Level 7 Apprenticeships

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

For underprivileged children, apprenticeships are a fantastic route into higher education. Certainly, in architecture, apprenticeships mark genuine progress in opening the door to a profession that has been closed to those from lower incomes or from under-represented backgrounds.

The Government’s decision to restrict apprenticeship funding to those aged 16 to 21 threatens that progress. A level 6 architectural assistant apprenticeship takes four years, meaning that anyone starting after school will be at least 22 before progressing. Others complete a three-year undergraduate part 1 degree first. In practice, almost no apprentice reaches level 7 before the age of 21 —in fact, in all my years in the business, I have never met anyone who completed the entire course before the age of 25. This decision simply removes the apprenticeship route altogether for architecture.

The consequences for the country are quite serious. Skills England has estimated that more than 250,000 additional workers will be needed by 2028 simply to maintain current construction output. Architects are explicitly identified as essential to delivering the Government’s own target of 1.5 million homes.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech about the reason for keeping level 7 apprenticeships. She talks about construction, but has she considered the impact that the loss of level 7 apprenticeships will have on town planners as well? Arun district council has relied on the chartered town planner apprenticeship scheme to train its own generation of town planners, because it is incredibly hard to recruit into local authority planning departments. The council is really worried about the impact that the change will have on planning, a profession that we know is really important if the Government are to achieve their agenda of building 1.5 million homes.

[Sarah Gibson]

Absolutely. Right across the built environment, careers take a long time, and therefore we need to be supporting different types of people into those careers at a later age. If we want to meet housing targets, we need planners, architects and surveyors. Otherwise, we will not meet our net zero commitments and we will not be able to unlock the large-scale retrofit of existing homes that is needed and that, as we know from experience, requires technical support to get right. We cannot meet those ambitions while simultaneously shrinking the pipeline of qualified professionals across the built environment.

In addition, the Government’s proposal is prejudicial to those already in the system. Level 6 apprentices cannot access the same undergraduate student finance as their full-time counterparts. Although a full-time part 2 student may receive up to £46,000 in support, a level 7 apprentice progressing to part 2 would receive only £10,000. The very pathway that has enabled young people without family wealth to enter the architecture profession risks becoming a dead end.

The Architects Registration Board has been undertaking major reforms of the initial education and training of architects. It has stated that a key plank of those reforms has been to increase access to the profession for those taking non-traditional routes and, in particular, those from disadvantaged backgrounds or minority ethnic groups. The apprenticeship route in architecture is still in its infancy, but it is a very important part of the wider strategy that the Architects Registration Board is trying to achieve.

Architectural practices are overwhelmingly small and medium-sized enterprises. They rely on the growth and skills levy to train apprentices; without it, they simply cannot take them on. The engagement that the Architects Registration Board has had with trailblazers, employers and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has led it to conclude that the removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships could close off this route entirely. The benefit of being able to learn while you earn, in a profession that takes seven to 10 years to qualify for, cannot be stressed enough. Extending the date until which those over 21 can receive funding would help to reduce the cliff edge and would give universities, learners and employers time to adapt.

I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. What assessment has been made of the impact of restricting level 7 funding on the future diversity of the profession that requires this level as part of its final qualification? What impact will this restriction have on the ability of the profession to deliver the homes and infrastructure that the country desperately needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on securing this important debate and on her considered speech on a subject where she has considerable experience, as she set out. Before I respond, I should add a declaration of my own: prior to working in politics full time, I worked for a leading global civil engineering consultancy, and have a pension with them.

As colleagues know, apprenticeships are a new and very welcome addition to the Department for Work and Pensions from the Department for Education, following machinery of Government changes set out in September. Whether at debates like this or out and about in our constituencies, it is brilliant to hear about the incredible impact that apprenticeships can have for learners, employers and our communities. This Government are on a mission to create an apprenticeship and skills system that drives growth and leaves no place or person behind. Within that, we want to ensure a particular focus on young people, who for too long have not been able to access the apprenticeship opportunities they need to get ahead.

We all know how valuable apprenticeships can be for young people in building confidence and ability at the start of their working lives and the longer-term opportunities they offer for increased earnings and career progression. We also know the benefits that young apprentices in turn bring to businesses through fresh perspectives and the chance to mould a workforce motivated to make a difference from the get-go. That is why it is such a scandal that, under the last Government, apprenticeship starts for young people fell by 40%. We therefore want to balance the programme back towards young people at the beginning of their careers.

