Schools and Universities: Language Learning

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

That this House takes note of measures, such as visa waivers, to improve the supply chain of qualified modern foreign language teachers and the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists which, along with the British Council and the British Academy, supports the APPG. I am a languages graduate myself in Spanish and French and a current student of Arabic at the FCDO’s excellent language centre.

My intention today is not just to stand here and recite complaints and problems about the teaching and learning of modern languages but to propose constructive, practical and achievable measures for repair and improvement. Neither will I go into great detail on the importance of languages, because I know that the Minister is already well aware of their value, not just as part of a balanced, enriching curriculum but for the benefit, security and prosperity of the UK as a nation. As the statutory guidance for the national curriculum says,

“Learning a language is ‘a liberation from insularity and provides an opening to other cultures’. It helps to equip pupils with the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life”.


I will cite only a very few facts and statistics to summarise this broad sweep of a case for languages before turning to the practicalities of the remedies.

First, research from Cambridge University has shown that, if we spent more on teaching French, Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin in schools, the UK could increase its export growth by £19 billion a year. Other research shows that the lack of language skills in the workforce costs the UK economy the equivalent of 3.5% of GDP. Secondly, students who have spent a year abroad building their international and cross-cultural experience as well as their language skills are 23% less likely to be unemployed after graduation. I am of course delighted that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus+, which was and will again be one important factor in the potential supply chain of MFL teachers.

Thirdly, it is a myth that everybody speaks English. On the contrary, only 5% of the world’s population are native English speakers and 75% speak no English at all. AI and machine translation are no substitute for human communication, with its nuance, slang, humour and accuracy, which trump AI tendencies to confuse and hallucinate, confuse numbers and names or fail to deal with dialects or tonal languages.

But the fact is that, however desirable we might make languages at school, and in whatever format they are prescribed or assessed, it is all meaningless if we do not have anyone to teach them. The teacher supply chain is the key to the sustainability of languages in schools and universities.

My focus today is on how to remedy the dramatic shortage of language teachers, how to cut through the vicious circle we are in, where GCSE take-up has stalled, so A-level take-up has fallen, so applications to do languages at university have plummeted, so more and more universities are scrapping language degrees and fewer and fewer potential UK-trained language teachers are being produced. It is like that song “There’s a hole in my bucket”, where you end up with the same problem you started with, despite having gone round and round in circles with a series of steps to mend it.

Even if every single one of the students currently doing a language degree went into teaching, we still would not come close to meeting the shortfall of qualified teachers. Only 43% of the Government’s recruitment target was met in 2024. Although the published target for 2025-26 has been 93% met, I am afraid this is only because the target itself was cut by nearly half—so not really anything to write home about.

We badly need a package of measures which does three things: first, removes the barriers which are preventing foreign nationals, especially EU nationals, training here to be MFL teachers; secondly, removes the barriers preventing foreign nationals who have completed that training in the UK going on to accept job offers; and, thirdly, improves the pipeline of homegrown MFL teachers.

This is a good point to indicate that very similar problems and solutions are also relevant for maths and physics teachers, where reliance on overseas recruitment is at least as great as for modern languages. Some of my proposals are within the remit not of the DfE but of the Home Office, but there could not be a better Minister to take up those issues with her colleagues there.

Issue number one is that nearly half the UK’s trainee language teachers are foreign nationals. But anyone would think we were trying to deter them, not encourage them. Bursaries have been reduced from £26,000 to £20,000 and scholarships from £28,000 to £22,000. The bursary does not always even cover the basic costs of the training fee for international students, which varies enormously between providers. In Cambridge this year, for example, it is nearly £40,000.

Universities often ask for half the fees in advance, but the bursary is paid in instalments, which leads to many students taking on debt in order to train. A recent report from the Institute of Physics revealed that some trainee physics teachers were resorting to sleeping in libraries and using food banks. The international relocation payment of £10,000 was scrapped in April 2024. So I ask the Minister whether she will restore the level of bursaries and scholarships and reinstate the relocation payment.

Once students are qualified, another set of obstacles appears. Instead of achieving a strategically sensible return on investment, we now make it as difficult as possible for the teachers we have trained to teach in a UK classroom. The problem now is visas and immigration rules. Overseas teachers must apply and pay for a skilled worker visa, together with the NHS surcharge. The school offering the job must also sponsor the visa, which comes at another cost.

