Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

462: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of school governing bodies regarding mental health provision(1) Subject to subsection (3), the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England has a duty to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated education mental health practitioner.(2) In subsection (1) “education mental health practitioner” means a person with a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification of that name earned through a course commissioned by NHS England.(3) Where a school has 100 or fewer pupils, the duty under subsection (1) may be satisfied through collaborative provision between several schools.(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for the purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated education mental health practitioner.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 462 is in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for adding their names.

This is a very important group. It is about the mental health and well-being of children, something that is, or indeed should be, central to the Bill. It is the name on the tin. My amendment would ensure a dedicated mental health practitioner in all schools qualified to a level—and this is the critical point—that they can deal safely with the problems that are more complex than those currently dealt with by early-intervention CBT—cognitive behavioural therapy—support, which is currently delivered by existing mental health support teams.

To be clear, I welcome and applaud the Government’s commitment in the spending review to expanding mental health support teams to all schools and colleges in England. These teams work with children, parents and wider school staff to promote good mental health and, funded through the health system, provide effective prevention and early-intervention support for children with a range of mild to moderate mental health needs, including things such as low mood and anxiety. They are doing important work.

These teams are staffed by education mental health practitioners. The terminology can be a bit confusing here, but it is a relatively new role within the children and young people’s mental health workforce system. As these mental health support teams expand, these practitioners in training are recruited for a work-based placement, while they complete a diploma or postgraduate qualification over a period of one academic year. During this time, practitioners are trained to deliver low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy to children or, in some cases, to parents, to allow them to directly support their children.

While this approach has been effective for children with lower-level needs, CBT is not appropriate for all. Evidence has shown that some groups of children are less likely to benefit from these interventions; this includes those with special educational needs, younger children, and children experiencing moderate to more complex mental health needs.

The problem is—and this is specifically what my amendment is designed to address—that these children with more complex needs still do not meet the very high threshold for child and adolescent mental health services, because their needs are deemed to be not severe enough. In short, they are currently falling through a gap in support, and it is often referred to as the “missing middle”.

In the last 12 months, CAMHS has closed 28% of referrals without offering any support. This results in mental health support teams in schools often being asked to hold cases that they are not trained to work with safely, leaving children at risk. These children include those who are at risk of or have indeed self-harmed, those who have experienced trauma, bereavement or loss, and those who have thoughts of suicide. These things are real; these children are not making those things up. These children are often clearly visible to the professionals within schools and the health service through repeat presentation at health services. Often, they are struggling, not attending school or unable to engage with learning.

It is worth noting that respected voluntary sector providers, such as Barnardo’s and Place2Be, have recommended that, as part of the Government’s rollout of mental health support teams,

“the model is expanded to include provision of funded … school-based counselling”.

They say it would fill this missing middle

“to ensure that all children in mental distress can access timely support”.

A dedicated mental health professional qualified at the right level, such as a school-based counsellor, would normally hold a degree in counselling or psychotherapy. That would improve outcomes for children whose needs are not currently being met and—this is critical—should help to reduce pressure on CAMHS in a cost-effective way. These professionals are trained to deliver a range of different therapeutic skills and approaches that allow them to understand the unique needs of each child. One size does not fit all; I am sure we can all agree on that.

Evidence from other UK nations demonstrates how embedding school counsellors can indeed reduce pressure on CAMHS. In Wales, where school counselling services are statutorily funded, only 1.7% of those accessing counselling need to be referred on to specialist CAMHS. Existing mental health support team staff and school-based counsellors have different routes of training, different qualifications and different skill sets. They each fill a different mental health need and working together could offer more support to more children than is currently the case.

In conclusion, my amendment proposes that the skill mix of the mental health support team workforce should be expanded to ensure that all children have access to an appropriately qualified mental health practitioner as part of the rollout. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.

Finally, I want to express my strong support for Amendment 472 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, to which my name is also attached, and to Amendment 479 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I will make a just a few very quick points on Amendment 472. This is a Bill about children’s well-being but, frankly, with very few direct references to the broader issue of well-being and, certainly, without any provisions for measuring well-being. This amendment would provide for a single, optional online well-being survey, delivered annually in schools and with centralised support made available to schools that wished to take up the option.

That is a modest but important ask. School data from the surveys would not be published or used to penalise schools in any way, or be part of the formal accountability systems. In case of any misunderstanding, this would not be a stick with which to beat schools. The survey would be optional. Schools would not be mandated to participate. It would be up to them, as indeed it would be for parents, carers and pupils, to opt out should they choose. However, we know from a recent YouGov poll that 75% of parents agree that, to improve young people’s well-being, we need to measure it. Critically, the data collected would allow the whole system to respond, including children’s services, education, health and the voluntary sector, at both national and local level.

I end by pointing out what I think we all know: happy and healthy children are most likely to be present at school, to engage in learning and to achieve to their full potential. Surely that is what we all want. We have a real chance here to progress that aim. I beg to move.

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak on behalf of Amendment 472, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who has spoken very well, and the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Moynihan. This is a modest proposal, but it is probably the most important one. I have sat through all the hours of this debate and I would say to all noble Lords who have spoken that, if this does not go through, they will not succeed.

The reason I say that is that I have not spent over two decades in the Treasury without knowing that you need evidence: you need to prove what works. Your Lordships have talked various things. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, mentioned various interventions and wanting to know whether the costs and benefits were worthwhile; that is absolutely right. She mentioned NICE. The key thing about NICE is that it works out whether a given medicine is worthwhile by doing a cost-benefit analysis based on QALYs—quality adjusted life years. We now have more sophisticated measures known as WELLBYs—well-being years.