In order to create more opportunities for young people at the start of their working lives, we need to prioritise public funding towards them. That is why, as confirmed in June, from January 2026 the Government will no longer fund level 7 apprenticeships except for young apprentices under the age of 22 and those under 25 who are care leavers or have an education, health and care plan in place.

Skills England was asked to provide insight into the impact of removing funding from level 7 apprenticeships. It engaged with more than 700 stakeholders from various sectors, employer representative bodies and young people. It was clear that, although apprenticeship training at level 7 is important for meeting the skills needs of the economy, alternative routes are well supplied. Skills England’s evidence suggested that there was unlikely to be a significant or unavoidable fall in the supply of these skills in the long term post defunding.

We are encouraging more employers to invest in upskilling their staff members aged 22 or older to level 7, which delivers benefits to both the business and the individual. Large numbers of level 7 training options, equivalent to master’s degrees, are available to employers, and those options include non-apprenticeship routes. It will be for employers to determine the most appropriate training, and that will enable Government funding to be rebalanced towards young people.

Skills England also did not find a strong enough economic rationale to exempt a small group of level 7 apprenticeship standards from de-funding. Although level 7 apprenticeships can be, and often are, a valuable route for some disadvantaged learners, a significant proportion of such apprentices are from non-deprived backgrounds, and they are significantly less likely to be deprived than those at lower levels. Compared with other apprenticeships, level 7 apprenticeships generally also have a higher proportion of older learners—particularly, for example, the senior leader apprenticeship. I recognise that the hon. Member for Chippenham was talking about architecture, and later in my contribution, I will refer to some of the points that she made on that subject. However, 99% of apprentices on that particular apprenticeship are over the age 25, so there is a specific issue there that the Government are seeking to address.

We have seen thousands of people take advantage of level 7 opportunities, and that will continue under our new approach, but we are shifting that focus to funding younger learners. As part of our ambition to rebalance apprenticeships back towards young people, it is vital that we also create more opportunities at lower levels for younger people. We know that currently it can be hard for people at such a young age who have a rough but not exact idea of what they want to do to access training that supports them to take the first steps in their careers. That is why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships as a key first part of our growth and skills offer, to give young people a route into careers in critical sectors, enabling them to take a wage while developing vital skills.

The first foundation apprenticeships were launched in August in the construction, engineering and manufacturing, digital, and health and social care sectors. To support businesses to make the most of those opportunities, we are providing employers with up to £2,000 for every foundation apprentice that they take on and retain in their industry. It is great that there is already demand to broaden the availability of foundation apprenticeships, and work is under way to identify other sectors in which they would be welcomed.

I want to respond to some of the comments from the hon. Member for Chippenham about the architecture sector. As I said earlier, I recognise her specialism in the area and I understand her argument that level 7 apprenticeships have opened up access in architecture. In terms of the extent to which level 7 apprenticeships, compared with lower-level apprenticeships, attract people from more deprived backgrounds, we do not see anything like the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds at level 7 that we do in other areas. I appreciate that there may be an impact when compared to the typical architecture student, but looking at level 7 apprenticeships in the round, we do not see that consistently.

The hon. Member for Chippenham is correct to highlight skills shortages in sectors that are key to delivering homes and infrastructure. As I said, the lower-level routes that we are looking at—foundation apprenticeships —have a particular focus on sectors such as construction and engineering. That will make a significant contribution to starting to address some of the skills shortages. However, I accept that for particular professions, such as surveyors and town planners, the level 7 apprenticeship route is a mechanism through which to fill key roles through which local authorities can build infrastructure.

On the subject of architecture—I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chippenham framed it as a prejudicial approach—student finance is available for people to undertake the masters qualification, subject to the usual criteria. However, overall, it is about this Government’s commitment to ensuring that apprenticeships are a mechanism to support people at the start of their careers. That is why we are so determined to make the change that we are making, to ensure that it is under-22s who benefit most from the support that is available.

The hon. Member for Chippenham asked a specific question about what assessment was done on architecture. I hope that she will forgive me for having not done my homework about her background, as I thought that I was responding to a general debate on level 7 apprenticeships. I will write to her separately to ensure that I address the points she made about flexibility and more time. I did not know I needed to be specifically equipped to respond, so I will come back to her. I hope, however, that I have explained the rationale on level 7 apprenticeships more generally.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Will the Minister outline the possible impacts on local authorities taking on a town planning role? There are serious budget constraints on local authorities. It is hard to keep and retain staff in a planning department, especially when they are attracted to the private sector. Local authorities use level 7 as a key tool to upskill the workforce, which aids retention. If the Government are to achieve their mission to build all those new homes, does the Minister agree that the apprenticeship route is important?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly agree that apprenticeships are an important route. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been a significant shortage of town planners for some time, and I do not think it is reasonable to characterise these changes as the cause. I am not suggesting that that is what she is doing, but we need to be careful. She is arguing that this may exacerbate an existing problem.

