Stock Market: First-time Investors

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by sincerely congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on securing this debate. I agree that it has been an enjoyable exchange of views. It is a very important matter and one that does need discussing. As so many noble Lords have mentioned, I recognise his passion as a real advocate for the benefits of retail investment, and I thank him sincerely for sharing his insights with the House. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Davies expressed very well the respect that is held for the noble Lord. Of course, how could I fail to be taken by his comments about Leeds and my former role there? I will not mention the football result from the weekend. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions this evening. I am sure we can all agree on the importance of encouraging newcomers to engage with the world of investing in the appropriate way. Getting this right will of course help savers make their money work harder, but it will also drive economic growth.

The Government want to see more people taking part in capital markets and benefitting from the long-term financial security that investing can provide. We know that more people in this country could potentially benefit from moving out of cash and dipping their toe into investing. The Government want to see an investment environment that enables the broadest range of people possible to invest confidently and grow their long-term financial resilience, although I recognise my noble friend Lord Sikka’s comments about those who are currently excluded from this area altogether.

As noble Lords may know, the Government are taking forward work to improve the support available to consumers to help with their decision-making when it comes to investing. The Treasury is working alongside the Financial Conduct Authority and the financial services industry to review the regulatory boundary between financial guidance and advice—an area we have heard a great deal about tonight.

The case for change is clear. In the 12 months to May 2022, only 8% of adults received regulated financial advice, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, mentioned. With the cost of living being high, financial advice and guidance from trusted professionals is critical to help people make their money go further. That is why, at Mansion House, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to driving forward the advice guidance boundary review, and I welcome those comments.

Together with the FCA, the Government are developing a proposal for a new regime called targeted support, which would allow authorised firms to provide suggestions appropriate to consumers in similar circumstances. For example, financial services firms could suggest that an individual with substantial savings considers opening a stocks and shares ISA. The FCA is currently consulting on high-level proposals for targeted support. This would not only benefit consumers in making better informed decisions but help them engage in UK markets, boost productive investment and support growth.

Our capital markets are at the heart of the UK’s economy and our growth mission. Last year, more equity capital was raised in London alone than in the next three European exchanges combined. The UK is one of the largest centres for international bond issuance, with more than 16,000 active bonds trading on our markets, representing over £4.1 trillion across 55 currencies.

At Mansion House, the Chancellor launched a call for evidence to kick-start the co-design process for the first ever financial services growth and competitiveness strategy. The strategy will focus specifically on how to deliver long-term, sustainable and inclusive growth of the sector. The call for evidence, which closed in December, identified UK capital markets and increasing retail participation as a priority growth opportunity. The call for evidence welcomed further information on how to improve consumer engagement with investing, and the Government are considering the feedback provided.

Alongside our work to set a long-term strategy for UK markets and retail investment, the Government are continuing an ambitious programme of reforms, to make our markets more competitive and ensure that we tackle the existing barriers to retail investment. I am sure noble Lords will be aware of the work that is being done around the listing review of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the success that has led to.

The Government legislated to empower the FCA to rewrite the rules for prospectuses. The new regime will be simpler and more effective, giving investors access to better quality information and allowing companies to raise funds more quickly. Access to information is one of the key ingredients to ensuring greater and better retail access to markets. That is why, beyond the reforms to prospectuses, we have legislated to enable the FCA to reform the UK’s retail disclosure regime for more complex investment products. This will ensure that consumers have access to the most useful information—including on risks, costs and performance —to support their investment decisions. The FCA’s consultation is currently open for views, and the Government look forward to seeing the final rules later this year.

A great deal of the discussion tonight has focused quite rightly on financial education, with contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Sikka, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Bowles and Lady Bennett—so many I cannot possibly do them all justice tonight. I want to stress that financial education is central to the Government’s thinking on how we can help prepare the next generation for financial capability.

We know it is part of the school curriculum in all UK nations. In England, it is a compulsory part of the national curriculum for citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4. However, we know that it goes beyond the curriculum; Money and Pensions Service research found that 102 financial education programmes are taking place in the UK beyond those delivered by teachers and practitioners. But the emphasis on developing a financial inclusion strategy has to run alongside this. I know the pressure that is on teachers at the moment in all of our schools, and the extra support that will be needed to make this area of work successful.

We know that 6 million children and young people annually are being reached by these programmes and that there is excellent support, as we have heard tonight. Many of the biggest banks provide free financial education resources, as well as financial literacy lessons to children and educators. In 2023, UK Finance members delivered financial education lessons to over 4.1 million children and young people in schools and community settings, as well as providing training for teachers, which is fundamental. I acknowledge that there is still much more to do, and I am grateful for the comments that have been made.