To understand whether a thing makes sense, we need to do the assessment and for that we need data. Your Lordships have all made suggestions: we want more physical exercise; we want less bullying; and we want to think about what things in SEND work. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we need some common definitions. We need a common definition of well-being that we can use; the department can give us that. Then we can work on the basis of exactly how important and how effective all these things are.

If we think about how this debate started, we all talked about our favourite brand of school: free schools, academies, you name it. How do we assess which one is better? Well, either implicitly or, in some cases, very explicitly, it was a matter of exam results or Ofsted rankings. Nobody talked about these schools’ impact on well-being, for the very good reason that we do not know. We do not have data. The only data we have is the world’s most embarrassing data of all, which nobody has mentioned yet: the PISA data. The PISA data shows us that, out of all of Europe, our young people have the lowest well-being. Of the 38 countries in the OECD, where do we come? In 37th place. My favourite football team, Manchester United, is not even that bad in the league.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, after this wide-ranging debate and with that response, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to this, as she said, wide-ranging—you could even say “interesting”, in a certain sense—debate. I simply reflect that, in terms of the tone of the debate that we have had, there was a time not so long ago—perhaps a few years ago—when, if you were talking about children’s mental health and well-being in this Chamber, there would have been a certain sort of debate. There would probably have been a general consensus about the problem and what we were trying to achieve, and there would probably have been some disagreement over the best way of getting there.

I have to say: that is no longer the case. As with so many things in this current world, this whole issue seems to have become highly polarised and contested in a way that I find pretty unhelpful, but we are where we are. We can all quote our favourite bit of evidence or research report that backs up our own worldview but, frankly, unless you are looking at these things in the round, that rarely takes you much further forward.

I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, talk about the need to look carefully at the root causes of mental health issues. That was a very helpful perspective; personally, pretending that a problem does not exist rarely helps to address it.

I do not recognise that schools have turned into some sort of industrial complex of mental health with an excess of mental health professionals. All I can say is that the schools I have visited are not like that; they tell me what an issue mental health is and how they want extra help and support. That is all I am going to say in general terms.

I will respond to a couple of the points on the amendments. On my amendment, I was moderately encouraged to hear the Minister talk about the pilots, looking at the enhanced levels of support from mental health support teams. That is exactly what I was trying to get at in my amendment about the missing middle, as I put it. It is about the skills mix. There is a legitimate question to look at there. I hope that that we can return to that point on Report because, according to the people I have talked to—practitioners on the front line—it is important.

There was such a strong consensus. Well, it was not a consensus, but many people in the Chamber could see clearly the case that was being mounted for a national well-being survey—a voluntary survey. No one would be forced to do it. None of it would form any part of the accountability system of schools, but it would be something that those schools could have and use.

Having and being able to use that data will be fundamental if we are to increase the well-being of children and young people in schools. As far as I am concerned, there is no running away from the PISA data that tells us that the UK’s young people have the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD. That is what PISA tells us. We need to do something about it. To do something about it, we need to be collecting that data.

I am sure we will want to think about this again, and about putting it across—the costs would be very modest indeed—in a way that will be acceptable to the Minister and to this Government. Until we have that, we will not be able to address the fundamental problem of children who have poor well-being, are unhappy with perhaps poor mental health, do not learn well, do not achieve, and do not live the fulfilling lives that we all want them to live. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 462 withdrawn.

Universal Credit Bill

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, to say that this Bill, in its various incarnations, has had a bumpy ride would be something of an understatement. The Bill is now being rushed through Parliament at what feels like an indecent pace and now, having been assigned as a money Bill, it means that this Chamber cannot undertake its normal scrutiny. In short, the Bill has had neither proper consultation nor in-depth scrutiny. To be blunt, the whole parliamentary process has been shambolic, and I fear that this has seriously damaged trust with disabled people, including those with mental health problems, who have needlessly gone through turmoil.

I totally understand that the current welfare bill is unsustainably high and that reform is needed, but if the Government are serious about cutting welfare spending at source, they would also get serious about fixing health and social care without delay so as to tackle chronic ill health at its root, rather than start by trying to cut funding for carers and some of the most vulnerable.

Having made those general points, I will focus on two issues which give me real cause for concern. The first is mental health. The initial plans in the Bill when it was introduced would have had a devastating impact on people with mental health problems. Although I welcome the announcement of the Timms review of the PIP assessment, to which I will return, there remain fundamental flaws with the Government’s plans. The cut to the health element of universal credit, which remains, will mean that about 750,000 disabled people will miss out on about £3,000 a year by the end of the decade. This will include many people with mental health problems who find themselves too unwell to work.

These cuts to universal credit are supposed to be safeguarded by the new severe conditions criteria, which apply to people who meet a set of requirements including having a lifelong condition and being likely to satisfy the relevant criteria for the rest of their life. This will mean two things: first, that at least one of the descriptors of people’s conditions applies to them “constantly”; secondly, that they will have been given an official diagnosis by an NHS practitioner. I share the concern of many in the sector about the requirement for a descriptor to apply constantly because, for many mental health problems, even severe ones such as schizophrenia, people’s mental health can fluctuate. This sort of fluctuating condition also applies to people with severe conditions such as MS and Parkinson’s.

I am also concerned about the new NHS diagnostic requirement, as we know that many people with mental health problems can wait years to receive a diagnosis and many feel forced to receive or seek treatment outside the NHS because of very long waiting lists or inaccessible services. It just does not feel fair to penalise people who seek private diagnosis and treatment due to the inadequacies of the current NHS.

