Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, her committee and its support team for this report, which covered much ground and recommended far-reaching reforms that stand a good chance of improving outcomes. They address long-running problems with the service and its precursors.

To declare my interests, my parliamentary adviser, Dr Samantha Callan, is the Government’s independent reviewer of the Child Maintenance Service’s response to domestic abuse, which is frequently mentioned in the committee’s report. She is also the director of the Family Hubs Network, which she and I co-founded in 2019 to show government the potential for family hubs to be a game-changer for families. Thanks to this Government, building on what the Conservatives achieved, they are now in every local authority in England. This is relevant because the Select Committee’s report envisaged a clear role for early intervention and support for separating parents that is easily available, community-based and delivered particularly in family hubs. Finally, I also took the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act through the Lords.

This public service comes under attack every day, often for good reasons. However, after Dr Callan went under the bonnet of the CMS, she said in her January 2023 report that she found it to be a “reform-minded” organisation. It has the almost impossible task of helping separated parents, some of whom have never lived together, come to a durable arrangement for financially supporting children they were both responsible for bringing into the world.

We are a country that cares about child poverty. This service can be unreservedly concerned with its alleviation, because all maintenance payments are now disregarded for tax and benefit purposes. That said, we need to communicate more effectively to all parents, not just those who are separating, that it is parents who have the primary responsibility to provide for their children, not state agencies. Separated parents also have a responsibility to be single-mindedly child-focused in their dealings with each other, to avoid further harm to their children than that caused by the split itself or by being born to a home where one biological parent has always been non-resident. The Minister acknowledged this to the committee when she outlined the CMS’s role to facilitate payments between separated parents

“without causing any further harm”.

That harm must be mitigated, not least by the CMS working quickly and efficiently.

However, we need to acknowledge that the seeming intractability of problems facing this public service stems from our culture of hyperindividualism and family breakdown. Undoubtedly, some relationships must end, but we now take for granted the very high numbers of UK children not living with both their parents—around 44%, according to the IFS. It also highlights the fragility and complexity of so many UK families compared with other countries. Any reforms should learn lessons from abroad, but the character and prevalence of fractured families here set us apart, and what works elsewhere may falter here. I am not counselling despair or hand-wringing: quite the opposite. This policy area is another where the Government must grasp the nettle and be willing to make tough choices, and it is not true that the past 14 years were squandered in this regard.

The coalition implemented the Henshaw review commissioned by the previous Labour Government and legislated in a very tough environment to deliver the 2012 system. It has proven to be far from perfect but, fast-forwarding to 2023, the Conservatives also began to implement the Callan review, including by introducing two small but important Private Members’ Bills that would have improved enforcement and the service received by customers reporting domestic abuse.

However, the Select Committee’s report highlights that the secondary legislation required to bring these into force has not been forthcoming. I am particularly troubled by parents trying to obtain child maintenance when abuse from ex-partners is ongoing. Under Direct Pay, a paying parent cannot be stopped from putting money into their ex-partner’s bank account under the reference “for prostitution services”—if they put money in at all. Receiving parents can perpetrate emotional and psychological abuse by falsely telling the CMS that payments have not been made, so their ex becomes unjustly entangled in protracted and highly distressing enforcement proceedings. DWP research found that 71% of receiving parents and 51% of paying parents in Direct Pay report domestic abuse from the other parent. The CMS itself said that Direct Pay is

“not fit for purpose for victims of domestic abuse”,

given that it is

“difficult to pick out victims … comprehensively and reliably”.

So abuse is rife within the CMS customer base—not just male on female and not just paying parent on receiving parent. It is often insidious, subtle and very difficult to prove, so I have some sympathy with this Government’s plans to abolish Direct Pay altogether. However, I await the Minister’s later response to the Select Committee’s robust challenge concerning the likely efficacy of this reform and its supporting data.

I am also concerned that the legislation will simply never be brought forward because, while the organisation may be reform minded, nothing will happen unless the Government are of the same stamp. CMS reform is a can that has been kicked down the legislative road on many occasions, despite the severely outdated primary legislation that underpins many of its key operations.

The Select Committee report also mentions “lack of transparency” in calculations, about which we have heard a lot today. It helps explain why so many parents—paying and receiving—are deeply unhappy with the CMS service. A DWP survey of customers in contact with the CMS found that overall customer satisfaction was 39%, with only 47% of receiving parents and 31% of paying parents saying that they were satisfied. The committee cited important affordability and fairness issues being repeatedly raised in many reviews stretching back to 2014, and referred extensively to the planned calculation review. However, I understand that a letter to stakeholders from the Minister at the end of last week said that this planned public consultation on rates, thresholds and calculations will not now go ahead. The Minister cited a single study programme of quantitative and qualitative research with paying and receiving parents that was considered to undermine irredeemably the case for any further consultation, let alone reform.

I believe that this Government are in danger of putting too much weight and responsibility on study respondents, albeit those with so-called “lived experience”, to avoid making difficult reforms. These parents’ views are of course important, but they must be balanced against the considerable body of other evidence, including that provided by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 2019, which demonstrates considerable unfairness and anachronism in the system.

The Select Committee said:

“It is unacceptable that successive governments have failed to update the child maintenance calculation ... This has ultimately led to children receiving less money. Similarly, it is disappointing that no Government has sought to update the legislative framework set down in 1991 and amended in 2000”.


If this Government exonerate themselves from addressing these concerns, the CMS will be yet another area of public service the public has no confidence in. The Select Committee found the proportion of families using the CMS was lower than in 2012, and the proportion of families with no arrangement was higher. If they are abandoning their plans to review calculations, and the Direct Pay reforms are years away, what will the Government do to increase public confidence in the CMS? Also, while the proportion of families in family-based arrangements has risen from 29% in 2012 to 43% in 2024, how will they encourage more, and more durable, family-based arrangements so it is needed by even fewer parents?

Both receiving and paying parents say that support for separated parents to help them maintain family-based arrangements is “unhelpful” and “inadequate”. Many receiving parents are unaware of its existence. The committee concluded that far more support for separated parents was needed, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner proposed better integration of the CMS with family hubs. Again, support for families early in what is typically a very difficult and confusing separation and child maintenance journey would likely reduce conflict; 30% of parents from one study said that could encourage good working arrangements.

Currently, the CMS does not operate within the family hubs network. The Government’s January 2026 response to the Select Committee report said that where support for separating parents seeking advice on the CMS was not available through a family hub, staff should signpost to other relevant services in the area. Could the Minister give us some examples of the support this is referring to? Apart from programmes such as Reducing Parental Conflict, I am not aware of any new services that have been funded or have sprung up in this area. The Callan review suggested, for example, that courses mandated by family courts for warring couples should be accessible to parents before they get that far.

The Select Committee also recommended siting mediation in family hubs as that can greatly help parents reach durable family-based arrangements. But access to mediation in and through family hubs will not happen just by saying it should. What cross-government work are the DWP, MoJ and DfE doing so that families get this and other help with child maintenance that has simply not existed in the past? How will family hubs enable the child maintenance system to work with other organisations? The April 2026 guidance for family hubs shows many signs of a better government-wide approach, so I am hopeful that the Minister will have good news to share, and I will gladly work with her, through the family hubs network, to make it a reality.

I will end where I began, with the reality that the CMS is grappling primarily with problems not with money but with relationships. The recent DWP research on child maintenance calculations says that

“relational, as well as financial factors are key in understanding non-compliance. For example, there may be a complex two-way relationship between conflict and non-compliance”.

Preventing high levels of non-compliance has never been successfully achieved by any iteration of the UK child maintenance agency. We need to take a different approach, with a much greater emphasis on helping parents avoid entrenched conflict and relationship breakdown in the first place.

Australia and the Nordic countries have family relationship centres all over the country with these specific aims. Australia is looking at our family hubs to learn how to integrate relational support with debt, housing and other services including, crucially, those delivered by the voluntary sector. Are this Government willing to learn from them how we can systematically and comprehensively support families in their relationships before, during and after separation?

Child Poverty Strategy

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and commend her on her great taste in Ministers, if I may say so. It is also a really great question. The Prime Minister made it clear very early on what a high priority it was for him, and for this Government, to tackle the horrors of child poverty. Some 900,000 more children were in poverty as a result of the previous Government. This Government are determined to stop that, so policies such as removing the two-child limit and others that we have already announced will lift around 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Do we know why it matters? It is not just to those individual children while they are kids; poverty scars their life chances. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to have mental health difficulties by age 11. When they are adults, they are more likely to be unemployed and likely to earn less. Our country cannot afford to do that to our children, and our country cannot afford our children to underachieve. That is why it matters.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the better futures social outcomes fund was announced in the child poverty strategy, with government payments tied to the achievement of measurable improvements in people’s lives, such as increased family stability. Family breakdown can be a driver, as well as an effect, of poverty. Can the Minister explain how progress in this area will be measured and whether the funding structure will enable ongoing work, after milestones have been reached, to prevent families slipping back into difficulties again?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the importance of family stability; it is extremely important for children to grow up in a stable family wherever possible. He is right that poverty is both a driver and a consequence. We know that poverty puts huge pressures on families. Lifting the two-child limit and giving families higher rewards than those that they have now will lift over half a million families out of poverty and help to take the pressure off.

The noble Lord mentioned the better futures fund. That will be a 10-year programme focused on a range of long-term measurable outcomes, including family stability. He asked about how it will be measured. It is currently in the design phase, but the funding will primarily be used for social outcome partnerships, and those bidding will be expected to show the sustainability of their proposed ideas. We absolutely take seriously the importance of family stability. We are going to address the questions of poverty that drive problems, but we also want to do what we can to support families.

Two-child Benefit Cap: Foreign-born Children

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the effects of this. The Labour Party in government pledged to tackle child poverty. What this Government have brought forward is a child poverty strategy which, including removing the two-child limit, will bring another 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. That is what we are here to do; that is what we are shooting for.

I stress that this is about fairness. Of course, our benefit system is there to support those for whom this is their home; those who contribute. Of course it is there to be fair, but it is also there as a safety net, and our job is to get that balance right. In the case of children, it surely has to be right to tackle child poverty, to give them the opportunity and for the country to benefit from that.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, given the scale of additional public expenditure involved, and while recognising that welfare policy will not be the primary driver of migration, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that lifting the two-child limit does not inadvertently act as a pull factor for economic migrants to present initially as asylum-seeking families, and how will this be monitored?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have seen no evidence that anything as specific as this has any impact on asylum. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that our system is so strict that, for somebody to be able to come to this country, they need to meet the requirements. If someone is in the country illegally, they are not entitled to access public funds. If they are entitled to universal credit, they are expected to work. Our system is designed to support people into work but also to require that they work. This year the DWP will consult on making sure that we look at the relationship between residence requirements and our benefits system and prioritise resources for those who are making an economic contribution—but nothing in that says that we do not want to tackle child poverty. I am sure the whole House agrees with that.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 51 seeks to highlight the need to include health agencies in the RCC arrangement.

As I mentioned in my speech in Committee back in June, integrated care boards now have a pivotal role to play in the NHS. The main argument advanced when they were proposed that they should replace the clinical care commissioning groups was that they could unite health, social care and all the voluntary partners that are involved. A lot of discussion took place about health inequalities, delivering holistic care and co-ordinating GP services. The regional care co-operatives are at the heart of the MacAlister proposals and have received widespread welcome and endorsement. Indeed, across parties, the view is that they are a pragmatic initiative and absolutely deserve all-party support.

I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee—we have been urged not to go over ground that has been trodden on already—and I certainly will not talk for very long, but I feel that it would be unusual and, indeed, illogical for the new RCCs not to be built on a strong and proactive relationship with the existing integrated care boards. This would indeed be the professional outcome that most people would desire. I say to the Minister: why rely on good will when what I am suggesting could be put in the Bill?

In her response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister fully agreed that it was vital that the sort of co-operation and collaboration I am talking about, between the two bodies, does indeed take place. However, she said that

“Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children”.—[Official Report, 17/6/25; col. 1925.]

in care. She went on to say that the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides the necessary clarity. In other words, the Minister said that my amendment was not necessary and was surplus to requirements.

However, I would argue that this is a flagship Bill. Indeed, throughout the entire Bill, there is a lot of talk about consolidation, clarification and updating existing legislation, so why not accept that rationale here? I obviously accept that my amendment has an element of “safety first” to it. But surely, we should not be relying on good will among professionals both in local authorities and in the local NHS.

I want to make one final point on the feedback that has come through from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, which has commented on this particular clause. I will quote very briefly:

“Children in care are our collective responsibility. As a society, we cannot continue to fail those most in need of our support and protection. … Those who are not able to be cared for by their birth family and do not settle into fostering families or children’s homes often have multiple placements and experience nowhere that they feel accepted and cherished. Many end up in crisis in our acute hospitals, not meeting the criteria for child and adolescent mental health services and not having a home to be discharged back to”.


It goes on to say that the RCCs will now be

“a cornerstone of the governments children’s social care reforms, and a golden opportunity to address the failures of our care system”.

It also points out that

“Two pathfinders are currently testing the models to address the significant difficulties with finding the right homes, with the right care for our most vulnerable children with complex lives”.

It goes on to say that not having, on the face of the Bill, the need for co-operation and integration between these two bodies

“is a strategic omission of significant importance, and runs counter to the inclusion of health as a statutory, and strategic, issue in safeguarding partnerships”.

Finally, it says that the Bill therefore needs to name integrated care boards as partners in the RCCs to

“enable health to take greater direct responsibility for the health outcomes and the life chances of this most vulnerable group of children and young people.”

That is not me; that is the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals.

I just say to the Minister that this is quite a simple amendment, but it is an important one. If the Government do not accept it, I suggest to the Minister that we are missing a very important opportunity, because if we do not put it in the Bill, we will be relying on the good will of hard-pressed professionals up and down the country.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 43 and 49 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, to which I have added my name.

In Committee, the Minister clearly understood the basic principle of this group was to ensure that young people leave care with supportive and, hopefully, lifelong loving relationships. She assured the Committee that the Government

“are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships”,

which last. She said:

“The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. 1607.]


However, I understand funding runs out in March this year for these family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, and there is no decision yet on continuation. I am concerned that the good work to date will be wasted, but perhaps she has encouraging news on funding and the results of the evaluation. I particularly want to flag again lifelong links and how this picks up the vital relationships identified by family group conferencing, which is in the Bill.

Universal Credit: Two-child Limit

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on work incentives of lifting the two-child limit in Universal Credit.

[The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are determined to lift children out of poverty, and removing the two-child limit is the fastest and most cost-effective way to do so. The benefit cap is still in place, encouraging parents to take responsibility and work towards financial independence. Our approach balances fairness and provides a strong safety net without undermining the incentives to work.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, recent international evidence found that unconditional cash transfers increase fertility. Families claiming health-related benefits are not capped, so even these workless families will get UC for every child, again affecting work incentives. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that money-per-child tax credits increased births by 15% and decreased contraceptive use among beneficiaries. Have the Government assessed whether lifting the two-child limit will incentivise more births in benefit-dependent households, and whether many of the 450,000 children this measure intends to lift out of poverty would not otherwise have been born?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have seen no evidence that the two-child limit had an impact on family size. For example, 47% of households affected by the two-child limit were not claiming universal credit when any of their children were born. In other words, things happen; people set out, they have children and something happens. Maybe someone loses their job, they are bereaved, their spouse leaves them, or they get sick and cannot work. The welfare state should be there to support people, both into work and in work, but it is also there to support them when they cannot work. We already know that some 60% of households affected by this are in work. Our strategy is to make sure we do all we can to get people into work, get them to develop in work and support them, but we are there as a safety net when they cannot do so.

Care Leavers: Universal Credit

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s first point is correct: there is an element in the crime rate. I have the statistics somewhere here. We are well aware of it and are working very closely with the MoJ on it. Putting that aside, it is ever more important that care leavers have the best possible help to move on from the pretty challenging start that they have had in life, to show them the light—the way forward into work or education—and see them into a better life.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, we have been talking about universal credit, but international research shows that stable relationships are essential to care leavers’ resilience. They enable them to hold down jobs and live independently, hence support to form and maintain relationships is mandated in councils’ local offers for care leavers. Guidance refers to helping them to keep in touch with people who were important to them when they entered care. This is what the Lifelong Links approach achieves. It was very positively evaluated by the Department for Education, so are councils using it?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The subject of relationships is very important indeed for care leavers. Judgments on the quality and breadth of a local authority’s so-called local offer for care leavers forms part of Ofsted’s inspection framework for local authority children’s services, hence the link with the Department for Education. The reports published following an inspection include a judgment on the experiences and progress of care leavers and a supporting commentary on the local offer. The Department for Education is providing £99.8 million to local authorities through the Staying Put programme to increase the number of care leavers who stay living with their foster families in a family home up to the age of 21. Again, this links into the relationship angle.

Universal Credit

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am certainly not proud of that, but, as I say, there are a number of reports that have come out, and some that have come out recently. I can only repeat again that we are aware of the pressures involved; some families find it difficult even with where they can find the next meal. We are very aware of and alert to that; I think the noble Baroness will know that we are particularly busy in looking at what more can be done to help those in absolute poverty. She will know from the Autumn Statement the measures we have taken forward, and I can only repeat again that we are very alert to this.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, food inflation remains stubbornly high, at slightly over 10%, although thankfully it is 9 percentage points down from its peak in March this year. On this vital household metric, there is significant risk that prices will stay unaffordably high. What measures will the Government take to encourage the price of essential food items to come down from current levels in retail, local shops and supermarkets?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend raises another pressure, which we are also aware of. First, tackling inflation is the Government’s number one priority, and that is coming down. The Government monitor consumer food prices using the consumer prices index, as my noble friend will know, and in October 2023 CPI food price inflation reported by the ONS was 10.1%, down from 12.1% in September 2023. I reassure him that, through regular engagement, Defra will continue to work with food retailers and producers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability of affordable food.

Reducing Parental Conflict

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am not going to be tempted into giving an answer to that. I have to tell the noble Lord, as he will expect me to say, that we are fully focused on a major programme of change, including in my particular area. Our aim is to focus on children, and that is the most important thing that we are doing.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, it is heartening to hear that there is integration going on between departments of government, which has always been a bugbear for us to contend with. I just mention family courts, which post-separation conflict clogs up very expensively, leaving families in destructive limbo. Is my noble friend the Minister taking this area into account to integrate into the policy?

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Farmer]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for their support, all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, and my honourable friend Sally-Ann Hart for introducing the Bill in the other place and guiding it through all its stages.

Given my long-standing interest in separated families and the Child Maintenance Service, I am aware that key details of its operation are covered in primary legislation. The Bill amends primary legislation to make the collect and pay service available to victims of domestic abuse regardless of payment history, so that they can decide what is best for their personal circumstances. Evidence of domestic abuse against either parent or children by the other parent involved in the case will be required. Such evidence requirements are expected to be complex, so they will be set out in secondary legislation. My noble friend the Minister will confirm that they will be subject to more detailed policy development, including engagement with stakeholder groups and other government departments to ensure that parents are support appropriately and measures are proportionate for both parents.

It has been a privilege to bring the Bill through its final stages. I hope that it can now receive Royal Assent and be implemented as swiftly as possible. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and congratulate him on having brought the Bill to fruition in this House. I add my thanks to the Minister and his team for having supported it, to the honourable Lady, Sally-Ann Hart, who piloted it through the other place, and to the charities, such as Gingerbread, which put so much work into supporting parents in this area.

Although this is a brief and focused Bill, it achieves one incredibly important task: it enables parents who have experienced domestic abuse to use the Child Maintenance Service without having to communicate directly with the abusive parent. It is a good example of how a Private Member’s Bill can do something quite specific but incredibly important to those affected by it.

We might have considered tabling some amendments to it, to explore some of the issues, but we want to make sure that the Bill reaches the statute book in this Session. I am very conscious that it is six years since Emma Day was murdered by her ex-partner. He threatened her life if she chased him for child support, and when she pursued a claim for child support, he stabbed her to death. I hope that those who still mourn Emma to this day will see the Bill, and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and others, as a small step forward in protecting those who face domestic abuse in our time.

The absence of a Committee stage prevented me from following up on one specific question I asked at Second Reading, which the Minister missed the opportunity to answer. In Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Mims Davies, said:

“Full consideration is being given to exempting victims of domestic abuse from collection charges”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 14/12/22; col. 9.]


Can the Minister, either now or in writing, tell the House where that consideration has got to?

For today, we are pleased to offer our support for the Bill, and we wish it fair speed.

Carers: Financial Support

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

We definitely want to applaud the huge number of unpaid carers who work in our society. Caring for a family member or friend, as we know, can be enormously hard work but it can also be incredibly rewarding. To pick up on the noble Baroness’s point, means testing comes into this and this can increase weekly income and act as a passport to other support, including help with fuel costs through schemes such as the warm home discount and cold weather payments, and more recently payments to help with increases in the cost of living.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, as an officer of the APPG on 22q—a genetic syndrome that is half as prevalent as Down’s syndrome, with similarly far-reaching effects—I know carers who are parents of disabled children who can suddenly find that they have to be in hospital with their child for several days. They also attend far more medical appointments than normal. Do the Government perceive a need to encourage and enable employers to show greater flexibility in these unavoidable circumstances, and how might they do that?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. As I said earlier, we are committed to supporting unpaid carers to balance the care they may give alongside work, if they are able to do so. Some caring responsibilities are extremely demanding. My noble friend may know that the Carer’s Leave Bill is currently going through Parliament. This will introduce a new leave entitlement as a right from day one to those being employed, available to all employees who are providing care to a dependant with a long-term care or support need.