In closing, I will address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords—although I will confess now that I will not reach all the points that have been made. I am happy to respond to the challenge of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and will respond in writing to those that I do not reach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is quite right to note the important role that pensions play in building long-term savings and ensuring that citizens have a secure retirement. She will know that the Government’s pensions investment review is under way. On the specific point she raised, I note that phase 2 of that review will consider further steps to improve pension outcomes and whether further interventions may be needed to ensure that these reforms benefit UK growth. I am sure that DWP and the Treasury will consider any representations that are made.

The noble Lord, Lord Lee, is right, generally, about the whole aspect of financial education and the need to be creative. However, with regard to the specific proposal about the NatWest shareholding, he will not be surprised that the belief of the Government is that it would bring significant delivery challenges, with the additional resources required to implement such an approach likely to be disproportionate to its benefit. Furthermore, this approach would complicate the objective of achieving a full exit from the Government’s NatWest shareholding, as it would leave a portion of NatWest shares in ongoing public ownership.

We have heard various comments tonight from my noble friend Lord Davies and other Members about the concern around the media, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised some graphic examples here. We believe strongly that regulation is important to take it through, and that this should not present a barrier to educational information. We also heard a lot about junior ISAs going forward.

I will quickly pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, some of which we have discussed in Grand Committee. It is right that the investment trusts, like other products that directly market to retail investors, must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance to support informed decision-making. The FCA will use the flexibility provided by the statutory instrument to ensure that disclosure is tailored to reflect UK markets and firms, and to meet the needs of investors. I emphasise that I welcome her contribution to the debate, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and I encourage the conversations to continue so that we can achieve the best possible outcomes.

My time is up, and I apologise for not reaching all the contributions that I would have liked to have responded to. I repeat my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, for his continuing championing of retail investment. I assure him and this House that the Government will reflect very carefully on the points raised by noble Lords in this very thoughtful debate.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

Does the noble Lord wish to respond?

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Given the lateness of the hour and the time pressure, there is nothing that I would like to contribute. Obviously, I could deal with a number of the points that have been raised, but I do not think that there is time to do that now.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. His views are held sincerely. I agree with him that there is not just one solution to a problem, but we do not always agree on many issues socially and I am afraid that this is one of them. I thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for putting herself through this and moving her Private Member’s Bill. There is a certain irony in being told it is badly drafted: I have been here 13 years and have been subjected to sloppy, ill-disciplined Christmas tree legislation from this Government for the whole of that time, so I think it a bit rich that one individual should be accused of that.

The thoughtful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, brought back to us the serious issue of the inadequacies of mental health services and the importance of not risking any diminution in our already inadequate facilities. I come to a slightly different conclusion from him: it is because we have a poor mental health service and because our National Health Service is on its knees that we fail our children and young people in ensuring adequate counselling and facilities and that there is not a two-year waiting list, meaning that what might be a small niggle becomes an absolute mountain. I agree with him that anything that risks that should not be proceeded with. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, herself said at the beginning of her very measured introduction that she would welcome amendments to her Bill, and I took at face value that that is what this is all about: that we want to fight for our children.

What is key in all this is that all children and young people feel supported, do not feel judged and are therefore able to trust. It is vital that we ensure trusted adults can still support young people and that licensed medical practitioners are able to help young people and build confidence with parents. Trust has been eroded over the years, for various reasons. Ongoing delays to the opening of northern and southern young people’s gender service hubs, extensive waiting lists and disrupted continuity of care will all no doubt serve to erode young people’s trust further still, while leaving parents with less guidance and reassurance as they do their best in these circumstances to support their child.

I think I am all right with giving an anecdote, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, did it. No, I did not apply to join the Special Air Service, but I did watch TV at the weekend—that was my activity. It was a private audience with the Pope, involving celebs who had gone on some sort of mission. I have no idea what it was; I only saw the bit I am about to describe. A man in his fifties said to the Pope, “I don’t know what religion I’ve got. I’ve been an outsider all my life because I’m gay and I’m black”. The Pope said to him, through a translator, “Adjectives used to describe people are meaningless”. I thought, “Wow—that is pretty good.” He got up and hugged the guy, they all cried and it was marvellous theatre, but I thought that that reference to using adjectives to describe people very much reflected what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has just said: that we want to create a space to make progress on an issue we are not solving. Three previous Prime Ministers have said there is an issue, and we have to try to solve it. We have not succeeded—the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is quite right—but we have to keep that space so that we can carry on discussing it. As far as I am concerned, this Bill is creating that space to close that adjective box.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee now resumes its debate on the European Affairs Committee reports. Following the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, three noble Lords will speak in the gap: the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

