To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s future combat air capability.

My Lords, our assessment of the future combat air capability we require is informed by consideration of the future threat environment and strategic context. Consequently, the Global Combat Air Programme has been designed to utilise advanced capabilities, including next-generation sensors, weapons and data systems. Networked interoperability with allies and partners will be key. In the meantime, we continue to invest in our current fleet, which remains highly capable.

I thank the noble Lord for that part-reassurance. The previous Government’s commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme—GCAP—was clear and we were doing it in partnership with Italy and Japan. However, with the best of intentions, the current Government’s position is opaque. Can the noble Lord at least reassure the House that the Government understand the need to plan now for a successor to Typhoon and the extent to which UK industry is supporting thousands of jobs across the UK—not least, for example, at Leonardo in Edinburgh—that depend on this programme proceeding?

We certainly do understand that: 3,500 people are already employed in the development of this, £2 billion has already been invested in the research and development of the programme and further money will be invested, as we go forward. As the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago, the Global Combat Air Programme is “important” and

“we are making significant progress … There is … a review going on but … it is an important programme”.

I think that gives the reassurance that the noble Baroness is looking for.

My Lords, as I highlighted in Grand Committee yesterday, on current plans, by 2040 the UK will be down to just three combat air squadrons. Irrespective of the debate over the type and nature of future platforms, would the Minister agree that this position is wholly untenable for any Government who care about the security of this country?

The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point. He is really referring to investment in our defence capabilities as we go forward. The review will look at the threats that we need to meet, but this Government have made an absolute commitment to go to 2.5% of GDP as soon as we can. I think that gives some reassurance to the noble and gallant Lord.

My Lords, we have two aircraft carriers, which will last for some 50 years. Will the Minister confirm that, in this package of air capability—which we absolutely need and do not have enough of—some aircraft will have the capability of operating from those carriers?

I certainly believe that the noble Lord is right to point out that, if we have aircraft carriers, we need aircraft to operate from them. I accept that. As far as the defence review is concerned, there is no doubt that we will look at the future capabilities we need, in respect of how those carriers are deployed and where they should be deployed, but also in respect of the necessary air combat power we need to meet the threats that the noble Lord will know well—as indeed will the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

My Lords, it is indeed reassuring that His Majesty’s Government appear to be recommitting to GCAP but, like AUKUS, this agreement has been inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The allies, in this case, are Italy and Japan. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any scope for bringing in other partners and whether that would that help with resilience and interoperability with our NATO allies, for example?

As it stands, we are certainly sharing the costs with Italy and Japan, as the noble Baroness points out. Regarding other partners, we are considering that and discussions are taking place, without any firm commitment as it stands. Interoperability is key. She will know that Germany, France and Spain are also developing a sixth-generation fighter—SCAF—as is the United States. They are all part of NATO, so interoperability becomes essential.

My Lords, while we accept that future generations of fast jet aircraft should be able to fly off aircraft carriers and fixed land bases, will the noble Lord accept that we also have land forces that need major investment? Will he also consider that going to just 2.5% of GDP is wholly inadequate and that the conversation should be about 3% or 3.5%?

The review will, of course, look at the necessary profile with respect to air, land, sea and intelligence and technology sharing. The Government have made an absolute commitment to 2.5% and are determined to deliver on that as soon as they can.

My Lords, I did not quite hear the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on Japan, but does the Minister agree that the huge Tempest deal with Italy and Japan is very much at the centre of this whole issue and that it really is going forward in a positive way? This is a very crucial time, when our relations with Japan are much improved and with all sorts of plans ahead, and it would be fatal if this one had a wobble.

I thank the noble Lord; that is a good question. We have made as firm a commitment as we can, although I have said that it is also part of the ongoing review that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is undertaking. We have made a commitment to Italy and Japan and the noble Lord will know that the GCAP International Government Organisation was set up to run that programme. Its headquarters are in the UK. On 2 October, just a week or so ago, the King ratified the final part of the SI to ensure that the treaty was put in place. That shows that the Government are making progress with respect to the GCAP programme.

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient war stocks for our front-line aircraft at the present time?

The noble and gallant Lord will know that we have concerns about the supply of ammunition and missiles. That is why this Government are introducing a national armaments director and working with industry. We want to ensure that the stockpiles of weapons we have are replenishable quickly, and we will look to see whether we have the necessary quantity as well. That will also form part of the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.

My Lords, reports from Ukraine indicate the importance of drones. What are the Government doing to increase the capability of drones and to add them to the needs of the future, so that we can have many more of these smaller ones as well as the big ones that we often talk about?

The noble Lord makes a really interesting point. That is the whole point of lessons learned from the conflict in respect of Ukraine, and that is part of what the review will look at. One thing that the noble Lord may pray in favour is the fact that the drones that Ukraine has used have, to an extent, neutralised the impact of the Black Sea fleet, and the Russian fleet has been driven back into port. That shows the utility of the use of drones. Of course, we need sixth-generation fighters and global combat air, but drones will form an important part of the weaponry that we need going forward to meet future threats.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that we have an aerospace and defence industry in the United Kingdom to be proud of. Will he ensure that, when he is looking at air capability, he will bear in mind the totality of the United Kingdom, including of course Northern Ireland’s excellent aerospace industry?

