Independent Commission on Adult Social Care

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made by the Independent Commission into Adult Social Care.

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

The independent commission has begun its work on how to build a social care system fit for the future and will first report in 2026. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is a trusted independent figure who will involve political parties and the public to build a national consensus around the future of social care. As the commission is independent, it is for the noble Baroness and her team to provide further updates on their progress in due course.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we have had the Sutherland report, the Wanless report and the Dilnot report; your Lordships’ House has produced three Select Committee reports on this subject in the past few years; the Health and Social Care Committee in another place has produced 10 reports in the past eight years; the Public Accounts Committee has produced four reports; not to mention reports from the Care Quality Commission, the Nuffield Trust, the King’s Fund and the National Audit Office. Frankly, asking the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to produce another report by 2028 is a cop out. The noble Baroness can work at pace. She recently reported on grooming gangs, and the Home Secretary said she had produced

“a hugely wide-ranging assessment in just four months”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/25; col. 26.]

Should she not be invited to produce a report outlining options by Christmas? That would free the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to deal with some of the other challenges facing the Government.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the answer is partly in the question. There have been so many reviews and inquiries, but none of them has come forward and got total ownership from across the House; that is part of the problem. All the work that has been done through those reports will be built on. I would never underestimate the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. It has been my great privilege to work with her for decades. She was responsible for introducing ASBOs for troubled families, as noble Lords may recall. This situation is complex. It needs to be tackled in depth. There are things that can been done quickly, which she will address, but it is critical that we let her do the work and use her skills to reach consensus, which, frankly, has been so plainly missing in all the work that has been attempted in the past.

London Underground

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for what I think is her first question in this House. Her experience in the London Assembly will be very welcome in future debates. The Bakerloo line, the Central line and the Waterloo & City line are all matters under consideration and discussion with the mayor, and we look forward to the outcome of those discussions.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Transport for London has overall responsibility for the buses in London, but they are owned and run by private operators, which do a good job, so why have the Government abandoned that model for the railways, where private operators such as Chiltern, which runs a first-class service from London to Birmingham, are now to be banned under proposed legislation?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Young of Cookham

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is grouped with a number of other amendments giving priority for housing for those at risk. As I said at Second Reading, I very much welcome this Bill, particularly Part 2. I gave notice then that I would be tabling some housing-related amendments to make the Bill even better. I am grateful to Stella Creasy in another place, who has championed the cause of young people at risk and whose office has given me some very helping briefings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and I are job-sharing on this group. She will speak to Amendment 51, the principal amendment. In a nutshell, it seeks to specify in law what the Government say is happening anyway and should indeed be happening if best practice is to become universal in this highly sensitive area of gang violence, child exploitation and abuse.

Basically, the amendment would put children at risk in the same category for priority housing as families fleeing domestic violence—a measure introduced in the Bill as a result of pressure from, among others, my noble friend Lady Bertin. It would ensure that, instead of being forced to gather extensive evidence and demonstrate unique vulnerability—not easy if your life is under threat—such people were given priority for urgent moves. This would be automatic.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will develop the case. I will confine my brief remarks to the other amendments in this group. Part 2 of the Bill outlines duties to collaborate to prevent serious violence. These amendments would ensure that housing authorities and registered social landlords were included in this new duty, and that there is timely information sharing between the police and housing authorities for the purpose of preventing serious violence. Any effective multiagency response must include housing; including housing in the Bill will support a comprehensive public health approach to tackling and preventing serious youth violence. Education, prison and youth custody authorities are listed in this part of the Bill but housing is not, despite the Explanatory Notes on this section of the Bill saying this on page 13:

“The Strategy explained that the Government’s approach was not solely focused on law enforcement, but depended on partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth services and victim services.”


These amendments complement those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others involving the NHS and children’s social care, which we will come to in a moment.

Amendments 26, 29, 31, 38 to 40 and 44 would amend Clauses 7, 8 and 9. They would require the strategy for a local government area, as well as the related powers to collaborate and identify kinds of violence, to include housing authorities so that they are fully consulted as the strategy is drawn up and the actions they need to take are specified. The Minister may argue that, although the Bill specifies who must be involved in the plan—education, prison and youth custody authorities—it does not preclude others from being involved. However, as far as I can see, the Bill does not say that; it implies exclusivity to the three nominated authorities. Without Amendment 38, for example, housing authorities would not have to carry out their role in any plan to reduce violence.

Of the last amendments, Amendment 62 would require housing authorities to disclose relevant information, which they are not required to do at the moment. This is necessary. One serious review case study said that there was

“little evidence of the Housing Service being closely tied into the operational work of the Safeguarding Partnership. As a consequence information that was only known to the Housing Service took time to percolate to the other partners, while the implications of the housing stress under which Child C’s family was placed were not discussed in a multi-agency forum.”

Much of the violence that young people are at risk from is location-based, such as a gang on a particular estate. Housing providers may have an insight into this in a way that others do not. Without Amendment 62, that risk would persist; Amendments 66, 69 and 70 cover the same points.

These amendments would ensure that government policy is effectively delivered by ensuring that housing authorities are included in the Bill as key partners in protecting young people against gang violence. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to which I have added my name. I too pay tribute to Stella Creasy in the other place for her commitment and great foresight, as well as for the support of her team.

As we have heard, the purpose of this chapter is to prevent and reduce serious violence by requiring public authorities to co-operate and develop strategies for tackling this issue. The Government tell us that their aim is to build a public health approach to the reduction of serious violence. That aim is welcome only if we can put in place the right tools to achieve it. What we will keep coming back to throughout today’s debates is that a public health approach works only when it is genuinely focused on prevention and early intervention, and is properly invested in. If not, we will continue simply to treat the symptoms of serious violence, not its causes.