Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

This has been an important debate on these amendments. I want to start by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is not able to be present. Her husband is not at all well. She added her name to Amendments 469 and 470. I am going to keep my comments brief. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: I can almost see Baroness Massey on my shoulders. When I first arrived here, although she was of a different party, she immediately collared me, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and gave me a briefing on children’s rights. That was the first time I met Doreen Massey. At some stage, when we come to our senses on this, her importance on this issue will come to mind.

I also wanted to mention the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about the importance of the child being heard. For far too long, we had the old adage that children should be seen and not heard. Sadly, that filters through the whole of society in all sorts of ways. It is not just parents and public bodies. I remember my wife being heartbroken when a black boy in her secondary school was fostered by white parents. At the time it was quite rightly thought to be the case that culturally it is better if foster parents have the same heritage as the child. The boy, who was 12 or 13, was adamant that he wanted to stay with his white foster parents. Nobody listened to that boy. Nobody in the local authority, in the school or in social services listened to that boy. If we say we want to hear the voice of the child, it is a nice phrase to use, but we have to make it work in practice and it has to filter through the whole of what we do.

On the convention on human rights, I just do not understand this, and I would like a detailed letter from the Minister. It is 12 years since my noble friend Lady Walmsley and Baroness Massey talked to me about this. Why can we not follow Wales and Scotland? Let us do an impact assessment. Do we just not want to do it? Well, then let us have the honesty to say that. Or, if we do want to do it, what are the reasons why we cannot? I would like to know. Perhaps the Minister, when she replies, could tell us.

I do not have anything else to add to what has been a wide-ranging discussion. This issue is crucial, of course. The clue is in the Bill’s title, is it not? If we are talking about the children’s well-being Bill, everything that we and the Government do in legislation should look at the impact on children. That is an eminently sensible move. So, I hope Government will support Amendments 469 and 470, either now or if they are brought back on Report.

I was tempted to, as we sometimes say, respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. I am afraid I just do not agree with her comments, but perhaps now is not the time to do that. Perhaps we can have a private conversation on some of the things that, to be honest, got me quite angsty.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and other noble Lords who proposed the amendments in this group. This is a very technical area, and we have heard much expert opinion from my noble friend Lord Banner, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and, crucially in our opinion, the former Chief Inspector of Education my noble friend Lady Spielman, and my noble friend Lady Coffey.

It is important to flag that, although His Majesty’s loyal Opposition completely understand the spirit of noble Lords’ amendments, we are not in a position to support them. The UK has already signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1990 and 1991 respectively, and it came into force in January 1992. As such, the UK is already bound by international law to implement the agreement, and our progress is being monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. But several of the recommendations in the last report from the committee, including on child rights assessments and education, are ones we did not support when we were in government and still do not support in opposition.

Amendment 469 would bring an additional child rights assessment into all legislation, as recommended by the committee in its 2023 report. We simply do not believe that this is required; in fact, instead of enhancing a child’s education, it would further slow our ability to legislate and implement effectively.

The wider recommendations in the report are also not proposals with which we concur, including, for example, the recommendation to end academic selection and testing measures to reduce levels of stress on pupils. This has the potential to do real harm, particularly to disadvantaged pupils.

We believe that the huge opportunity before us is not to layer on new statutory duties or reporting mechanisms. To the contrary, it is to ensure that the education system we strive for is one that builds on the successes of the past 20 years, aided by noble Lords on all Benches of your Lordships’ House. An education that offers each and every child the opportunity to realise their full potential—that should be the endgame.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in group 1, as we have heard in a very good and well-informed debate, relate to duties on Ministers and public bodies in respect of children’s rights and parents’ rights to educate children in accordance with their faith. Let me be clear in responding to this group that the Government are committed to safeguarding children’s rights, both in law and in practice, and firmly uphold the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their views on these important matters and for the opportunity, as I say, to hear from experts in this Committee. We have listened carefully to the arguments for these amendments and will continue to engage closely with all those advocating for the rights of children. We regularly meet, for example, with an expert advisory group to hear directly from key stakeholders in this area, including the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Coram, Barnardo’s and several others. This group will in fact be meeting again in the department next week. Additionally, we convene regular meetings with all the major children’s charities. These fora provide Ministers and officials with excellent and important opportunities to hear first-hand from the experts on these issues and to help us advance our shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

The answer is yes, yes and yes. I hope that the Minister will make sure that her colleagues in other departments take this on board. I moved an amendment on the planning Bill seeking to ensure that this duty is still there. I know that I am asking the Minister to part the Red Sea and take the salt out at the same time, but I am hoping for two parts of government to talk to each other on this.