I share the concern expressed by some about the extent to which the Timms review into personal independence payments will be a genuinely co-produced endeavour. Despite welcome promises to work closely with disabled people on changes to the system, the way this Bill has been handled so far—and, frankly, the way it fell apart—demonstrates a clear lack of consultation with the people most affected. It is also unclear what obligations the Government will have to implement the review’s recommendations and whether they will need to be bound by the current spending envelope of the cuts we have already seen. Can the Minister give me an assurance that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny, including full debates in both Chambers, following the publication of the Timms review?

I return to the Bill’s impact on unpaid carers. Given that PIP is a crucial gateway for carer’s allowance and other carer benefits and that 150,000 disabled carers receive PIP, it is vital that the Government provide a firm commitment that unpaid carers and organisations that represent them will be consulted and fully engaged with throughout the Timms review. This time, we really need to take the time to get it right.

What assurances can the Government give that the outcome of the Timms review will not lead to significant numbers of unpaid carers being put at risk of losing their own benefits entitlement? It is worth reminding ourselves that the original Bill would have resulted in 150,000 carers losing entitlement to carer’s allowance. I quote one carer: “The extra costs we faced as carers will not disappear if the health element is cut. For those of us like myself who are carers and disabled, this will be a double whammy”.

Carer’s Allowance

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I think I should just reiterate that the Government thoroughly recognise and value the vital contribution made by carers, but it is also the case that, if a claimant incurs an overpayment due to payment error or fraud, this overpayment will need to be repaid and, in some cases, as the noble Baroness will know, a penalty will be charged. However, we carefully balance our duty to the taxpayer to recover overpayments and safeguards are in place to manage repayments fairly. Some overpayments will attract no penalty at all, and I can certainly expand on the safe- guards that we have in place.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee has written to the comptroller of the National Audit Office asking the NAO to conduct a second inquiry into carer’s allowance overpayment, five years after the initial investigation in 2019? Would the Government welcome such an investigation and how quickly could it be set up?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I have to say that the gist of the argument that came from the noble Baroness’s question is, “What is going on?” I can tell her that around 1 million people are in receipt of carer’s allowance and that the vast majority of them—around 95%—were paid correctly. I do not entirely accept the statistics that the noble Baroness mentioned: the total overpayment rate for carer’s allowance was 5.2%, which represents about 60,000 people. About half of them ended up being given a penalty of £50—the basic civil penalty.

Health and Disability Reform

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity at last to ask some questions about this Statement, because the route here has not been pretty or swift. The Prime Minister made a speech on 19 April about the need to reform sickness and disability benefits. Cue lots of headlines about sick note culture and the need for a crackdown. Then, there was silence: 10 days of expecting a Statement which did not come; 10 days of asking for detail; 10 days during which, if noble Lords are anything like me, they will have had a succession of messages from sick and disabled people who were very anxious about what was going to happen to their benefits.

When the Secretary of State finally talked, it was not to Parliament but to the media, of course, so we began to find details there. The Telegraph ran the headline, “Disability benefits could be vouchers, not cash”. The Sunday Times said, “Depressed and anxious face losing … benefits”, with the sub-headline, “Tories plan welfare reform as election divide”. I sorry to say it, but there we have it. The Secretary of State was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying that

“it was ‘extraordinary’ that Labour was refusing to say whether it supported his benefit changes”.

At this point, there was no document, there had been no Statement in Parliament, and no details were available. In fact, when the Statement was made in Parliament, the Secretary of State did not even observe the usual courtesies of giving an advance copy to the Speaker and the shadow Secretary of State. I do not know why the Government would sit on the Statement and document for 10 days and then publish them in the week of the crucial local elections—it is a mystery.

Now we have the details, although it is not very detailed. I read the Green Paper from cover to cover, and if you exclude questions and the padding in the annexes, there are 14 pages of content. The Green Paper could hardly be any lighter green.

How did we get here? In 2013, the Government abolished disability living allowance and created PIP. According to the Green Paper:

“PIP was intended to differ from DLA by being fairer (by paying greater regard to needs arising from mental health, sensory and cognitive conditions)”.


It was also to be

“more consistent … objective … transparent … sustainable … modern and dynamic”.

The Government committed to undertake an independent review of PIP after two years and again two years later. There have been two consultations covering PIP since then.

Then, in July 2021, the Government published Shaping future support: the health and disability green paper, which launched a consultation on PIP and ESA. Nearly two years later, in March 2023, the Government published a health and disability White Paper which set out the Government’s vision

“to help more disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work”.

That paper announced the plan to remove the existing universal credit limited capability for work and work-related activity element and replace it with a new universal credit health element. It was also going to abolish the work capability assessment, which was people’s gateway to those benefits, so there would be only one health and disability functional test in future: the PIP assessment.

Now, a year after that White Paper, we are back to a Green Paper, which proposes abolishing the PIP assessment. What is going on? How will anyone be assessed for anything? Will the Minister tell us what happens to people who are clearly too sick to work at the moment but are not disabled? How will they have their support assessed when there is neither a work capability assessment nor a PIP assessment? Is the plan still to have a new universal credit health element, or is that under consideration again as well? The Government suggest that some health conditions can be taken out of PIP assessments. Can the Minister tell us which conditions they have in mind? PIP is also passport to the carer’s allowance. How will that work if there is no PIP assessment? Do people risk losing their benefits and their personal care from family or friends at the same time?

