declining to take or abstaining from action which flows from those decisions. If there was no risk of either behaviour occurring, there would be no need to prohibit them. But there they are on the public record. These, my Lords, are the true risks to civil service impartiality, misleading those whom officials are appointed to serve and frustrating decisions once they have been taken.
Too often we have seen the will of ministers being frustrated rather than facilitated by their departments. When ministers pull levers, the machinery of government too often fails to respond. The civil service must police these risks properly. It must not reward promotion or appointment to key positions. Those who exemplify the very behaviours its own code prohibits.
14:57
14:57
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
My Lords, I'm pleased to answer this question for short debate on what steps the government intends to take to strengthen impartiality in the civil Service and the delivery of public services. I'd like to thank the noble lady, Baroness Faulkner, Margravine and all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate. I agree with the noble lady, Baroness Prashar, that it's a very timely debate. Before I move on, I'd like to draw noble Lords attention to my ministerial declaration of interests and ask noble Lords to note that my husband is serving civil servant in the government digital service, like the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I have nothing but praise for the private offices that I have worked for, worked with, who have supported me since 2024.
I think it's probably universal across ministers that we rely very heavily on our private offices to help us navigate the civil service as part of the. The key aspect here really is around how the impartiality of the civil service is a. Is a really vital component of our Constitution and how we run government business on behalf of the public. The basis of our politically impartial permanent civil service goes all the way back to the Northcote-trevelyan report of 1854.
So noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell stressed the report, urged to move away from recruitment based on patronage, and set out the standards that laid the foundation for the modern civil service we now have today. The Armstrong Memorandum of 1985 set out that it is a duty of civil servants to serve their ministers with integrity and to the best of their ability, and that the British Civil Service is a non-political and disciplined career service. As a noble lady Baroness Thatcher highlighted, this was codified in 1996 with the creation of the Civil Service Code, a vital document which sets out the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants.
To this day. The code's importance is such that it is now based in statute, as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is a contractual obligation for civil servants to abide by the code. The code sets out four key values that should be demonstrated underpinning those standards. Those core values are integrity, honesty and. Honesty, objectivity and impartiality, including political impartiality. These values largely stem from the Nolan Principles, established in 1995, which civil servants and all public office holders are expected to adhere to, meaning civil servants are also expected to demonstrate selfless selflessness, accountability, openness and leadership.
I agree with the noble lady, Baroness Thatcher , that these values are still relevant and appropriate, and I look forward forward to reading the report she referenced, which is on my pile of reading, but I haven't read it yet. Impartiality has been noted by a number of noble lords is fundamental to the code. In order to serve effectively, it is essential that civil servants do so impartially. Impartiality means faithfully and fairly serving the public as a whole, rather than any particular group or interest.
It also means loyally serving the elected government of the day, a point referred to by the noble lady Baroness Finn. Whatever its political persuasion, and no matter what their own political beliefs may be, that essential requirement ensures that the Civil Service can gain and retain the respect of ministers, Parliament and the public and maintain the highest possible standards in everything the Civil Service does. I would agree with the noble lady, Baroness Stewart, in how she described what what this means in practice and how impartiality applies.
I would also agree with the noble lady, Baroness Finn, that it is both impartiality and the perception of impartiality that is key in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asked around civil servants seeking to influence based on identity. It is civil servant's duty to provide honest, objective advice to ministers, which accurately presents options and takes account of expert advice. Good advice should be informed by understanding and awareness. However, advice should never be determined by civil servants own personal or political views.
Civil servants must also speak up and take action if someone is acting contrary to the code. This government is keenly aware of the need to protect this important constitutional principle and the importance of the ministerial code. The ministerial code includes a requirement that ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code. I really welcome the noble Lord.
Lord pack's turning, the turning the debate on its head in a way, and looking at the behaviour of ministers, but also the issue of lobbying reform. It is right that we look at lobbying, and the government is considering the recommendations of the EIC following their review, and I look forward to reporting back on that to your lordships House. And I'm very happy when we have our long overdue meeting. Lord pack that. We pick that up as well.
In turn, civil servants are required by their own code to act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers. It's a clear and established part of our democratic system that it is for ministers to decide government policy operating within the legal frameworks which apply. Ministers are accountable to parliament and civil servants are accountable to ministers. In relation to the noble Lady, Baroness Falkner's point on the enforceability. Enforceability of the Civil Service Code as part of the contractual relationship between civil servants and employer civil servants obliged to abide by the Civil Service Code, including its requirements on impartiality and departments, do take these matters seriously and breaching the code can result in a range of disciplinary actions being taken, including dismissal in severe cases.
As noble Lords are aware and has been mentioned, the Cabinet Secretary has set out her intention to refresh the Civil Service Code to ensure it is up to date, well understood and adhered to across the Civil Service, including the importance of impartiality. She spoke about this in her oral evidence, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the 15th of June. This work is ongoing and the government will communicate further on the subject in due course.
The issue around diversity and groupthink was raised by a number of noble lords, including Baroness Faulkner and Baroness Spielman, who raised the point around bringing your whole self to work as a as a potential issue that, in the noble ladies view, could blind civil servants to impartiality. I feel quite strongly that a a diverse civil service ensures that we truly reflect the communities we serve and in my view, this leads to better policies and stronger public outcomes.
I feel that diversity, rather than contributing to groupthink, can actually help us avoid it. But that's maybe a a matter that noble lords might want to debate with me at a future point. My Lords, moving on, I'd just like to talk briefly about the subject of future of the civil service in the UK. We must ensure that the Civil Service is equipped and supported to meet the challenges of the future. This government is committed to this, including safeguarding its impartiality and core values, so that we can enhance trust and confidence in the institutions of government.
The re rewiring the State Cabinet statement set out that devolution by default, will earn to good growth in every postcode and a more strategic civil service that is focused on the challenges that can best dealt with at a national level. The review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent Civil Service, led by the Cabinet Secretary, will define a clear vision for the Civil Service as a world class organisation, delivering a once in a generation transformation.
And like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I agree and the government agrees that she. She needs it. The review will consider, among other things, the size, shape and structure of the Civil Service, the impact of artificial intelligence and technology on the service and issue highlighted by the noble Lady, Baroness Lane-fox, and our ability to attract and retain the best talent from across the country and the statutory footing of the service. The review will draw on a wide range of experts and advisers from academia, private public, civil servant, civil society and international spheres.
Baroness Falkner raised a specific point about the expert Advisory panel. The Review Review Advisory Panel , and this will be constituted in due course to inform the review. A report will be published before summer next year, and any decisions will be for the Prime Minister in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Young's offer of providing evidence to Antonio Romero. The review welcomes input from across Parliament. So yes, I can certainly take that back to the Cabinet Secretary.
We're not.
I think it's probably universal across ministers that we rely very heavily on our private offices to help us navigate the civil service as part of the. The key aspect here really is around how the impartiality of the civil service is a. Is a really vital component of our Constitution and how we run government business on behalf of the public. The basis of our politically impartial permanent civil service goes all the way back to the Northcote-trevelyan report of 1854.
So noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell stressed the report, urged to move away from recruitment based on patronage, and set out the standards that laid the foundation for the modern civil service we now have today. The Armstrong Memorandum of 1985 set out that it is a duty of civil servants to serve their ministers with integrity and to the best of their ability, and that the British Civil Service is a non-political and disciplined career service. As a noble lady Baroness Thatcher highlighted, this was codified in 1996 with the creation of the Civil Service Code, a vital document which sets out the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants.
To this day. The code's importance is such that it is now based in statute, as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is a contractual obligation for civil servants to abide by the code. The code sets out four key values that should be demonstrated underpinning those standards. Those core values are integrity, honesty and. Honesty, objectivity and impartiality, including political impartiality. These values largely stem from the Nolan Principles, established in 1995, which civil servants and all public office holders are expected to adhere to, meaning civil servants are also expected to demonstrate selfless selflessness, accountability, openness and leadership.
I agree with the noble lady, Baroness Thatcher , that these values are still relevant and appropriate, and I look forward forward to reading the report she referenced, which is on my pile of reading, but I haven't read it yet. Impartiality has been noted by a number of noble lords is fundamental to the code. In order to serve effectively, it is essential that civil servants do so impartially. Impartiality means faithfully and fairly serving the public as a whole, rather than any particular group or interest.
It also means loyally serving the elected government of the day, a point referred to by the noble lady Baroness Finn. Whatever its political persuasion, and no matter what their own political beliefs may be, that essential requirement ensures that the Civil Service can gain and retain the respect of ministers, Parliament and the public and maintain the highest possible standards in everything the Civil Service does. I would agree with the noble lady, Baroness Stewart, in how she described what what this means in practice and how impartiality applies.
I would also agree with the noble lady, Baroness Finn, that it is both impartiality and the perception of impartiality that is key in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asked around civil servants seeking to influence based on identity. It is civil servant's duty to provide honest, objective advice to ministers, which accurately presents options and takes account of expert advice. Good advice should be informed by understanding and awareness. However, advice should never be determined by civil servants own personal or political views.
Civil servants must also speak up and take action if someone is acting contrary to the code. This government is keenly aware of the need to protect this important constitutional principle and the importance of the ministerial code. The ministerial code includes a requirement that ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code. I really welcome the noble Lord.
Lord pack's turning, the turning the debate on its head in a way, and looking at the behaviour of ministers, but also the issue of lobbying reform. It is right that we look at lobbying, and the government is considering the recommendations of the EIC following their review, and I look forward to reporting back on that to your lordships House. And I'm very happy when we have our long overdue meeting. Lord pack that. We pick that up as well.