Afghan Resettlement Update

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am interested in the overall number from Afghanistan. What is estimated? I understand that it is not going to be a point figure; it is going to be a range. Someone in the Home Office must have said, “We must anticipate from x to y”. What are the x and y figures? As part of clarifying the debate that has been going on, with all sorts of numbers being bandied around, it would be helpful for the House to have that number when my noble friend comes to write to all who participated in the debate today.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I note from the Statement that half of the people who need to move out of hotels are children, and a proportion of them will be in school. If they are given three months’ notice at the end of April, I have worked out that that would take them to the end of term. Can priority be given to ensuring that children who are in school are rehoused before the beginning of the next term and are found suitable schools to go to? That is really imperative for the integration of the younger people who have come.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the point about education, because it is very important. It is one of the reasons that we have chosen April as the date, because that helps with coming to the end of the school year. My understanding is that the responsibility for providing school places rests with the receiving local authority, which has a legal obligation to allocate a school place to a child in its catchment area within 20 school days to minimise any potential disruption. The hotel closures will be staggered, region by region, so that we can help support families.

We need to get on with this step change. A hotel is not a home and we need to find homes for these people. We need to get their children into schools and we all need to welcome them into our communities, so that the Afghans who helped us in that terribly difficult time have a happy and well looked-after future in our country.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)]

If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Clause 30: Excluding suppliers for improper behaviour

Amendment 177

Moved by

Minister for Equalities

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

That is another very good point. In 2019, the Government consulted on high-level options for reforming the parental leave and pay system, including making changes to paternity leave. We are currently considering responses to the consultation and will respond in due course.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, could the Minister demonstrate how, with this very broad role, she is actively engaging with women and ensuring that they are linked to the issues that other noble Lords have raised, and promoting equality for women in this country in her daily workload, including tackling low pay in care and the NHS?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness again raises the issue of people in the care industry on low pay. Obviously, we need to increase pay so that people can live a decent life, but as far as my job is concerned, I am full strength on equalities issues relating to women. I have just come back from the G7, where I represented women. I spoke really vociferously because, as I said in my speech, women are underrepresented, they are underpaid and they are underutilised.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

My feeling is that there is not enough, certainly not enough to fuel the supply side revolution that we need to get Britain growing again, and I call on the Government to do more. I will, of course, be very happy to look at other options. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in championing small and medium-sized enterprises to get access to many contracts, which needs to happen. There are many amendments to the Bill to this effect, and I hope the Minister will take serious account of making sure that they are not excluded by virtue of the complexity of procurement rules.

I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 534 in this group, which sets out the important principle of ensuring that a Minister carries out reviews of the operation of this Act. Proposed new subsection (2) states:

“‘Procurement rules’ means the requirements related to procurement set out in this Act or issued under the authority of this Act, and the health procurement rules referred to in section 108.”


While I was very grateful to the Minister for her explanations to my question at the end of the first group of amendments, I am afraid that I do not think she answered—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

Lady Brinton, we believe that you are speaking to the wrong group at the moment. Is that correct? I am not sure. We are just clarifying.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

It is the right group, but I have not introduced the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is speaking before all the amendments have been spoken to.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The rules are—I can see the problem—that remote speakers speak before the other amendments. Lady Brinton, it is quite difficult in that the amendment has not yet been spoken to; would you rather proceed, as per the current regulation, or wait and speak at the end of the group?

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I am used to speaking in this way, if the Committee will bear with me. These are the rules, and I do not believe that I have the luxury of choosing to change them. What I usually do, but did not do earlier when I first spoke this afternoon, is to apologise to anyone where I might have to speak ahead of them speaking to their own amendment. I assure the Grand Committee that this is not of my making. The rules about remote contributions are extremely clear, mainly, I believe, to help those chairing the proceedings. I am happy to continue.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I think the rules are to help those chairing proceedings—that is, Deputy Speakers—but also to help the people who are coping with having to come in remotely. Having said that, we will proceed within the rules, but I promise that I will take this back to the Lord Speaker’s office again at our meeting on Thursday. Lady Brinton, please continue.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I apologise again to the Committee. I was just quoting the element of Amendment 534 that talks about “procurement rules” as meaning

“the requirements related to procurement set out in this Act or issued under the authority of this Act, and the health procurement rules referred to in section 108.”