We have a broader challenge with town planners that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, they tend to qualify and go to the sort of civil engineering consultancy that I used to work for, to earn lots more money. Based on the call for evidence and the information collected by Skills England last year, we are hopeful that we can work with a number of employers, including local authorities—accepting funding constraints—and the NHS, because specific nursing routes have been excepted, having been considered a challenge early on, to look at whether they can fund level 7 apprenticeships directly. We think that is more feasible than at a lower level of apprenticeship, because there is often a long-standing existing relationship between the employer and the potential apprentice. The evidence suggests a greater willingness to invest in individuals, because employers recognise their skills and talents, and have been working to develop them for some time.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

I am sure that Dennis and Jill will be looking at the debate carefully and understanding clearly the issue of fairness, which is at the heart of what this legislation addresses. As I have explained, it is a scenario that Shane, in my constituency, is experiencing: he is able to receive PIP today, but someone in a similar circumstance to him will not be able to receive it after late 2026. That is not fair.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Lauren, from my constituency, is a bright and determined 16-year-old young woman, who has just completed her GCSEs and came to do work experience in my office. She has cerebral palsy and is applying for PIP not because she wants a handout, but because she knows that she will need support to live independently and pursue a career and life ambitions that will probably bring her to this place at some point, if she gets her way. Does the hon. Member agree that young disabled people deserve clarity and dignity, and that this Bill is not giving them that?

[Robbie Moore]

This Bill gives no clarity or dignity to the many people such as the constituent the hon. Lady kindly mentions, or those in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. That is why I do not support a plan that creates such a two-tier system, which now seems to be the hallmark of this Labour Government and goes against the very principle of fairness.

Let us not forget exactly why we are here: these changes are being pushed through at pace, at the eleventh hour, without proper evidenced reasoning for the new cut-off date. That is not the kind of detailed policy making that we expect from our leaders.

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

With limited time, I will share the voices of some of the 200 constituents who have been in touch with me about the proposed changes to personal independence payments. For example, one worried father, Robert, contacted me on behalf of his son, Richard, who lives with functional neurological disorder. Robert told me how vital PIP is to Richard, who will never be able to work again. They feel completely abandoned by these proposed cuts and, after countless attempts to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, they feel ignored and disillusioned.

Another example is James, who lives with multiple mental health conditions that have left him hospitalised several times in the past. He wrote to me saying:

“Nearly all my PIP goes towards paying for my guardian angel carer. Without that support, I would have to move into a supported living arrangement, which would make my mental health problems much worse and I would end up in hospital again. I don’t want to lose my independence as I am just managing with the support I have now.”

For James, it is clear that PIP is the difference between managing or entering crisis.

Meanwhile, Susan is the sole carer and appointee for several disabled members of her family. Under these proposals, at least two of them would lose all of the support they get. She wrote to me saying:

“I honestly am broken, life is hopeless—I can’t feed my family if these cuts go through. Please can you join us in fighting the cuts.”

My constituents in Chichester are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to live with dignity, fairness and, importantly, independence, which is what PIP gives them. The changes are the exact opposite of what the Government claim they want to achieve.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those points. I can give him the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, I spoke to Scope yesterday, and to other disability charities. Yes, this will be a proper consultation, and we will listen very carefully to what people say to us in response.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Terminal illness devastates people’s finances. More than 100 terminally ill people every month are refused PIP, and every day 300 people die in poverty, having fallen through the cracks of our benefits system. Many family carers in the midst of bereavement are then left with nothing. The Government’s plans in the Green Paper say nothing about how the terminally ill or their carers will be affected by these cuts. Can the Minister guarantee today that they will not be plunged into deeper poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point, but the Green Paper is very clear about the protections provided for people who are terminally ill. There are special rules in place, and they will absolutely be maintained. She can be very much reassured about what the Green Paper says about that group. If there is a point that I have missed that she has spotted, I would be grateful to hear about it, but we have very robust protections for those people for exactly the reasons she sets out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman will indeed be hearing more about our plans, which will include proper employment support to help people on a pathway to success. We also have our “Keep Britain Working” review, led by the former boss of John Lewis, Charlie Mayfield, which is looking precisely at what more employers can do, with support from Government, to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces and to guarantee that disabled people who can work have the same rights and choices to work as everybody else?