The APPG has heard a great deal of evidence from schools reporting that they cannot or will not do that, because they do not have the funds or admin staff to deal with it. This is a critical problem. Despite the existence of DfE guidance, many schools say that the process of applying for the sponsor visa is unbelievably complicated and costly and, since the graduate visa route was reduced in duration to 18 months, it is no longer a viable route for early career teachers, whose induction period is two years. The official guidance is clearly not cutting through and must be made clearer, more effective and more upfront, because our data suggest that up to half of international trainees fail to secure employment after qualifying.

I have questions for the Minister on this aspect of the supply chain. Will she back a visa waiver for qualified MFL teachers recruited to teach in state schools and actively encourage the Home Office to introduce it? If it needs to be piloted first, will her department and/or Home Office colleagues provide rapid, streamlined guidance to schools on how to apply for the sponsor visa and reduce or relieve altogether the costs of doing so? Will she restore the graduate visa to 24 months so that it aligns with the induction period for early career teachers? These are all relatively low-cost, swiftly implementable measures whose impact could be easily and quickly evaluated. We are going to continue relying on overseas recruitment of MFL teachers until or unless we can produce more of our own. The immigration White Paper from last May sets out an expectation that employers will prioritise the so-called domestic workforce but, for MFL teachers, no adequate domestic workforce exists, because we produce so few graduate linguists. So a special case for a visa waiver must be made.

I turn finally to what can be done to improve the sustainability of languages in our schools and universities, to cut through the vicious circle I described earlier. Two immediate critical interventions could make an effective start. The first would be an advanced modern languages premium for secondary schools and colleges, modelled on the successful advanced maths premium introduced in 2017, the purpose of which would be to boost A-level take-up. The British Academy calculated in 2021 that achieving a 20% increase in the take-up of modern languages at A-level would cost around £3 million a year. The policy is widely supported across the sector. So, while the DfE is giving more thought to flexible languages pathways and GCSEs in response to the recent curriculum and assessment review, will the Minister at least commit to an advanced languages premium to boost A-levels as an immediate and hopefully even temporary measure? In combination with a visa waiver, this could be a quick win to help spark the chain reaction and step change we need.

More A-level take-up would lead to more applications to study languages at university, where language degrees are in crisis: in many cases, in terminal decline or already dead. They survive in only 10 post-1992 universities, and provision in the Russell group has already begun to crack with the recently announced plans from Nottingham. Cold spots reveal distinct inequality of provision towards students from less privileged backgrounds, which of course is compounded later by worse employability after graduation. Cuts in languages at HE level have a serious knock-on effect in economic, diplomatic and research competitiveness, as well as the teacher supply chain. Closures of courses in Mandarin, Russian and Arabic are a particular threat to the UK’s pipeline of specialist linguists needed for defence and security roles.

However, resuscitation is possible, as well as urgent. My key recommendation for an immediate measure to stem the tide of cuts and closures is for university modern language degrees to receive category C1 strategic funding from the Office for Students. Currently, as I understand it, its allocations focus mainly on STEM subjects, on the grounds that they are of strategic importance and cost more to provide. Archaeology also attracts this level of additional strategic funding. The same can, and must, be said of language degrees, which are more teaching intensive compared to other humanities subjects, requiring more contact hours, smaller classes, provision of new languages taught from scratch and, of course, the sustainability of the third year abroad, which is often described as “the jewel in the crown” of a languages degree and is very highly valued by prospective employers. Languages’ strategic importance to critical industries and functions of the state should be much better acknowledged by this additional funding. Does the Minister agree, and will she exert as much pressure and influence as she can on the OfS to take this on?

I have intentionally focused on a small number of measures which could be taken in the immediate and short term. My proposals also show that getting language teaching right is not just a challenge for the DfE but cuts across many government departments and agencies. The decline is currently very acute, but language skills are vital to so many aspects of the UK’s cultural, economic, soft-power and security interests that we really must not allow things to get past the point of no return. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. I am pleased and happy to hear her say that she recognises that schools still have an issue over how complicated and costly the process for applying and getting sponsorship visas can be. I hope very much that that will lead to more efficient and upfront guidance and help for schools on this issue.

On some of the other issues and questions that I put to the Minister in my introduction and which have been raised by other noble Lords, I think there is still some distance between what the Minister has set out as positive progress and the evidence being received by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages from teachers and schools, particularly teachers who are foreign nationals who have been trained here as MFL teachers but still find it very difficult to get jobs here because of the difficulty in negotiating the visa requirements. I hope that the Minister will be open to follow-up discussions with me and other noble Lords to see whether we can push a little further with the department, and of course the Home Office, on these issues.

In thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and at the risk of breaching one of the rules in the Companion, I would just like to say, merci, danke, gracias and shukran.

Motion agreed.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Conservative Benches, but we should have enough time for everybody to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Despite the fact that my cello has sat in the attic for far too long, I wholly agree with my noble friend about the value of music and music tuition. We recognise the current challenge of access in music. Tackling that starts with a high-quality music education for every pupil through a reformed programme of study, and then providing clear progress routes for further study to 16 and 18, starting with a review of music, GCSE and technical awards. It needs the continued investment that the Government are making in the 43 music hubs partnerships across England to offer musical instrument tuition, instrument loaning and whole-class ensemble teaching. That is why I welcome the increase we have seen in the number of teachers teaching music and those entering initial teacher training.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, with the withdrawal of the EBacc and with more and more universities shutting down their modern language courses, what measures are the Government considering to prevent take-up of languages at GCSE plummeting? Secondly, will the noble Baroness give urgent attention to introducing an advanced language premium to boost take-up of languages at A-level, modelled on the very successful advanced maths premium? We know that having foreign language skills significantly enhances future employability, so we must avoid short-changing pupils in state schools by letting languages disappear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education. That includes supporting and empowering the workforce: for example, we will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers have access to high-quality professional development. We want more pupils to develop strong language skills and to have their achievements recognised earlier than at GCSE. For that reason, we will explore the feasibility of developing a new flexible languages qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready, rather than at fixed points.

Universal Credit

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

We have increased the local housing allowance to cover the lowest 30th percentile of the local market, and alternative payment arrangements to landlords have been put in place. If claimants have great difficulties, they can speak to their work coach or client adviser, who, if there is a way to help them, will do their best to find it.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the five-week wait has significantly increased household debt and anxiety as a result of council tax arrears. Will the Minister please press the Government to issue clear guidance to local authorities that collection and enforcement activity on council tax arrears, including all bailiff contact, should be suspended for a minimum of three months?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am happy to take that point back to the department and will write to the noble Baroness in due course.

Covid-19: People Living in Poverty

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust, the charity that runs National Debtline.

One concern is council tax. Even before Covid-19, 30% of callers to National Debtline were in arrears. Some councils have announced help for people who are struggling to pay, but it varies enormously between councils. The Government have told councils to use the £500 million hardship funding primarily to knock £150 off the bill this year for those on council tax support, but the problem is that many people who have lost their job or had their income hit in other ways by the pandemic were not on council tax support in the first place. Without extra central government funding, I fear that we will see a significant rise in the number of people falling into arrears and facing unreasonable pressure to pay. Will the Minister please undertake to look at what more the Government can do, so that local authorities can give payment breaks to all those who need them?

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

3rd reading (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)]

My Lords, on Report I agreed to consider a range of matters concerning Clause 2, and I now make reference to government Amendments 1, 3 to 9, 12 to 13 and 32. During our debates on the Bill I think that we have all been in agreement that the provisions articulated in Clause 2 were important in setting the tone and ethos for how the single financial guidance body should operate. In the debates on Report, we discussed the need for these provisions to be well structured and clear. I believe that this group of amendments provides that clarity and structure. They tidy up the framework on which the body will progress towards achieving its objectives and assist it and all those with whom it will work closely in understanding our expectations in relation to its activities. I am extremely grateful for the enormous contribution that noble Lords have made to the Bill. Indeed, so significant has been that contribution that we have ended up with a rather long and unwieldy Clause 2, so for this reason we propose to split it into three separate clauses.

Government Amendments 1 and 6 remove the objectives from the end of Clause 2 and insert them as a separate clause immediately before the clause. This reordering picks up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that starting with functions and moving on to objectives was perhaps the wrong way around. I agree with him. Placing the body’s objectives upfront will emphasise and aid a wider public understanding of the overarching objectives of the body and how it carries out its functions. Government Amendment 8 divides the remaining provisions in Clause 2 into two. The first sets out the broad functions of the body and the second contains the specific cold- calling provisions pertaining to the broad consumer protection function. It does not change the content of the cold-calling provisions.

Setting out the detail of the body’s new consumer protection function in a separate clause is consistent with the approach we have taken in the Bill. For example, this is how we have, from the introduction of the Bill at Second Reading, treated the specific detail about pensions guidance, which is articulated in a separate clause after Clause 2. Alongside relocating the body’s objectives, this amendment simplifies what had become a very long and complex clause. The Government want the legislation for the single financial guidance body to be clear and to flow in a way that the people who will use it, including the body itself, are able to read and understand. On the whole, people will not have had the benefit of our debates in Parliament, at least not without considerable reference to Hansard. The easier the Bill is to read when coming to it for the first time, the better.

In addition, I have considered the case that was made well by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Coussins and Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the need for clarity around access to financial guidance and awareness of financial services for people who find themselves in vulnerable circumstances. Again, I agree that we should be clear about the body supporting vulnerable people in exercising its functions. Government Amendment 1 therefore strengthens the body’s objective to ensure that its information, guidance and advice is available to those most in need of it, bearing in mind in particular the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances.

Moving on to government Amendment 3, as I indicated on Report, facilitating the bringing together of expertise to address the difficult and sometimes interrelated financial issues that people experience in terms of budgeting, savings, retirement planning and problem debt is a cornerstone of the policy for the single financial guidance body. We want to make it easier for people to access the help they need to make effective financial decisions. This amendment speaks to the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Stevenson, and places an obligation on the body and its delivery partners to consider all the financial guidance and debt advice needs of people accessing its services, and whether they would benefit from receiving other services that the body provides.

Government Amendments 4 and 5 make small changes to the strategic function of the body. They address points raised by several noble Lords during our debates in Committee about the lack of clarity around the body’s role in developing a national strategy to improve people’s financial capability and ability to manage debt. The strategic function currently requires the body to work with the financial services industry, the devolved authorities, and the public and voluntary sectors to support the development of a national strategy.

These amendments make it more evident that the single financial guidance body will lead on developing the strategy and that it will have some responsibility for overseeing the delivery of activities stemming from the strategy. I believe these amendments address the concerns about accountability that a number of noble Lords expressed.

Finally, Amendments 7, 9, 12, 13 and 32 are minor and technical in nature. Amendments 7, 12 and 13 are together a tidying-up measure. They remove the definition of devolved Administrations from Clauses 2 and 14 and insert the definition into Clause 19, “Interpretation of Part 1”. Amendment 9 corrects a technical defect in Clause 3(2), replacing the reference to the Pension Schemes Act 2015 with one to the relevant section of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Amendment 32 allows for differential commencement by area. This is so that, in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, if it is necessary to commence at a later date for Northern Ireland there is a power to do so.

I trust and hope noble Lords will agree that these amendments provide sensible and pragmatic adjustments to the Bill, improving its structure and providing clarity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome Amendment 1 and remind noble Lords of my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust. The amendment, in clarifying the single financial guidance body’s objectives, will ensure that its services are available to those most in need of them, specifically with the inclusion of the words in proposed new subsection (1)(d), “bearing in mind”, the particular,

“needs of people in vulnerable circumstances”.

As noble Lords heard during our debate on this on Report, there has been a great deal of progress in this area in the financial services industry in recent years, including through the work of the Financial Services Vulnerability Taskforce. It is very good to see that the SFGB should give similar prominence to vulnerability in its work. The explicit inclusion of “vulnerable circumstances” in Amendment 1 is an excellent example of this approach.

I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister for listening so carefully to what I and my noble friends Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins said on this matter at an earlier stage, and for agreeing to reflect this in the Bill. I am very pleased to support Amendment 1.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I add my most sincere thanks to those of my noble friend Lady Coussins. This new clause is incredibly important. Yesterday, this was unanimously welcomed at the National Mental Capacity Forum leadership group, including by all those from the financial sector represented in the group, as being a very important way forward to make sure that our society is increasingly integrated and recognises the needs of those with permanent and transient impairments and incapacity, and those who may temporarily have been put in extremely vulnerable circumstances.

I also thank the Minister for the way she has listened and stayed in communication with us as the wording has been developed. It really was a very positive and constructive dialogue.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment, which I hope my noble friend will be minded seriously to consider and, if necessary, bring back at a later stage still. There is clearly widespread support across the House and indeed the country for such a scheme. There is also rising concern about the level of consumer debt within the economy as a whole. We know that more and more people are falling into debt, having perhaps been enticed into borrowing at teaser loan rates that have then risen. We also know that the trend in interest rates may well start to go up, which again would cause significant difficulties for those who have taken on perhaps unwise levels of debt. In practical terms, just giving this breathing space, which I know the Government support, could help to manage a situation that has gone beyond manageable for many vulnerable people. I hope that noble Lords across the House will support this, and indeed that my noble friends on the Front Bench will be able to as well.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the proposal at the heart of the amendment, and indeed the very similar idea of the breathing space on which the Treasury announced its consultation last week. At this stage I have just one question on which I seek clarification from both the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the Minister. I remind the House of my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust. In my view, it is essential that any breathing space scheme covers public sector creditors as well as lenders in the private sector. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, touched on this point.

Debts to public bodies are an increasing feature of the UK’s personal debt landscape. The Money Advice Trust, for example, reports that 25% of callers to its national debtline service had council tax arrears last year, up from just 14% a decade ago. Calls about benefit overpayments and other public sector debts have also increased, and so too has scrutiny of the debt collection practices of these public sector organisations. So for any new debt respite or breathing space scheme to be truly effective, it must provide breathing space from all creditors, including local councils, the DWP and HMRC in particular, so as to give people the time they need to seek advice and tackle their debt problems. I would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, confirmed that the intention behind his amendment is to include public sector creditors, and if the Minister said whether she expects public sector creditors to be included in the Treasury plans.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, a lot of the time when we talk about debt, it would appear that we are talking about people who may be in debt for a particular item or for a short period of time. These are people who are right down there and close to being in debt, and may be able to manage their finances by only a few pounds every week or month. So this is not just a debt problem overall; it is debt for very vulnerable people. If we do not help them and give them a bridging mechanism, we are creating a big social problem—a problem regarding their characters, the way they live, their friends and how they are seen. It is about much more than just how we keep the debt down and how, one day, they get out of it; it is about their social identity. Many of them have not been in debt before, and consider going into debt at all a crime and a slur on their character. When we have the chance, we must create the means to help protect as many of them as possible. Wherever we have a breathing space or gap whereby we can legislate to avoid them going permanently into debt—such as, dare I say it, in universal credit—we must try to do so. I therefore support the amendment.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have put their names to Amendment 11: my noble friends Lady Coussins and Lady Hollins, as well as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who addressed these issues in Committee and has been trying to move things forward. I also thank the Minister for meeting me and my noble friend Lady Coussins, for giving so much of her time and paying so much attention to every detail of the arguments that we put to her in that meeting, and for making great efforts to address the points we were making.

I turn specifically to this amendment and the way it is worded. We have used the wording “people in vulnerable circumstances” because people may be permanently deemed vulnerable—such as people with learning difficulties, people who have a permanent speech disorder or those who have difficulty communicating. There are, however, an awful lot more people who have a fluctuating impairment of capacity, either through illness or medication. There are also people who have been coping really well but have something happen to them, such as an acquired brain injury. All find themselves in vulnerable circumstances. To comment again on care leavers’ situation, there is powerful, researched evidence that children who have had four or more adverse childhood experiences are extremely vulnerable to lots of other factors in life, but they, having been in care, are not the only children who are vulnerable. There are a whole lot who were not in care but have had similar adverse childhood experiences and then have a great deal of difficulty handling their adult life and independence, and in responding to things.

Another difficulty now being faced is the closure of some bank branches and the rise of internet banking. People who have a tremor, for example, need assistance, and they may then find that they do not have the privacy they want. The list could go on and on but, one way or another, we would end up including over half the population, to whom things can happen at different times. Everyone in this Chamber must have found that when they are acutely bereaved they are vulnerable for a time. Their thinking is impaired and they cannot cope with some of the decisions they make but they come out of it, and I do not think anyone would label any of your Lordships as having impaired capacity during this debate.

Therefore, our thinking was that improving access to and awareness of financial services for people who find themselves in vulnerable circumstances, whatever those might be, should run right through the core functions. A little like the lettering in Brighton rock, it should go right the way through.

I must declare an interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. I have been working with banks, building societies and the Equity Release Council, and some of them—I should like to single out the Nationwide Building Society—have done fantastically good work, but there is a need for the whole sector to be taken along. Laws send social messages too. Therefore, I hope the Government will be able to look favourably on the amendment, which is worded to create not a list but a whole philosophy compatible with other legislation, particularly the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords of my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust, the charity that runs National Debtline and Business Debtline. I echo my noble friend’s thanks to the Minister for meeting us yesterday to discuss the intentions behind the amendment.

My noble friend has laid out the need to address access to financial services for people in vulnerable circumstances. It is also important to acknowledge the work that is already under way in this area—in particular since the FCA’s paper on vulnerability in 2015. Since then, the British Bankers’ Association’s Vulnerability Taskforce has produced a report challenging the industry to improve, and the issue of vulnerability has remained high on the agenda.

All that is of course very welcome but, as my noble friend indicated, the term “vulnerable people” does not necessarily mean the same as “people in vulnerable circumstances”. Very often in the past, “vulnerability” was used interchangeably with mental health issues, yet there is a growing recognition of the need for financial services and other organisations to consider a much wider range of vulnerable circumstances.

As an illustration of that need, the Money Advice Trust provides training for the sector in supporting customers in vulnerable circumstances, and demand has been growing significantly over recent years. The charity has now trained more than 11,000 staff working in more than 160 firms. Increasingly, this training covers areas way beyond mental health, such as supporting customers with addictions or a serious illness, those suffering a bereavement or redundancy, and people contemplating suicide, to give a few examples. Yet many people in vulnerable circumstances are still excluded from financial services and are unable to access the support they need.

The SFGB provides an ideal opportunity to increase the focus on vulnerability through its national strategy. As I said in Committee, the Department for Work and Pensions, as the sponsoring department, could also provide a very useful link between the body’s work and the broader financial inclusion policy agenda.

This amendment seeks to take the good work on vulnerability that is being done by the industry and the voluntary sector and give it an explicit focus on the face of the Bill. I hope that it will receive careful consideration by the Minister or that something very similar that captures the intention of the amendment but is perhaps better worded can be brought forward by the Government at Third Reading.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to add my support for this amendment. My own particular interest relates to people with learning disabilities, who can be presented with significant challenges when it comes to managing money on a daily basis, even where local financial services are readily available to them.

The move to digital banking and even past innovations such as chip and pin present a real risk for people with limited capacity—a risk of exploitation. When bank branches close, the financial services available at the Post Office are often held up as an answer. However, for people with limited mental capacity—not just people with learning disabilities—they are not the answer. For instance, the Post Office no longer provides a paying-in book, and the only way of obtaining cash is through chip and pin. There are hundreds of similar examples, relating not just to people with learning disabilities but to those who are in vulnerable circumstances at different times, as we have heard from my noble friends.

This welcome Bill is creating a single financial guidance body that could make a significant difference in improving financial capability, reducing debt problems and helping more people to engage with their pensions. Perhaps providing easier-to-read or pictorial guides to finances would be a useful starting point for the new organisation to consider—for example, covering banking and managing personal budgets—with the aim of helping people with learning difficulties take more control of their finances. It could consider appropriate training so that people with a learning disability and their families can be better supported, as online guides are unlikely to be adequate for these groups.

I must declare my interest here as the chair of Beyond Words, a community interest company which works to empower people with learning disabilities by developing pictorial narratives to help them when circumstances are too challenging.

I hope that the Minister will support the amendment to ensure that the new body keeps in mind the needs of people in more financially vulnerable situations.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

There is a major task here for the SFGB and we encourage the Government to support the issues we have outlined. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 19 and 22. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust, the national charity.

These amendments have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and therefore carry a great deal of weight given his recent experience as a member of the Financial Exclusion Committee. I was pleased to see the Government follow that committee’s recommendation for a dedicated Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, creating this additional ministerial brief within the DWP. That is a very welcome step.

Amendments 19 and 22 offer an opportunity for building further on that, by expanding the remit of the single financial guidance body’s strategic function to include improving financial inclusion. The amendments in effect implement several of the Financial Exclusion Committee’s other recommendations, which have particular relevance to the objectives that the Bill sets out for the new body. The ministerial brief for financial inclusion within the DWP, together with that department’s role in relation to the new body, seems a perfect alignment of policy. With the right resourcing, the new body’s objectives and its expertise could equip it very well to lead on financial inclusion, so I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I offer my support for these amendments in considering the particular needs of young people in care and leaving care. Most young people leaving care do so by the age of 18—many are still under that age—and they have to run their financial lives. There is a duty on the local authority to provide support but many of them are plunged, too early in their lives, into the sorts of responsibilities that such education would help them to deal with more effectively. Half of children from run-of-the-mill families are still with their parents up to the age of 20, so I can see particular benefit from these amendments for vulnerable young people who may have to look after themselves very early in their lives.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 2 and 3. Amendment 1 is a probing amendment designed to give the Government the opportunity both to expand on the process of creating the SFGB and, more importantly, to offer a greater understanding of the intended scale of the operation initially and going forward.

The amendment requires the production of a three-year business plan as soon as possible after the transfer schemes are completed. It requires that this be done following consultation, updated annually and informed by a comprehensive assessment of consumer need. At present, there appears to be no formal requirement in the Bill for there to be a business plan, although the response to the consultation of this month reminds us of the proposed publication of a framework document, which will provide further details of the governance arrangements under which the body will operate, including requirements for preparing, securing approval for and publishing its corporate and annual business plan. We know that SFGB will not be operational before autumn 2018, but perhaps the Minister might take the opportunity to expand on the timetable and say when the framework document is expected to be published.

As things stand—and we are grateful for a further meeting with officials on Monday—we have no information about the timing or sequencing of the transfer processes in Schedule 2, or certainty about what even the initial corporate and business plans might look like. Neither the response to the consultation, the impact assessment or the policy statement give any definitive information about the proposed initial scale of the operations of SFGB. Will SFGB have to commence within a funding envelope that reflects the existing arrangements? When will the SFGB levy components be set and how will they be consulted on? To what extent is it planned that efficiency savings arising from the amalgamation will be made available to the new body or applied to a reduction in the levies?

Is it envisaged that the Secretary of State will issue any initial directions or guidance to the SFGB in connection with the set-up arrangements? What parameters are to be given to the chair and chief executive on their appointment? At what stage in the process will they be in a position to influence the starting position of the new body?

There is a requirement in the Bill to make services available to those most in need. What initial assessment has been made of what this means in practice? Will the Minister outline for us how the transition is to be organised from the existing position to the introduction of the new body, and how smooth signposting can be secured?

Going forward, the NDPB will not be able to carry any reserves. So what will happen to the reserves and cash surpluses of MAS, which at March 2016 amounted to nearly £10 million—although they may have reduced since? Will these be available to the new body?

We know that MAS is to be dissolved, presumably at a point when a transfer scheme to the SFGB has been completed. Is it anticipated that any residual assets will be available at this point? If so, to whom will they accrue?

The landscape is changing for pensions and money advice. On pensions, we see the growth of auto-enrolment, provider signposting and pension freedoms; on money advice, the growth of those struggling with high levels of over-indebtedness and negligible savings. They amount to nearly 23% of the UK adult population— 11.6 million consumers. The Bill may have a technical framework to deal with all this, but we are seeking to understand how it is to be resourced to meet these challenges.

Amendments 2 and 3 are minor matters. Amendment 2 relates to the non-executive members of the NDPB. At present, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a person does not have a conflict of interest before being appointed. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to be so satisfied also from time to time in future. I think this is a fairly routine approach to these matters that would not cut across any obligation on members to declare their interests in the usual way.

Amendment 3 deals with executive member appointments. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, the chief executives and other executives must be appointed before the SFGB provides services to the public. The amendment requires that this also must be the case before any of the Schedule 2 transfers are put into effect.

We are seeking to understand the scale of this body and how it will look. At the moment, we are lacking a lot of information and we hope that the Minister can help us on this matter. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1, and remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading as president of the Money Advice Trust, the national charity that provides free debt advice to individuals and small businesses through the National Debtline and the Business Debtline.

Amendment 1 corrects a notable omission in the Bill. Although the Bill requires the SFGB, as one would expect, to produce an annual report on its activities each year, there is no such provision for it to publish its business plan. Amendment 1 rectifies this quite effectively—and, perhaps more importantly, requires the body to consult on the preparation of this plan.

The Government have stated their intention that the SFGB should work in a consultative and collaborative way. Indeed, there are references to working with others elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 1 would simply embed this consultative approach in the organisation, from the business plan down, and help set the appropriate culture in what will be, after all, a new organisation. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a helpful amendment and give it serious consideration.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also comment on Amendment 1, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not quite sure that I understand clearly everything it is trying to achieve.

I agree that to outline the business plans for a minimum of three years is a sensible move. Indeed, if that is not done and there is no requirement to outline the business plans, it is quite possible that those plans will not be adequately prepared. If they are prepared, it should also be clearer what efficiencies and savings could be achieved resulting from the merger of the three bodies. It is rather disappointing that the Government could say only that the costs and charges to the levies could be looked at and savings might be found in future, but in the short term the total charges to the levies would be roughly equivalent to what they are today. Perhaps the requirement to produce business plans would make it clearer where savings and efficiencies could be derived.

I am also not quite sure that the noble Lord’s amendment passes the necessary clarity test. In proposed new paragraph (b), “follow consultation” is a bit vague. What consultation and with whom? Proposed new paragraph (c) says it must,

“be informed by a comprehensive assessment of consumer need”.

Who provides such assessment, and in what detail? It is almost open ended. While I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment, I could not support it in its present form.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I support Amendment 6, which I rather hope might prove uncontroversial. This is because, as I understand it, it is the Government’s firm policy intention that the services that the SFGB will commission will be free at the point of use to members of the public—as is the case with current arrangements. Given that what we are debating here are the arrangements for advice and guidance for individuals who are often in financial difficulty, certainly in the case of debt advice but also in other situations, this free-to-client principle is of such fundamental importance that it should be in the Bill.

On a separate point, the amendment uses the phrase “members of the public”—as does the Bill in relation to the SFGB’s functions and objectives. I would like clarification from the Minister that this phrase will include those members of the public who are self-employed. At Second Reading she referred to the body’s remit excluding micro-businesses, so clarification on the position of self-employed people would be welcome, in particular as they now account for 14% of the UK’s workforce. Indeed, the growth of self-employment has led to a significant increase in debt; self-employed people are increasingly taking out personal loans to finance their business needs, so the dividing line between personal debt and business debt is becoming increasingly blurred. Current arrangements for debt advice provision through the Money Advice Service do cover debt advice for people who are self-employed, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance that this will continue.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, we support the amendments in this group. I start from the assumption that they are remedying a momentary lapse in the energy of the team that was drafting the Bill, because I cannot believe that the Government are not fully signed up to the principles that advice should be free at the point of use, and also both independent and impartial. So I, too, suggest that these amendments are surely uncontroversial and are useful to the Bill to make sure that the point is not lost, as they remedy those moments when long hours of work and not enough coffee made it difficult to remember every single issue that had to be grasped in the general drafting of a Bill of this complexity.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important Bill and begin by declaring my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust, a charity which is one of the UK’s major providers of free debt advice—and I believe that it is advice, in the very best sense of the word, and is absolutely people-focused. As other noble Lords may be aware, the trust runs the National Debtline and Business Debtline, which provide vital free advice and support to individuals and small business owners struggling with unmanageable debt. Last year, the trust helped almost 200,000 people by phone and webchat, and had more than 1.3 million visits to its websites. Some of that work is funded by the Money Advice Service, including through an important partnership with Citizens Advice.

I strongly support the creation of a single financial guidance body, bringing together provision of debt advice, money guidance and pensions guidance, and welcome the inclusion in the Bill of a standards-setting function in all three areas. The role of the Department for Work and Pensions as the lead department for the SFGB is also welcome, especially given the creation last month of a dedicated ministerial brief for financial inclusion in that department. But I would like briefly to raise three issues relating to Part 1 of the Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to offer assurances on these when she comes to reply.

The first issue is the need to ensure sufficient supply of free debt advice, at a time when a large number of households are not receiving the free advice they need, and when debt charities are seeing an increasing demand for their services. The combination of rising inflation, slow wage growth and a significant surge in household borrowing means that demand is likely to continue to increase, so there is clearly a need for increased funding for debt advice. Funding currently comes from a levy on financial services. I encourage the Government to explore widening that funding base, particularly as debt advice services are increasingly dealing with debts and arrears relating to utility bills, and also from the public sector itself. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that the Government intend to address the gap between supply and demand for debt advice as a key priority.

The second issue relates to the ring-fencing of levy funding for debt advice in the new arrangements. As I understand it, there has been the suggestion that the SFGB will enjoy greater flexibility in the use of levy funding than is currently the case with the Money Advice Service. I hope that the Minister can understand that there is considerable concern about this in the advice sector, given the increasing demand that I have outlined. I would be grateful if she could offer an assurance that there will be an appropriate ring-fence around debt advice funding in the new arrangements, including in the case of the devolved Administrations.

The third issue is the nature of the debt advice that the SFGB will provide through its delivery partners. The continuation of the current commissioning approach for debt advice is welcome but, in my view, it is important that it is restricted to free-to-client, not-for-profit advice agencies only. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, touched on that issue. I believe strongly that no one in financial difficulty should have to pay for debt advice, and no financial gain should be made from people seeking government-backed help, whether that gain is direct or indirect. The commissioning of commercial providers by the new body, even where the activity being commissioned may be free to the client, risks undermining this principle. Clause 5 provides a mechanism through which this restriction could be implemented, through the Secretary of State’s power to issue guidance and directions to the SFGB on the exercise of its functions. I would welcome the Minister’s view on whether the Secretary of State would consider this approach.

On these three issues, there is much that the Government can do to offer reassurances that the SFGB will take the right approach for people in debt. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to do so this evening.