The noble Baroness will know that I know Northern Ireland reasonably well and I have seen the fantastic skills base that Northern Ireland has. At the moment, as it stands, the particular emphasis in respect of the Global Combat Air Programme is that the main centres are in the south-west of England, Lancashire and Edinburgh. Of course, the spin-off from that is numerous small industries. We need to ensure that the growth agenda of this Government reaches all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness pointed out.

My Lords, manned aircraft require a supply of pilots. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient resources are being made available to train the pilots of the future and that they are getting sufficient, real airtime in order to be effective?

The noble Lord knows that there have been problems with the training of pilots. That is partly the point of his question. The Government are looking at training and also at the recruitment and retention of all these particular skills, not just in respect of pilots but right across the Armed Forces. That is why this Government have launched a recruitment and retention review to see what we should do about it. Pilots will form an important part of that.

My Lords, given the drone capability we see daily in Ukraine, could not that be used to puncture people smugglers’ boats before they ever leave French shores?

Well, I do not know about that, but the use of drones will of course become increasingly important. With respect to the noble Lord’s suggestion, I am sure that people have heard it and will consider it in due course.

My Lords, is the Minister confident that we can keep one Vanguard submarine at sea at all times, given the strain there is on crew and our loss of crew because of the increasingly long time each mission has to take because of maintenance of the rest of the fleet?

This is a very important question and there should be no confusion here. The noble Lord is talking about the UK’s nuclear deterrent. That forms an important part of our deterrent. We are absolutely 100% certain that we will retain a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent presence. That needs to be heard from this Chamber and across the globe. There is no way that we will in any way allow our nuclear deterrent to be compromised. That needs to be heard loud and clear.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to recognising Somaliland as an independent nation.

My Lords, the UK, alongside others in the international community, does not recognise Somaliland’s unilateral declaration of independence. The settlement of Somaliland’s status is an issue for Somalia, including Somaliland, to decide through a consultative process and dialogue.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but does she realise that since 1991 Somaliland has had six democratic elections, observes the rule of law, has religious tolerance and is a haven of piece in that awful area of the Horn of Africa? Why will His Majesty’s Government not recognise that we must support and encourage democracy around the world, particularly in Africa where we give money to some appalling regimes such as Zimbabwe? Surely this is a time for the Government to face up to the fact that, like other countries, such as France, we should recognise Somaliland now.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in her strong support for Somaliland, but that does not change our position on the question of recognition of Somaliland as an independent state. She is right, and we have a very long-standing and deep relationship with Somaliland, not least because of the large number of Somalis living here in the UK, but also our support for the port there, for health, education, security and in many other ways. We are very pleased to continue that relationship.

My Lords, are we sure that we have got this completely right? I remember 10 years ago at the Foreign Office having to give exactly the same answers about this as the Minister has given now. On reflection, and in totally changed conditions, particularly in the Middle East and in east Africa, surely those new considerations come in. Why do we have to wait for every other nation to recognise and help Somaliland? It is an extremely feisty country, if I might use that word. It is quite well run and passionately pro-British. It would do us enormous help to have a good friend in that very sensitive area, with the Chinese pouring in next door. It makes utter sense for our own foreign policy to think about this positively. Would the Minister take it back to the Foreign Office and ask it to think again?

Well, I am very pleased to provide consistency in the Government’s approach. The UK needs to tread carefully in the Horn of Africa in regard to this, given the situation that the noble Lord has just described. We have strong links; we have a permanent diplomatic presence in Somaliland. But my sense is that it would not be the right thing to do for stability in the wider region to wade in and take such an action at this time.

My Lords, given that Ethiopia has recognised Somaliland in return for Red Sea access, and Egypt has signed a military and security defence arrangement with Somalia, and with Ethiopian troops currently in Somalia, I believe caution is justified. The UK was the lead funder for the African Union peacekeeping mission in this area in Somalia against Al-Shabaab. Is it not in the UK’s key strategic interests that we restore the funding for the new mission, whose mandate will be renewed at the end of this year, to ensure that Al-Shabaab does not benefit from the tension and standoff between Somaliland, Somalia, Ethiopia and Egypt?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us just how complex this situation is. We have to keep in mind where Ethiopia, Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea are—this is somewhere where you do not take rash decisions. We are committed to making sure that the fight to combat Al-Shabaab is taken forward and we will play our role in that, as the noble Lord would expect.

My Lords, reinforcing what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, just said about the importance of keeping the battle against Al-Shabaab at the top of our priorities, and bearing in mind what has already happened in the Horn of Africa—not least in Tigray—are the Government not right to proceed with caution? Can the Minister tell us whether she is in discussion with members of the African Union to discover what their views are about this? Will she also bear in mind that independence in the case of South Sudan has hardly led to peace in that troubled part of the continent?