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Much like the constituencies that have been mentioned, my young people in Chichester are struggling to find work and that is no more apparent than for those with learning difficulties, so will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Together Our Community, or TOC, which provides work experience for young people with learning disabilities aged 18 to 35 to show that they do have something to offer the workforce? TOC is about to open its own café and centre for these young people. Will the Secretary of State outline what support is available for such charities and join me at its opening next month?

[Liz Kendall]

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating TOC; it sounds like it is doing fantastic work. On Friday, I was talking to the headteacher of a special needs school near my constituency, who was saying we absolutely have to ensure that work experience, careers advice and working with voluntary groups are all part of the package of support we put in place. If possible, I or one of my colleagues will certainly come and see the work that TOC is doing, because charities and voluntary groups are absolutely critical to this Government’s plans.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the 160,000 individuals who signed the e-petition on securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening it with power and passion. We are here to address a grave injustice that has affected millions of women across our country, including in Eastbourne—known for being home to many a great pensioner.

The WASPI women were let down by successive Governments after an increase to the state pension age was implemented without proper communication or notice. As a result, these women, many of whom had worked for decades and paid into the system in good faith, found their retirement plans shattered, with little time to adjust. This scandal has left many women in financial hardship, forced to continue working or unable to retire with dignity. One of them is my constituent Yvonne in Eastbourne, who said in a letter to me:

“I was offered early retirement. I did my sums carefully as I still had a mortgage to pay and accepted the offer. Only after everything was signed and settled did I discover that the months were now changed into years. This meant having to find work for longer than I expected to and giving up the plans my husband and I have.”

Many more women represented by Members of all political parties could paint a very similar scenario.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend’s story of Yvonne reminds me of my constituent Christine, who had a long career in the NHS. She took a lower paid job in 2012 on the assumption that she would be able to claim her state pension in 2016. It was not until she contacted the DWP after she had left the NHS that she found out that she was not entitled to the state pension for twice the amount of time that she thought she would have to survive on a smaller income. This has been the experience of countless women in my constituency and across the country. They planned their retirement and future based on the wrong information. Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued betrayal of these women by successive Governments is disgraceful, and that ignoring the ombudsman’s recommendation sets a dangerous precedent?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and nor could the ombudsman. The ombudsman has been very clear that these women suffered maladministration and that they should be compensated—no ifs, no buts. It is therefore grossly unjust that the Government have ruled out compensation, despite apologising for the injustice.

Compensation is not just a political issue; in my view, it is a moral obligation. I urge the Government to act on the ombudsman’s findings and U-turn on their refusal to provide fair compensation to the WASPI women. The Liberal Democrats stand with the WASPI women’s continued fight for compensation. I am proud to stand alongside women like Angela Boas in Eastbourne to continue fighting for the justice that these women need and deserve.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Back Benchers can put forward proposals for debates, as can Opposition parties. If the main Opposition party wants to do so, it would be perfectly at liberty to do so.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches thought that today’s statement might be an early Christmas present for the WASPI women in my constituency and across the country. All those women will now be understandably devastated, and will be asking the same question: if the ombudsman has ruled that they were to have financial redress because of the maladministration and the Government are willing to ignore that finding, what else are this Government willing to ignore?

[Liz Kendall]

We do not ignore the ombudsman; we just do not agree with the approach he takes to injustice or to remedy. We provided research that showed that only one in four people who receive an unsolicited letter remember getting it or reading it, so even if we had sent those letters out earlier—which, as we have said, we should have done—we do not believe it would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. When 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme of up to £10.5 billion. We do not believe that that is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.

The ombudsman plays a really important role, and will continue to do so. I know that, as I have sent countless constituents to the ombudsman to try to get redress in the 14 years that I have been an MP. We continue to back their work and effort.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

In the Vale of Glamorgan, the economic inactivity rate is almost one in four people. That is higher than the rate for Wales as a whole, and certainly higher than the UK average. From spring next year, we will launch eight trailblazers to support more people with long-term health conditions into work, including in Wales. That is backed by £125 million of additional funding. We will design the programme jointly with the Welsh Government, and we aim to launch it in the spring. We are determined to boost jobs and growth in every corner of this great country.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Fedcap, a national organisation, is running a scheme to get economically inactive people to become the next generation of solar panel engineers. More such schemes will be necessary to plug the skills gap that developers report, especially if the Government are to meet their ambitious housing target. Will the Secretary of State commit to continued funding for schemes that are delivered by such organisations via jobcentres?