We want people to remain active for all the reasons that we have stated. Physical activity leads to better exam results, which we seem to forget. If schools are to provide the initial smorgasbord of finding the right form of physical activity for individuals’ physique, culture and temperament, then I hope that the Government talk across departments in support of these amendments. I would like to hear from the Minister that they are having a coherent look at this and that they will lead other departments to do something solid. The Department for Education is best placed. We could ask the Department of Health but it would get buried there. If a lead department takes this on, there is a chance of achieving some of these aims. These amendments, or ones like them, are essential to making sure that we have a duty saying, “This is what you should be doing”.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for raising the critically important issue of sport and physical education in schools, which I personally feel particularly strongly about. If schools were to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and perform physical exercise in the morning before classes, it would be transformational. School sport has no greater champion in your Lordships’ House than my noble friend Lord Moynihan, an Olympic silver medallist and former chairman of the British Olympic Association who has been leading the charge for greater provision of physical education and sport across our schools for many years.

In September last year, NHS England published research that found the truly frightening statistic that 15% of children aged between two and 15 in England are obese. Although that figure is a slight decrease from 16% in 2019, the fact that childhood obesity has remained stubbornly high should be a huge concern for everyone: parents, teachers, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. This issue affects us all in some way or other.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that we do, of course, need to pay careful attention to the barriers that prevent children from low-income backgrounds, young carers and others from attaining higher grades and better results in school. Ensuring that every child has a fair and equal chance is paramount, and it is entirely right that we should look for ways to mitigate these barriers wherever they arise. That may well be achieved in different ways —for some children, through home schooling, and for others, through specialist academies, as we have already argued on other clauses of the Bill.

It is also important that we look beyond structure and address the socioeconomic reasons that often lie behind underperformance. Disadvantage, low prior attainment and the additional burdens carried by some young people all need to be recognised. We hope the Minister will use this opportunity to set out clearly how the Government are working to level the playing field, ensuring that no group of pupils, regardless of background, is either favoured or disadvantaged and that even well-intentioned measures do not lead to any kind of positive discrimination. The principles of fairness and opportunity for all must remain central.

For that reason, while we would have stopped short of saying that a statutory national tutoring guarantee is the best or only approach, we welcome the spirit of Amendment 460, and we look forward to hearing how the Government intend to address the issues it highlights.

On Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for raising this important issue. The children of parents who are in in prison are too often a hidden group, and yet they face particular challenges that can significantly affect their educational attainment and life chances.

We have had the opportunity to research the work that has been done by the charity Children Heard and Seen. That research suggests that schools were aware of just 30,000 children with a parent in prison, whereas the Ministry of Justice’s data estimates that the number of children with a parent in prison in England and Wales is more like 192,000.

This amendment rightly shines a light on these children’s needs and on our responsibility to ensure that they are not overlooked. We would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to set out what steps the Government are taking to address the barriers faced specifically by these children and whether they recognise them as a group that requires dedicated support and special help, in addition to helping schools identify those affected children who would indeed benefit from additional or tailored interventions in their place of learning. It is only by identifying and acknowledging such groups, not just children with parents in prison, that we can make sure that no child is left behind, whatever the circumstances of their family life.

Finally, we support the principle that lies behind Amendment 490. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their tireless work in highlighting these challenges that are faced by children with special educational needs and disabilities. Their determination to improve outcomes for this group makes a huge difference, and we hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ Committee on this matter.

That said, we have reservations as to whether a royal commission is the best medium to close the attainment gap for people with special education needs and disabilities. Commissions can be lengthy and expensive, and sometimes produce recommendations that are overtaken by events before the findings themselves can be implemented.

Our goal is to ensure that we do everything we can to enable children with special educational needs to leave school with the skills, independence and confidence that will allow them to flourish and seize every opportunity available to them in the outside world. That requires schools and educational delivery to be formulated in ways that are genuinely tailored to children’s needs, not necessarily to meet a single uniform benchmark. For that reason, although we absolutely support the intent, allow me to suggest that another approach may be from the bottom up, focused on practice and provision on the ground and in the corridors, rather than launching a royal commission.