We are desperately worried about what is happening in South Sudan. Minister Anneliese Dodds has visited there very recently. We will be keeping this at the front of our minds. As I said earlier in the week when these matters were discussed, my noble friend Lord Collins has been in Ethiopia in the last few days, and the noble Lord is right to urge caution and wisdom at all times in this.

My Lords, can I also urge caution on this matter? It has wider implications for places like Ukraine. Any decision made here must take into account the wider implications that will remain if a change is made.

The noble Lord has summarised what I have tried to say very well, and I thank him for that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is an important issue. As the Minister said, stability in the region is paramount. She also mentioned the influence of the African Union. We have to take this matter further and encourage dialogue between the parties themselves so that sovereignty can be recognised for Somaliland. Can the Minister comment on ways of persuading the parties to this disagreement to come to the table and come to an agreement?

I thank the noble Earl for the approach he has taken to this topic. It is our role to encourage dialogue, but I do not think it is our role to specify what the outcome should be, so that is the approach that we will continue to take.

My Lords, I am deeply concerned about the implications of some of the questions being put to my noble friend. My suspicion is that some Members clearly have an appreciation of just how near war in the Horn of Africa is and how many moving parts are already out of our control. Perhaps the Government could find time for us to have a debate in government time on the Horn of Africa so that people can fully understand just how much on the verge of war this area is and why asking questions in this House that are consistent with our long-term interest in the possibility of stopping a war would help because some of these questions will undermine our attempts to stop the war.

My noble friend makes an important point. He is a far more experienced parliamentarian than me, and I am sure that he is able to navigate the powers that be to enable such an opportunity, which I would very much welcome.

Is the Minister satisfied that the UK is marshalling its soft power in a sufficiently coherent way to promote stability and combat malign influences throughout the Horn of Africa?

That is an important question, and I will consider it further. I think we sometimes underestimate the impact soft power can have. We are well placed to act in that way, given our historical links and the community in the UK. If the noble and gallant Lord does not mind, I will take that away and give it further consideration.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of imposing VAT on school fees with effect from 1 January 2025.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as chairman of governors of Brentwood School and as president of the Institute of Boarding and the Boarding Schools’ Association.

My Lords, the implication of imposing VAT on school fees with effect from 1 January 2025 will be to raise revenue to fund the Government’s objective that every child has access to high-quality education, including the 94% of children who are educated in the state sector. It will help to fund 3,000 new nurseries, the rolling out of breakfast clubs to all primary schools and the recruitment of 6,500 new teachers.

As the noble Lord is a distinguished economist, must he not acknowledge that the impact on state schools of this vindictive policy will be meaningless, with 6,500 extra teachers across 20,000 schools in England adding just one-third of one teacher to each school? Yet the impact on children at independent schools will be enormous, with the losers being those who have to leave half way through the year because their parents cannot afford to pay, the children of service families who rely on boarding schools so that their parents can defend us, and children with special needs who are exceptionally vulnerable. Their lives will be upended for nothing—all pain and no gain. The Prime Minister accepted £20,000 in free accommodation to ensure that his son’s schooling was not interrupted and talks about party before country. Why will he not extend that courtesy to other children and put them before party, and either scrap or delay this shambolic, shameful policy?

I do not accept in any way the noble Lord’s characterisation of this policy. This is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. As far as the state sector goes, to the extent that pupils move at all, the number of pupils who may switch schools represents a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector and is likely to be less than 0.5% of total UK school pupils, of whom there are more than 9 million.

I wonder if I might press the Minister on SEND pupils. The majority of SEND pupils, who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, do not have an education, health and care plan, and therefore there is a genuine worry that this policy might mean that their education is interrupted. What mitigating factors are His Majesty’s Government putting in place to ensure that this particularly vulnerable group is supported?

I am of course aware that this is an area of specific concern, as was said. Our proposed policy ensures that children with acute needs that can be met only in the private sector, as set out in an EHCP, will continue to be supported through their local authority and will not be impacted by this policy change. Very many private schools will take steps to absorb a proportion, or all, of the new VAT liability, so there may be no increases in fees under such circumstances.

Will my noble friend the Minister remind the House of what happened when we lost office in 2010? The first thing the Government did was to cut the better schools initiative and the plans to improve schooling for the 90% who go to state schools. Will he ask the other side whether they will perhaps speak as often for the 90% in state schools as they seem to want to for the 6% in private schools?

I am grateful to my noble friend for making those points, and I agree with what she said. The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are determined to drive up standards in schools serving the overwhelming majority of children in this country, so that they may receive the opportunities that too often have been the preserve of the rich and the lucky.

My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that the new VAT measures will not damage the UK’s ability to produce world-leading performers in music and dance? He may not know that for exceptional talent to succeed on the global stage it needs to enter professional training at a very young age and at a level of intensity that the state sector cannot provide. These schools are far from the independent schools stereotype. They do not have large endowments or wealthy parent bodies, and they recruit entirely on talent, regardless of ability to pay. Can the Government ensure that the new measures do not create a scenario in which only the most advantaged children can have the opportunities that their talent deserves?