[Liz Kendall]

I congratulate organisations such as the one that the hon. Lady mentions for their brilliant work, not only to keep energy costs down but to support people into work. I will work closely with the Minister for energy consumers, and others in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to support those organisations, including through jobcentres. More jobs and lower bills are key to improving people’s living standards.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Under the Conservatives the UK’s was the only economy to see employment rates fall over the last five years, leaving a legacy of wrecked apprenticeships, mental health services not fit for purpose and millions on waiting lists unable to work, as well as those with caring responsibilities staying at home to provide care for their loved ones because of the failure in our social care system. The Liberal Democrats welcome steps to improve access to skills, training and education. I praise the work of Fedcap and Maximus UK, which are doing just that in Chichester in conjunction with the jobcentres, working with those who have had long periods of economic inactivity or have additional challenges in finding work. But the insecurity and short-term nature of Government funding for such projects means that both organisations had to pause their referrals this year while they waited for the Government to confirm their continued funding. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that to get people back into work, the organisations already trying to do that need more security from the Government.

When it comes to tackling the mental health crisis, it is not enough to reverse the Conservatives’ lack of action. The Government must be proactive in improving mental health services. I invite the Secretary of State to take the proactive ideas that the Liberal Democrats laid out in our general election manifesto such as catching more mental health conditions early on by offering mental health MOTs and the introduction of mental health hubs in every community to deliver ease of access to walk-in services and support.

It is abundantly clear that ensuring people get the NHS treatment they need is critical to getting people back to work. The NHS cannot tackle its long waiting lists unless the Government get serious about fixing the crisis in social care. We have heard a lot of words from the Government on social care but seen little action, with the increase in the social care budget totally eroded by the national insurance contribution rise. Does the Secretary of State agree that a healthy society is a productive society and that fixing the health and social care crisis will get our country back to work?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Yes, I agree that we have got to tackle the root causes of the problem and have an NHS and social care system that is fit for purpose. We have put forward our commitments on mental health support in every school and every community. We know that many mental health problems start before someone turns 18, so we have to try to prevent those problems in the first place, but there is much more that we need to do.

We are starting to see fantastic NHS services that provide employment advice as part of care. The evidence shows that if a person is in good work, a sense of purpose and structure is good for their mental health. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is pushing for that to be available in all parts of the country.

I am under no illusions about the scale of the challenge. Only 3% of people who are economically inactive get back to work in any given year, so we have to prevent the problems from happening in the first place as well as doing more to help those people into work.

Furniture Poverty

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sam Carling]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. He cites the specific statistics in his constituency; I am sure we will hear more in the Minister’s response about the Government’s plans to address that situation.

Starkly, if someone has a disability, they are three times more likely to be in furniture poverty than non-disabled people. The issue is at its worst in the social rented sector. Only 2% of social properties come with any furniture at all, meaning that most people move into an empty box, not a home. That means that more than a quarter of social tenants are in furniture poverty.

Landlords also often throw away any furniture that is left when tenants move. That extends, most absurdly, to flooring. Nearly 760,000 adults in the social rented sector are living without flooring. That means walking around on cement, wood with nails sticking out, or dirty underlay. That is often because it is ripped up by landlords when previous tenants leave, supposedly because the floor might be dirty. In most cases, perfectly good flooring is removed just because it is the quickest and easiest thing to do. That means that tenants have to put in flooring themselves. Data from May this year show that 83% of residents self-funded floor coverings, with only 1% receiving support from their landlord.

Very few charities or local welfare schemes cover flooring, meaning that many just have to make do with nothing. Beyond being a hazard, a lack of carpet or adequate flooring makes a property far colder in winter, increasing heating costs. The Welsh Government recently took the extremely welcome step of requiring social rented homes to provide flooring from the point of let, regardless of whether properties are considered furnished or not. I strongly encourage the Government to follow the lead of our Welsh colleagues by bringing in a similar measure, as we review our own decent homes standard.

In the private rented sector, things are better, with 29% of properties let as furnished, which provides tenants with choice. However, there is ambiguity over that figure. It could include serviced flats for those with higher incomes. There is also no legal definition of a furnished property, meaning that what counts as furnished can vary from landlord to landlord and property to property. Some properties are advertised as furnished, only for tenants to arrive and find they do not have a mattress, cooker, fridge or another essential furniture item.

I have personal experience of that. When I moved into a new flat in August, I arrived to find there was no mattress to sleep on. I had to order one myself at short notice, but I am lucky to have been able to do that. So many people are not able to deal with significant unexpected expenses like that. I firmly believe that we need to define formally what “furnished” means, to empower tenants to challenge landlords who misleadingly advertise properties as furnished.

We have unfair trading regulations that should protect tenants but, when landlords are able to define “furnished” however they please, and with many not providing inventories of properties until a lease agreement has been signed and a tenant has been locked in, tenants cannot use those regulations effectively to challenge misleading practices. Other countries already have a legal definition—France, for example—so it would not be an unusual step. There are ample opportunities for us to do it, either through the decent homes standard, as we review it, or in secondary legislation arising from the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Other problems in the sector can exacerbate furniture poverty, with the sheer levels of rent people pay in the private sector being a major one. Private renters spend on average more than the recommended maximum of 30% of their wages on rent, which can make it difficult to buy or replace costly items. It is also possible that replacement furniture items are required more often in the private sector, due to mould and damp, given that a higher proportion of homes in the sector do not meet the decent homes standard compared with other forms of tenure. I welcome the fact that the Government have already taken steps to address that situation in the Renters’ Rights Bill.

I want to highlight some of the work done by charities and local authorities. End Furniture Poverty, a charity based in Liverpool, is the leader on research in this area and I have drawn on its useful statistics throughout my speech today. End Furniture Poverty has worked with councils up and down the country, including Liverpool city council; in Liverpool more than 50% of social landlords have pledged to start a scheme to tackle furniture poverty. It has also worked with Cambridgeshire county council. Next week at its parliamentary event, I look forward to the presentation of End Furniture Poverty’s work and to hearing how that will affect my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire.

However, although charities do good work, they cannot do it all and they have been impacted by the difficulties in local government finances under the last Government.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure the hon. Member will join me in celebrating Second Chance Chichester, which in my constituency is working with an organisation of crafters to restore furniture, in order to make sure that local families have access to the essential furniture they need. However, because of pressures in local government, it is becoming increasingly hard to get grants for the charitable work that it does. Does he agree that the local government settlement cannot come soon enough?

[Sam Carling]

I have been a councillor myself for a number of years, so I am very much aware of the difficulty that local government is facing and I agree that we need to see improvements in that regard. The situation is extremely difficult for the Government, of course, given the horrendous inheritance that we have had from the previous Government on this issue and on the broader economy in general. However, I certainly look ahead, especially to the multi-year settlements that the new Government have pledged to bring forward, which will be incredibly useful for councils.

In February, three in 10 charities that work with local authorities said that they expected their funding to fall, but even charities that derive no income from local government felt that challenges in local finances would affect them, with 33% of them saying that there would be a knock-on effect for their organisation.

What can be done about furniture poverty? There is a case for some work to be done on local welfare assistance. These schemes are an ideal source of support for people who require one or two essential furniture items. They also provide vital assistance for food and fuel, and many of them offer a wide range of other support. However, budgets for local welfare assistance have dwindled over the past decade, after responsibility for schemes was devolved from central Government to local government and as local authority budgets have been greatly reduced. That is the key point. Devolution is not a bad thing, but it must come with the funding to deal with the new powers.

Right now, 36 local authorities have closed their local welfare scheme, meaning that whether people can get the support that they need has become something of a postcode lottery. That is no huge surprise given the perilous state of local government finances after the last Government’s failures. The new Government’s extension to the household support fund in the Budget is very welcome and will be vital to so many people who need it.

What will be key is effective regulation of the social and private rented sectors. The statistics from the social rented sector are stark. Social landlords need to provide more of their stock as furnished, and I believe that potential legislative routes to achieve that should be considered. In the private rented sector, the Renters’ Rights Bill does much to tackle the overriding issues that exacerbate furniture poverty for renters and shows how important regulation is. I encourage the Government to consider the small, additional regulatory changes that I have outlined in this speech, which could make a real difference to people in furniture poverty.

I appreciate that because this issue is a cross-departmental one, the Minister may not be able to respond to all of my points, in which case I ask her to raise any outstanding points with the relevant Minister and ask them either to write to me or to meet me to discuss them. That would be very helpful.

I will end there and defer to colleagues, who I know have lots of valuable contributions to make.