None the less, the underlying issue is of the greatest importance, and we hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out how the Government are addressing the attainment gap which has been made clear by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, between those with special educational needs and those without, and to set out what more can be done to make sure that every child is given the best chance to succeed.

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

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed on this important group of amendments. First of all, it is not going to be possible to give the list that everyone has specifically asked for, but I want to start by making it absolutely clear that raising attainment for all children with inclusivity in mind and recognising the gaps wherever they occur is absolutely a top priority for the Government. This is such a complex area of work, as has been eloquently highlighted by the contributions that we have had on the three amendments.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, he reminded us of the place we were in during those very dark days of Covid, and of the response to try to recognise that so many vulnerable young people in particular were being left behind as a result of their absence from the school system. I fully appreciate his concern and the concerns expressed by others, and particularly his interest in this and his understanding from his background of how this works locally. But I emphasise that it was a programme that was time limited for obvious reasons and has served its place.

I am very conscious of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about how we target the resource we have. One of the best resources we have is our schools and those involved in the system, and I believe it is much better to go to those schools and let them identify the best way forward. It could be that a tutoring programme has worked brilliantly for them specifically, but we know that this is not the case all over. We should have confidence in those schools to determine the best way that they can reach young people who really need that additional support.

As I say, schools can choose to continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, for example, and to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this amendment. Also, the Department for Education has published evaluations of the National Tutoring Programme; therefore we do not believe that it would be good value to have further reporting on it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for his comments. I am very interested in the work that he highlighted. If he could send me a link to the report that he mentioned, I would be grateful. It is of course critical that we listen to experience from our devolved regions and make sure we learn from all the experience that we have. As has been said, gathering information from across so many comments is one part of the issue. How we analyse that information and make it worthwhile and useful is another serious part.

My response to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is that we do not believe that it is necessary to set out the complete requirements and framework in statute. We have confidence in schools to take this forward.

Moving on to Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for stepping in and raising this whole important area. I of course recognise the concerns that have been expressed across the House. I am very grateful to her for raising such an important issue. Having a parent in prison can have a lasting detrimental effect on children’s life chances, including increasing their risk of low educational attainment, as we have heard. I appreciate that a supportive school environment can help to act as a buffer against these risks, and teachers can help children to navigate a challenging time and aspire towards further education.

The Government have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. This is not a simple or straightforward task. It is extremely difficult. We have to be aware of the gaps in our knowledge and perhaps try to understand why we have some of those gaps. We are considering how to support this cohort as part of the Government’s opportunity mission. Obviously, the theme running through all this is about making sure that educational attainment is at the centre, but there are many other factors that we need to bring in relating to the well-being of children and young people, and how that can have an impact.

While the request is welcome, it would risk duplicating efforts that are already being made to identify this cohort sensitively, ensuring that they are offered appropriate support. As the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said, the Ministry of Justice is stepping up in this space. The Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that all children affected by parental imprisonment, including those not of compulsory school age, are recognised and receive the support they need to achieve and thrive alongside their peers.

I say that this is sensitive because we cannot assume that all children whose parents are in prison have the same experience. Indeed, the difference in experience between siblings can be stark. It is a complex area. Some children who have a parent in custody might never have lived with that parent. We must be careful not to make assumptions about their experience. Our approach is looking at all children, recognising that their specific experiences can be very different indeed. Sensitivity is paramount in this area.

I turn to Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him again for the way in which he expresses his concern around these issues. I extend those sentiments to everyone who has contributed to this area.

Again, I have to agree that establishing a royal commission on this subject may not be the way forward. As a Government, we have recognised that the whole area around special educational needs needs serious attention. Just to pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, recognising the complexity of all this is why we are looking at that review. I know that we will go on in the next group of amendments after the dinner break to look into some of these issues in more detail, so I do not want to cover too much of the ground that will be raised then.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I say, briefly, that these seem to be incredibly sensible amendments, and I hope the Minister can accept them.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak only briefly to these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. The misconduct regime covered in these clauses is clearly very important for the protection of schoolchildren and maintaining the highest standards both in the classroom and outside, in public perception. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcomes what is new in these clauses because it is right and proportionate that employers and authorities should have the ability to take action regardless of when or where an incident took place, and whether the individual was a teacher in the profession at that time.