In turn, civil servants are required by their own code to act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers. It's a clear and established part of our democratic system that it is for ministers to decide government policy operating within the legal frameworks which apply. Ministers are accountable to parliament and civil servants are accountable to ministers. In relation to the noble Lady, Baroness Falkner's point on the enforceability. Enforceability of the Civil Service Code as part of the contractual relationship between civil servants and employer civil servants obliged to abide by the Civil Service Code, including its requirements on impartiality and departments, do take these matters seriously and breaching the code can result in a range of disciplinary actions being taken, including dismissal in severe cases.
As noble Lords are aware and has been mentioned, the Cabinet Secretary has set out her intention to refresh the Civil Service Code to ensure it is up to date, well understood and adhered to across the Civil Service, including the importance of impartiality. She spoke about this in her oral evidence, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the 15th of June. This work is ongoing and the government will communicate further on the subject in due course.
The issue around diversity and groupthink was raised by a number of noble lords, including Baroness Faulkner and Baroness Spielman, who raised the point around bringing your whole self to work as a as a potential issue that, in the noble ladies view, could blind civil servants to impartiality. I feel quite strongly that a a diverse civil service ensures that we truly reflect the communities we serve and in my view, this leads to better policies and stronger public outcomes.
I feel that diversity, rather than contributing to groupthink, can actually help us avoid it. But that's maybe a a matter that noble lords might want to debate with me at a future point. My Lords, moving on, I'd just like to talk briefly about the subject of future of the civil service in the UK. We must ensure that the Civil Service is equipped and supported to meet the challenges of the future. This government is committed to this, including safeguarding its impartiality and core values, so that we can enhance trust and confidence in the institutions of government.
The re rewiring the State Cabinet statement set out that devolution by default, will earn to good growth in every postcode and a more strategic civil service that is focused on the challenges that can best dealt with at a national level. The review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent Civil Service, led by the Cabinet Secretary, will define a clear vision for the Civil Service as a world class organisation, delivering a once in a generation transformation.
And like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I agree and the government agrees that she. She needs it. The review will consider, among other things, the size, shape and structure of the Civil Service, the impact of artificial intelligence and technology on the service and issue highlighted by the noble Lady, Baroness Lane-fox, and our ability to attract and retain the best talent from across the country and the statutory footing of the service. The review will draw on a wide range of experts and advisers from academia, private public, civil servant, civil society and international spheres.
Baroness Falkner raised a specific point about the expert Advisory panel. The Review Review Advisory Panel , and this will be constituted in due course to inform the review. A report will be published before summer next year, and any decisions will be for the Prime Minister in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Young's offer of providing evidence to Antonio Romero. The review welcomes input from across Parliament. So yes, I can certainly take that back to the Cabinet Secretary.
We're not.
15:07
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
For. The minister concludes, and because I fear she's coming to a conclusion and I don't want to stop her in Mid-speech. But the most significant question that I asked was whether she believes that the civil service across the civil service is now compliant with the clarification of the Supreme Court on 16th April 2017 on single sex spaces, could she please either say whether they are compliant or right to to me in place a letter in the library if they're not explaining when she expects them to be.
15:08
15:08
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I think we're generally interested in in public sector productivity. But I'm happy to write to the noble Lord where I was heading to with what I was. The point in the speech I was at was really around the work of the Cabinet secretary in relation to not waiting for the review, but actually trying to get on with improvements to the civil service as, as we as we move forward. And earlier this year, with your Lordship's indulgence, I'd just like to say that remind noble Lords that the Cabinet Secretary launched the Future Civil Service programme, which is a collective moment to build a world class civil service that better delivers for ministers and, more importantly, delivers for the public as well, is more productive.
In answer to the noble Lords points and high performing and harnesses technology and AI to be fit for the future. This amounts to the most fundamental reset of the state and how it works in decades, and focuses on how the government is organised and simplified to promote greater productivity, efficiency and accountability. The Future Civil Service Programme is delivering a broad range of interventions owned by permanent secretaries, to drive forward the change to build a world class organisation delivering public.
My Lords, in conclusion, the government will continue to protect the impartiality of the civil service. It's a central tenet of our Constitution and one that we believe has stood the test of time and will continue to work. We will continue our work to rewire the state, ensuring the effective delivery of public services. Thank you.
In answer to the noble Lords points and high performing and harnesses technology and AI to be fit for the future. This amounts to the most fundamental reset of the state and how it works in decades, and focuses on how the government is organised and simplified to promote greater productivity, efficiency and accountability. The Future Civil Service Programme is delivering a broad range of interventions owned by permanent secretaries, to drive forward the change to build a world class organisation delivering public.
My Lords, in conclusion, the government will continue to protect the impartiality of the civil service. It's a central tenet of our Constitution and one that we believe has stood the test of time and will continue to work. We will continue our work to rewire the state, ensuring the effective delivery of public services. Thank you.
15:10
15:14
15:15
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, can I first of all thank Noble Lords for participating in this last session before our recess, I will declare an interest as patron of Global Health Partnerships, which was formerly known as that, where I think people probably know it as which has received some funding from the FTC over several years to support these sorts of partnerships. And I will refer to one in Myanmar they currently contribute towards. I understand my noble friend Baroness Prashar, will refer to a recent important report from that or from, sorry, from Global Health Partnerships on the recruitment of health workers from low and middle income countries.
I'm delighted to know that the noble Lord, Lord Oates and others will be referring to different sorts of partnerships, and there are many different sorts, and I. I believe that the Right Reverend Bishop will be talking about personal experience in this area. My purpose in this debate, however, really is to think about more strategically about this, to ask the minister about strategy and encourage him and the Department to think about health can contribute more extensively to development and foreign policy, which is actually why I wanted an Fcdo minister to respond rather than a health minister.
The context is that the UK is one of the great leaders in health globally, second only to the USA. For example, on medical research extremely prominent in professional education, many innovators in biomedicine and med tech in the UK, and great not for profits like global health partnerships and of course the much bigger Welcome Foundation. And indeed, I and others will be publishing a report in the next year about the global footprint of the UK. In health.
The UK has got extraordinary reach in health and this is the fundamental underpinning point. In that last report we did ten years ago, it was. It was shown that of peer reviewed medical journals, 63% where there was a British author had a foreign second or third author. There is extraordinary partnership. And even as we sit here, there'll be emails whizzing back and forth between researchers all over the world, all over the world.
I mean, it really is. We have extraordinary reach, partly because of the Commonwealth, and I'm sure this will be true of other sciences, but I'm obviously talking about health here. Let me get
I'm delighted to know that the noble Lord, Lord Oates and others will be referring to different sorts of partnerships, and there are many different sorts, and I. I believe that the Right Reverend Bishop will be talking about personal experience in this area. My purpose in this debate, however, really is to think about more strategically about this, to ask the minister about strategy and encourage him and the Department to think about health can contribute more extensively to development and foreign policy, which is actually why I wanted an Fcdo minister to respond rather than a health minister.
The context is that the UK is one of the great leaders in health globally, second only to the USA. For example, on medical research extremely prominent in professional education, many innovators in biomedicine and med tech in the UK, and great not for profits like global health partnerships and of course the much bigger Welcome Foundation. And indeed, I and others will be publishing a report in the next year about the global footprint of the UK. In health.
The UK has got extraordinary reach in health and this is the fundamental underpinning point. In that last report we did ten years ago, it was. It was shown that of peer reviewed medical journals, 63% where there was a British author had a foreign second or third author. There is extraordinary partnership. And even as we sit here, there'll be emails whizzing back and forth between researchers all over the world, all over the world.
I mean, it really is. We have extraordinary reach, partly because of the Commonwealth, and I'm sure this will be true of other sciences, but I'm obviously talking about health here. Let me get
15:17
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Let me get to my conclusion at the beginning, just to make sure I don't get carried away by talking about the examples. So the sort of things that I'm talking about here cover the ordinary, if I can put it like that. Overseas development agenda, the benefits of actually supporting low and middle income countries with their health issues. It deals with the goals, it deals with the global goals and has great.
And UK also has great influence in global health policy. So there's a whole set of of the agenda of development. There's another set of issues here which is actually how that development is delivered. And it's something that I'll come back to in the case of Myanmar, which is about the ability not to go government to government, but to use civil institutional links that exist to provide support and ultimately help rebuilding countries and rebuilding peace. The third area is about UK values, and our health professionals carry those with us.
And that's not just about soft power. People talk quite softly about soft power, but this is actually about some real leverage that comes with this. And of course, we need all the friends we can get at the moment in this dangerous world. The fourth area is the commercial benefits of partnerships. And I forgot what it's called now because it keeps changing. But NHS global, I think it might be called these days, sponsors the partnerships between commercial organisations and our our brilliant innovators.
And then finally, there's the whole area of the support for the NHS and actually how extraordinarily valuable working in overseas countries can be to come back to the UK with different ideas, see one's own health service in different ways and develop. I know that's outside the remit, but it is part of what I'm talking about here. So I'm going to invite the minister to tell us where he thinks health fits in with the wider partnership strategy of the department, and whether he thinks, as I do, that it could play a much more strategic role in foreign policy, whether you could leverage health much more effectively in foreign and development policy, and whether he thinks it would be useful for him or colleagues to meet with a few people from the sector.