I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s insight and expertise on this matter. In answer to her question, that is absolutely what we will seek. As she knows, where parents are paying fees for their child to attend a private music or dance school they will pay VAT on those fees following this change. The music and dance scheme funds talented pupils from low-income families to attend such specialist schools, and we will monitor closely any impact of these policy changes and consider any changes to this scheme at the forthcoming spending review.

My Lords, this is a deeply damaging and mean measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said. It is unlikely to hurt wealthy parents but it will hit those with limited means trying to do their best for their children with special needs or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, with specialist skills. Please will the Government at least defer to September to avoid the trauma of mid-term changes, which I am quite sure no educationalist would ever have agreed—I do not know who came up with this policy for a January date? Can the Minister say whether the allowances for children of military personnel will be increased to cover the extra cost for them?

The answer to the noble Baroness’s first question is no and the answer to her second question is that that is a matter for the spending review. I disagree fundamentally with her characterisation of this policy. I want to see excellence in education for children in places like where I grew up, whose parents will never be able to afford to pay for their education. They are every bit as ambitious for their children as any other parent.

Will the Minister confirm that any gains from this policy will accrue to the education budget and that any shortfall will be met by the education budget? Will he commit to sharing with this House the OBR’s impact assessment of the number of pupils moving from the private sector to the state sector and the number where the overall policy would be at a fiscal cost to the Exchequer?

There were several questions there. Yes, this money will go to the state sector; I do not accept that there will be any loss from this policy; and yes, the OBR will publish the impact assessment alongside the Budget.

Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, over the years of the Tory Government, education was treated shamefully? We have lost huge amounts of money. I recognise that 6,500 teachers is not the number we need, but it is certainly a first step in the right direction. Will the Minister confirm that, far from being an unacceptable policy, we need this policy to make sure that the 94% of children who are in our state schools have a fair crack of the whip?

I am grateful to my noble friend for those points; I fundamentally agree with her. As I said, this is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people, helping the overwhelming majority of children in state schools.

My Lords, there are key differences between the education systems in Scotland and England. We have a different curriculum and exam structure; different term dates, starting dates and starting ages; and different arrangements for teachers’ pay and pensions. Most importantly, CSPs are not the same as EHPs. A CSP is not required for a child to go to a special school or receive extra support. Given these fundamental differences, can the Minister share the impact of this policy on the education system in Scotland, given that, because of devolution, the Government cannot guarantee that any consequential funding given to Scotland would actually be spent on the education sector there?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her insight on those points. I can confirm that the final policy design of this measure will be announced at the time of the Budget, alongside a tax information and impact note, which will include details of the Government’s assessment of the expected impacts.

My Lords, do the Government agree that it is universally accepted that you can get access to an education, health and care plan only if you have money to afford lawyers to get through the process, or at least to get through it fast? If so, are the Government not saying to people that they can get the money only if they have resources in the first place? Does this not contradict a lot of what has been said?

I do not accept that in any way, shape or form. The whole point is that you should have access to high-quality education whether or not you have the money in the first place.

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Bull, the Government’s dance and drama award scheme enables a small number of specialist providers to offer higher-level qualifications, at levels 5 and 6, to some of the country’s most talented performing arts students, many of whom might otherwise be unable to access such training. What reassurance can the Minister give that these providers will not be affected by the proposed VAT imposition, which might force some of them to swithdraw completely from the scheme? What progress has been made in the discussions on this issue, including with the Treasury, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in the debate on 5 September?

As I said earlier, we will monitor closely any impact of these policies on the scheme mentioned by the noble Lord. The right time to consider changes to the scheme is at the forthcoming spending review.

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the opening of the factory in Goole that will manufacture new trains for the London Underground Piccadilly line by the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans they have to provide further investment in London Underground.

The Government welcome Siemens’s investment in Goole, creating a rail facility that will support up to 700 jobs and many more in the supply chain. This has been possible thanks to government funding. In London, transport is devolved to the Mayor of London and Transport for London. It is for them to make investment decisions, and the Government continue to engage with them to understand their capital funding needs. Any further government investment will be considered through the spending review.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on making progress with this project, which started under the former mayor, Boris Johnson. It is the case that a full modernisation and upgrade of the Piccadilly line would improve capacity by 60%, if it included modernising the antiquated signalling. These trains contribute only a sixth of that. Does the Minister agree that this shows that you very often get better returns from investing in and improving existing assets than from investing in something new? Are the Government willing to review and publish criteria for rail investment that prioritise the investment that contributes most to economic growth?

I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary question. As he is well aware, discussions are ongoing with Transport for London and all the regional authorities around the country about their long-term funding needs. This will be subject to the spending review, and we very much look forward to hearing the outcomes of that. I will of course be more than happy to continue the fruitful conversations with the noble Lord opposite.

My Lords, although this announcement is welcome for the Piccadilly line, the Bakerloo line has the oldest trains. What discussions have the Government had with Transport for London, the GLA and the boroughs about new rolling stock and extending the Bakerloo line to Lewisham?

