Poverty: International Development Aid

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Well, apart from my dulcet tones, my present is to reassure the noble Lord of the Government’s commitment to girls’ education, with the spending on women. I accept that the former Prime Minister detailed that, and I agreed with the Prime Minister at that time about the focus on girls and women when it comes to our development spending. That will be a focus. The noble Lord will have seen our women and girls strategy, which runs to 2030 and has a specific focus on ensuring that we reach those objectives. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke previously that we absolutely must spend more on girls’ education, but there is a second element to that, which is the empowerment of women. That will help us in supporting other countries as well as helping those countries to get themselves out of poverty and become increasingly self-sufficient.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, very helpfully, in the White Paper there was an emphasis on the importance of locally designed and led development for tackling absolute poverty, and there was a promise of a strategy for reaching that. What stage is it at, and when will that strategy be seen?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to raise that question. I will take back the specific issue of an update on the strategy and write to him, but we believe very much in localised solutions. That is why, when we consulted on the White Paper, there were more than 70 countries that we consulted with, and we received about 426 replies from about 46 countries. That ensured that our White Paper demonstrably showed what local needs stood for. On the development of the paper, I will write to the right reverend Prelate.

Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise that. Our discussions with key Gulf partners and directly with Israel are about opening land routes, which are the most effective routes. That is why I alluded earlier, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to Kerem Shalom. These are six lanes instead of the one lane from Rafah, and we will continue to implore that. I assure the noble Lord that we are looking at all routes, including maritime routes, to provide support and aid into Gaza. We also recognise that where we can provide support we should, whether through supporting countries that have field hospitals in Gaza or through a specific idea that the French have had and that we are exploring, involving vessels that we have currently deployed for humanitarian support and the flexibility to provide support in the way the noble Lord suggests.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, this tragic situation is also caught up in the complexity of the religious faiths of the region. In what way are faith leaders involved in the diplomatic conversations to seek to bring peace?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, to me that is fundamental. There is a unifying factor, which from the Muslim perspective was the prophet Abraham, and we all recognise that. Faith leaders have an important role: they can bring people together as an important part of track 2 diplomacy. I am engaging directly with faith leaders because I believe to my core that faith is about bringing people together, not dividing us.

UK Food Aid: Ethiopia

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is right to identify that as a major issue, which is why family planning remains a big focus of UK aid across Africa. So many threats, risks, challenges and pressures face that continent, and climate change and environmental degradation, as mentioned in the previous question, are rapidly becoming the dominant threat facing many countries in the continent.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, it happens time and again that Governments start diverting food aid and other aid away from the people who need it on the ground, and time and again we have learned that international organisations such as Christian Aid and the Red Cross, and local faith communities from all faiths, are often the very best at delivering aid and making sure it gets to the people most in need. Can the Minister tell us what is being done to try to get around the Ethiopian Government and use those organisations?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I strongly agree with the premise of the question. Many of those organisations are better placed to deploy aid than Governments, government agencies or some of the very clunky, large multilateral organisations. I mentioned earlier that the UK has not found evidence that our own aid has been diverted, but we are part of a UN-led diversion task force. We are pressing for a systemwide investigation into diversion risks across Ethiopia and working with our representatives at the UN and the World Bank to bring impetus to this process at the highest possible level. But there is an urgent need to maintain the humanitarian support that the right reverend Prelate identified in areas affected by ongoing regional conflict, flooding, cholera and so on. We follow strict processes to prevent aid diversion and have controls and risk management systems in place, and they seem to be working. We are acutely aware of the need to continue to provide humanitarian assistance for those in the greatest need.

Sudan

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point, and of course we have learned lessons from Afghanistan, as we strive to from every event that involves the UK and the FCDO, including on things such as evacuation planning, consular assistance, and so on. However, this is a very different situation, in the UK’s capabilities and the overall context, as well as the risk to British nationals. That is not to say that comparisons are invalid—they are absolutely valid—but it is a very different situation.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware that two dioceses in this country, Salisbury and Leeds, have strong links with Sudan and South Sudan. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds has regular contact, particularly with the Primate in Sudan. The people in those two dioceses absolutely understand the total focus on bringing British citizens out but they are also concerned for the Sudanese on the ground, particularly those in the churches; the Church there is quite fragile and relies quite a lot on the support that comes from western diplomats, and so forth. They are asking what they can do to support their Sudanese friends in churches and in other communities who are not going to be rescued. There may not be an immediate answer, but perhaps the Minister would consider what advice might be given to people who want to support the Sudanese in the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that people not just in Salisbury and Leeds but across the country will want to provide support where they can—particularly those people with links and connections, but even those who do not. I do not believe there is yet an agreed and accepted pathway for that support—such things tend not to happen in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of violence—but I will certainly convey that message to the FCDO and the Africa Minister. I imagine we will see the same sort of generosity as we have on so many other occasions in the past few years.

Iran: Women Protesters

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I speak both for the Government and the FCDO. I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks about me personally. The issue of media freedom both at home and abroad is an important one. The United Kingdom has led on this; indeed, I was in Vienna on Friday discussing this very issue of protection of journalists. I do not know the full details of that specific case, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will have noted it and I will ensure that the noble Baroness gets a reply in that respect.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

To follow up on that, it was reported earlier this week that the lives of two British-Iranian journalists were at risk due to lethal threats from Iran following their coverage of the protests for the news channel Iran International. Will the Government take steps to condemn these threats and encourage the freedom of the press in Iran?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we will and I do so now.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hennessy—how we miss him today; he would have made a great contribution to this debate—used to talk about rising to the level of events. This is an event whose level it is difficult to rise to. It is also extremely difficult to rise to anywhere near the level of the opening tributes that we heard this morning. The British do these things rather well but those were done superbly well. If I may speak for myself, they made me very proud to be a Member of this House.

Queen Elizabeth was the sovereign during the whole of my professional life in the Civil Service. I want to make a few observations about the role of the sovereign in the constitution. I always regarded, and continue to regard, the sovereign as the embodiment of the British state. It is worth recalling that, like the Armed Forces—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is due to speak, I think—and the other Crown services, the Civil Service owes its allegiance to the sovereign. We owe our duty to the Government of the day because it is the sovereign’s Government—the Government appointed by the monarch. So the last official duty of the Queen, so bravely carried out on Tuesday in appointing the new Prime Minister, had more than a symbolic importance. The completion of the appointment of other Ministers will presumably be carried out by the new King. However, when appointed, they will be the King’s Government and we in this House will rightly take an oath of loyalty to him.

I make this brief excursion into our constitution to demonstrate that all of us who are servants of the Crown have a higher duty than simply to our political bosses. Speaking for myself, I found that my duty to Queen Elizabeth was not only demanding but inspiring. Her Majesty’s standard of service throughout her long life, to which so many tributes have been made, was one to which many of us may aspire but can never attain. Moreover, she carried out those duties with a grace, dignity and humanity of which the whole nation can be proud. She caused other nations to envy us.

This is a difficult and challenging time for the new King, as well as a moment of acute personal sadness for him. Nevertheless, he has had a long apprenticeship. He is his own person, as every individual should be, but he has demonstrated over many years his devotion to the welfare and success of this country and its citizens, as well as to the challenges that are being faced by the wider world. His mother has demonstrated the value of our monarchy. I wish our new sovereign well and pledge to him my loyalty and support as he carries forward that heavy responsibility.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen for all that she gave to us and thanking those noble Lords who have already made tributes. The noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, moved me to tears for the first time, for which I thank them—because tears matter.

My first personal meeting with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was as Bishop of Southampton. In 2007, Romsey celebrated the 500th year of its royal charter and the 900th anniversary of the foundation of its wonderful abbey. Her Majesty had been a regular visitor to Broadlands, the home of the Mountbatten family, so local people took the opportunity to tell me their memories of bumping into Her Majesty as she walked locally, popped into the shops or made her way to worship in the abbey. This highlighted for me her humanity, interest in people’s lives, concern for the local community and commitment to worship and prayer.

At the close of the service, together we examined James I’s seal on the royal charter. She delighted in explaining to me the continuity between her seal and his: notably, both were seated on a horse. She made an observation on the horse’s gait, for she was concerned for its welfare. Concern for welfare also struck me during my visit to Sandringham as the bishop in residence when I was Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. Her conversation included concern for the welfare of her family, the nation, the Commonwealth and her beloved—that is the word that she used—Church of England. It was “education Sunday”, so there was some discussion with Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on education in our nation. While Prince Philip took a fairly robust approach to the discussion, Her Majesty was entirely focused on wanting to know that the welfare of children as well- rounded human beings was at the heart of all our education.

Her commitment to welfare makes me note also that yesterday morning there was the wonderful news of the success of the malaria vaccine. Given Her Majesty’s love of the Commonwealth, and the scourge that malaria remains, might we consider that one memorial could be that this be known as the Elizabeth malaria vaccine, and that a significant sum be committed by us as a nation to its distribution through the Commonwealth nations that need it, in memory of her?

In conclusion, I celebrate, with others, the centrality of Her Majesty’s faith in Jesus Christ, and her life of prayer. I know that the people of the north-east of England, whom I have come to learn expect the Bishop of Durham to speak on their behalf, always valued Her Majesty’s visits to the region. They will want me to express on their behalf today their sorrow at Her Majesty’s passing, their prayers for the Royal Family in their grieving, their commitment to our new King, His Majesty King Charles III, and their deep thanksgiving for Her Majesty’s life of faith, service, kindness and duty. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, in heaven, we thank you. His Majesty King Charles III, we promise our loyalty.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, just over three months ago, I had the honour to lead the tributes in this House for Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee. As I commented in my closing remarks, it was probably the most uplifting debate that I was involved in as Leader of the House. The love, affection and respect that noble Lords from all Benches had for Her Majesty shone through every contribution, so it is with the most immense and profound sadness that I speak today.

The Queen gave us seven decades of dedicated service. Just as she proclaimed she would at the age of 21, she devoted her life to the United Kingdom, the realms and the Commonwealth. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Queen Elizabeth was the very spirit of our nation, the rock on which modern Britain was built. Her service and dedication were truly remarkable.

Holding the role of Leader of this House is a privilege in all its respects and daunting in many, but I would be lying if I did not admit that most of the “Pinch me, is this really happening?” moments that I experienced over the last six years involved Her Majesty. Perhaps the most public was carrying the cap of maintenance during the State Opening of Parliament. During her reign, she opened every Parliament bar three, a testament to her overriding sense of duty. Little did I realise that my role was not only a huge and terrifying responsibility but a feat of endurance, as that cap is a lot heavier than it looks.

As Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal, you have the honour of attending, among other things, state banquets, the diplomatic reception, the Remembrance Day service at the Cenotaph and, of course, Privy Council meetings. I was always amazed and impressed by Her Majesty’s knowledge about any topic that you could think of, her ability to put anybody at ease and the twinkle in her eye when you did not quite follow established protocol. I suspect that noble Lords will not be entirely surprised to learn that, despite my best efforts, I saw that twinkle on more than one occasion.

When we moved to virtual Privy Council meetings due to the pandemic, it was sadly no longer possible to have those enjoyable informal conversations in person with Her Majesty after the official business. Instead, all of us attending were asked to update Her Majesty on our areas of responsibility. She was always very interested and, of course, extremely knowledgeable about what was happening in your Lordships’ House. As well as highlighting the important work that we were doing, I always tried to include an amusing anecdote or comment, as there was nothing quite like the feeling of knowing that you had made Her Majesty chuckle. Sadly, it has turned out that I attended the last meeting that she presided over.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 8th July 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I am glad to bring before you this Bill, which would abolish the two-child limit to universal credit. In doing so, I declare my interest as patron of the North East Child Poverty Commission.

When this policy was originally debated, I made it clear that we would seek to hold the Government to account for its impact. Working with others, including the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others, I have sought to do this. Before the policy was rolled out, its impacts were predicted—notably, that many children would pay the price. They are, with more families affected every year.

Children are a gift, not only to their parents but to the wider family and to society. Every child should be treated as of equal value. I believe this is recognised across all Benches of this House. Sadly, this policy directly contradicts that.

This policy is the biggest driver of the increase in child poverty. Families falling into difficulty are discovering that the social security system is not supporting their whole family as they expected where they are a larger family. People are discovering that not every child is of equal value. The third child is ignored and thus the whole family suffers. This policy punishes children. Further, it does not even live up to the terms on which it was initially defended. I feel for the Minister in her difficult task today.

The original terms were, in the Government’s own words, that

“families on benefits will have to make the same financial decisions as families supporting themselves through work.”

This line has been repeated often. Although the Government have denied that the intention of this policy is to influence the fertility rates of those claiming universal credit, it is acknowledged in their own impact report. The IFS report cited by the impact assessment, Does Welfare Reform Affect Fertility?, demonstrated a significant increase in fertility rates of people whose benefits were increased.

So when academics looked at the trends resulting from this policy, they were surprised to find the very small decrease in fertility rates in the relevant group. This is bad news for the effectiveness of the policy. Following its logic, a successful outcome would be adults, in full knowledge of the consequences of the two-child limit, making different decisions than they otherwise would about having children. They may be more financially stable as a result, more likely to progress into work and less likely to need the social security system to stay afloat. This would, in addition to the money saved solely restricting support to two children per household, save the Government money in the long term. The money-saving factor of this policy is another term on which it was presented.

However, if there is not a significant trend to say that adults’ decisions to have a child are being affected, how is the two-child limit influencing anything at all? I pay tribute to the Benefit Changes and Larger Families project, which has been an invaluable resource on this subject. Its recent conclusion to this question is that

“the two-child limit’s main outcome is to drive financial hardship and often destitution.”

This is unacceptable. It is enough reason for the policy to be scrapped.

But, following the Government’s logic again, the cost to the public purse of such high levels of poverty in early childhood is likely to be far greater than the money saved through withholding support. Professor Donald Hirsch’s ground-breaking research on this subject highlights that children who have experienced poverty are less likely to pay tax, less likely to have high-paid jobs and more likely to need support from public services. More important are the unquantifiable impacts: the suffering of living in an overcrowded home, or not being able to join in with costly school activities and the shame that sometimes accompanies that. The truth is that this policy, designed in part to save public money, will likely increase the long-term cost to the public purse.

Why has this policy failed to level out the financial decision-making playing field? The Benefit Changes and Larger Families project, the CPAG and others agree that the policy works on the assumption that everyone is aware of it and its consequences and, further, that everyone has the tools to make a decision in this way about having a child. The director of the North East Child Poverty Commission recently sent me some relevant stories of clients from Citizens Advice Newcastle. “Stephanie” is a full-time carer for her three children, aged six, four and 11 months. She was unaware of the limit and was informed only when she claimed support for her youngest. She had no savings. The Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Committee in 2020 that claimants are free to have

“as many children as they choose, in the knowledge of the support available”

shows a lack of understanding about people’s lives and the way this policy actually works.

This policy also assumes that those claiming benefits and those who do not are divided along employment lines. Actually, the majority of those subject to the limit are in work. I quote again from the impact assessment: the limit is about

“ensuring those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work.”

In more recent times the reasoning has changed to those supporting themselves “solely” through work, but that does not change the intention of the policy and is indicative of its outworking. It is simply not always possible for people in either group to increase their incomes. The social security system is designed to be a safety net for any of us who unexpectedly fall into financial difficulty through loss of work, sickness or disability.

I pay tribute to the Member for Glasgow Central, with whom I have worked on the resistance to this policy. It is very unusual for the Church of England and the Scottish nationalists to work quite so closely together. In her recent Westminster Hall debate, she laid out the stunning inconsistencies with which exemptions to the policy are applied. Although the exemptions are designed to mitigate the assumptions made, they do not account for the disproportional impact on people of ethnic-minority and faith backgrounds, who are more likely to have larger families. Some faith groups are penalised because, for them, contraception and termination are simply not valid options.

Another result of the policy lies within a survey taken by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service during the pandemic. It spoke to women who were aware of the two-child limit and likely to be affected, 57% of whom said that the policy was

“important in their decision-making around whether or not to continue the pregnancy.”

The fact that some women could feel pressured by a government policy to terminate a pregnancy that they may have otherwise wanted seems abhorrent.

I would like to correct the Minister in the other place who, when taking part in the recent Westminster Hall debate, argued that the lack of significant change in fertility rates refutes the impacts of the policy that we have heard through the BPAS survey about women’s experiences. These experiences cannot be refuted, and we must recognise both impacts.

It is clear to me that this policy is ineffective, devastating in impact and essentially immoral in character. The Minister has encouraged me to keep presenting evidence on the impact of the policy. With the wonderful help of the groups I have mentioned and many others, I have done so, and I pay tribute to the Minister for the fact that she regularly meets me when we are looking at this.

Rather than taking this evidence seriously, the defence of the policy has remained unaltered. It is a policy which is defended on terms that do not add up. It should be embarrassing that the price paid for its fallacies are our children. I pay tribute to those working constantly to try to ameliorate the entrenched, long-lasting poverty that is affecting families, but they can only ease the pain, not heal the wound. The Resolution Foundation’s Living Standards Outlook 2022 concluded that even in the context of the pandemic recovery and the war with Ukraine,

“the level of absolute and relative poverty in the UK each year is to a large extent a policy choice.”

If the Minister cannot commit to supporting this Bill today, will she commit to carrying out an impact report of the policy by the end of this year? Will she further commit to speaking with the Minister in the other place—I think it is still the same person— the department and the Cabinet about this debate and the evidence we have put forward? We could keep debating this for years, but ultimately it is a choice; a choice for this Government and, today, a choice for this House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

I thank the Minister for her full response, for giving us an answer and for repeating some of the stuff around the exemptions and so forth. However, she is right: I am disappointed, and I know that others will be. I am very grateful to those who have spoken; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her tireless support in this, and I thought her point about there not being a single Conservative Back-Bencher here to speak for the policy did say something.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for his reminder about economics and even going back all the way to Reverend Malthus, who I remember reading when I was doing my degree. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, highlighted—as did others—the increase in child poverty, and that is really one of the reasons I am disappointed. We are seeing an increase in child poverty, yet there seems to be a lack of willingness to address that where it is growing. I accept that some action is being taken, but it is not stopping some getting poorer and poorer and some becoming in danger of falling into destitution. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made a point about the funding balance and tax cuts, which I thought was very well made and very helpful.

I look forward to the letter around how the number of two children was arrived at. I remember sitting with Iain Duncan Smith and having that conversation with him where he gave me a convoluted explanation which I still do not think makes any sense. But I am grateful; the Minister is right that we will not stop having this debate. Simply, I am not going to stop until this policy is scrapped.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Poverty Strategy

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the review by the Church of England Making the case for a child poverty strategy, published on 28 April; and what plans they have, if any, to introduce a child poverty strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, I confirm that no specific assessment has been made. We are completely committed to supporting low-income families and will spend £108 billion on welfare support for people of working age in 2022-23. With record vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on supporting parents to move into work and to progress in work wherever possible, as we know that this is the best way to tackle poverty, particularly where work is full-time.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

I thank the Minister for her reply. In the Church of England child poverty review, we present a consensus from across the political spectrum that child poverty is a complex issue that must be strategically dealt with across all departments but in a locally facing way. One group cautioned in its response that the feasibility and success of a child poverty strategy will be dependent on the will of the Government, so my question is this: is there enough will to produce a specific, targeted strategy that aims to end child poverty?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, Ministers and officials engage regularly across government to ensure a co-ordinated approach to this very important issue. We keep all priorities under review, but, as I said, with almost 1.3 million vacancies across the UK, our focus is to ensure that we can fill those vacancies with people who can work so that they can become independent. The latest available data on in-work poverty shows that, in 2019-20, a child in a home where adults were working was around six times less likely to be in absolute poverty before housing costs.

Social Security System: Rising Cost of Living

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I assure my noble friend and the whole House that the Chancellor does understand and is working hard on the issue that many noble Lords have raised today. I can tell my noble friend and others who are impatient to get something going—I do not mean that lightly—that the £20 uplift was a success but it was a temporary measure, and I honestly cannot make any promises that it might be reintroduced.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

How much time have Treasury Ministers and DWP Ministers spent sitting, listening and talking with people who are struggling either to eat or heat? It is first-hand evidence that really matters; do not get it just from reports.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I have no doubt at all that real case studies have been presented—they have certainly been presented to my Secretary of State. I know that everyone is impatient, and I understand that, but the Government stand ready to do what they can once a decision has been made. I understand that talking to real people is the best way to learn. I was in Brighton on Thursday, opening the new job centre. I met a lady there whose life had been absolutely chaotic, and now she has a job with G4S and she is cooking. We understand personal testimony.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the National Society and co-chair of the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households.

A key question for evaluating the legislative agenda laid out in the gracious Speech is: are we, as a nation, prioritising the holistic well-being of all our children? I welcome the forthcoming Schools Bill. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s approach in constructively working with us to enable churches to have confidence in moving towards a system where all schools can be in a strong academy trust, maintaining their own ethos. The whole system must provide an education not solely pursuing the ends of maths and literacy but enabling children to be the best people they can be and to contribute to transforming the schools in which we live.

Small, rural schools pose a particular challenge. The Church of England provides around 65% of rural primary schools in England. The key to their flourishing is not simply the means for academic achievement; it also requires investment in rural economies so the whole community flourishes. I echo the emphases made to that effect in an earlier day of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. For us, strong trusts are those where the vision, character and ethos promote an education that is, as our national Vision for Education explains,

“Deeply Christian, Serving the Common Good”,


where the vision for every child is that they have

“life in all its fullness”,

which is rooted in wisdom and not simply knowledge.

There are currently 1,250 Church of England academies, but moving to a system where all 4,700 schools are in strong trusts will require significant structural capacity and proper investment in teachers and leaders. Sustaining a culture of teacher excellence is transformative for pupils’ outcomes from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, so I hope that the Minister’s department will be sufficiently resourced for this through a budget which shows commitment to children’s holistic well-being through education.

Speaking of children’s well-being leads me to note the lack of action in the gracious Speech to alleviate the cost of living crisis. Those worst affected are families with children. In the north-east, almost half of families with children under five are in poverty. This is unconscionable. There are also significant concerns about inflation. The complexity in finding solutions requires openness to different routes on all sides to what is, I hope, a shared goal. It is vital that the voices of those who are the most vulnerable are heard and heeded.

My opposition to the two-child limit remains. I am disappointed that the Government have disregarded the overwhelming evidence documenting families being pushed into poverty. Sadly, often direct questions asked in this House regarding its justification have not been answered. It is crucial that we have an opportunity to focus on this, and for that reason I have tabled a Private Member’s Bill to abolish the two-child limit.

Every child is of great value and, as education is prioritised, we must recognise children as whole people whose welfare needs are inextricably linked to their education. I add my voice to the many who have raised their concerns about the progression of the managed migration to universal credit plan and the many unanswered questions regarding the uncompleted pilot, support for claimants and the consequences of failing to navigate the process. Concerns continue about the impact of the five-week wait, up-front childcare costs and accessibility issues. Concerns continue too about the treatment of some child refugees and asylum seekers.

Our children’s flourishing cannot be achieved in a one-dimensional way or only for some. We must ensure that children in larger families, in poverty, in families with no recourse to public funds, victims of trafficking and refugees can flourish at home, at school, in their neighbourhoods and online. I will engage with legislation this year with children’s holistic well-being in mind.