And I grabbed you. I would gladly bring them together to discuss how the health sector could provide more leverage and more support. Let me, then, in the last three minutes, turn to two examples. One that I know I have circulated to noble Lords about the awful situation in Myanmar. Five years on now, health workers were amongst the leaders of the original civil disobedience movement. They were targeted. They retreated to the countryside and they needed new skills.
People had to learn how to deal with bombs and bomb fragments and nurses having to deal with bullet holes and and such like. And of course, health deteriorated. And there's been an extraordinary response, which has come in part from Burmese, Myanmar health professionals in this country, and very good that the government allowed them to work here professionally, even though some of them were here already, but some subsequently came. I think that's tremendous.
And also very good that the department, the Foreign Office, the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Office has supported the approach here, which is of dozens of Myanmar and UK health professionals providing training, something like 290 000 consultations, training, mentorship and education activities. Over 1600 health workers have had training or support in the past two years. There's been a new nursing school opened sort of behind the lines because, of course, we've moved on from purely a coup to a civil war and a really difficult, really difficult situation.
Monthly medical training webinars. 16 groups of educators from 12 ethnic health groups and four ethnic medical schools are receiving technical support. So it's a tremendous voluntary effort with some support for the underpinning of it from the Fcdo. It's a one off example. I hope it's a one off example in the way it is, but it does show how how important this is and I think this is clearly important to the UK, not least because of the great history and relationship between our two countries, but also because the UK is actually the penholder for Myanmar at the at the UN.
Second quick one. Is there a group of anaesthetists? Again, I got some funding, I have to say from DfID in those days in 2012 to support a training programme for anaesthetists in Zambia. Zambia had no way of training anaesthetists. They had to go abroad to be trained and when they came back, they didn't necessarily come back. They stayed in South Africa or wherever. We set up a programme in 2012, which is still going under its own steam now under its own funding, with where anaesthetists from this country go out to that country for short periods or longer periods, often anaesthetists in training work with the local anaesthetists and train them and of course gain so much themselves.
So finally, let me just finish with my conclusion again. I invite the Minister to tell me how he thinks health fits into the wider partnership and whether he believes, as I do, we could leverage it more effectively in foreign and development policy.
And UK also has great influence in global health policy. So there's a whole set of of the agenda of development. There's another set of issues here which is actually how that development is delivered. And it's something that I'll come back to in the case of Myanmar, which is about the ability not to go government to government, but to use civil institutional links that exist to provide support and ultimately help rebuilding countries and rebuilding peace. The third area is about UK values, and our health professionals carry those with us.
And that's not just about soft power. People talk quite softly about soft power, but this is actually about some real leverage that comes with this. And of course, we need all the friends we can get at the moment in this dangerous world. The fourth area is the commercial benefits of partnerships. And I forgot what it's called now because it keeps changing. But NHS global, I think it might be called these days, sponsors the partnerships between commercial organisations and our our brilliant innovators.
And then finally, there's the whole area of the support for the NHS and actually how extraordinarily valuable working in overseas countries can be to come back to the UK with different ideas, see one's own health service in different ways and develop. I know that's outside the remit, but it is part of what I'm talking about here. So I'm going to invite the minister to tell us where he thinks health fits in with the wider partnership strategy of the department, and whether he thinks, as I do, that it could play a much more strategic role in foreign policy, whether you could leverage health much more effectively in foreign and development policy, and whether he thinks it would be useful for him or colleagues to meet with a few people from the sector.
And I grabbed you. I would gladly bring them together to discuss how the health sector could provide more leverage and more support. Let me, then, in the last three minutes, turn to two examples. One that I know I have circulated to noble Lords about the awful situation in Myanmar. Five years on now, health workers were amongst the leaders of the original civil disobedience movement. They were targeted. They retreated to the countryside and they needed new skills.
People had to learn how to deal with bombs and bomb fragments and nurses having to deal with bullet holes and and such like. And of course, health deteriorated. And there's been an extraordinary response, which has come in part from Burmese, Myanmar health professionals in this country, and very good that the government allowed them to work here professionally, even though some of them were here already, but some subsequently came. I think that's tremendous.
And also very good that the department, the Foreign Office, the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Office has supported the approach here, which is of dozens of Myanmar and UK health professionals providing training, something like 290 000 consultations, training, mentorship and education activities. Over 1600 health workers have had training or support in the past two years. There's been a new nursing school opened sort of behind the lines because, of course, we've moved on from purely a coup to a civil war and a really difficult, really difficult situation.
Monthly medical training webinars. 16 groups of educators from 12 ethnic health groups and four ethnic medical schools are receiving technical support. So it's a tremendous voluntary effort with some support for the underpinning of it from the Fcdo. It's a one off example. I hope it's a one off example in the way it is, but it does show how how important this is and I think this is clearly important to the UK, not least because of the great history and relationship between our two countries, but also because the UK is actually the penholder for Myanmar at the at the UN.
Second quick one. Is there a group of anaesthetists? Again, I got some funding, I have to say from DfID in those days in 2012 to support a training programme for anaesthetists in Zambia. Zambia had no way of training anaesthetists. They had to go abroad to be trained and when they came back, they didn't necessarily come back. They stayed in South Africa or wherever. We set up a programme in 2012, which is still going under its own steam now under its own funding, with where anaesthetists from this country go out to that country for short periods or longer periods, often anaesthetists in training work with the local anaesthetists and train them and of course gain so much themselves.
So finally, let me just finish with my conclusion again. I invite the Minister to tell me how he thinks health fits into the wider partnership and whether he believes, as I do, we could leverage it more effectively in foreign and development policy.
15:23
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Grateful to Lord Christ for securing this debate, and it's an honour to follow him in this debate, and I want to thank him sincerely for his sustained work over a number of decades to show how medical partnerships with low and middle income countries bring benefits both to those countries and also to our own NHS. This is something very dear to my own heart. My wife is a paediatrician. Together we work for a number of years in West Africa.
My son has just graduated and started his first job as a doctor in Derby. So earlier this year he did his medical elective in East Africa, and because he studied at the University of Newcastle, he was able to do the whole of his second year at Newcastle's campus in Malaysia, an advantage which he didn't know about when he applied to that university. So in a number of ways, cross-cultural medical work has been a big part of my family's experience.
More than this. The principle that in giving, we also receive, and that we have much to learn from those with whom we differ culturally, socially, economically, religiously, whatever it may be. That principle is one that has shaped my own experience of church ministry in various parts of the world, and indeed in the multicultural context of Leicester, where I now serve. And indeed, I've written about my learning on gift exchange in different contexts.
So there's a lot that I could say on the benefits of UK based healthcare workers spending time working in low and middle income countries. The benefits to our own NHS. A quick list could include increased awareness and knowledge about cultural differences and similarities. Increased cultural sensitivity so important to the NHS today. The ability to work with limited resources again critical for the NHS today, the ability to deal with unexpected and to work towards solutions.
Improved flexibility, adaptability, the ability to innovate when overcoming challenges. The list goes on and on. And importantly, these are skills and attitudes which are hard to pass on in classroom settings, even in familiar clinical contexts. It's working overseas. There's a particular learning experience which really does have a lifelong impact. However, I also want to speak of something which I believe is a major barrier to health care partnerships, particularly where lower income countries are concerned.
That is the attitude that we know best and have nothing to learn from these countries. As one chief executive is recalled to have said in a report by NHS England, what on earth are we going to learn from these poor countries? This air of superiority because of our technical, technological advances in this country, we are also culturally superior, was, of course, core to colonialism and sadly is still present today. We have it in the church.
We see it in academic studies. We see it in so many other areas. There is therefore a need for developing what I call cultural humility, an approach to interacting with people of other cultures, which says we always have something to learn. This is linked to Lord Crisp's concept of reverse innovation, whereby higher income countries learn from and adapt practices that are developed in lower income counterparts. Kangaroo care in neonatal units is one example or oral rehydration sachets.
Another. But the lack of cultural humility is also, I suggest, a factor which explains why UK healthcare professionals working in other countries do not always have the impact locally that they would wish for. People can sense whether we have a genuine desire to serve them, or whether we are simply in it for our own gain. So good partnership working requires cultural humility. Both the willingness of the individual to learn from the other, the willingness of the other to receive the gift that is being offered to them.
In other words, it is a form of gift exchange. There's a whole body of literature, as I say, on that. I would therefore like to ask the minister, what's the Fcdo? And the Department for Health and Social Care are doing both to encourage genuine partnerships with overseas healthcare bodies, and to equip staff to work well within these partnerships. It is not simply a case of having formal partnership agreements.
The important though that is. But there is also the need for training and development of staff to work well within these partnerships. So, for instance, I'm struck that my wife, working now in the NHS, has protected time for teaching and learning, for quality improvement, for clinical governance. These are all recognised as statutory requirements, but it's much rarer for any NHS employee to have protected time to support global health. This means it has to be done in evenings, weekends or during annual leave, thereby restricting it as an option for many, particularly those with caring responsibilities.
And perhaps most surprising of all, there's very little recognition of those who have spent time working in other countries. Indeed, research with some of those who volunteered abroad found that because it means deviating from the typical training pathway, it is sometimes considered career suicide. Some returning healthcare professionals report difficulties with professional revalidation or securing permanent employment on return, because more generally, they lack experience in this country. This could be addressed by, as participants in the NHS England report mentioned having national bodies like the DHS or NHS England recognise the benefits of global health partnerships and encourage executive buy in.