The Government said that DLA was the problem and PIP was the answer; now it seems that PIP is the problem. The fact is that we have a problem in this country: we have a record 2.8 million people locked out of work due to long-term sickness. But what or who is to blame? How much of that is down to the Government's record on the NHS? When the Statement was debated in the Commons, the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee pointed out that:

“PIP assessment providers confirm that worsening delays in NHS treatment are a big factor in the increase in the number of people applying for PIP”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/24; col. 52.]


We have also been hearing strong hints that the real problem is people with mental health problems. I do not doubt the Minister on this, but politicians in general need to be very careful about how we speak about mental health, for risk of stigmatising people or making them afraid to speak out or seek help. Can the Minister say whether the Government’s plans involve treating people’s mental and physical health differently? If so, can he explain the legal basis for making such a distinction? Can he also say what the Government will do about the near impossibility, for many people, of getting any timely mental health support at the moment?

A Labour Government would take a different approach. Among those who need the help of the state, there are some people who are temporarily or, in some cases, permanently unable to work and who need support to have a decent life. There are many others who need extra help to get, keep and advance in a job, and it is the state’s job to give that to them. For those people, health and work are two sides of the same coin.

Rather than blaming people for being sick, a Labour Government will support our NHS. The last Labour Government delivered the highest patient satisfaction level on record, and that is the record on which we want to build. We will drive down NHS waiting lists by getting patients treated on time, with 2 million more weekend and evening appointments, and we will ensure more support for those with mental health problems through an extra 8,500 mental health staff.

We will focus constructively on work, the other side of that coin, because the costs of failure in this area are a disaster for individuals and the country. Where it is possible, work is good for us—for our mental and physical health. Labour will have a new deal for working people, improving rights for the first time in a generation. We will drive up employment in every region, devolve employment support and end the tick-box culture in jobcentres. We will tear down the barriers to work for disabled people and provide help for young people.

Labour will carefully review the issues raised by this latest Green Paper. Clearly, sick and disabled people need appropriate help and support, but we also want to be a country where disabled people have the same right to a good job and the help to get it as anyone else. We will judge any measure that the Government bring forward on its merits and against that principle. I look forward hearing more from the Minister.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has just said about the lead-up to the publication of this Green Paper, but it can hardly be described as ideal. When announcing the Green Paper and the reforms to PIP on Monday, the Prime Minister said that something had gone wrong since the pandemic, leading to more people not working because of long-term ill health; he singled out the rise in people unable to work because of mental health conditions. Of course, I agree with helping people to get back into work, where that is possible, and I agree that for some people with mental health problems, it can improve their well-being. What I worry about greatly is putting the spotlight on people with mental health problems in such an unhelpfully divisive and—I agree—stigmatising way.

We need to go back to the root causes here. Can it be any surprise that so many people are claiming sickness and disability benefits when millions are still waiting for NHS treatment, and mental health wait times are through the roof, due to an acute shortage of mental health professionals, including doctors, nurses and counsellors? Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about getting people back to work, they need first to reduce waiting times for NHS treatment and tackle the crisis in our mental health services which makes accessing mental health treatment so difficult and protracted?

The Prime Minister also claimed that these changes are about “compassion”, but does this not rather miss the point that most young people claiming PIP are doing so because they have ADHD or autism, rather than anxiety and depression? Last year, 190,000 young people claimed PIP due to autism, ADHD or other learning disabilities, compared to just 129,000 claiming for all other disabilities. Could the Minister explain why, in the announcement of these proposals, there has been such a strong focus on anxiety and depression and how far this is based on the evidence?

I am concerned that potentially stopping cash payments will be seen as an affront to the dignity of benefit recipients. The BBC News website yesterday quoted one 71 year-old recipient, who said that for her PIP is about

“maintaining independence, not being a burden on my family and keeping my dignity”.

It could hardly be said that the reaction from the sector has been favourable. The charity Scope has said that these plans do not fix the underlying issues faced by disabled people. The chief executive of the charity SANE has pointed out that

“mental health problems are often invisible and fluctuate from month to month or day to day, and … assessments for benefits are all too often based on ‘snapshot’ judgments that do not take account of how hidden and disabling mental illness can be”.

Can the Minister say what consultation took place with the mental health sector and those who work closely with people directly affected by these issues prior to the Green Paper being published?

Finally, I turn to a wider issue. The Statement talks about a

“new conversation about how the benefits system can best support people to live full and independent lives”.

I am sure we can all agree with that, but we need to look at these issues in the round. Being able to live independently in the community can often rely on the help and support of unpaid family carers. Does the Minister agree that it is simply unacceptable for over 150,000 unpaid carers to be facing severe financial penalties—pushing many into debt or financial hardship —for often quite unknowingly breaching the earnings limit while caring for a loved one? What urgent steps are the Government taking to stop this outrage, and will they agree to an amnesty while it is being sorted out? If the Minister cannot answer that now—I accept it is not within the immediate focus of this Statement—would he please write to me?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Tyler, for their questions; I will do my best to answer them.

Indeed, the Prime Minister did make a speech on 19 April, and I was there in person. He covered a whole range of announcements in the world of welfare. I found it to be a very caring and compassionate speech; that is a really important point to make, because it did not come across in some quarters in the media. On how the Statement was communicated, I will not dwell on that other than to say that both noble Baronesses will know that apologies were given. That is on the record, and I do not think it is right that I should say anything more about that now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—and it was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—spoke strongly about mental health and the link with physical health. I want to make a few remarks about this, because we should see it as a sign of progress that people can talk about mental health more openly. The Government will never dismiss or downplay the conditions that people have; it is precisely because we take mental health so seriously that we need to reform the system. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but the current system does not reflect that. It is simply wrong to write people off when there is a growing body of evidence that good work can improve mental health.