We welcome online and independent educational settings being brought into scope in addition to the possibility of investigating a suspicion or an incident regardless of how it came to light. Ensuring that this regime applies fully and is not open to exploitation by those who seek to identify and use loopholes is critical, and the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, highlight this.

We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to assure the Committee that there will be no gaps in this section of the Bill. How will the Minister ensure that these eminently sensible amendments are addressed rigorously?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the concerns expressed through the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. I hope I can provide some assurance about how the system operates in order to minimise the risks that noble Lords have identified here.

On Amendment 436ZA, Clause 45 captures individuals who are or have at any time been employed or engaged to carry out any teaching work at specific institutions in England. This clause ensures that those who commit serious misconduct are investigated where appropriate and prevented from carrying out teaching work. I understand the intention of this amendment to expand the regulatory regime to cover those who have worked overseas, although I understand that, on a technical basis, the amendment as written would not have that effect.

The existing regulatory regime applies to teachers in England and is operated by the TRA on behalf of the Secretary of State. The department’s view is that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to regulate the teaching profession overseas. The Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance already clearly sets out the legal requirements placed on schools and colleges to carry out pre-appointment checks when employing staff from overseas. This responsibility on schools goes further than the noble Baroness suggested in her remarks. It includes obtaining an enhanced DBS certificate, even if the individual has never been to the UK. In addition, schools and colleges must make any further checks they think are appropriate, so that any relevant events that occurred outside the UK can be considered. These checks would include, where available, criminal record checks for overseas applicants—the Home Office publishes guidance on that—and obtaining a letter from the professional regulating authority where the applicant has worked confirming that it has not imposed any sanctions or restrictions and/or that it is unaware of any reason why they may be unsuitable to teach.

Amendment 436ZB would introduce a new requirement for the Secretary of State to take reasonable efforts to include any changes of names on the prohibition list for the reasons that my noble friend outlined. There is already provision in legislation for the prohibition list to contain other such information in relation to the persons whose names are included on the list. Schools are already legally required to carry out a range of pre-appointment checks that can help to identify a name change. If a person changes their name, any legal documents need to be updated, such as a passport and driving licence. Keeping Children Safe in Education makes it clear that schools must verify a candidate’s identity to be sure that the person is who they claim to be, and that includes being aware of the potential for individuals to change their name. Best practice is checking the name on their birth certificate, where that is available.

I understand, as I said at the beginning, the concerns of noble Lords. I hope I have provided some reassurance about the processes that are in place. I urge my noble friend not to press his amendments, but I would be willing to continue the conversation to provide some assurance around the issues that he raised through them.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the ombudsman for the considerable work that went into producing this report. The issues it raises are complex and I am grateful that we have time to discuss them this evening, though I share with the noble Viscount the wish that we had more people here while we do it. I would always rather discuss these things with a wider audience.

I thank both noble Lords for their responses. Before I engage with the specific points that they raised, I want to say a few more words about the background to this. The noble Viscount began by, in essence, attacking my colleague the Secretary of State for politicising the issue and then went on to politicise it himself. Therefore, we can either do that—we can take it in turns to point at each other—or we can try to address the issues. I am going to try to do the latter.

We have been looking seriously into the issues raised since we came into office in July. That work has involved looking at what Parliament has said, examining the evidence submitted to the ombudsman, meeting the interim ombudsman and listening carefully to the views expressed by the women affected. We listened, we read, and we reflected before coming to a decision.

The most important thing, to start, is to be clear about what exactly the ombudsman investigated. The ombudsman did not investigate the decision, first taken in 1995, to equalise the state pension age for men and women. I know that many women have strong feelings about that change, particularly the decision taken by the former Government—the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition Government—in 2011 to accelerate the changes sharply, which made a significant difference to a number of women. That was a policy that Labour opposed at the time, but the policy was agreed by Parliament, maintained by subsequent Governments and upheld in the courts. It is not the issue at hand today.

What the ombudsman did investigate was how the change of the state pension age was communicated by DWP to the women affected. I can see a Whip on the opposite Benches shaking his head. That is literally what the ombudsman did; I invite him to read the report. The ombudsman concluded that between 1995, when the original decision was taken, and 2004, our communications,

“reflected the standards we would expect it to meet”.