If this were more common across the NHS. Indeed, if every trust had an enduring partnership with a hospital overseas, then the two way positive impact would be greatly magnified and the obstacles which some individual volunteers face done away with. Finally, just before the matter of costs is raised as a possible barrier, let's remember that by recruiting healthcare workers from overseas, the NHS has, it is estimated, saved 14 billion in training costs.
That saving should surely come with a responsibility to offset the loss to these countries own healthcare systems.
My son has just graduated and started his first job as a doctor in Derby. So earlier this year he did his medical elective in East Africa, and because he studied at the University of Newcastle, he was able to do the whole of his second year at Newcastle's campus in Malaysia, an advantage which he didn't know about when he applied to that university. So in a number of ways, cross-cultural medical work has been a big part of my family's experience.
More than this. The principle that in giving, we also receive, and that we have much to learn from those with whom we differ culturally, socially, economically, religiously, whatever it may be. That principle is one that has shaped my own experience of church ministry in various parts of the world, and indeed in the multicultural context of Leicester, where I now serve. And indeed, I've written about my learning on gift exchange in different contexts.
So there's a lot that I could say on the benefits of UK based healthcare workers spending time working in low and middle income countries. The benefits to our own NHS. A quick list could include increased awareness and knowledge about cultural differences and similarities. Increased cultural sensitivity so important to the NHS today. The ability to work with limited resources again critical for the NHS today, the ability to deal with unexpected and to work towards solutions.
Improved flexibility, adaptability, the ability to innovate when overcoming challenges. The list goes on and on. And importantly, these are skills and attitudes which are hard to pass on in classroom settings, even in familiar clinical contexts. It's working overseas. There's a particular learning experience which really does have a lifelong impact. However, I also want to speak of something which I believe is a major barrier to health care partnerships, particularly where lower income countries are concerned.
That is the attitude that we know best and have nothing to learn from these countries. As one chief executive is recalled to have said in a report by NHS England, what on earth are we going to learn from these poor countries? This air of superiority because of our technical, technological advances in this country, we are also culturally superior, was, of course, core to colonialism and sadly is still present today. We have it in the church.
We see it in academic studies. We see it in so many other areas. There is therefore a need for developing what I call cultural humility, an approach to interacting with people of other cultures, which says we always have something to learn. This is linked to Lord Crisp's concept of reverse innovation, whereby higher income countries learn from and adapt practices that are developed in lower income counterparts. Kangaroo care in neonatal units is one example or oral rehydration sachets.
Another. But the lack of cultural humility is also, I suggest, a factor which explains why UK healthcare professionals working in other countries do not always have the impact locally that they would wish for. People can sense whether we have a genuine desire to serve them, or whether we are simply in it for our own gain. So good partnership working requires cultural humility. Both the willingness of the individual to learn from the other, the willingness of the other to receive the gift that is being offered to them.
In other words, it is a form of gift exchange. There's a whole body of literature, as I say, on that. I would therefore like to ask the minister, what's the Fcdo? And the Department for Health and Social Care are doing both to encourage genuine partnerships with overseas healthcare bodies, and to equip staff to work well within these partnerships. It is not simply a case of having formal partnership agreements.
The important though that is. But there is also the need for training and development of staff to work well within these partnerships. So, for instance, I'm struck that my wife, working now in the NHS, has protected time for teaching and learning, for quality improvement, for clinical governance. These are all recognised as statutory requirements, but it's much rarer for any NHS employee to have protected time to support global health. This means it has to be done in evenings, weekends or during annual leave, thereby restricting it as an option for many, particularly those with caring responsibilities.
And perhaps most surprising of all, there's very little recognition of those who have spent time working in other countries. Indeed, research with some of those who volunteered abroad found that because it means deviating from the typical training pathway, it is sometimes considered career suicide. Some returning healthcare professionals report difficulties with professional revalidation or securing permanent employment on return, because more generally, they lack experience in this country. This could be addressed by, as participants in the NHS England report mentioned having national bodies like the DHS or NHS England recognise the benefits of global health partnerships and encourage executive buy in.
If this were more common across the NHS. Indeed, if every trust had an enduring partnership with a hospital overseas, then the two way positive impact would be greatly magnified and the obstacles which some individual volunteers face done away with. Finally, just before the matter of costs is raised as a possible barrier, let's remember that by recruiting healthcare workers from overseas, the NHS has, it is estimated, saved 14 billion in training costs.
That saving should surely come with a responsibility to offset the loss to these countries own healthcare systems.
15:30
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My Lords, I too want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chris, for securing this debate. Lord crisp has made a unique contribution in this area and characteristically, he has situated this today in a very strategically in terms of what we can do in terms of developing partnership. And he has given a powerful account of the benefits of partnership, working in health and how these support the development of healthcare in those countries. These partnerships, my Lords, embody the government's new approach to development, as stated by the new Secretary of State for health, from Paternalism to Partnership.
As we heard from Lord crisp, these arrangements are highly cost effective. Give national health staff insights that improve clinical practice, leadership and efficiency. They are equitable, country led, in which UK and overseas health services can invest, learn and mutually benefit. And he also mentioned the question of values of the National Health Service, which I think are extremely important. Partnership working was introduced in 2008 and now, nearly two decades on, there is an opportunity to breathe new life into this approach.
This means moving away from voluntary arrangements to some formal partnerships, supported by predictable and multiyear funding, and obviously looking at them much more strategically as well. Renewed investment in global health partnership following the recent cuts would not only enable the government to reinforce their commitment to partnerships, but will also be mutually beneficial for UK and other countries. My Lords, such partnerships can be further enhanced if we take a different approach to international recruitment of health workforce.
In this context, I want to draw attention of the House to the report published in March, Lord Chris referenced, which was published by the all party parliamentary Group on Global Health and Security, entitled An Honest Account Benefits and Costs of International Health Worker Recruitment. This report was prepared by the Global Health Partnerships, an organisation which had been mentioned but acts as a secretariat for the Appg and has done some excellent work to promote health partnerships.
Lord crisp and I will, of course, members of this inquiry. So we both declare an interest as members of this particular inquiry. This report argued that international recruitment will remain a necessary component of the National Health Service workforce for the foreseeable future, and it would neither be responsible nor fair to continue with ad hoc recruitment, which in the long run, I think is detrimental to the sending sending countries and often not fair to those individuals who are recruited.
Source countries often lose health workers faster than they can replace them. These include countries like Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe who are currently on the red list, which means that no recruitment from these countries should take place. Evidence from Kenya and Uganda captured in this report describes the loss of doctors, nurses, clinical educators with serious consequences for patients and overstretched health services. This has become such an important issue that w H O's guidelines were updated this year for the first time in 16 years, adding an expectation that countries recruiting from abroad also invest back in health systems that they recruit from.
The report proposed recruitment through deliberate partnerships that deliver mutual benefit, strengthen systems globally, an approach which is both responsible, ethical and in our self-interest. International recruitment is a structural feature of the National Health Service, and the report estimated, as has already been said, that over the years, the UK has saved approximately 14 billion in training costs. The inquiry concluded that UK must move from reliance on massive overseas recruitment to more structured and responsible approach.
My Lords, as I said before, international recruitment will continue in the short to medium term. Reducing dependence on overseas recruitment, as proposed in the ten year plan, will take time, and recruitment from overseas in the short and medium term will remain a necessity. This report recommended replacing the ad hoc recruitment drives with transparent government to government partnerships aligned with national health workforce plans and priorities. An approach with this approach would align self-interest and practical gain for both parties , and a connected, responsible global health force will strengthen us, support partner countries and enhance global health security.
An issue which is high on the government's agenda because. Minister McNeil, in a speech on 14th September, named health as one of the five securities that will define UK's approach to its G20 and G7 presidencies. My Lords, the logic of the argument advances. This report is compelling and deserves serious consideration. Today, the government have not responded to this report, but I think this report carries serious consideration both here and in the international fora, such as the Commonwealth and the upcoming G20 presidency next year.
I would urge the government to discuss the recommendations of this report with the members of the inquiry and its authors. Furthermore, the government should demonstrate global leadership by putting this issue on the agenda of the forthcoming G20 meeting in 2027. The health worker mobility is exactly the kind of cross-border risk sharing issue that G20, G20 under the UK's leadership should be addressing. Global partnership The Global Health Partnership, the organisation which supported this publication, organised the health summit each year.
This summit in 2027 will be a suitable vehicle for promoting these partnerships. I attended this this summit this year and can speak from experience about the value and its impact. So I remain hopeful that the government will take serious consideration to health partnerships highlighted in the debate this afternoon, and I look forward to a very positive response from the global North. The minister. My Lord, it's a great honour and privilege to.
As we heard from Lord crisp, these arrangements are highly cost effective. Give national health staff insights that improve clinical practice, leadership and efficiency. They are equitable, country led, in which UK and overseas health services can invest, learn and mutually benefit. And he also mentioned the question of values of the National Health Service, which I think are extremely important. Partnership working was introduced in 2008 and now, nearly two decades on, there is an opportunity to breathe new life into this approach.
This means moving away from voluntary arrangements to some formal partnerships, supported by predictable and multiyear funding, and obviously looking at them much more strategically as well. Renewed investment in global health partnership following the recent cuts would not only enable the government to reinforce their commitment to partnerships, but will also be mutually beneficial for UK and other countries. My Lords, such partnerships can be further enhanced if we take a different approach to international recruitment of health workforce.