While I was very grateful to the Minister for her explanations to my question on the first group of amendments, I am afraid that I do not think she answered the core question about the interface between this Bill and the provisions in Section 79 of the Health and Care Act.

I refer the Minister to his Amendment 528 to Clause 108 of this Bill which, because it was among the government amendments in the second group of amendments, was not moved or debated. It is important, however, because that amendment states

“If the procurement of goods or services by a relevant authority is regulated by health procurement rules, a Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for the purpose of disapplying any provision of this Act in relation to such procurement.”


I appreciate that that amendment makes an important link to the Health and Care Act, which both Ministers have pointed out to us that they are trying to do. However, it does not pick up the issues raised by a number of noble Lords, including me, about the problem that provisions in the Health and Care Act do not cover the entire NHS.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—and I look forward to hearing her introduction to her amendment—for picking up my concerns at the end of the first group. Her Amendment 534 would ensure a review by a Minister, including looking at the procurement provisions in the Health and Care Act. That would at least ensure that any emerging tensions and practical problems could be identified and published.

Having raised this, there are two fundamental questions that were not answered by the Minister’s letter, nor by the Minister earlier. First, why are the rules for NHS public spend—which, in 2018-19, was in excess of £70 billion—to be created by a statutory instrument without the same level of public scrutiny that this Bill is receiving and no guarantee of the same protections that this Bill is affording to public money being spent on public contracts? Secondly, I ask again exactly where is the interface between the Bill and the Act, given the gap in the Health and Care Act legislation that is covered by the Procurement Bill? I ask again whether it might be sensible to have a meeting for noble Lords interested in this particular and perhaps esoteric problem. It is vital that public procurement works across the board.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on putting forward this Bill; if anyone could by his wit, eloquence and the respect in which I hold him convince me of its necessity, it would be him.

I want to make a few brief points. I shall comment on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that we should widen the debate to the question of robes. I remember that, when I first wore my robes here on my introduction, I was told the story of Lord Hailsham who, having worn them at the Queen’s Speech, went out and saw the then Neil Kinnock on the other side of Central Lobby, which was filled with Japanese tourists. He shouted “Neil!”, at which point all the Japanese tourists fell to their knees—so there are clearly risks involved in the wearing of robes.

To get back to the more serious issue of today, first, the by-elections were part of an agreement. I remember that because, at the time, I was deputy leader of the Conservative Party and the then William Hague phoned me up to say that Lord Cranborne, who was a member of the shadow Cabinet, had, behind his back, negotiated with Tony Blair an agreement on the reform of the upper House, and to ask what we should do about it. I agreed with him that we had to sack Lord Cranborne, and we marched to this place and confronted the Association of Conservative Peers, who, to a man and woman—or to a noble Lord and noble Baroness—supported Lord Cranborne in what he was doing. It was not a welcome agreement, but it was an agreement that was subsequently enshrined in law in this place.

I have listened time and again in recent months to lectures from noble Lords, some of whom have spoken today, on the importance of keeping agreements once you have signed them in the context of the Northern Ireland protocol. You may not like the agreement and you may not agree with the people who negotiated the agreement, but you are bound by the agreement. It may, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, be described by one of the negotiators as “bullshit”, or the threats he used may be “bullshit”. We know now that Monsieur Barnier’s position was based on pretence and he subsequently turned out to be sovereignist in French terms—although that did not do him much good. Whatever it is, we are either bound by agreements or we are not. We are able to repudiate agreements only if the other side is not implementing them in good faith or there is a substantial and significant change of circumstances.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I want to raise the issue of the agreement because I am one of the few people who have been appointed by the independent Appointments Commission. Since 1999, the numbers have radically reduced, and part of the agreement was that there would be regular independent appointments, yet by-elections for hereditary Peers have continued as part of what I believe is the same agreement. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to comment on that.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a point which I had not previously considered. If the agreement is being breached in that respect, it is an important matter and I would agree with her that it should be properly adhered to. I am glad to have her support on the importance of adhering to agreements, which should apply also to hereditary by-elections.

My second point is this. What approach should we adopt to constitutional reform? There are broadly two approaches: one, which normally prevails particularly on those Benches but among some on this side of the House, is what Hayek calls the constructivist approach—the belief that any measure should be evaluated against some abstract principle, such as democracy, equality or diversity, and that if it does not conform to them, it should be radically changed until it does. If we apply that to this place, the only way to achieve representative diversity would be the jury principle, and all of us would have to go unless our number happened to be picked in a random choice of people to replace us. Certainly, if democracy is to prevail, we would have to move to an elected House—something which I think would be foolish and of which the lower House would not approve. The alternative approach is the pragmatic approach that tends to prevail on these Benches. Does it work in practice? I submit that this House does work in practice. It works in practice for the contribution from the hereditaries—that does not prevent it working in practice. If things work in practice, we should not try to mend that which is not broken. The view of the constructivists, of course, is that it may work in practice but it does not work in principle—a foolish attitude if ever there was one, and one which I would not advocate.

Finally, does the House of Lords as it is composed and with a hereditary component work in practice? When I was Secretary of State, I would always have a Minister in my team in the Lords. The Whips would present me with various names and I would look through their qualifications, experience and so on and choose one. As it happened, most times I chose a hereditary. I did not know whether they were hereditaries or life Peers—I am afraid I was not acquainted with many Members of this House at that stage. I chose them on the basis of their experience and what I knew of their abilities, and there was a disproportionate number of them among the hereditaries Peers, who, for one reason or another—perhaps because they had known from birth that they would one day, if their father died before they did and their elder brothers predeceased them and so on, come to this place—had prepared for this by taking an interest in public affairs, but not driven purely by the sort of ambition that drove me and others who have come through the more disreputable process of going through the lower House.

We should recognise that hereditary by-elections are a valuable source of experienced, committed, prepared men and women—it would be nice if there were more women, and that is one of the more powerful arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has used.

I remind the House that we made an agreement, and we should abide by that agreement. If we do not abide by that agreement, we are opening up to not abiding by other agreements, and I shall remember that when debates take place on the Northern Ireland protocol. We can either say that abstract principles apply, in which case this whole place has to be radically transformed, or we can say that we will go with what works and stick with what works, and not waste our time and unnecessarily change it.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will address those three points very briefly. We do allow access to the databases. We have recently agreed enhanced access and we have a discussion in train to allow further access. We have no difficulty with access to data; indeed, our own solution requires quite wide access to data to provide reassurances. It is certainly true on the second point that what we are proposing is not consistent with Article 5 as it stands; that is why we need to change it. The system we are proposing is a trust and verify system, which is perfectly normal in business and in these arrangements, and which we think will work very well in this context too. On Article 16, I have set out where we are on this issue. We hope that it will not be necessary to use Article 16. We are trying to proceed by agreement—so hopefully the contingency evoked by the noble Lord will not arise.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the time allowed for Back-Bench questions on this Statement have now elapsed. I will allow a minute for a changeover and we will then proceed with further business.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I support the principles of the Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Bird, while questioning the extent of detail which could constrain this and future Governments in policy development. Any Government have a responsibility to both current populations and future generations. Many of the Bills being considered in this parliamentary Session are associated with trying to ensure that future generations survive and thrive in the UK—for example, the Environment Bill, referred to by many noble Lords.

The pandemic has sent a shock of seismic proportions globally, without sufficient preparedness even in G7 countries. An aim of the Bill is to enshrine in law a

“shift to a longer-term, preventative approach to policymaking”,

which would involve adopting new methods of risk analysis, planning and fiscal policy to ensure that future generations are respected and taken into account.

The need to improve the well-being of all our citizens remains a paramount responsibility of all Governments and is amply illustrated through the successful Covid vaccination programme. I fully support the concepts outlined in Part 2, but suggest that some elements are very prescriptive. Clause 4 in Part 2 contains such processes, which are the reverse of the intention of the Bill and could result in convoluted, time-consuming cycles of repetitive consultation, slowing down well-being policy-making.

While supporting the concept of establishing a future generations commission for the UK, Clause 4 makes no mention of England. Surely UK-level discussions need to involve all four countries and younger people, as was so ably mentioned by other noble Baronesses.

The vital issue that we face is that young people want and need to be able to access health promotion and ill-health services digitally, face-to-face and sometimes in hospital. However, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird. We did the right thing in shutting the large mental hospitals but we did the wrong thing in not providing alternative suitable accommodation. They need high-quality education, safe and secure housing, and secure employment opportunities but, as the noble Lord said, long-term planning must involve listening and devising policies based on citizens’ stated desires coupled with scientific data.

Young people today will be paying off the debt associated with the costs of the pandemic for 50 years, if not a century. Unlike former generations, those going into higher education have student loans to redeem. The requirement to undertake future generations impact assessments, as outlined in Part 2 Section 11, is paramount. In summary, I hope that we can work to revise and simplify the Bill to enable nimble policy development, while fully embracing the best evidence relating to the future well-being of our population.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Her connection issues having been resolved, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.