I thank the noble Baroness for what I think is her first question in this House. Her experience in the London Assembly will be very welcome in future debates. The Bakerloo line, the Central line and the Waterloo & City line are all matters under consideration and discussion with the mayor, and we look forward to the outcome of those discussions.

My Lords, Transport for London has overall responsibility for the buses in London, but they are owned and run by private operators, which do a good job, so why have the Government abandoned that model for the railways, where private operators such as Chiltern, which runs a first-class service from London to Birmingham, are now to be banned under proposed legislation?

I understand the noble Lord’s comments; they will be subject to further discussion when the main rail Bill comes forward. I note his comments and I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss this more. We know that there are significant failings on our railways and that action has to be taken. We cannot continue with the failures that we have at present.

My Lords, with no disrespect to London, is my noble friend the Minister aware of a feeling in the north of England and in Scotland that London gets a disproportionate amount of spending, particularly in transport? Regarding what the Opposition Front Bench says about economic growth, there would be greater benefit for economic growth if more money was spent in the north of England and in Scotland and Wales.

As a founder member of Transport for the North, I can only agree with my noble friend’s pertinent comments. I welcome the fact that significant discussions are happening with the regional mayors and that we have on the table a five-year £5.7 billion investment to improve transport networks across the regions. However, we all recognise the contribution of London to the economy of the whole country, and we want to make sure that investment in the regions complements the success in London and spreads wealth and prosperity around all the regions.

Does the Minister accept that expenditure on railways in Wales has been quite significant recently but is still short of what is needed? There is a feeling that the formula for distribution of resources does not adequately respond to the needs of the railway system in Wales. Will she look at this and discuss it with her colleagues in Cardiff?

As someone who was diverted on a journey from Cornwall to Leeds via Newport, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. Of course, discussions with the devolved nations are absolutely central to our overall ambition for growth across all the regions and nations in contributing to the economy of the whole country.

My Lords, in view of the success of the Elizabeth line in London, will the Government now commit to supporting Crossrail 2?

The noble Lord is well aware that it would be above my pay grade to make commitments that will be subject to future discussions. We obviously have the Budget coming up and the spending review, and I look forward to those discussions.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister, as a great advocate for Yorkshire and the Humber, will join me in advocating for the many opportunities that there are in our region for train manufacture and repair, such as in Doncaster in South Yorkshire, which has a long history in that respect.

I thank my noble friend for her comments. I remember fondly our many discussions about achieving more investment into Yorkshire and the Humber. The truth is that our economy is grossly imbalanced. The potential and talent that exist within those regions is immense. This is a very important statement of intent to make sure that investment and jobs can be spread around the country, and I welcome it. I particularly welcome any discussions that we have in the future about Doncaster.

My Lords, the Minister was understandably cautious in her response about Crossrail 2. Can she at least assure the House that the land for it has been safeguarded for future delivery, so that it remains a realistic option?

I do not have the precise answer to the noble Baroness’s question. We can make sure that she receives that answer, but I know that discussions are ongoing. I am confident that nothing will have been done to undermine those conversations.

My Lords, is it possible to also take into account that when you open up the Elizabeth line, you then open up the estate agents and get the spreading of gentrification and of poverty? Can we not do something like what was done in the inter-war years, when some of the cheapest housing went with the railways? Is there a way of putting the thinking together, rather than just treating it as transport?

I thank the noble Lord for his ongoing contributions to this House on poverty and people’s needs. It is absolutely imperative that these schemes benefit all the population and offer opportunities. We know that investing in rail lines brings real investment to different areas. We have seen that across London and across the country. I am sure that his concerns will be paramount in the decisions that are taken going forward.

My Lords, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, what assessment have the Government made of the cause of London Underground’s unreliability, and therefore where investment can best be made?

These discussions happen regularly between the Mayor of London and the Government. Of course, we have only recently come into government and I am sure those discussions will be fruitful. We know that, as with so much of our infrastructure, we are dependent on systems that were brought in decades ago. Having been a leader in this field, we are, I am afraid, subject to the fact that decay is inherent. That is right at the centre of our discussions and I look forward to taking them forward.

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Holocaust Memorial Bill and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Etherton, L (Chair), Faulkner of Worcester, L, Hope of Craighead, L, Jamieson, L, Scott of Needham Market, B.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the order of appointment of the Committee remain in force notwithstanding any prorogation of Parliament.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, in supporting this Motion I have what I believe is quite an important point to make, so I make no apology for taking a minute or two of time. A number of Members of your Lordships’ House who have a very strong interest in this Bill were permitted to give evidence to a previous Select Committee dealing with it. The lawyers advising the putative Select Committee are seeking to obstruct all those Members from giving evidence to the new Select Committee which is about to be appointed. This is causing consternation and not a little offence. I would be grateful if those setting up this committee would ensure that the lawyers’ efforts to reduce the importance of the Select Committee to nothing were overcome.