In this context, I want to draw attention of the House to the report published in March, Lord Chris referenced, which was published by the all party parliamentary Group on Global Health and Security, entitled An Honest Account Benefits and Costs of International Health Worker Recruitment. This report was prepared by the Global Health Partnerships, an organisation which had been mentioned but acts as a secretariat for the Appg and has done some excellent work to promote health partnerships.
Lord crisp and I will, of course, members of this inquiry. So we both declare an interest as members of this particular inquiry. This report argued that international recruitment will remain a necessary component of the National Health Service workforce for the foreseeable future, and it would neither be responsible nor fair to continue with ad hoc recruitment, which in the long run, I think is detrimental to the sending sending countries and often not fair to those individuals who are recruited.
Source countries often lose health workers faster than they can replace them. These include countries like Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe who are currently on the red list, which means that no recruitment from these countries should take place. Evidence from Kenya and Uganda captured in this report describes the loss of doctors, nurses, clinical educators with serious consequences for patients and overstretched health services. This has become such an important issue that w H O's guidelines were updated this year for the first time in 16 years, adding an expectation that countries recruiting from abroad also invest back in health systems that they recruit from.
The report proposed recruitment through deliberate partnerships that deliver mutual benefit, strengthen systems globally, an approach which is both responsible, ethical and in our self-interest. International recruitment is a structural feature of the National Health Service, and the report estimated, as has already been said, that over the years, the UK has saved approximately 14 billion in training costs. The inquiry concluded that UK must move from reliance on massive overseas recruitment to more structured and responsible approach.
My Lords, as I said before, international recruitment will continue in the short to medium term. Reducing dependence on overseas recruitment, as proposed in the ten year plan, will take time, and recruitment from overseas in the short and medium term will remain a necessity. This report recommended replacing the ad hoc recruitment drives with transparent government to government partnerships aligned with national health workforce plans and priorities. An approach with this approach would align self-interest and practical gain for both parties , and a connected, responsible global health force will strengthen us, support partner countries and enhance global health security.
An issue which is high on the government's agenda because. Minister McNeil, in a speech on 14th September, named health as one of the five securities that will define UK's approach to its G20 and G7 presidencies. My Lords, the logic of the argument advances. This report is compelling and deserves serious consideration. Today, the government have not responded to this report, but I think this report carries serious consideration both here and in the international fora, such as the Commonwealth and the upcoming G20 presidency next year.
I would urge the government to discuss the recommendations of this report with the members of the inquiry and its authors. Furthermore, the government should demonstrate global leadership by putting this issue on the agenda of the forthcoming G20 meeting in 2027. The health worker mobility is exactly the kind of cross-border risk sharing issue that G20, G20 under the UK's leadership should be addressing. Global partnership The Global Health Partnership, the organisation which supported this publication, organised the health summit each year.
This summit in 2027 will be a suitable vehicle for promoting these partnerships. I attended this this summit this year and can speak from experience about the value and its impact. So I remain hopeful that the government will take serious consideration to health partnerships highlighted in the debate this afternoon, and I look forward to a very positive response from the global North. The minister. My Lord, it's a great honour and privilege to.
15:36
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Follow a noble Baroness and a friend, Baroness Prussia, and also prelate, Bishop of Leicester. May I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chris, for security , securing this debate for and for the briefing he so generously shared with all of us. Who is taking part? Noble Lords, a long standing record on global health and international partnership, reminds us that our commitment to international development is beyond significant. And finance.
Sorry, beyond the significance of finance, it is about cooperation between people, institutions and nations. A partnership capable of building sustainable capacity and strengthening development system at country level. A number of noble lords recently yesterday, in fact, listened to the Right Honourable Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda. It was a clear from that conversation that many African nations continue to value Britain's partnership in economic development, education, health, research, technology and defence.
But we must also acknowledge honestly that our bilateral relationship across Africa and Global South have historically included approach too often defined externally. Development assistance has rightly supported vaccination, literacy, maternal health and other services, but these relationships also have existed alongside defence cooperation cloaked historically as international development assistance. And of course, the extraction of valuable natural resources, sometimes without sufficient attention to the priorities and aspirations of local people. Today, we face an increasingly more complex environment.
Wars, conflicts, infectious diseases, including Ebola. It's on our. On our daily view. Dengue. Malaria continues to threaten communities. Famine, hunger. Sorry. Communities and. And famine and hunger remain realities for many millions. At the same time, international development funding is under extraordinary pressure. With the reduction of US and the changes in the UK's own defence priorities.
The consequences with receding resources mean fewer health services, less support for women and children. That communities have come to rely upon for decades. In these circumstances, we do need a collaborative response. I would welcome the development of a stronger coalition between international funding agencies, national government, respected local organisations and experts. Such cooperation would pull scarce resources and help donor organisations design services more effectively, reduce duplication and improve service delivery for the people who understand local circumstances.
At the heart of determining priorities , that includes women, UK has honourable tradition of supporting women's organisations across the world. Yet societies afflicted with conflict, displacement, economic instability, women's voices and influence are often diminish precisely when they are needed most. So I ask the government, in the face of these existing and emerging crises, how do we intend to ensure that the basic needs of vulnerable women and children in Africa and Asia are reflected in the way development programmes are planned, designed and delivered? My Lord, I seriously question whether women themselves would prioritise defensive military training within the framework of international development over feeding their children, educating them, securing securing clean water, accessing healthcare and ensuring safety of themselves and their families.
And the UK modern approach to development is much welcome. Recognising the importance of local leadership in defining country priorities. But the principle must be lived in practice. We need to ask what happens to well-established programmes when international NGOs are withdrawing offices because of funding cuts? Have we done enough over the years and decades to ensure that locally created organisations and solutions have the capacity, resources and confidence to respond when international support diminishes? I sincerely hope that we will not sacrifice good work that is already underway, but nevertheless, Britain remains significant.
Strength and influence our universities, our financial institutions, the NHS. As has been mentioned, research and technology, technological capabilities and our strong civil societies have all contributed to relationship and cooperation built over a generation. These are assets which readily enable Britain to remain trusted international partners with humility as well as expertise. I recognise that practice can sometimes fall short of the principles we espouse, and we must remain vigilant and willing to improve at all times.
I say this having visited UK supported programmes and spoken to Rohingya women in Bangladesh who had experienced rape and torture and ethnic cleansing with Syrian women in Lebanon and elsewhere, and Sudanese women facing equally devastating circumstances. It is impossible to overstate the hopelessness. Such experience of such experience, of how far removed women are from the decisions made about development assistance that directly affect their lives. We should therefore be cautious about imposing burdensome condition, which, however well-intentioned, can unintentionally undermine the well-being and dignity of the very people the programmes are intended to support.
At the same time, we must keep in mind legitimate expectation, of course, of British taxpayer that public money is properly governed and accountable. Transparency, therefore, should not become disconnected from upholding humanity. We need a balanced approach which recognises the realities of people who have endured extreme hardship, lost homes, livelihoods, being deprived of basic choices and in many cases fled unimaginable violence. In the current financial environment, this is undoubtedly a difficult balance for all countries and governments who are managing competing demands.
While families locally in the in our own nation expecting the pressures bearing the cost of living crisis. This is precisely why locally led solutions can be sustainable, responsive and more cost neutral, particularly when we place women as partners at the heart of development decisions. Women's organisations across Africa and the Global South possess practical experiences in all the areas that development assistance is intended to address, and same similar principle applies to young people as usual.
I have written far too much, but I do want to say that I'm encouraged to see the shift in the government approach towards Africa, which places greater emphasis on mutual respect and long term relationship encompassing trade, investment, education. I believe that that approach can inspire a new generation of young women and men to see Britain not as donors but partners, and also build help build towards a better international development space and a more balanced and equitable world.
Sorry, beyond the significance of finance, it is about cooperation between people, institutions and nations. A partnership capable of building sustainable capacity and strengthening development system at country level. A number of noble lords recently yesterday, in fact, listened to the Right Honourable Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda. It was a clear from that conversation that many African nations continue to value Britain's partnership in economic development, education, health, research, technology and defence.
But we must also acknowledge honestly that our bilateral relationship across Africa and Global South have historically included approach too often defined externally. Development assistance has rightly supported vaccination, literacy, maternal health and other services, but these relationships also have existed alongside defence cooperation cloaked historically as international development assistance. And of course, the extraction of valuable natural resources, sometimes without sufficient attention to the priorities and aspirations of local people. Today, we face an increasingly more complex environment.
Wars, conflicts, infectious diseases, including Ebola. It's on our. On our daily view. Dengue. Malaria continues to threaten communities. Famine, hunger. Sorry. Communities and. And famine and hunger remain realities for many millions. At the same time, international development funding is under extraordinary pressure. With the reduction of US and the changes in the UK's own defence priorities.
The consequences with receding resources mean fewer health services, less support for women and children. That communities have come to rely upon for decades. In these circumstances, we do need a collaborative response. I would welcome the development of a stronger coalition between international funding agencies, national government, respected local organisations and experts. Such cooperation would pull scarce resources and help donor organisations design services more effectively, reduce duplication and improve service delivery for the people who understand local circumstances.
At the heart of determining priorities , that includes women, UK has honourable tradition of supporting women's organisations across the world. Yet societies afflicted with conflict, displacement, economic instability, women's voices and influence are often diminish precisely when they are needed most. So I ask the government, in the face of these existing and emerging crises, how do we intend to ensure that the basic needs of vulnerable women and children in Africa and Asia are reflected in the way development programmes are planned, designed and delivered? My Lord, I seriously question whether women themselves would prioritise defensive military training within the framework of international development over feeding their children, educating them, securing securing clean water, accessing healthcare and ensuring safety of themselves and their families.