However, it found that between 2005 and 2007, there was a 28-month delay in DWP sending out personalised letters to the women affected. The ombudsman found that that constituted maladministration by the department. It argued that that led to injustice and proposed that financial remedy should be paid to those affected.

The Government accept the ombudsman’s finding of maladministration. We are sorry for the 28-month delay in writing to the 1950s-born women and we are determined to learn lessons from this experience to ensure that it does not happen again. I will come back to that.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, the reason the Government accepted this in part is that maladministration is about the actions that were taken at the time when things went wrong. We recognise that those letters should have been sent 28 months earlier. They were not; we apologise for that and accept maladministration. Injustice and remedy are about the consequences of those actions. Where we diverge from the ombudsman is on the impact of that failure. That is why we accepted the finding of maladministration, but we are not able to agree with the ombudsman’s decision on the approach to injustice and remedy. That is because the ombudsman had assumed that receiving those letters earlier would have changed what the women knew and how they acted, despite evidence to the contrary.

Research has shown that letters are not an effective means of communicating state pension information in the great majority of cases. Research from 2017 found that only one in four people who got an unsolicited letter remembered receiving and reading it. That suggests that sending letters earlier, as the ombudsman suggested, would not have affected what most women knew and, therefore, the decisions that they took. In other words, while we accept there was unnecessary delay in sending letters to women, we do not accept that that delay led to injustice in the great majority of cases. Given that, with the research suggesting that 90% of 1950s-born women were aware of changes to the state pension age, we cannot justify financial remedy. Paying compensation to all 1950s-born women at the rate proposed by the ombudsman, as the Statement said, could cost as much as £10.5 billion. We cannot justify paying out such a significant sum of money—taxpayer money—when the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the changes and therefore experienced no injustice. Writing letters to those who were unaware would not have made a difference for most.

The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked whether we had assessed how many women’s cases were strong. The answer is that we have not, for the reasons set out in the Statement. It is the same question, in essence, as whether we could create a targeted compensation scheme to compensate only those affected. Of course, we looked carefully at that possibility, but we concluded that such a scheme is impossible to deliver in a way that is fair and represents value for money. In fact, the ombudsman itself pointed out the challenges in doing that, as the noble Viscount will know, since I know he has read the report. It took the ombudsman, as it pointed out, nearly six years to investigate six cases.

To set up a scheme whereby the DWP would have to consider the detailed personal circumstances of as many as 3.5 million women born in the 1950s would take thousands of staff many years. In fact, we estimated that if we received claims from 60% of that 3.5 million, running a bespoke scheme would require 10 times as many staff as currently administer the state pension for all 12 million pensioners. That is the scale and the impact on the everyday running of the department.

Even more crucially, it would require us to make subjective judgments about whether giving each affected individual different information at different times would have led to different decisions and what the consequences would have been. Those are inherently difficult to consider, never mind prove, and it would be impossible to verify the claims for a scheme where someone self-certifies that they have suffered injustice. As a result, because we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice, because 90% of 1950s-born women were aware of the changes and because it would be impossible to set up a bespoke scheme that would be fair, reliable and value for money, we cannot justify paying compensation.

I think it is worth dwelling for just a moment on the fact that this is not about the state pension age because I think that is one of the biggest challenges. We understand that that is difficult, but that decision was made in 1995 and has been settled, and I think nobody is arguing for reopening that.

The noble Viscount asked about learning lessons. The DWP is committed to learning lessons from the ombudsman’s findings so that we can deliver the best possible services in future. This case highlights just how important it is to get communication with our citizens right. We have already taken steps to make this better. We regularly engage with stakeholders and customer representatives, not just in general, but to test and provide feedback on many of the communication materials that we put out.

However, as the Secretary of State said, there is more to be done. The action plan is something that we are going to work on with the ombudsman. We will report on that in due course, and I will keep the noble Viscount informed as that work develops. We are determined to work with the ombudsman to develop an action plan identifying and addressing all the lessons this experience offers. We are continually developing our policy on communicating state pension age changes, rooted in our commitment to give clear and sufficient notice of any changes to those affected.

The noble Viscount quoted in my comment in the letter I sent to all Peers earlier today that

“even taking the difficult decisions we are faced with in government, we feel a deep sense of responsibility to ensure that every pensioner gets the security and dignity in retirement they deserve”.