My Lords, it would be courteous just to say that I am sure that what the noble Lord has said will be considered.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand the deep dismay over the city deal pause that the Government slipped out late on Friday 13 September, while Parliament was in recess, particularly in the two areas where the deals remain paused: the Mid South West region, which I visited in February, and Causeway Coast and Glens, where I signed the terms of agreement in April and where there is now great uncertainty and limbo? Will she apologise to the House for the shoddy and disrespectful way in which this was announced? Can she assure us that the Secretary of State will employ the full weight of his office to persuade the Chancellor, in the forthcoming Budget, to lift the pause so that these deals can now proceed as planned and deliver investment, growth, jobs and prosperity for the whole of Northern Ireland?

I shall be clear: if the former Government had not left us in such a challenging fiscal situation, there would be no financial pause and we would not be in the position we currently are. While I agree that the timing was unfortunate, whenever the announcement was made it would not have been welcomed by those people whom it affected. I assure your Lordships’ House that, since the announcement was made, the Secretary of State and all the officials at the NIO have been working tirelessly with key partners. We are doing everything that we can to make representations to our very dear and close friends at the Treasury, to whom I am going to be very nice for the next 20 days, making it clear how important these deals are to the future of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I too express disappointment at the timing and the way in which this has been handled. It has caused great economic uncertainty and a loss of momentum for those areas which were expecting to receive the funds. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that an impact assessment had not been carried out. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to assess the economic consequences of these decisions, not least their impact on regional development in Northern Ireland?

I have seen no such impact assessment either. The Secretary of State was clear about this yesterday. However, we are making every effort to demonstrate the potential success of these deals. As we have seen with the Belfast region deal, £350 million of UK government money has led to £1 billion of investment in association with the deal. I turn to the timescale. We do not know what will be announced in the Budget and spending review. This is a six-week pause in a programme that has so far taken three years and is likely to go on for another 15. Six weeks is an appropriate pause to make sure that every penny of government money is appropriately allocated.

My Lords, in their recent announcement that they were going to grant an inquiry in the Pat Finucane case, the Government made a lot of the fact that previous commitments had been made. It was an entirely unnecessary decision, but they said it was based entirely on previous commitments. Previous Governments have committed very strongly in Command Papers and other agreements to these city deals for Northern Ireland. Why are the Government not applying the same standards and principles to this important case, which has delivered extremely good results in Belfast?

My Lords, the fiscal situation we inherited means that we are not in the position we believed we would be in when we came to government in July. That is the reality. There are many pauses to projects across the United Kingdom while we review to make sure that appropriate value for money is secured for every deal. This Government’s priority is the delivery of growth. The Secretary of State and the NIO are making every representation to the Treasury to make it clear that the Causeway Coast and Glens deal and the Mid South West deal will help us deliver that long-term plan. Like everybody, I will be waiting to see what happens in 20 days from today—fewer than three weeks—in the outcome of the Budget.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her answers on this fairly vexatious issue, which landed on the people of Northern Ireland on Friday 13 September. City deals are a vehicle for regeneration and rehabilitation throughout Northern Ireland. I welcome the announcement about the reinstatement of the money for the Greater Belfast deal—it impacts the area I live in and there are many projects contained in that—and the Derry deal. It is important to address regional imbalances and inequalities in Northern Ireland. Could my noble friend, along with the Secretary of State, champion the outstanding city deals—namely, those for the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West—with the Treasury to ensure that the funding is forthcoming? It is a ready means of addressing good regional development in Northern Ireland and those regional imbalances.

I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Belfast region deal signed in December 2021 was never subject to any pause. I am delighted that the Secretary of State attended the signing of the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane deal on 18 September 2024. On next steps I say that, even as I sat next to my noble friend Lord Livermore, I was making a case for the two city deals and I will continue to do so. I promise noble Lords that the Secretary of State, who has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in recent days, is making every possible persuasive argument about why these deals should go forward. However, as I said, we will await the decisions in the Budget.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has quite understandably mentioned the fiscal situation. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that nearly half a billion pounds has already been spent by His Majesty’s Government on the trader support scheme? In addition, £190 million has been spent building border customs posts at Larne and other places. What will His Majesty’s Government do about this ridiculous Windsor Framework, which is separating out Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom? There is a real solution of mutual agreement, which could make the difference and save money that could then go into the city deals.

The noble Baroness will be very aware that, since this Government came to office in July, we have tried to reset relationships with the European Union to ensure smoother relations. The Windsor Framework is an important step in delivering trade and securing prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland. We are doing everything we can to make sure that relations between GB and Northern Ireland work effectively.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the city deals are cocktails of funding. It is encouraging to get private sector funding to go along with the public sector funding. She will also know that, where these cocktails are involved, funds from different public sector bodies and the private sector are given within a timeframe. If the deals are subject to significant delays, there is a real risk that some of those funders will drop out and therefore the schemes will be lost. I ask the noble Baroness to give the House an assurance that she and her colleagues are acutely aware of that. We do not want the funding sacrificed, particularly that from the private sector.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, which is why the Secretary of State is meeting this week the chief executives of the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West deals, to see what other support we can give them for reassurances. I am also delighted that the Northern Ireland Executive continued the funding for the two deals so that activities can proceed. We will know in three weeks; I appreciate that this is far from ideal, but we are not necessarily talking about a very extended delay—we will know in 20 days.