And the UK modern approach to development is much welcome. Recognising the importance of local leadership in defining country priorities. But the principle must be lived in practice. We need to ask what happens to well-established programmes when international NGOs are withdrawing offices because of funding cuts? Have we done enough over the years and decades to ensure that locally created organisations and solutions have the capacity, resources and confidence to respond when international support diminishes? I sincerely hope that we will not sacrifice good work that is already underway, but nevertheless, Britain remains significant.
Strength and influence our universities, our financial institutions, the NHS. As has been mentioned, research and technology, technological capabilities and our strong civil societies have all contributed to relationship and cooperation built over a generation. These are assets which readily enable Britain to remain trusted international partners with humility as well as expertise. I recognise that practice can sometimes fall short of the principles we espouse, and we must remain vigilant and willing to improve at all times.
I say this having visited UK supported programmes and spoken to Rohingya women in Bangladesh who had experienced rape and torture and ethnic cleansing with Syrian women in Lebanon and elsewhere, and Sudanese women facing equally devastating circumstances. It is impossible to overstate the hopelessness. Such experience of such experience, of how far removed women are from the decisions made about development assistance that directly affect their lives. We should therefore be cautious about imposing burdensome condition, which, however well-intentioned, can unintentionally undermine the well-being and dignity of the very people the programmes are intended to support.
At the same time, we must keep in mind legitimate expectation, of course, of British taxpayer that public money is properly governed and accountable. Transparency, therefore, should not become disconnected from upholding humanity. We need a balanced approach which recognises the realities of people who have endured extreme hardship, lost homes, livelihoods, being deprived of basic choices and in many cases fled unimaginable violence. In the current financial environment, this is undoubtedly a difficult balance for all countries and governments who are managing competing demands.
While families locally in the in our own nation expecting the pressures bearing the cost of living crisis. This is precisely why locally led solutions can be sustainable, responsive and more cost neutral, particularly when we place women as partners at the heart of development decisions. Women's organisations across Africa and the Global South possess practical experiences in all the areas that development assistance is intended to address, and same similar principle applies to young people as usual.
I have written far too much, but I do want to say that I'm encouraged to see the shift in the government approach towards Africa, which places greater emphasis on mutual respect and long term relationship encompassing trade, investment, education. I believe that that approach can inspire a new generation of young women and men to see Britain not as donors but partners, and also build help build towards a better international development space and a more balanced and equitable world.
15:44
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord crisp, for securing this debate and for his long standing leadership in global health. And I also pay tribute to the work of the global health partners who have had the opportunity to work with in the past. This is the first time I've taken part in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord wood, since he's become a minister, so I welcome him to his ministerial position, and I congratulate the Prime Minister on making such an excellent appointment.
My Lords, I've spoken in previous debates about the experience I've had early in my career teaching in a rural school in Zimbabwe, and later working for a few years in South Africa. And what I hope the contribution that I made in those roles was valuable to those communities in which I worked. What I know is it was absolutely priceless to me. I learned about living in a resource constrained environment, about the ingenuity and commitment of the community, about the perspectives of people with very different life experience, experiences, and cultural backgrounds from me.
Those experiences shaped my life. They taught me how much we have to gain when we're prepared to listen and to learn. And that's why this afternoon, I want to speak in particular about the contribution of the NHS England Global Health Volunteer Programme, or G, which puts that principle into practice. And I want to make what seems to me to be the overwhelming case for continuing the modest financial support that enables the scheme to operate, allowing doctors from the UK to contribute overseas and to bring valuable skills home.
The G eight deploys doctors for 4 to 6 months in health facilities in a number of low and middle income countries, including Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe, and these doctors are paid a small stipend to cover travel and living expenses. Over 450 have been deployed to date, making a significant contribution to the communities they have served, but also gaining new skills and experiences to the benefit of our National Health Service.
An independent evaluation of the programme by Hughes Hall, Cambridge, found that 94% of fellows responding reported improved clinical skills and 92% reported better problem solving and decision making. One doctor described returning to British general practice calmer, more confident and more aware of how poverty shapes patients health. Working with diagnostics had sharpened his skills of observation, examination and clinical judgement. Another explained how they had managed presentations they had little or no prior experience of including trauma burns and snake bites.
Building confidence and a practical skill set they wouldn't have developed in the UK. Another described learning from highly skilled South African doctors and incorporating those skills directly into NHS practice. These are benefits that they can provide to the new, to the NHS and for their patients throughout their careers. Secondly, the programme encourages more thoughtful use of resources. Doctors described learning to weigh decisions, carefully, adapt to constraints and avoid waste.
And Oxford Radiology registrar, who worked at George Hospital in the Western Cape in South Africa, explained how the experience better equipped him to allocate limited resources to avoid waste and to appreciate the resources that were available in the National Health Service. Thirdly, there's the benefit to morale and retention. One participant described rediscovering the joy of practicing medicine and the evaluation records testimony that the program can help retain GP trainees and renew their commitment.
We invest heavily in training doctors, helping them remain motivated and committed to NHS, a practice that should be part of protecting that investment. The benefits to the partner hospitals were also clear. At Mitchells Plain, a highly deprived community outside Cape Town, Fellows are described as integral members of the emergency team and both fellows and local medical staff reported learning from each other at George Hospital.
The partnership has helped sustain patient care while developing future healthcare leaders and the Chamber Foundation, which supports volunteers at Tintswalo Hospital and surrounding rural clinics in northeastern South Africa, describes the Global Health Volunteer program as invaluable and explains why continuity matters so much. A regular flow of fellows allows it to plan. Finally, there is the benefit of the personal relationships that are built and which contribute to the kind of personal diplomacy which is really important in the UK's relationships abroad.
I know myself from the time I spent working in South Africa, I built and in Zimbabwe I built enduring relationships which remain to this day. And lots of those personal relationships contribute to how the UK is seen. Despite all these benefits, there is deep concern that the programme may be discontinued. I very much hope this will be reconsidered. Ministers should consider what would be lost training opportunities, clinical contributions and relationships built for years of cooperation.
So I wonder if the minister can tell us what the government's position is in this regard, and explain how the benefits to NHS training and partner hospitals is being assessed. My Lords, I understand the pressures on resources, but we are talking here about very modest funding. A small stipend can make possible months of service and learning with benefits that last well beyond placement. We should have the judgment to recognise that value and the commitment to sustain it.
Okay.
My Lords, I've spoken in previous debates about the experience I've had early in my career teaching in a rural school in Zimbabwe, and later working for a few years in South Africa. And what I hope the contribution that I made in those roles was valuable to those communities in which I worked. What I know is it was absolutely priceless to me. I learned about living in a resource constrained environment, about the ingenuity and commitment of the community, about the perspectives of people with very different life experience, experiences, and cultural backgrounds from me.
Those experiences shaped my life. They taught me how much we have to gain when we're prepared to listen and to learn. And that's why this afternoon, I want to speak in particular about the contribution of the NHS England Global Health Volunteer Programme, or G, which puts that principle into practice. And I want to make what seems to me to be the overwhelming case for continuing the modest financial support that enables the scheme to operate, allowing doctors from the UK to contribute overseas and to bring valuable skills home.
The G eight deploys doctors for 4 to 6 months in health facilities in a number of low and middle income countries, including Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe, and these doctors are paid a small stipend to cover travel and living expenses. Over 450 have been deployed to date, making a significant contribution to the communities they have served, but also gaining new skills and experiences to the benefit of our National Health Service.
An independent evaluation of the programme by Hughes Hall, Cambridge, found that 94% of fellows responding reported improved clinical skills and 92% reported better problem solving and decision making. One doctor described returning to British general practice calmer, more confident and more aware of how poverty shapes patients health. Working with diagnostics had sharpened his skills of observation, examination and clinical judgement. Another explained how they had managed presentations they had little or no prior experience of including trauma burns and snake bites.
Building confidence and a practical skill set they wouldn't have developed in the UK. Another described learning from highly skilled South African doctors and incorporating those skills directly into NHS practice. These are benefits that they can provide to the new, to the NHS and for their patients throughout their careers. Secondly, the programme encourages more thoughtful use of resources. Doctors described learning to weigh decisions, carefully, adapt to constraints and avoid waste.
And Oxford Radiology registrar, who worked at George Hospital in the Western Cape in South Africa, explained how the experience better equipped him to allocate limited resources to avoid waste and to appreciate the resources that were available in the National Health Service. Thirdly, there's the benefit to morale and retention. One participant described rediscovering the joy of practicing medicine and the evaluation records testimony that the program can help retain GP trainees and renew their commitment.
We invest heavily in training doctors, helping them remain motivated and committed to NHS, a practice that should be part of protecting that investment. The benefits to the partner hospitals were also clear. At Mitchells Plain, a highly deprived community outside Cape Town, Fellows are described as integral members of the emergency team and both fellows and local medical staff reported learning from each other at George Hospital.
The partnership has helped sustain patient care while developing future healthcare leaders and the Chamber Foundation, which supports volunteers at Tintswalo Hospital and surrounding rural clinics in northeastern South Africa, describes the Global Health Volunteer program as invaluable and explains why continuity matters so much. A regular flow of fellows allows it to plan. Finally, there is the benefit of the personal relationships that are built and which contribute to the kind of personal diplomacy which is really important in the UK's relationships abroad.