I will allow myself one little bit of politics here. It is that, despite the very large hole in the finances that the previous Government left, we have none the less managed to find the money to maintain the triple lock, which will involve spending £31 billion, with the result that the new state pension and the basic state pension will go up by 4.1% next April, and in the case of the new state pension, the full yearly rate by the end of the Parliament is likely to be £1,900 higher.

The decision today does not mean that we do not understand that some women are facing financial hardship. The noble Viscount asked me for figures about pension credit. I can tell him that 150,000 people applied for pension credit in the 16 weeks following the announcement. Of those 42,000—I think, from memory, and I will write to him if I am wrong—had a successful claim. We know that at the very least there are those extra numbers of people, significantly more than there would have been in the comparable period previously, who are already getting pension credit and there may be many more. People have until 21 December to apply. Those cases that are in before that deadline will get processed and in due course those who succeed will get not only get the winter fuel payment, which is what the noble Viscount brought up, but all the benefits of pension credit itself and all the passported benefits that it brings with it.

This was a difficult decision to make. There were other questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked whether we just disagree or whether it is about money. I hope I have answered that. I have set out the arguments. The noble Baroness may or may not disagree with them, but I have tried to set out the reasoning the Government did. We tried throughout this to follow the evidence. That is all that a Government can do when faced with a report such as this. We went through it incredibly carefully. It is evidence that the noble Viscount will be very familiar with. Since he was doing my job before me, he will have had it rather longer than I have. We spent the past six months going through it in detail. We have considered the evidence, and we have made what we believe is the right decision. That does not mean it was not a difficult decision, and I recognise that it will be a disappointing one for many 1950s women. It is not a reflection on their campaigning or anything else, but we feel that, despite that, it was the right decision, for the reasons I set out, and I hope that the House can accept that.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister might allow me to clarify something. She highlighted that I was shaking my head. Just for the record, I was communicating with her noble friend Lady Anderson about the supplementary questions. I was not shaking my head at anything she was saying.

Child Poverty

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this important debate.

As we have heard, by the Government’s own estimate there are 4.3 million children—or to put it another way, 30% of all children in the UK—living in relative low-income housing, after housing costs. That is clearly a most alarming statistic. I truly believe that by addressing child and parental ill health, in addition to child and parental qualifications, we have the ability to solve long-term worklessness and low earnings.

The key to solving child poverty is to get people into work, and the data backs this up. Children living in workless households are more than six times more likely to be in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than those in households in which adults work.

Step one would be to empower children and parents to make the right food choices, which is the building block to eradicating child poverty. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the phrases “gut instinct” and “you are what you eat”. What we put into our bodies is what drives us. If we put unhealthy food that is high in calories and saturated fat into our system, it is highly likely that we will be overweight, feel ill and lack motivation, positivity and the will to succeed. We have to find a way to educate both children and their parents on healthy eating. Fortunately, there are charities such as Chefs in Schools, whose mission is to help

“schools serve up generation-powering, mind-opening, society-changing food and food education that fuels the future—all within school budgets”.

We can go much further. Feeling good is roughly 70% diet and 30% exercise. We have to encourage both parents and children to take exercise. Physical exercise and sport make a hugely positive contribution to society, to the extent that for every £1 spent on sport and physical activity, around £4 is generated in return across health and well-being, strengthening communities and the economy. “PE With Joe”—Joe Wicks—transmitted during the pandemic, proved that you do not need to go to the local sports centre to stay fit and healthy. It can be done in your flat or in the local park, and it costs no more than a pair of trainers and shorts, and a t-shirt. It is essential to get the message out about the importance of physical exercise.

To drill down on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about inherited poverty, my third area of focus is that we can eradicate child poverty, particularly generational poverty, through financial education. Assuming that families can find success with food education and physical education, they will be back in work, feeling good and able to save even just small amounts of money. Financial education is now crucial, because it is possible to grow those small amounts into life-changing sums. Using tax-free allowances, it is feasible to turn £10 per week into £160,000, using a medium rate of return over a 50-year timeframe. That £160,000 could be enough to take the next generation of a family out of poverty and into home ownership, mortgage free. Saving £20 per week at a slightly higher rate of return can produce £645,000.

My Lords, four minutes was a narrow window; I could speak in much more detail, but please let me finish by asking the Minister what the Government will do to address food education, physical education and financial education for both children and parents currently living in poverty.