My Lords, I understand that there were a number of announcements by the previous Government, but no money put in the budget. Is this one of them?

Unfortunately, because of the previous Government’s mishandling of our fiscal situation, leaving us with a £22 billion deficit, and their having spent the reserves three times before July—that is something quite special—every penny of public funding in-year now needs to be reviewed. However, we will continue to make the arguments based on our number one mission of economic growth. I hope that the Treasury will smile favourably on these two deals. We will continue to do what we can.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“It was a Labour Government who enshrined the right to freedom of expression in law, and it is a Labour Government who will again uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom on our university campuses—not through creating a culture war, but through working with academics, students and campaigners to get the legislation right.

The Secretary of State wrote to colleagues and made a Written Statement on 24 July 2024 on her decision to pause further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 in order to consider options. We have heard concerns from minority groups and others that that Act and its implementation may have unintended consequences and result in disproportionate burdens for universities and student unions. Many are concerned that it could push providers to overlook the safety and well-being of minority groups over fears of sanction and costly action.

I want to provide the House with reassurance that this Government believe that higher education must be a space for robust discussion that exposes both students and academics to challenging ideas. The decision to pause the Act was made precisely because of the importance of getting this legislation right. The Secretary of State indicated in her Written Statement that she would confirm her long-term plans for the Act ‘as soon as possible’. Since then, officials and Ministers have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on the future of the Act. This includes representatives of higher education providers and academics, including those from the Committee for Academic Freedom, Academics for Academic Freedom and the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom. They are continuing to engage with stakeholders before any final decision is made”.

My Lords, there are a lot of ironies in the Government’s decision to delay the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. First, it was done without any debate in Parliament and, secondly, it was not mentioned anywhere in the Government’s manifesto, despite the decision being taken within three weeks of the election. The failure to commence the legislation that this Parliament passed is resulting, every day, in freedom of speech and academic freedom in our universities being eroded, most recently with an elected MP being unable to speak at a university this evening.

The reasons the Minister repeated relate to the impact on minority groups, so I ask her to confirm that she agrees with those leading lawyers and academics that the new Act does not provide any further protection for those wishing to express hate speech on campus, including Holocaust denial. Can she confirm that it does not change the law in that regard? Will she agree to meet with those Jewish academics who sought a meeting with the Secretary of State and who are calling for full implementation of the Act?

The noble Baroness probably understands that the speed with which the decision was made related to the timing of the commencement. It is right to be taking the time now and engaging in the way we are with those on various sides of the argument about the best way of proceeding on this issue.

I have spoken to some of the legal experts that the noble Baroness cites with respect to hate speech and understand their points. The fact that there is debate about the impact of this piece of legislation is part of the problem that we seek to ameliorate through the options we are considering. What I know is real is the strong concern among minority groups that the reality of the impact of the legislation would be to allow on to campuses people whose views would be reprehensible and would potentially constitute hate speech. That is what has brought the fear about. But this is not, of course, the only reason. There has also been considerable concern from universities themselves and from unions representing university staff about the disproportionate burdens. On the Jewish academics, I have met a lot of people already and I am more than content to meet with that group as well.

My Lords, I remind the House that the story in today’s Telegraph about the inability of the Cambridge University Conservative Association to have Suella Braverman visit this evening says that it is on advice of the police, due to another MP’s visit to Cambridge, and not that of the university.

I remind the House that we on these Benches were deeply doubtful about the Bill and the disproportionate burdens it would impose. Any decent conservative would believe in the autonomy of civil society and of academic institutions.

This is not a new problem. The first lecture I ever gave as a university lecturer, in January 1968, had a large demonstration—because they thought the dean was giving it—against Vietnam and the then Labour Government. My wife and I, as undergraduates, had taken part in earlier demonstrations about South Africa, which the Daily Telegraph, of course, denounced at the time. We now have a culture war in the United States, in which Republicans are—

Question!

Okay. Does the Minister accept that the urgency of this is rather overstated at present, given the one report in the Telegraph this morning? Does she agree that it is absolutely right to reconsider a badly drafted Act, and that the autonomy of universities has to be respected?

My Lords, I remind the House that this is a repeat of an Urgent Question and is therefore time limited to 10 minutes.

I thank the noble Lord for his appreciation of our considered approach. I absolutely reiterate that I and the Government believe that there is an issue about freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses. It is of fundamental importance, which is why we need to get it right.

Will the Minister agree that uncertainty sometimes leads to bad decisions? I therefore urge her to take into account the fact that while the process is paused, universities may be uncertain about what is right and what they cannot do. Having that process done as speedily as possible to create that certainty would be helpful.

I hope that universities are absolutely certain about both the existing protections for freedom of speech in legislation and their responsibilities to create campuses in which academic freedom and freedom of speech can flourish. Elements of legislation may be necessary to enforce that, but there is no uncertainty in my mind that that is their responsibility and that is what they should do.