I know myself from the time I spent working in South Africa, I built and in Zimbabwe I built enduring relationships which remain to this day. And lots of those personal relationships contribute to how the UK is seen. Despite all these benefits, there is deep concern that the programme may be discontinued. I very much hope this will be reconsidered. Ministers should consider what would be lost training opportunities, clinical contributions and relationships built for years of cooperation.
So I wonder if the minister can tell us what the government's position is in this regard, and explain how the benefits to NHS training and partner hospitals is being assessed. My Lords, I understand the pressures on resources, but we are talking here about very modest funding. A small stipend can make possible months of service and learning with benefits that last well beyond placement. We should have the judgment to recognise that value and the commitment to sustain it.
Okay.
16:07
16:07
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
like to join with other noble lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord crisp, for securing this important debate on what the NHS can learn from partnerships with hospitals in Africa and Asia. It was particularly interesting to hear his description description of the situation in Myanmar, and I learnt much from what noble Lords speech. I should also declare an interest to the right Reverend prelate. My daughter did her.
Alekseyev in Kerala, in India, and also spent a year at the. That was after. After the pandemic, spent a year working at the teaching at the Warwick Med School. But. And so she was only too aware of the importance of how British doctors, people living in England, can actually go and help and teach people coming from overseas, which, of course, there's much evidence of that at Warwick Medical.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord crisp said, we are a leader in this field. Partnerships between the NHS and healthcare providers abroad have been recognised as mutually beneficial by successive governments. Under the coalition government, healthcare UK was launched as a joint initiative between the Department of Health and NHS board and UK Trade and Investment to increase the profile of UK expertise in healthcare and trade in healthcare, goods and products overseas.
Indeed, successive conservative led governments provided funding for the Gavi vaccine Alliance, my Lords. Governments have also signed agreements on healthcare with India and Kenya, and the last government published the two year global Health framework in 2023. All this work has helped to strengthen the UK's reputation internationally as a global leader in healthcare. That is a reputation that has been hard won, and we will support where it seeks to improve healthcare provided through the NHS, and we will work with ministers to deliver these improved outcomes.
The. This is slightly outside the noble Lord, the Minister's brief. But for these arrangements and partnerships to work, we need a functioning NHS. Unfortunately, as all noble Lords will be aware, the NHS has too often been brought to a standstill by industrial action, with patients bearing the costs. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, briefly say what minister is doing to protect patients from damaging effects of strike action in the future? But turning back to the issue of partnerships between the NHS and healthcare services internationally, can the noble Lord Minister say what particular efforts are being made to engage with healthcare providers in Africa in light of the ongoing Ebola outbreak? I think it would be useful for the committee to hear what the noble Lord, the minister, can say on this issue.
I was also particularly interested to hear the reports from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, of his time in South Africa and Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. I beg your pardon. I do apologise, Committee. Yes, sir. The. The fact is that the partnerships help so much with places where they are coming under so much undue suffering. And it was interesting to hear his connections there.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chris, for bringing this debate forward, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Alekseyev in Kerala, in India, and also spent a year at the. That was after. After the pandemic, spent a year working at the teaching at the Warwick Med School. But. And so she was only too aware of the importance of how British doctors, people living in England, can actually go and help and teach people coming from overseas, which, of course, there's much evidence of that at Warwick Medical.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord crisp said, we are a leader in this field. Partnerships between the NHS and healthcare providers abroad have been recognised as mutually beneficial by successive governments. Under the coalition government, healthcare UK was launched as a joint initiative between the Department of Health and NHS board and UK Trade and Investment to increase the profile of UK expertise in healthcare and trade in healthcare, goods and products overseas.
Indeed, successive conservative led governments provided funding for the Gavi vaccine Alliance, my Lords. Governments have also signed agreements on healthcare with India and Kenya, and the last government published the two year global Health framework in 2023. All this work has helped to strengthen the UK's reputation internationally as a global leader in healthcare. That is a reputation that has been hard won, and we will support where it seeks to improve healthcare provided through the NHS, and we will work with ministers to deliver these improved outcomes.
The. This is slightly outside the noble Lord, the Minister's brief. But for these arrangements and partnerships to work, we need a functioning NHS. Unfortunately, as all noble Lords will be aware, the NHS has too often been brought to a standstill by industrial action, with patients bearing the costs. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, briefly say what minister is doing to protect patients from damaging effects of strike action in the future? But turning back to the issue of partnerships between the NHS and healthcare services internationally, can the noble Lord Minister say what particular efforts are being made to engage with healthcare providers in Africa in light of the ongoing Ebola outbreak? I think it would be useful for the committee to hear what the noble Lord, the minister, can say on this issue.
I was also particularly interested to hear the reports from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, of his time in South Africa and Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. I beg your pardon. I do apologise, Committee. Yes, sir. The. The fact is that the partnerships help so much with places where they are coming under so much undue suffering. And it was interesting to hear his connections there.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chris, for bringing this debate forward, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
16:08
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Well, thank you to the noble Lords. My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chris as well for securing this debate, and I want to pay tribute to his work to strengthen global health partnerships, champion collaboration and his role as patron of the Global Health Partnerships. I'll come back to his Myanmar example later on. I also want to echo his words on how our health sector is world leading with extraordinary reach, I think, and that's at the foundation of the development partnerships that we.
And to go back to the noble Lord Court Town's point, not just we, but the previous government also pursued with such principle and with such vigour. I want to pay tribute to them as well. I want to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. So many of you have had such valuable experience in the health. In the area of health partnerships . Experience I have not had. The right. Reverend prelate, Bishop of Leicester.
Good luck to your son. Thank you for your story about his experience. Our approach to development itself is having to modernize as as noble Lord know, with the aim of having a greater impact abroad and achieving better value for money at home. It's not an easy combination. It's based on four shifts from donor to investor, from service delivery to system strengthening. And I take very much the point made by noble lady Baroness Uddin about sustainable development of new systems, rather than just transitory ones, being crucial, from grants to expertise and a shift from international intervention to local leadership.
In health. This means an approach increasingly rooted in partnership, listening to countries responding to their priorities, combining UK expertise with local knowledge, building relationships based on mutual benefit. As we've heard today from various experiences, to strengthen health systems, to build sustainable capability, to support locally led approaches. And I want to pay to refer again to the right Reverend prelate, Bishop of Leicester's point about the gift relationship. I to Richard Titmuss fan , and his point about cultural humility, that the direction of knowledge transfer is not just one way.
And I thought the noble Lord, Lord spoke very movingly about how it changed his life and. And I'll come back to the program that noble Lord talked about in a minute. So unless exceptional circumstances or a crisis require a different approach, we see our role to deliver, not to deliver services on behalf of others, but to work alongside partners to strengthen their own institutions, capabilities and systems. So to support this, the Foreign Office has established a community of expertise for health, which brings together expertise from across the UK and around the world and makes it available to our international network.
Its purpose is to help partner countries strengthen their health systems, improve health security and deliver better health outcomes, particularly for women and girls. Another point that Baroness Uddin rightly highlighted as an often neglected dimension of development work. A fundamental principle of this of this community is that it is demand led. It is not donor driven. Which brings me to the question we are discussing today. And to answer the noble Lord, Lord, directly, what are we doing? We support healthcare development by working with governments, health ministries and local organizations.
We focus on the priorities that countries have identified for themselves rather than imposing our own. And we also focus on areas where the UK has expertise to offer while drawing on local knowledge. Now, of course, there are occasions where more direct support is required, and one such example is the current Ebola outbreak, which the noble Lord asked me to comment on and what. After endorsement of a new. Excuse me. Sorry.
The outbreak on the 15th of May has been declared an Ebola outbreak, the 17th outbreak of Ebola. We're allocating up to, I think, just under 80 million to support an Africa led response. And we're helping the W.H.O., the United Nations and NGO partners strengthen surveillance, support frontline workers, improve infection prevention and control, and support access to life saving care. And I want to thank all those who are taking part in the collective effort to respond to this crisis as we speak, the UK was among the first international partners to commit funding to.
The Africa led response is providing up to £80 million through the W.H.O., Africa CDC and the United Nations. But together we are helping to strengthen surveillance, support frontline workers, improve infection prevention and control, accelerate access to vaccines, treatments and diagnostics. In all our activities, we are working through a range of partnerships and through partnerships at home with the NHS, universities and professional bodies. We've supported health system partnerships in countries including Ghana, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines, Tanzania and Zimbabwe which draw on UK expertise, including from NHS England, and create opportunities for health professionals to improve their quality of care and their experiences as well.
And we've heard today many examples of successful partnerships supported by this government and the previous government. Now the noble Lord, Lord Oates, discussed the Global Health Fellowship volunteer programme with some. Again, I thought quite moving examples. In fact, I thought, responding to some of the challenges that the right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, put about how to embed training in specific contexts rather than just expect skills to be transferred without bespoke training.
I want to thank the doctors who take part in that, who provide their valuable time and skills on a volunteer basis. And as Lord Oates explained, it is a program that provides clinical support through placements for doctors in partner countries, but also encourages mutual learning between practitioners from different countries. I'm not aware of the financial plans on this programme. I will make it my business to try and find out for the noble Lord, but the experience and evidence it generates will clearly be valuable, whatever programmes are developed in the future.
But I will get back to Lord Oates on anything I can discover in advance of the spending review. We also provide flexible technical assistance. We help partner governments access the expertise they need to address their priorities and strengthen their health systems. A good example is Bangladesh, also brought up by the noble lady Baroness Uddin, where we are supporting efforts to improve services for women and girls, and Somaliland, where we're helping the Ministry of Health strengthen health financing and planning.
Alongside this, a recent £19 million DHS program has operated in several countries across Africa, linking NHS organisations, universities and royal colleges with counterparts overseas, helping to strengthen the health workforce through learning and collaboration. The noble Lord, Lord Chris mentioned Myanmar and the fantastic work done by what I think became known as the health partnerships of Myanmar after the military coup five years ago, which involved a UK coalition which Lord Chris mentioned in some detail of more than 50 institutions Royal colleges, NHS bodies, universities, parliamentarians, local clinicians developed teleconsultations GP support, quality improvement, nurse nurses College.
I believe Lord Chris also mentioned virtual clinical support, a real flagship example of what health partnerships can do. I also want to draw attention parochially to my own department, the Fcdo, whose principle Health Partnership programme since 2023 is the Health Systems Connect programme , and Baroness Prashar rightly pointed to the importance of having multi-year programmes rather than single one off grants or more fleeting forms of financial assistance. This is a four year programme, a four year initiative developed through the NHS consortium for Global Health, which connects partner governments with expertise from NHS England, UK, HSA and other bodies.
And the partnership work here aims to accelerate progress towards improved healthcare systems but also universal access. Baroness Prashar also asked a very important question about the impact of recruitment for the UK on the supply of health professionals in low and middle income countries. Now, this is obviously a complicated question because Baroness Prashar pointed out from the gap report, I believe that she discussed there is a government health plan which aims to reduce reliance on international recruitment to under 10% by 2035.
That said, continuing reliance on overseas recruitment will still be there, and it's important, therefore, that we approach this in an ethical and sustainable way that supports rather than undermines the UK's wider development objectives. As the noble lady knows, our code of practice for international recruitment of health and social care personnel is that the the foundation of these ethical standards, which prohibits active recruitment from red list countries, as you mentioned, and we will continue to invest in partnerships that strengthen national health workforces in countries facing the greatest health system challenges.
Well, all these efforts sit alongside major investments through multilateral institutions as well, and global health initiatives with organisations like the World Health Organization, the world Bank, Gavi, the Global Fund. We're helping with these partnerships to strengthen health systems more broadly. So, my Lords, the government seeks to ensure that its support for healthcare in partner countries starts by listening to partners, by supporting their priorities, by then working alongside governments and civil institutions and organizations and local workforces on which health outcomes truly depend.
So lastly, I want to congratulate once again, Lord Chris for this debate, the work that he and the CHP have championed, and also for all the experiences that you've all shared today. Thank you.
And to go back to the noble Lord Court Town's point, not just we, but the previous government also pursued with such principle and with such vigour. I want to pay tribute to them as well. I want to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. So many of you have had such valuable experience in the health. In the area of health partnerships . Experience I have not had. The right. Reverend prelate, Bishop of Leicester.
Good luck to your son. Thank you for your story about his experience. Our approach to development itself is having to modernize as as noble Lord know, with the aim of having a greater impact abroad and achieving better value for money at home. It's not an easy combination. It's based on four shifts from donor to investor, from service delivery to system strengthening. And I take very much the point made by noble lady Baroness Uddin about sustainable development of new systems, rather than just transitory ones, being crucial, from grants to expertise and a shift from international intervention to local leadership.
In health. This means an approach increasingly rooted in partnership, listening to countries responding to their priorities, combining UK expertise with local knowledge, building relationships based on mutual benefit. As we've heard today from various experiences, to strengthen health systems, to build sustainable capability, to support locally led approaches. And I want to pay to refer again to the right Reverend prelate, Bishop of Leicester's point about the gift relationship. I to Richard Titmuss fan , and his point about cultural humility, that the direction of knowledge transfer is not just one way.
And I thought the noble Lord, Lord spoke very movingly about how it changed his life and. And I'll come back to the program that noble Lord talked about in a minute. So unless exceptional circumstances or a crisis require a different approach, we see our role to deliver, not to deliver services on behalf of others, but to work alongside partners to strengthen their own institutions, capabilities and systems. So to support this, the Foreign Office has established a community of expertise for health, which brings together expertise from across the UK and around the world and makes it available to our international network.
Its purpose is to help partner countries strengthen their health systems, improve health security and deliver better health outcomes, particularly for women and girls. Another point that Baroness Uddin rightly highlighted as an often neglected dimension of development work. A fundamental principle of this of this community is that it is demand led. It is not donor driven. Which brings me to the question we are discussing today. And to answer the noble Lord, Lord, directly, what are we doing? We support healthcare development by working with governments, health ministries and local organizations.
We focus on the priorities that countries have identified for themselves rather than imposing our own. And we also focus on areas where the UK has expertise to offer while drawing on local knowledge. Now, of course, there are occasions where more direct support is required, and one such example is the current Ebola outbreak, which the noble Lord asked me to comment on and what. After endorsement of a new. Excuse me. Sorry.
The outbreak on the 15th of May has been declared an Ebola outbreak, the 17th outbreak of Ebola. We're allocating up to, I think, just under 80 million to support an Africa led response. And we're helping the W.H.O., the United Nations and NGO partners strengthen surveillance, support frontline workers, improve infection prevention and control, and support access to life saving care. And I want to thank all those who are taking part in the collective effort to respond to this crisis as we speak, the UK was among the first international partners to commit funding to.
The Africa led response is providing up to £80 million through the W.H.O., Africa CDC and the United Nations. But together we are helping to strengthen surveillance, support frontline workers, improve infection prevention and control, accelerate access to vaccines, treatments and diagnostics. In all our activities, we are working through a range of partnerships and through partnerships at home with the NHS, universities and professional bodies. We've supported health system partnerships in countries including Ghana, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines, Tanzania and Zimbabwe which draw on UK expertise, including from NHS England, and create opportunities for health professionals to improve their quality of care and their experiences as well.
And we've heard today many examples of successful partnerships supported by this government and the previous government. Now the noble Lord, Lord Oates, discussed the Global Health Fellowship volunteer programme with some. Again, I thought quite moving examples. In fact, I thought, responding to some of the challenges that the right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, put about how to embed training in specific contexts rather than just expect skills to be transferred without bespoke training.
I want to thank the doctors who take part in that, who provide their valuable time and skills on a volunteer basis. And as Lord Oates explained, it is a program that provides clinical support through placements for doctors in partner countries, but also encourages mutual learning between practitioners from different countries. I'm not aware of the financial plans on this programme. I will make it my business to try and find out for the noble Lord, but the experience and evidence it generates will clearly be valuable, whatever programmes are developed in the future.
But I will get back to Lord Oates on anything I can discover in advance of the spending review. We also provide flexible technical assistance. We help partner governments access the expertise they need to address their priorities and strengthen their health systems. A good example is Bangladesh, also brought up by the noble lady Baroness Uddin, where we are supporting efforts to improve services for women and girls, and Somaliland, where we're helping the Ministry of Health strengthen health financing and planning.
Alongside this, a recent £19 million DHS program has operated in several countries across Africa, linking NHS organisations, universities and royal colleges with counterparts overseas, helping to strengthen the health workforce through learning and collaboration. The noble Lord, Lord Chris mentioned Myanmar and the fantastic work done by what I think became known as the health partnerships of Myanmar after the military coup five years ago, which involved a UK coalition which Lord Chris mentioned in some detail of more than 50 institutions Royal colleges, NHS bodies, universities, parliamentarians, local clinicians developed teleconsultations GP support, quality improvement, nurse nurses College.
I believe Lord Chris also mentioned virtual clinical support, a real flagship example of what health partnerships can do. I also want to draw attention parochially to my own department, the Fcdo, whose principle Health Partnership programme since 2023 is the Health Systems Connect programme , and Baroness Prashar rightly pointed to the importance of having multi-year programmes rather than single one off grants or more fleeting forms of financial assistance. This is a four year programme, a four year initiative developed through the NHS consortium for Global Health, which connects partner governments with expertise from NHS England, UK, HSA and other bodies.
And the partnership work here aims to accelerate progress towards improved healthcare systems but also universal access. Baroness Prashar also asked a very important question about the impact of recruitment for the UK on the supply of health professionals in low and middle income countries. Now, this is obviously a complicated question because Baroness Prashar pointed out from the gap report, I believe that she discussed there is a government health plan which aims to reduce reliance on international recruitment to under 10% by 2035.
That said, continuing reliance on overseas recruitment will still be there, and it's important, therefore, that we approach this in an ethical and sustainable way that supports rather than undermines the UK's wider development objectives. As the noble lady knows, our code of practice for international recruitment of health and social care personnel is that the the foundation of these ethical standards, which prohibits active recruitment from red list countries, as you mentioned, and we will continue to invest in partnerships that strengthen national health workforces in countries facing the greatest health system challenges.
Well, all these efforts sit alongside major investments through multilateral institutions as well, and global health initiatives with organisations like the World Health Organization, the world Bank, Gavi, the Global Fund. We're helping with these partnerships to strengthen health systems more broadly. So, my Lords, the government seeks to ensure that its support for healthcare in partner countries starts by listening to partners, by supporting their priorities, by then working alongside governments and civil institutions and organizations and local workforces on which health outcomes truly depend.
So lastly, I want to congratulate once again, Lord Chris for this debate, the work that he and the CHP have championed, and also for all the experiences that you've all shared today. Thank you.
16:10
16:10
16:10