In terms of the evidence raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I visited a jobcentre only this morning and asked various questions of the job coaches. I reassure her, or alert her to the fact, that the evidence is certainly there. I am sure she will know from her own experience there is an increased level of mental ill-health, some of a severe nature. Action must be taken.

But it is more than that; it has been over 10 years since the introduction of PIP. We need to ensure that our system is fair and accurately targeted at those who need our support most. Although we have made significant progress, the disability benefits system for adults of working age is not consistently providing support in the way it was intended. In terms of a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I reassure her and the House that we will and intend to continue to support those who need it. That includes those who genuinely are not able to work—that is what we are doing at the moment. In terms of what may come out of the Green Paper, and indeed this conversation or consultation, that is a most important point that I want to emphasise—which, by the way, the Prime Minister also emphasised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about the importance of investing in mental health services. She is right; we want to ensure we are providing the right support to those who need it most, targeting our resources most effectively, and supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to live independently and reach their full potential, irrespective of whether this is a physical or mental health condition—which alludes to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made. Mental health remains a key government priority; that is why we are investing £2.3 billion a year into NHS mental health services, and why we brought in the long-term workforce plan, which will deliver the fastest expansion of mental health services in the NHS’s history. Just this morning, as I said, I visited a jobcentre and found out more about that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about PIP and mental health. I will give a few more statistics to back up the views I have given so far. In 2019, there were an average of 2,200 new PIP awards a month in England and Wales, where the main disabling condition was mixed anxiety and depressive disorders. That figure more than doubled to 5,300 a month in 2023. As I said earlier, we will and must continue to support everyone with mental health conditions, recognising that the severity and individual circumstances will vary and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Those with the most debilitating conditions should be entitled to the support they need, as I said earlier. That is exactly what PIP is intended to do, and that core aim will not change.

However, we need to have an honest conversation, which we have just started, about whether individuals with some conditions are better served by treatment and tailored support than by cash payments—which I think was a point raised by one of the noble Baronesses. To increase support, we have expanded mental health provision. Altogether, between 2018-19 and 2023-24, spending on mental health services has increased by £4.7 billion in cash terms, increasing access to mental health services. This has put 400,000 extra people through the NHS talking therapies programme, which the House will be aware of.

On the question raised by the noble Baroness about the amount going on, I say that there is a huge amount. We fully intend to go ahead with the reforms that we announced in Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper, because the Government are committed to doing everything that we can to help disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. These changes are separate from this PIP consultation but, as we develop our proposals, we will consider how some interactions with the current welfare system will be reflected in a reformed system. This will be carefully worked through and reported on before we consider introducing any changes. I say again that this is the start of a conversation. We are asking as many people as possible to input into the Green Paper. Already, we have received a good number of responses in the past few days since it was announced.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—it might have been the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as well—spoke about too many piecemeal publications and not enough action. Since 2010, we have delivered significant welfare reforms, including introducing universal credit, a modern benefit that ensures that people are better off in work than on benefit. There are nearly 4 million more people in work than in 2010 and 1.1 million fewer people in absolute low income. However, we are now seeing a new challenge—they come up in government sometimes —that emerged in recent years and accelerated post pandemic. As the Prime Minister said, the current system is unsustainable, unfair for taxpayers and no longer targeted at those who need it most. That is why it is essential that we take action.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about carers, there probably is not enough time to go into everything I want to say, but perhaps I can give her some reassurance on the issues circling at the moment. We must carefully balance our duty to the taxpayer to recover overpayments with safeguards to manage repayments fairly. Claimants have a responsibility to ensure that they are entitled to benefits and to inform my department, the DWP, of any changes in their circumstances that could impact their award. To be helpful, we have improved, rather urgently, customer communications to remind them of the importance of telling us about any earnings, including in the annual uprating letter that all claimants receive. We are looking to make the best possible use of earnings information collected by HMRC—so-called real-time information—to help to prevent some overpayments occurring in the first place. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are taking this extremely seriously.

Carer’s Allowance

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

There are two things. We understand the pressures on carers facing the cost of living crisis, especially around energy costs. They will get support through the energy price guarantee, which is supporting millions of households with rising energy costs. I am just waiting for someone to ask me about uprating. We have nine minutes to go until the Chancellor’s Statement, and I stand here in hope.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, carers who care for longer are more likely to be struggling to meet the cost of living crisis at the moment and are more likely to be falling into debt. The Carers UK report shows that that is particularly the case for those who have cared for over five years. What plans do the Government have to set up some sort of independent inquiry looking into the relationship between carers and poverty and to try to come up with some solutions for bringing unpaid carers out of poverty?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My very straightforward answer is that there are no plans for a review or working group on this. Knowing how vociferous the noble Baroness is about things that matter to her, I would have thought that a letter to the Secretary of State would not be a bad thing.

Universal Credit

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact assessment they have made of the proposed withdrawal of the £20 uplift to Universal Credit.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission and president of the Money Advice Trust. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords, who I know feel passionately about this issue—one that goes to the heart of who we are as a nation and our moral obligations to each other. I thank the Library for its excellent briefing note setting out the context around the proposed withdrawal of the £20 uplift in universal credit.

The basic facts are as follows. In March 2020, the Chancellor announced that the standard allowances of universal credit and the basic element of working tax credit would be increased by £1,000 a year, or £20 a week, describing this very welcome uplift as a measure to “strengthen the safety net” during the pandemic. It was part of a wider package of support for family finances hit hard by Covid, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme. This package was generally considered to be well-judged and the right thing to do in quite extraordinary circumstances.