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s response, and I say that as a member of a minority and a Member of this House who has expressed concern about the defamation of minorities, which has led to hate crime and hate speech. Will the Government therefore continue on their path to damp down the culture war that was fanned by the party opposite when it was in office, and indeed by some Members of this House? Fanning the culture war impacts on the most vulnerable in our society, and freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

I agree with the noble Lord. The position of higher education, support for higher education and the embedding of freedom of speech and academic freedom within our universities are serious issues. This is a serious Government who are interested in finding the right solutions, rather than a political headline.

On freedom of speech, as a former academic, I detect—to put it firmly—a real stitch-up here between vice-chancellors and the Government. Really and truly, they just want an easy time of this and the Government have provided them the convenience of having that. This is not really an issue about freedom of speech because the Government do not believe in it in this context. This is more ideologically driven than anything else.

The noble Lord is wholly wrong. We strongly believe in freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was a Labour Government who enshrined freedom of expression in legislation. The discussions I have had have been not only with representatives of higher education but with advocates of this Act and of freedom of speech and academic freedom. I will continue to do that, and I will not be tempted into the sort of political grandstanding that the noble Lord is attempting to get me into.

Does the Minister agree that that grandstanding is abhorrent in this House, as is that kind of completely untrue allegation? That kind of misinformation and fake news, which is being perpetrated in so many ways, is causing the problems in the United Kingdom and elsewhere today.

I agree with my noble friend. Vice-chancellors say to me that theirs is a difficult job, made tougher by the previous Government’s failure to address the financial challenges that they faced and by their propensity to use universities and higher education as a political battleground, rather than supporting them in the way they need. The previous Government only made this worse, and we are determined not to go down that route.

Does the Minister think that seven Nobel Prize winners, one Fields medallist and 650 other academics are engaging in a culture war in calling for the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in full?

No, I do not, which is why I did not use that expression.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that an elected politician was cancelled from speaking at one of our leading universities— supposedly a beacon of free speech? Will she commit to implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act as soon as possible?

As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made clear, there might be different views about the causes of the particular event to which the noble Baroness refers. For that reason, I shall not comment on the details of that case. I would say that as a student I have been a protestor and as a politician I have been on the receiving end of protests. This Monday at the University of Manchester, where I was speaking, I was interrupted by a protest, which was obviously not ideal. A careful balance needs to be made between the right to protest and the right of freedom of speech, and I think that these things are probably better dealt with in a calm and considered way than in headlines on the front of newspapers.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:

“Film is one of the great British success stories of the last 30 years. Ever since Gordon Brown created the film tax credit back in 2007, this amazing industry has created jobs and growth across the UK and flown the flag for British creativity across the world. Our Government have huge ambition for the film sector, and today we are introducing secondary legislation that will put rocket boosters under this growing industry and unlock the potential of our incredible independent film sector.

The UK has some special advantages that give us a natural competitive edge. Thanks to the creativity and imagination of our authors, playwrights and publishers, we have some of the best stories to tell and take to the screen, helped by some of the best storytellers in the world—the directors, scriptwriters and cinemato-graphers—and against some of the most incredible backdrops, from the Welsh valleys to the north-east coastline, as well as acting talent that is second to none and that breathes life into those stories. Our film industry is one of our great economic and cultural success stories. It is worth £1.36 billion and employs more than 195,000 people, and it has created true icons such as James Bond, Harry Potter and my personal favourite, Paddington Bear.

Our Government have three aims for our film industry. First, we want to attract the investment for UK film makers to make the best films in the world. Secondly, we want UK audiences to see films that reflect their lives and their communities. That means telling a wide diversity of British stories that draw on the rich cultural inheritance in every region and nation. Thirdly, we want the UK to be the best place in the world to make films, because we have the right ingredients: the investment, the talent, the technical skills, the sound stages, the creative imagination and the right fiscal and regulatory environment. That is why this Government will do everything in our power to ensure that the fiscal and regulatory environment matches the ambition of film makers and studios around the world. We want them to invest in great British film making.

However, the key to maintaining that advantage is an internationally competitive tax regime, and I think that is beyond party politics. As Members will know, tax incentives for film were first introduced by the last Labour Government in 2007, and the previous Conservative Government followed suit with the announcement of a planned UK independent film tax credit in the last spring Budget. We have heard loud and clear the industry’s concerns that any further delays to introducing this secondary legislation, even to the end of the month, may mean that investments in UK independent films are lost. So I am glad to announce that we have today laid the necessary statutory instrument, under the negative process, for the independent film tax credit to take effect. It means that eligible films with a budget of up to £23.5 million can claim enhanced audiovisual expenditure credit at a rate of 53% on their qualifying expenditure up to £15 million. That is higher than the standard 34% rate for other films. The regulations set out the eligibility criteria for film production companies, which can apply from 30 October.

This Government do not underestimate how important this tax credit is. Big blockbuster movies are an important part of the mix, but independent films are every bit as important, both for the British talent they allow to shine and for the untold stories that they bring into the spotlight. Too often, people do not see themselves and their community reflected in the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves as a nation, and this Government are determined that will change.

Later today, the 68th London Film Festival will open with the world premiere of “Blitz”, written, directed and produced by one of our most successful British directors, