Free School Meals

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the extension of free school meals. It is important for children and for parents in poverty. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said about it being a down payment on the child poverty strategy, but I echo my Commons colleagues who argued that it cannot be a substitute for the abolition of the two-child limit on universal credit. Given that the real benefit of the free school meals extension will not be felt until September 2026, that it is estimated that over 100 children are falling into poverty every day that the two-child limit continues, and that parents and children are really struggling now, will my noble friend please impress on the Chancellor and the Prime Minister the need for urgent action on the two-child limit?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that, as I think she has conceded, this considerable investment in our children is urgent action on tackling the issue of child poverty—as have been the Government’s investment in breakfast clubs already; our plans to limit the cost of school uniforms; the increase in the national minimum wage, adding an additional £1,400 to the income of those poorest families; the extension of the entitlement to free childcare; the uprated benefits this year; and the way in which the Government has supported 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. But I agree with her that there is more to do. That is why the child poverty task force is currently looking at all the levers that could be used to support children out of poverty, including income, housing, energy costs and the availability of work for our poorest families. This is, as I have already emphasised, the latest step to put extra money into people’s pockets, building on action that this Government have already taken. It is a down payment on our child poverty strategy, where work continues, and the Government will have more to say.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 173 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name to it. I am extremely supportive of Amendments 67 and 505, which were very powerfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

My amendment seeks to require the Government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy to galvanise a sustained focus on neglect. For far too long, neglect has been absent from or underplayed in our conversations about supporting children and families. The role it can play is critical in reducing the number of children in care, which will be central to many of our discussions on this part of the Bill. The scale of neglect is significant and its impact on children far-reaching. Neglect is the most common form of maltreatment reported as the initial category of abuse on child protection plans. It was also the main reason for adults reaching out last year to the NSPCC helpline; indeed, new research from the NSPCC underlining this point will be published this week.

Neglect has some of the most profound negative and long-term effects on a child’s behaviour, educational achievement, emotional well-being and physical development. It impacts every area of a child’s life. Unaddressed, it prevents children developing their full potential and puts them at serious risk of harm. That it is the very antithesis of well-being, which is what Part 1 of the Bill is all about. However, unlike other forms of maltreatment, there is no national strategy for neglect, and existing practice guidance rarely refers to neglect-specific approaches and models. The NSPCC has reported that professionals have concerns about the lack of a national focus on neglect and how this has left many children without the right support at a time when family pressures are at an all-time high.

Requiring the Government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy, as my amendment would, would make sure that we provide greater protections and support for children and families, better understand and address common drivers of neglect, such as poverty and insecure housing, standardise the use of evidence-based neglect tools to identify and respond to neglect and improve information sharing across agencies. Taken together, that package could be very powerful.

While neglect is prevalent in child referrals and assessments, a lack of action being taken to address it has become the norm. Indeed, so commonplace is neglect that it can be easy for professionals to either stop noticing it or become desensitised to its potential severity. Neglect is a complex harm, and it requires a great deal of professional skill to understand and assess its impact. I know that many professionals feel they are simply underprepared and underresourced to do so, and there are limited specialised professionals or interventions for them to draw on.

Indeed, research last year found that 83% of professionals in healthcare, the police, children’s social care and education believed that there was not enough service available to provide support for children experiencing neglect. Equipping professionals to identify concerns about neglect early, enabling parents to reach out for support in a non-stigmatising way and ensuring there are available sources to respond effectively to neglect are all vital to reducing the devastating impact it can have on children and—this is absolutely critical—to reducing the number of children going into care, which is currently at an all-time high.

With neglect being such a prominent category of abuse and often the earliest sign of mistreatment, surely it should, and indeed must, form the cornerstone of early intervention, which I think we all agree is so important. If we are serious about supporting families and helping children as early as possible, as I know we are, preventing and tackling neglect must become a central plank of our policy response. The need for a national neglect strategy needs to be given very careful consideration. I hope it is possible to do so during the passage of the Bill and I very much look to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 67, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

For me, this is very much a question of children’s rights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that children must be free from violence and that Governments must do all they can to protect them from violence, using all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. This amendment would ensure that the whole of the UK, not just Scotland and Wales, complies with the UN convention. Moreover, if we are taking children’s well-being seriously, we cannot continue to allow them to be subjected to physical assault. They are the only group, as the noble Baroness said, who are not legally protected from it.

Ministers say they are open-minded but want to see the review of evidence from Wales and from a range of voices. But, as already noted, we have ample evidence, from numerous countries, both of the negative impact of physical punishment on children’s well-being and the positive impact of its prohibition in terms of it having the desired effect of reducing the use of physical punishment. If she has not seen it, I would refer my noble friend the Minister to a recent article in Children and Youth Services Review which brings together much of that evidence.

As has already been noted, the evidence is sufficient for all the Children’s Commissioners, including from Wales, to be calling for reform. Indeed, they call the current law “outdated and morally repugnant” and reject the argument that it would lead to the criminalisation of parents. Polling shows consistent support among the general public for reform and new polling shows a majority of safeguarding professionals in support of change. Over half of social workers and teachers said the current law makes their work of safeguarding children more difficult.

I fear that the “waiting for Wales” argument is becoming a legislative form of “Waiting for Godot”. How long will we have to wait for another Bill that would provide such a perfect opportunity for reform? The Children’s Commissioners and a range of health and social care organisations are calling for urgent action now. Surely, we should be listening to them and stop prevaricating.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and its consequent Amendment 505. I believe it is an egregious interference in family life by the state and an intrusion. It is an attack on family rights and it will encourage a childish disrespect for authority. It is disproportionate and heavy-handed and it risks criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children’s services departments.

The law as it stands is sensible. It outlaws violence, abuse and unreasonable chastisement. Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are clear that, if the actions of a parent cause anything that is more than transient or trifling, it is unlawful. This has been the law since 2004, when Parliament narrowed the scope of the reasonable-chastisement defence. The reasonable-chastisement defence simply permits parents to use very mild physical discipline, like a tap on the hand or a smack on the bottom, without being charged with assault. By definition, the defence allows only reasonable behaviour. Therefore, if the defence is removed, it is only reasonable behaviour that will become unlawful.

“Reasonable chastisement” is common and harmless. The Welsh Government admitted in 2021 that there was

“no definitive evidence that reasonable physical punishment causes negative outcomes for children”.

Research recycled by activist academics campaigning for a ban fails to distinguish between reasonable chastisement and beatings. The recent press statement calling for a ban by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which appears to have become an annual event, included the claim that

“now is the time for this Victorian-era punishment to go”.

This kind of highly loaded language must bring into question whether the college was engaging in scientific debate or merely exaggerated polemic. Victorian-era punishment conjures up images of beatings that were outlawed long ago. Either the college is uninformed about the law or it is deliberately exaggerating.

Those who defend loving parents who use mild physical punishment within the context of a warm, nurturing relationship are opposed to child cruelty. The reasonable-chastisement defence will never prevent a court bringing in a conviction in a case of abuse. There is not a single reported case where this has occurred. As stated, the legal defence cannot be used where a parent causes anything that is more than transient and trifling. An example of the law in action took place in Torbay in 2018, where a stepdad was successfully prosecuted for smacking his four year-old daughter too hard. He had left a handprint on her bottom and the judge ruled, quite rightly, that he had acted unlawfully.

A core objective of the Bill is to address the concern that children at risk of abuse are falling through the cracks of our safeguarding system. However, a smacking ban would exacerbate this wrong by increasing the likelihood that genuinely at-risk children are overlooked. It would be a tragedy if major cases of abuse were missed because vital staff members were needlessly occupied with innocent parents. Those in genuine need will suffer while resources are wasted on cases where there are no real problems. Social workers will be even busier than they are already and, as a result, some vulnerable children will not get the help they obviously need.

Everyone wants the state to intervene to protect children who are in danger of abuse, but, if that is to be done effectively, the limited resources available need to be focused on identifying and helping those at risk, not investigating innocent, loving parents because the law of assault has become politicised by activists who do not agree with reasonable chastisement.

Making trivial smacks a criminal offence will cause misery for parents and children. Parents will be required to be treated as suspected child abusers by police and social services when they know they do not deserve to be treated in that way. We do not help victims of real abuse by creating injustice in families where there is no abuse. Some children will be removed from their parents; some will have to give evidence in court against their mother or father. This entirely unnecessary and unjust process would be devastating for the child and their parents, and it runs counter to the Bill’s stated aim to keep children and families together wherever it is safe to do so, as set out by the Minister at Second Reading.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

My plea is: please listen to children, give them the opportunity—not if they do not want it, but almost all of them will want it. They want to know what is happening and they want to put their 10 cents-worth in. Somehow or other, please make arrangements to put in statutory guidance the real plus that all the children taken into care should have a chance to know what is happening to each other.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I just remind noble Lords that in considering the first amendment, which went on rather a long time, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place, talked about children’s rights being the “golden spine running through” the Bill, but that is not explicit in the Bill. Amendment 14, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is a very good example of how we could be promoting children’s rights much more explicitly in the Bill.

I very much support the amendments. I will be introducing amendments myself at the very end—if anyone is still standing at that point. I had hoped to do it at the beginning. The more we can come back to this thread of children’s rights throughout the Bill, the better. I hope noble Lords will realise the importance of the amendments on children’s rights, which will be introduced at the end of the Bill.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. In this, I declare that I am one of the school of qualified teachers in this Chamber. I am also a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds.

This is a very small but important amendment. As we have heard, the Bill attaches great importance to family decision-making. I recently had a cup of tea with my noble friend Lord Laming to ask his advice about the Bill. Sadly, he is unable to take part, but if there is one person in the House who is an absolute expert in this field, it is he. His concern—which I share, having been in decision meetings that have gone wrong—is that a badly handled meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing of a meeting, the participants not realising the aims or bad chairing can lead to a breakdown of trust and irreparable harm being done to a child’s future. This amendment goes a long way to making sure that the importance of an FGDM meeting is acknowledged, with the fact that it can be facilitated only by an independent, suitably trained person, and I urge the Government to accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

For all the reasons I have outlined and with the assurances I have provided, particularly on the content of statutory guidance, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I very much welcome my noble friend’s recognition of the importance of the voice of the child, but the point was made from around the Committee that the principle derives from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She did not mention children’s rights in the UN convention, so it would be reassuring if she put on the record that she acknowledges that this is an important thread that runs through many of the provisions in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Secretary of State has described as

“child-centred legislation through and through”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 854.]

brought by a “truly child-centred Government”. The emphasis has been on the Bill’s contribution to the opportunity mission, but the well-being framing points also to the importance of action to improve children’s childhoods—children as beings as well as “becomings”. An holistic measure of child well-being could play a valuable role here.

The Bill promises to remove barriers to opportunities in schools through action on free breakfast clubs and school uniforms. There may be some debate on the details—for example, around the number of branded items permitted, whether breakfast clubs could be more flexible and why there is no action on free lunches—but broadly, these measures have been widely applauded in the context of the shocking level and depth of child poverty. Evidence from charities and teachers underlines how educational opportunity is stunted by hardship and hunger, which also damage children’s well-being. But as Action for Children and others emphasise, these measures can represent only a minor element in the much-anticipated child poverty strategy, which has to address family incomes directly, including investment in our tattered social security system, starting with abolition of the two-child limit and benefit cap, which are key drivers of the increase in child poverty.

What is disappointing is that this child-centred legislation makes no mention of children’s rights. My noble friend the Minister acknowledged, earlier this year, that

“we must consider children’s rights in all our policy-making”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 9.]

However, unlike in Wales, Scotland and Jersey, here, there is no general legal duty to do so, even though we have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Organisations such as the Children’s Rights Alliance for England have argued that this matters because failing explicitly and systematically to consider children’s rights—including at the earlier stage of policy-making—means that laws and policies are not always developed with children’s unique needs and best interests in mind. Their voices are all too often not heard in policy-making and implementation processes.

As an aside, a children’s rights perspective also supports the case for equal protection for children from physical assault, where, again, we lag behind other nations. It reminds us that a concern for children’s well-being must include all children in the UK, including migrants and those seeking asylum.

I agree with the Children’s Rights Alliance for England that this child-centred Bill presents an invaluable opportunity genuinely to embed consideration of children’s rights into law and policy-making processes. While that would ideally be done through direct incorporation of the UN convention into UK law, as is the case in Scotland, significant steps could be taken in this Bill by following the examples of Wales and Jersey.

Therefore, I will table two amendments in Committee that will place a duty on Ministers to consider children’s rights when exercising their functions. They will be required to prepare and publish a children’s rights impact assessment of all relevant policies, legislation and decisions. These amendments have the support of over 100 organisations, which believe that the time is ripe for us to follow the lead of the devolved nations. They would strengthen the Bill by underpinning its ambition to promote children’s well-being and by adding teeth to the aim of

“child-centred action across Departments”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 854.]

which the Secretary of State for Education heralded as part of a mission-led Government. If we believe that children’s rights, as codified in the UN convention, are crucial to child-centred government, we must ask: if we do not legislate for them now, then when?

Net Migration

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we will introduce a new, points-based immigration system, and of course we will have the immigration and social security co-ordination Bill later this year. Noble Lords will know that reviewing legislation, having introduced it, will be at the top of the Government’s mind when they look at their overall priority of bringing the numbers down.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, what assessment has been made on provision of care if net migration is reduced? There is real concern in the care sector, as well as in the health sector, that it could cause problems if the noble Lord’s aim of reducing net migration were achieved in that sector.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is fair to say that the Government want to import the skills needed for the gaps in the market. We are looking to reduce low-skilled migration overall but will introduce a points-based system focused on skills and talents. That combination will mean that overall numbers will come down, I hope.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could agree with that, but I give the noble Lord the example of Wythenshawe in Greater Manchester, which has the largest council housing estate in Europe. It had one intervention, to bring the tram through it. The houses are still not worth very much, but in percentage terms they have had the greatest increase in value in Greater Manchester. That is an example of where strategic intervention really helps places to grow without particular legislation. Like everyone else, I look forward to the White Paper and contributing to it. As the Prime Minister said in Rotherham recently, we are going to do devolution properly: I know my noble friend Lord Heseltine will have great hope. We are going to maximise the power of the north, with more mayors across the whole of the north.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised Yorkshire. The Prime Minister also welcomed the establishment of a Yorkshire committee as a practical step facilitating greater collaboration on a Yorkshire-wide basis. I echo that and the bespoke ongoing discussions across Yorkshire to ensure the most appropriate arrangements. I have the scars on my back from some of the earlier discussions in Yorkshire. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine talked about the shared prosperity fund. We recognise the importance of reassuring local areas on the future of local growth funding once we have left the EU and providing clarity on the SPF. We will consult on the fund, alongside the White Paper, so that people have an opportunity to contribute their views on its design and priorities.

There is a lot of support in your Lordships’ House for the Domestic Abuse Bill. It came first from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but I think most noble Lords mentioned it. One thing he brought up—and I look forward to discussing it with noble Lords—was GPs charging fees to victims for providing a letter evidencing abuse. I did not know that that was the situation; I am really appalled to hear about it and I can advise him that the department of health is working with a range of other departments and agencies, including the Ministry of Justice and the British Medical Association, to assess the scale of the problem and find out how many GPs currently charge for this service and how much. Gathering the evidence is the first necessary step, but I deplore the fact that it is going on.

On equalities, my noble friend Lord Bourne talked about the Race Disparity Audit. He knows that it is to drive change by publishing authoritative data and analysis about ethnic disparities, differences of treatment or outcome affecting people of different ethnicities. The website “Ethnicity facts and figures” now covers 176 different topics across education, healthcare, criminal justice and the economy. The Government are committed to acting on the data provided. He also talked about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. At that hate crime service there was a commemoration of a boy in Liverpool who was killed because he was a Traveller. He is absolutely right that the Race Disparity Audit shows that people from Irish Traveller and Gypsy Roma groups have the highest rates of temporary and permanent exclusions. In response, the Government commissioned the Timpson Review of School Exclusion, published earlier this year. The report stressed action to ensure that permanent exclusions are only used as a last resort, and made 30 recommendations which are currently being considered.

The noble Lord also talked about the definition of Islamophobia. As he knows, the APPG definition would create practical and legal challenges. It is absolutely vital that we get it right and that any definition reflects the experiences of those who have experienced anti-Muslim hatred. That is why we are appointing advisers to lead a review on the definition of Islamophobia. As he knows, the first of the advisers, Imam Qari Asim, was appointed on 23 July.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the reform of the adult social care system. We have given government access to £1.5 billion of additional funding for adult and children’s social care next year, and we will set out proposals to fix the crisis in social care in due course. I am sorry to say that there is no consensus on the best way to reform the system, but we need to get it right. I am afraid I cannot commit to a timeline at this point.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering talked about the Hague convention. We are committed to continued co-operation with the EU in cross-border, civil and family cases after Brexit. In particular, we are keen to ensure that there are clear rules on which court should hear a cross-border case and that UK legal decisions can be recognised and enforced in the EU. We will work with our European partners to establish the exact nature of a future agreement.

On policing, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, gave his support, and I am pleased that other Peers also welcomed the commitment to policing through the recruitment of an additional 20,000 officers over the next three years. We are also committed to wider support and protection as part of the police covenant, which I was pleased to hear the noble Lord welcome. The Home Secretary has made it clear that she will give the police the tools they need, as evidenced by the recent pledge of £10 million to equip police officers with Tasers.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the recruitment of BME officers in the 20,000 uplift. There has never been a more important time to ensure that we increase the diversity of people joining the police so that the police look like the diverse community they serve. Of course, we want to attract talent from the widest possible pool. As of March this year, we have the highest proportion of BME and female officers since records began. There is further to go, but this is a promising step towards reflecting the community that the police serve. Work by police forces is already under way to ensure that they have a more representative workforce than ever before.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about extending welfare mitigations to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not have the power to instruct the Northern Ireland Civil Service; I am afraid that any legislation to extend welfare mitigations would have to be for a restored Executive.

She also talked about breakfast club funding; the Government are investing up to £26 million in the breakfast club programme, using funds from the soft drinks and industry levy revenues. The contract was awarded to Family Action in March 2018 and will run until March 2020. Family Action, in partnership with Magic Breakfast, have both been named as the leading charities responsible for running the breakfast club programme. Family Action is distributing the appropriate funding to participating schools that meet the eligibility criteria. The noble Baroness shakes her head.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene, but my question was: what will happen after March 2020? The evidence from the charities was that it is very successful but they are anxious about what will happen.

Asylum Seekers: Employment

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not doubt that asylum seekers have a range of skills; just because they are asylum seekers, it does not mean they do not possess skills. But it is important to distinguish those who need protection from those who want to work and not to blur the two.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, surely it is in the interests of the economy, as well as those seeking asylum, to enable them to work. All the evidence, from other countries and here, suggests that is important to their mental health and future integration. It is supported by the general public and a majority of the senior managers who were recently surveyed on this.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with what most of what the noble Baroness says. Asylum seekers can do voluntary work, which would certainly improve their mental well-being, but I disagree about the benefit to the economy.

Immigration: Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on children of the no recourse to public funds immigration condition.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government work with local authorities to support families with children who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. The condition applies to migrants with no leave to remain or those here on a temporary basis. They include skilled workers and their families where the minimum income threshold for a visa is normally £30,000. Those granted leave on the basis of family life may apply to have the condition lifted to avoid destitution.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the answer there was that no assessment has been made. “It’s just like living a life without being alive”, is how one girl described the impact of this immigration rule, which denies access to most benefits, free school meals and social housing. In view of the growing evidence of the hunger, homelessness and emotional pain that it is causing children, and the ineffectiveness of central and local authority safeguards, why are the Government not monitoring the rule’s impact and doing more to protect children according to their obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to give primary consideration to the best interests of children?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness will know that the no recourse to public funds condition has been set by successive Governments—it is not new. There are obviously exceptions for refugees relating to humanitarian protection and there are certainly discretionary leave cases. We also recognise the need for exceptions where the right to family or private life is involved under the Immigration Rules. We therefore allow for applicants to seek leave on family life grounds or to request that the no recourse to public funds provision is lifted or not imposed at all. Local authorities have seen real-terms increases and will do so up to the spending review. They should be well placed in addition to the extra £410 million allocated to them in 2019-20 to invest in adult and children’s social care services.

British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in this day and age, I think that we can all agree that the law should not discriminate against people simply because their parents were not married when they were born or discriminate against people just because it was their mother who was British and not their father.

The draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order seeks to remove discriminatory provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981 for those applying for British citizenship under specific routes introduced to address historic discrimination against those whose parents were not married. The draft order was first laid in Parliament in March 2018.

This means that, once the law is changed, those seeking to register as British citizens who were born to an unmarried British father before July 2006 or to a British mother before 1983 no longer need to demonstrate that they are of good character where it would be discriminatory to require them to do so.

In two separate cases, the courts declared the good character requirement unlawful and made a declaration of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislation will correct incompatibilities identified by the domestic courts by removing the good character requirement for those applying for British citizenship in certain routes on the basis of historic discrimination. I am grateful to the JCHR for its scrutiny of the order and its careful consideration of a hugely complex and sensitive issue.

The remedial order process to correct incompatibilities in primary legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights is rarely used. It is therefore right that each order is scrutinised carefully to ensure both compliance with the procedure laid down in the Human Rights Act 1998 and to ensure that incompatibilities found by the courts are addressed.

The Government welcome the committee’s recommendation that this order be approved today. However, it remains our position that the wider nationality issues raised by the committee go beyond the judiciary’s incompatibility rulings and are therefore outwith the scope of the order. I commend the order to the House and beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to use this opportunity to raise three burning injustices addressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the order. The first two concern children who have to register their citizenship entitlement because of their parents’ status. The third concerns the denial of citizenship to the offspring of fathers from British Overseas Territories who were not married to their mothers.

First, I and others in both Houses have many times raised the question of the level of fees charged to children who were born or who have spent most of their lives here, who are entitled to British citizenship but who have to register their entitlement because of their parents’ status. The fee is £1,012, of which only £372 represents the administrative cost of processing registration. Ministers bristle when the rest is referred to as profit, but profit it is even though it is ploughed back into the system to subsidise totally separate Home Office immigration functions.

The JCHR spells out what this means, stating that,

“children from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and children in local authority care who are less likely to be able to afford the fees are more likely to be disadvantaged by the fee level impeding their ability to register as British nationals”.

The committee echoes the concerns raised by the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member. It concludes:

“Home Office fees for children who have a right to be British should be proportionate to the service being offered and should be priced at a rate that is accessible for children accessing their rights. This is not the case at the moment since fees for children are three times more than the cost of the service—four-figure fees merely to register an existing right to be British are unacceptable. Disproportionately high fees should not exclude children from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds from accessing their rights”.


I shall not rehearse all the arguments again other than to remind the Minister that citizenship matters, not just for practical reasons such as access to higher education but for reasons of belonging, identity and security.

I find it depressing that despite the Home Secretary’s admission more than a year ago that the fee represents a “huge amount” and that he should look at it, despite concerns raised repeatedly in both Houses and despite the chief inspector’s critical report, nothing has happened other than that the fee was not raised this year. It is not good enough that we continue to be fobbed off with vague assurances that the matter is “under consideration”. Will the Minister explain exactly what is meant by that? Is it active consideration? If it is, who is considering it and how, and when will the results be made public? If not, when will it be actively considered?

As if the exorbitant fees were not bad enough, these children are also subject to what is called the good character requirement. The JCHR report traces the history of this and how it was inappropriately extended to this group of children, who are entitled to British citizenship, wrongly referred to by a Minister at the time as “coming to the UK”. This is an example of how, time and again, the Home Office conflates and muddles up nationality law, which establishes who is entitled to British citizenship, and immigration law, which is quite separate. The JCHR, and those giving evidence to it, questioned the appropriateness of applying the test to children who were born in, or have grown up in, the UK. It again cites the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, which questioned the age—10—from which the test is applied. The JCHR concludes:

“It is inappropriate to apply the good character requirement to young children with a right to be British, where the United Kingdom is the only country they know and where they have grown up their whole lives here’.


The JCHR is also critical of how Ministers refer to “heinous” crimes in relation to the test, ignoring how it is applied also to cautions, minor offences and some forms of non-criminal behaviour. Indeed, it notes that half the children denied their right to British citizenship on good character grounds have not even received a criminal conviction, let alone been prosecuted for a “heinous crime”. It notes that the Home Office has updated the guidance in response to an earlier report by the chief inspector, to make clear the duty of,

“safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’,

and to make,

“the ‘best interests’ of the child a primary consideration”.

However, in essence, the revised guidance does not address the concerns raised and the JCHR observes that it seems that,

“to date, the best interests of the child and child safeguarding obligations are not being adequately taken into consideration in Home Office decision-making”.

It reports that the Home Office has still been unable to explain or justify why the test is applied to children who know no other country and, in particular, to children as young as 10 so that the policy,

“is preventing children whose only real connection is with the UK from becoming British”,

contrary to what was originally intended. It calls on the Government to review the application of the test again in view of their,

“obligation to consider the best interests of the child when considering the impact on children with such a close connection to the UK”.

It also says that the Home Office has failed to explain why a child should be deprived of this important right merely on the basis of a police caution. Will the Minister now give an explanation of, and justification for, applying the test to these children, undertake to review its application, as called for by the JCHR, and, while carrying out the review and without further delay, undertake to limit its application to serious crimes so that minor offences are excluded?

I pay tribute to those who have campaigned relentlessly on these issues, in particular the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, and give due notice to the Home Office that their champions in this and the other House do not intend to give up the fight. With a new Prime Minister, why not put an end to these two injustices and claim some credit for doing so? I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned on the final citizenship injustice I will raise, particularly one of its victims, Trent Miller, who has been writing to me about it ever since I acted as a humble foot soldier to the late and much missed Lord Avebury who went as far as the constraints of the Immigration Bill allowed on this issue during its passage in 2014.

The JCHR refers to the recommendation made in its previous report in 2018. It deemed it ‘unacceptable’ that acquisition of British nationality should depend on whether a person’s father or mother was a British Overseas Territories citizen and on whether or not their parents were married. It recommended urgent legislative action to remove this discrimination affecting those born before July 2006. The Government’s response was that they would undertake consultation with the overseas territories at a point when a suitable legislative vehicle was identified. The JCHR expresses dismay at this further delay. It also notes that the Explanatory Memorandum to the order explains that the legislatures of the overseas territories,

“have not been consulted since they have no competence in matters relating to nationality and citizenship”.

One might have thought that the Government would have known that before committing to such consultation. As it is, we seem to be back we where we started. The JCHR was unsurprisingly not impressed, and made it clear that:

“The Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should not wait to consult on this at some unspecified point in the future, but should take action to consult and actively seek to remedy this human rights violation as swiftly as possible, rather than proffer excuses for delay”.


In fact, according to a Written Answer I received on 10 May, it seems there has been “engagement” with the British Overseas Territories to,

“seek their views on possible future changes on the matter”,

and, once again, there are those weasel words:

“This matter is under consideration”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has lasted longer than it did in the other place. That does not surprise me, because your Lordships are so much more forensic.

Most noble Lords made similar points, the first of which was around the good character test for children. The good character requirement for British citizenship is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981 and applies to those seeking to register as British who are aged 10 and over at the time of application. This is because 10 is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Children as young as 10 can and do commit very serious acts of criminality, such as murder and rape, and it cannot be right that such offences are disregarded when assessing a child’s suitability for citizenship. The Government do not believe that the good character requirement for children is at odds with the statutory obligation in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

However, I wish to make clear—I think it was either the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, or the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who raised this issue—that having a criminal conviction does not necessarily mean that an application for citizenship is automatically refused, particularly in the case of minor offences attracting an out-of-court disposal: for example, a youth caution. Each case is considered on its individual merits, and guidance for caseworkers makes it clear where discretion can be exercised.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the issue of repeated fees—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Before we move off the good character test, while it is helpful to have that explanation, could the Minister explain how, according to the JCHR, half of the children denied their entitlement to British nationality on the grounds of good character have not even received a criminal conviction, let alone been prosecuted for the kind of dreadful crimes that she mentioned.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will write to the noble Baroness on that because if people have not even had a conviction or indeed been found guilty of any small crime, that would appear to contradict what I was saying.

All noble Lords asked about the fees for children. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, made the distinction between ILR and citizenship. That is absolutely right. Upon application for citizenship there is a fee, but citizenship is not an absolute right and acquisition is not automatic; it remains subject to an application being made and the fulfilment of statutory requirements such as taking an oath and making pledges at a citizenship ceremony in the case of adults, and the payment of fees. There are provisions for those who are destitute, including children living in local authority care, to be exempt from application fees in specific circumstances. This is clearly set out in guidance for caseworkers and the Government consider it sufficient to allow vulnerable children to access the services they need. Nevertheless, I am aware that this issue has been raised several times recently, both in this House and in the other place, as well as being the feature of the recent inspection by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. Given the attention that this subject has attracted, the Government have agreed to keep the current position under review. Before the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, screams in frustration, I will keep the House updated on that. Clearly, we are about to go through a period of slight flux with a new Administration, a comprehensive spending review and a new Prime Minister, so I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for being a bit more vague on this occasion. I do not think she does, but it is as much as I can say at this time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the British Overseas Territories. The JCHR is concerned that the discriminatory provisions this remedial order seeks to remedy will still apply to British Overseas Territories citizens. Regrettably, that is true. When changes to nationality legislation were made, they were introduced at a very late stage in the parliamentary process and there was no time to consult fully with the territories about introducing similar provisions for the status of British Overseas Territories citizens. It would not have been right to introduce legislation that would affect the territories and potentially the status of those living there without that consultation. We recognise the difficulties that still are faced by those citizens who might want to pass on their citizenship to their children and we are actively considering how best to address those concerns, taking into account the opportunities for doing so.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the compatibility of the order with the ECHR. The draft order is compatible with human rights; we confirmed this in the Explanatory Memorandum that was relaid yesterday.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to interrupt again. I am slightly behind so I am a bit out of sync. I am very confused now because the Minister said it would not be right to make these changes without consulting the British Overseas Territories, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that British Overseas Territories have not been consulted since they have no competence in matters relating to nationality and citizenship. There is also the Written Answer to me saying that there has been engagement with them. If not now, could the Minister explain in a letter what exactly is the state of play in relation to the British Overseas Territories and whether it is possible to move this on, because it has been going on for a long time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very valid point. I suspect the answer is that engagement is not the same as formal consultation, and we do not tend to do things to the overseas territories without consulting them formally. I will confirm that to her if I can. She is right that we need to remedy this sooner rather than later because there is a gap which needs to be sorted.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about a government response to the JCHR report. The Immigration Minister will today respond to the JCHR’s most recent recommendations and a copy will be laid in the Library.

Sustainable Development Goals

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that in her Written Statement on the VNR the Minister underlined that the goals apply to all people in all countries, including here in the UK, so there is a focus on the domestic in the review. It will perhaps not surprise noble Lords that that will be my focus as well.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Audit Committee identified a doughnut-shaped hole in domestic implementation of the SDGs despite the Government’s fine words, and I am afraid I do not think much has changed since then, the VNR notwithstanding. The committee used SDG 2—zero hunger—as a case study through which to examine the domestic focus. It concluded that the Government continue to see hunger and food insecurity as overseas issues, with DfID the only department to include them in its single departmental plan, and lamented the blind eye to UK hunger. It cited UNICEF data provided by the Food Foundation which indicates that a higher proportion of children live in severely food-insecure households than in any other EU nation. The UK Stakeholders for Sustainable Development rated the UK only amber or red on nutrition-related targets under SDG 2. While the decision to start measuring food insecurity is welcome, it must be only a first step.

Food insecurity is a helpful concept, but it can serve to sanitise the fact that in some cases we are talking about hunger. Let us not forget that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was ratified by the UK, places a duty on government to ensure the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. According to Human Rights Watch, the UK Government are failing in that duty, as its research revealed families of children going hungry in a country with ample resources to make sure that that does not happen. This is borne out by countless other studies.

A particular issue which integrates the domestic and global dimensions of the SDGs concerns migrant families with no recourse to public funds, which was debated yesterday evening. Children go hungry because they are excluded from free school meals because of the rule. Will the Minister undertake to take this up with relevant colleagues in the context of the SDGs?

The implications of hunger for children’s education has been brought home to us by numerous surveys of teachers noted in recent months in this House. Recently, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders reported a conversation he had had with a group of head teachers. When asked what was the biggest issue facing them, the answer was, “Hungry children … It’s shaming”.

The NVR document makes no mention of this shaming hunger. However, it cites investment in a national school breakfast programme as an example of action taken in the UK to deliver food security. This investment is welcome. I met recently with the leaders of the two organisations spearheading the programme and was impressed by what they have achieved in just a year. They are driven by the knowledge that “some children are too hungry to learn”.

In just a year the programme is delivering a nutritious breakfast to an estimated 280,000 children. The benefits reported by schools include improved behaviour, attendance and attainment. The Government’s contribution to the costs, at least half of which are met by schools themselves, is a mere £26 million over two years funded from the soft drinks industry levy, which raised £240 million in just one year. I challenge the Minister to come up with a more cost-effective programme to further the aims of SDG 2 domestically. Its leaders are sick with worry because the Government are refusing to give an assurance that the programme will continue beyond March next year.

A Parliamentary Question eventually elicited the response that,

“decisions about any funding beyond March 2020 will be taken as part of the upcoming Spending Review”.

However, who now knows when that will be, given the current uncertainties? In the meantime it is impossible for them to plan for the future, yet schools need to know what will happen for the new school year. Given that this comes within the purview of the SDGs, I urge the Minister to take this back to the Department for Education and seek an assurance that at the very least a year’s extension will be granted without further delay, leaving longer-term decisions for the spending review. Given that the Government’s contribution is a mere fraction of the soft drinks levy, there is no excuse not to do so.

As the UKSSD report notes,

“poverty and inequalities are major underlying factors in the nutrition targets of SDG2”.

I turn therefore now to SDG 1, “no poverty”. Here the UKSSD’s domestic scores are one green, three amber and one red. It concludes:

“Unless the UK takes a different tack, everyday life for its most financially challenged will continue to become more stressed and the prospect of achieving SDG1—conceived as a national indicator of income poverty—is a remote possibility”.


That is not exactly a vote of confidence. However, it tallies more with the evidence presented by the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, deemed “factually correct” by the lead official, than with the complacent picture painted in the VNR report.

Responsibility for SDG 1 lies with the DWP. According to the VNR report, each UK government department has embedded the goals in its single departmental plan; and each plan outlines how planned activity will support delivery of the goals. I therefore turn now to the DWP plan. The goals are so well embedded they are virtually invisible. There is not a single explicit reference to them in “our objectives”. Indeed, those objectives do not even mention tackling poverty, which I find extraordinary. There are no UK-wide poverty targets as one would expect if SDG 1.1 and 1.2 were genuinely integrated into the plan. The Scottish Government seem to be making a more serious effort to integrate the SDGs in their anti-poverty strategy and have retained the child poverty targets abandoned by the UK Government.

The plan reads as though it were drawn up without reference to the SDGs and then officials went through it, adding in parenthesis where they thought an action could be presented as contributing to them. That is not what I call embedded. Nor is there any evidence of a delivery strategy for SDG 1. The same is true of the DWP annual report, which makes but brief mention of its responsibility for SDG 1 and tells us nothing about progress in meeting it. In a recent analysis of domestic progress on SDG 1 in the journal Poverty, Fran Bennett observes that the contrast with DfID’s departmental plan,

“may suggest the Government is taking its external responsibilities relating to poverty more seriously than the equivalent domestic agenda”.

She notes:

“There has been some recent acknowledgement of the UK government’s less than stellar performance to date … especially target 1.2 relating to poverty at home”.


According to the VNR document, the International Development Secretary has overall leadership and policy oversight for the goals, with the Minister for Implementation in the Cabinet Office helping to ensure a co-ordinated cross-government approach to delivery. The Minister has acknowledged that more needs to be done on co-ordination. What co-ordination has there been between DfID/the Cabinet Office and individual departments in drawing up their single departmental plans? If the DWP’s plan, with its scant reference to the SDGs, has been deemed adequate to the task, does it not support the contention that the Government are not taking the domestic SDG agenda seriously and that the institutional mechanisms for pursuing that agenda need reviewing, as my noble friend Lord McConnell spelled out so clearly?

While target 1.2—reducing poverty in all its dimensions—is key for the UK, it would be wrong to assume that target 1.1 on eradicating extreme poverty is irrelevant. I have already spoken about hunger, which one might consider an indicator of extreme poverty, but more generally there is growing concern about destitution in our midst, to the extent that a Joseph Rowntree Foundation study developed a measure of destitution appropriate for a wealthy country such as the UK, and on that basis estimated that 1.5 million people, including 365,000 children, were destitute at some point during 2017. They could not afford to buy the bare essentials that we all need to eat, stay warm and dry and keep clean.

I fear the numbers will be even worse by now as the benefits freeze and other cuts have taken their toll, pushing many already in poverty further below the poverty line. There are particular concerns in this context about asylum seekers and newly recognised refugees, who are totally invisible in the VNR report, yet refugees have been identified by UN member states as a key group in pursuing the SDGs, as the International Rescue Committee pointed out. Will the Minister take note of the IRC’s call on the UK Government to support the inclusion of refugees in the political declaration at the upcoming high-level political forum? Will she ask colleagues to ensure that they specifically include them in their departmental plans?

Fran Bennett concludes:

“The potential of Goal 1 as a powerful instrument for driving forward positive and co-ordinated action to ensure that by 2030 in the UK extreme poverty (and destitution) (target 1.1) are eradicated, and poverty in all its dimensions (target 1.2) is cut by half, has certainly not been realised to date”.


So, when in his foreword to the VNR report the Secretary of State states,

“We are proud of what we have achieved but humbled by what we haven’t”,


I humbly suggest that the Government have little to be proud of when it comes to their domestic poverty agenda. Instead, the growing evidence of suffering as a consequence of the Government’s own actions—I reference in particular the recent study by the Church of England Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, which details the devastating impact of the two-child limit on family life—suggests they are impeding rather than making significant strides towards the achievement of SDG 1 and related SDGs, as claimed by the Secretary of State.