In March 2021, the Government announced that the uplift, initially intended to last 12 months, would be extended for a further six months. In July, the Government confirmed that they would withdraw the uplift at the end of September. What has been the impact of this and how has it been received?

Back in November 2020, the Legatum Institute reported that, although poverty had risen because of the pandemic, government policy, including the uplift to universal credit and working tax credits, “has insulated many families” from it. It estimated that the policies had protected 690,000 people from poverty in winter 2020. On the day that the withdrawal was announced, Boris Johnson told the House of Commons Liaison Committee that, as Covid-19 restrictions eased, the emphasis

“has got to be on getting people in work and getting people into jobs”.

This statement, suggesting that there was a binary choice to be made between work and benefits, completely ignored the high and rising levels of in-work poverty.

It is fair to say that the withdrawal announcement has been met with widespread criticism across the political spectrum. Among others, the Centre for Social Justice, the chairs of the relevant committees in the House of Commons and devolved assemblies, the influential Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House and, quite remarkably, six former Conservative Work and Pensions Secretaries have called upon the Chancellor to make the uplift permanent, with many calling on it to be extended to legacy benefits. Tellingly, the six former Tory Secretaries of State argued that

“work remains the best way out of poverty for those who can work, but we want to make sure that those who cannot work are supported with dignity”.

It is hard to disagree with that statement.

In September, 100 organisations, including charities, health professionals and others, called on the Government to abandon their plans to remove the uplift. They argued that the decision would

“pile unnecessary financial pressure on around 5.5 million families, both in and out of work”.

That list is not just the usual suspects; it is a much wider cross-spectrum of opinion.

Crucial to this debate, what assessment did the Government make of the impact of this highly controversial decision? There has been no shortage of calls for the Government to publish any impact assessment or analysis they have done on the effect of withdrawing the uplift. I was shocked to learn that, in response to a Written Question on 22 July, asking the Government to publish the impact assessment for the removal of the uplift, Will Quince, Minister for Welfare Delivery, said,

“no assessment has been made”.

I ask the Minister if she will explain whether such an assessment is now available and, if not, why not, when it will be published and, ideally, what it says. Is there any truth to the report in yesterday’s Financial Times that an internal Whitehall analysis says that the Government should be braced for a “catastrophic” end to the welfare uplift?

Given this gaping hole, various organisations have produced their own analysis of the potential impact, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Citizens Advice—both highly respected organisations. Among others, these assessments have commented that 6 million low-income families will lose over £1,000 from their annual incomes; 0.5 million more people will be pulled into poverty, including 200,000 children; working families make up the majority of families who will be affected by the cut; families with children will be disproportionately impacted; and the impact of the cut will be greatest across the north of England, Wales, the West Midlands and Northern Ireland.

It is ironic to note that, according to Citizens Advice, people are 1.5 times more likely to claim universal credit in places the Government have said they want to invest in, including those areas prioritised by their levelling-up fund. Indeed, it seems that this decision will take more money out of these local economies than it would put in, which is an extraordinary case of giving with one hand, but taking—in brackets more—with the other.

I am particularly concerned about the real-life impact: heart-rending decisions that individual households will need to take on whether to put food on the table, pay the rent or pay the bills—in short, going without essentials or being forced into debt to cover the costs. According to recent research from Toynbee Hall looking at the experiences of Londoners disproportionately affected by Covid, for many, income has reduced, expenditure has increased and debt has risen.

The Financial Inclusion Commission, of which I am a member, has argued that continuing the uplift is a key measure in avoiding the future financial and human costs of unpaid bills, evictions and debt recovery. For the most financially vulnerable households there is a real danger that people will have no option other than to turn to high-cost credit or illegal lenders to meet basic costs. The charity StepChange has highlighted how the termination of this uplift will be a cliff edge for millions, pushing them into deficit budgets. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to ask all financial services providers and utilities suppliers, as part of their vulnerable customer activity, to signpost claimants to the freely available benefits and grants information and advice provided by a wide range of charities?

On the impact on mental health, many people with severe mental illness rely solely on benefits to survive, and the uplift has provided a much-needed lifeline to people who cannot work because of their condition. According to a recent Rethink Mental Illness survey, 76% of UC claimants said that over the last 12 months, concerns about money had impacted on their mental health “a lot” and over half said that they had experienced not having enough money to pay for food.

I want to ask the Minister, who I know thinks deeply and feels passionately about these issues, the following questions. First, all of the last six Work and Pensions Secretaries have described the uplift as a vital improvement in the adequacy of social security, joining hundreds of charities and other experts who have warned that this cut will cause real hardship, rising poverty and debt. Why are the Government ignoring this warning from such a wide array of voices and taking welfare support back to inadequate levels, particularly at a time when energy bills are set to rise?

Secondly, we keep hearing the Government’s plan for jobs as the justification for this cut. However, the majority of people who will be impacted by the cut are in fact already in work, and universal credit provides vital support for families moving back into work at precisely the same time as other pandemic-related government support schemes finish. How does this add up?

Thirdly, what are the Government’s plans for families on universal credit who are unable to work due to caring or disability? Surely, we believe these families should live above the poverty line and with dignity.

Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the interaction between the ending of the uplift and Tuesday’s announcement about the rise in national insurance to fund health and social care? Will there be any overlap between universal credit recipients and those earning enough to pay national insurance, in which case is this a double whammy?

I end by making a heartfelt plea to the Government, adding my voice to so many others, urging them to keep the £20 uplift, make it permanent and extend it to legacy benefits.

Children Living in Poverty

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I assure the whole House that the Government take in-work poverty really seriously. Our plan is to build an economy that will support work, as we have said many times. Universal credit is designed to help people to move into work faster, although that can be challenging in the current circumstances. We have also set up the In-Work Progression Commission. As I have said before, people put forward ideas all the time and they are taken to the department. I assure the noble Baroness that we are taking this seriously. We might not be answering at the speed that she would like, but we are very genuine and sincere.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Social Mobility Commission recently published figures suggesting that 72% of children in poverty were in families where at least one adult was in work—a figure that has increased steadily from 44% in 1996-97. It cited mounting evidence that benefit reforms were pushing children into poverty and concluded that the intention of universal credit was to lift more families out of poverty but the DWP appeared to have done little work to ensure that it was not making child poverty worse. What precise work has the department done to assess the impact of universal credit on child poverty, and will it publish its findings?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I come back to what I said before: as a Government, we are always looking at the points that people raise and the issues related to in-work poverty. I think that the Social Metrics Commission said that poverty had been rising but had plateaued. Virtually all the increase in poverty occurred during 2001 to 2008; since then, it has plateaued. Going back to my response to a previous question, we are well aware of the situation of lone parents and are working hard and at pace to help them.

Unemployment: Support

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Baroness asks about converting advances into grants. I am sorry to say that the Government have no plans to do that. On the five-week period, no one has to wait five weeks for their money, but the five-week wait is an integral part of the design of universal credit. The Government are cognisant of the difficult situations that people find themselves in and are doing everything they can to support them in this difficult time.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is essential that government regulators and creditors work together to ensure that unemployed people who fall behind on essential bills and credit commitments are protected from falling into unsustainable debt by an immediate pause on all forms of collection and enforcement activity?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I agree with the local Baroness that we must all work together to support those who are in debt. When it comes to suspending enforcement, there are very difficult questions and answers. I would like to go away and write to the noble Baroness after this Question on the specific point that she raises.

Poverty: Metrics

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on securing this debate and I pay tribute to her for the way she has led the work of the Social Metrics Commission. I declare an interest as chair of the Making Every Adult Matter coalition of charities, whose director served as a commissioner.

In the very short time available, I am tempted simply to say, “What gets measured, gets done” and sit down again, but throughout my professional career and as a member of your Lordships’ House I have been struck by how central the experience of poverty is to so many of the big social issues we debate. The direct impact of poverty is felt by one in five of the population and the indirect impacts ripple further still. Furthermore, the link between poverty and multiple disadvantage is deeply entrenched. This is brought home to me regularly through my work with the Making Every Adult Matter coalition, which focuses on the multiple and complex needs of 60,000 adults experiencing a combination of homelessness, substance misuse, mental health problems and contact with the criminal justice system. For these reasons I have followed the work of the Social Metrics Commission with keen interest.

The goal of the commission was to provide a new consensus around poverty measurement that enables government to take action and improve the lives of people in poverty. In my opinion, the absence of robust and clear measures, particularly the abandonment in 2016 of the child poverty targets, has contributed to the rising tide of poverty. Indeed, the IFS predicts a continuing rise in child poverty up to 2022. The measurement of poverty has for too long been a hot potato, with too much time being given to arguing about how and whether to measure poverty and not enough time devoted to taking action to reduce it. It was therefore vital that the commission was an independent and rigorously non-partisan entity, bringing together people of all political persuasions and none. The fact that the commission has produced a measure that is backed in its entirety by all its commissioners is testament indeed to the consensual way in which it has been led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

As we have heard, the commission has produced a new measure of poverty, which for the first time takes account of the total resources available to an individual, not just income. I am very pleased also to see links made between poverty and multiple disadvantage. I conclude by saying how strongly I hope that this measure is adopted by political parties and campaigners, but above all by the Government as their official measure of poverty, so that they can put in place meaningful policies to reduce poverty and address the plight of those who suffer from it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill [HL]

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful and compelling speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on securing a Second Reading of this very important Bill and I pay tribute to his sterling and unstinting work as a champion of family policy, which is so often the Cinderella at the policy ball. I also draw attention to my declared interests in the register.

Today’s debate has been primarily about aligning the widespread concern expressed across the House to ensure we do more to strengthen family life and family relationships, with the maxim that “what gets measured gets done”. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to be doing an awful lot more to support family relationships, recognising, as I know we all do and as many across the House have emphasised, that modern families come in all shapes and sizes.

I had the privilege of being the chief executive of the charity Relate for a number of years. During that time, I came to understand the huge importance of the quality of family relationships and how much it matters. That is what I focused on and what I will focus on today. I also came to understand during that time that where family relationships are under strain it is children who are very likely to suffer the ill effects. More recently, as chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service for six years, I have particularly learned the adverse impact that high levels of parental conflict, as well as witnessing or, indeed, experiencing domestic abuse, has on children’s emotional and mental health and well-being. The evidence is also very clear, as we have heard this morning, that outcomes across the board for children are better for children who come from strong family backgrounds.

If we ask ourselves why all of this matters to government and whether it is not just a matter for families, the answer is very simple if one looks at some of the Government’s stated priorities, which also happen to be key policy interests of mine. When it comes to the worrying increase in childhood mental health problems, we know that family life and secure and loving relationships play an important role in the mental well-being of children.

Turning to another area, social mobility, which is known to be a personal passion of the Prime Minister—it is also passion of mine—as co-chair for a number of years of the All-Party Group on Social Mobility I was very pleased in 2015 to chair a parliamentary inquiry into parenting and social mobility. I have even brought the report with me. Two key points emerged from that inquiry after looking at all the evidence. First, the point of greatest leverage on social mobility is what happens between the ages of nought and three, particular in the home. Secondly, whatever the effort and resources the Government put into formal early education—something I hugely and strongly support—its impact will always be limited if it is not combined with a good and strong family home environment.

I will mention one other area of policy, which is the issue of the pressures of intergenerational fairness. It is a relative newcomer on the policy block but it has a lot to do with families. We have heard quite a bit about some of the housing issues and how the lack of affordable housing, and in particular the lack of the right type of housing for families, makes it a lot harder for the younger generation, particularly new families, to get their foot on to the housing ladder. These things really matter and policy needs to take account of them.

I also mention the late Jo Cox’s commission’s report on combating loneliness, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, also referred to. That report emphasised the value of the family test in strengthening intergenerational relationships within families and reducing the potential for animosity between generations stemming from what many consider to be real generational inequalities.

All these things matter and are big issues. They matter in their own right and they demand a serious family-based response. Yet too often family policy is the one area that is overlooked as policymakers look for the appropriate policy levers to pull. In short, the focus of policy, as we have already heard, is too often on individuals rather than on families and the communities in which they live.

Family is arguably the most homeless of political issues. Strengthening families and developing policies to support families to care for each other, including for children, older relatives or family members with long-term health issues or disabilities, is a very important social policy objective. It is critical to social care, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Our social care system, in as fragile a state as it is, would collapse completely without the contribution that family members make. Where does responsibility for family policy actually sit within government? I argue that it sits both nowhere and everywhere, and that is a real problem. As an issue, it feeds into almost every area of government policy-making—although not every single one, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made clear—which means that a single Minister or department will never be able adequately to address the issue.

A consortium of charities and other organisations involved in family support, called the Relationships Alliance, which includes Relate, recently wrote a very thoughtful report assessing progress a year after the family test was implemented. It states the current situation well:

“The absence of a transparent mechanism to record when the Test has been applied means that it is impossible to accurately assess how successfully the Test is being incorporated into the policy making process. There is little information available to the public about a process and little accountability for implementation of the Test. Whilst the Government rightly wishes to ensure that the Test does not become a ‘tick box’ exercise, this does not preclude recording and monitoring of its use”.


It is also apparent, as we have heard, that only a very small proportion of departments have produced tailored strategy, guidance and tools to support the implementation of this. None of the departments that have not produced tailored guidance have referred to plans to do so. The work of the Department for Work and Pensions to support cross-government implementation of the test is valuable, but it is not a suitable substitute for a tailored implementation strategy within each department. Will the Minister inform the House how many departments have now produced a tailored implementation strategy? I share the concern already expressed, in the light of the inadequate responses to various Written Questions in the other place, that the Government seem to be so focused on not turning this into a tick-box exercise that they have lost sight of what it is about, which is to ensure that an assessment is actually carried out within departments of the impact of policies on families. This is not rocket science.

As things stand, it is hard to have confidence that the process is being followed from the outset of policy design, let alone at the end point when policies are being signed off across government. Imperfect though it may be, the statutory need to demonstrate compliance with the public sector equality duty, as already referred to, has helped to drive a culture of equality awareness in government, the key point being that it is statutory and not voluntary. We need a similar imperative for family impact assessments so that policymakers, Ministers and civil servants, learn to think about it so that it becomes intuitive to “think family” when policy is being designed.

I have long argued, based on my experience of working at Relate and at Cafcass, that the structure of government does not seem to recognise the fundamental importance of family relationships. There is at present no Cabinet lead for families, as was recommended in a number of important reports, both recently and less recently by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in his report following the shocking death of Victoria Climbié. To be frank, we seem to be going backwards: until 2010 there was a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Families, Children and Young People, and during the coalition years the importance of families was recognised in the Cabinet Committee on Social Justice. As far as I can see—and I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong—this is now taken forward and co-ordinated by a junior Minister in one department. What sort of message is that sending? A Cabinet lead would really help to drive implementation of these assessments. Back in 2016 it was clear that the Cabinet Committee on Social Justice was taking that lead. So will the Minister inform us which body has taken over from that committee?

The recommendation of the Relationships Alliance, which I have already mentioned, that as decision-making is increasingly devolved to local level, the Government should carry out a cost-benefit analysis of supporting local authorities and NHS bodies to carry out equivalent tests on policies, is very well made, and I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, included it in Clause 2.

On Monday I had the privilege of visiting the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, which is working with parents who have a lot of problems, particularly with drug and alcohol dependency, and who need to turn their lives around before they can parent effectively again. Yesterday I had the real pleasure of visiting the Pause project in Hackney, which is working with mothers who have had more than one child taken away from them into local authority care, again to try to help them turn their lives around.

This sort of work is so important. I was shocked to the core, to be honest, to hear from one of the workers at the project about a case where there had been no such help or intervention for mothers in this situation and one mother had had 13 children removed from her and taken into local authority care. I know that that is an extreme example, but it shows how important family support is and the help that the various projects and initiatives that I and others have mentioned can provide. Many of these are under threat as local authorities and the NHS are really struggling with finances and having to make cuts. That is why I think it is so important, when these decisions are being made, that these tests are carried out at the local as well as national level.

Although many of us in this House, myself included, welcomed the introduction of a family test and the stronger focus on families it was meant to give to government policy-making, it is very clear from the debate today that it has not lived up to its early hype. So it is time for this House to do what it often does best: improve both legislation and policy-making as the Bill passes through the House. I strongly urge the Government to support it. I support it very strongly myself and hope that at the end of the debate we do not get the standard rejection speech from the Minister, because the support across the House has been overwhelming.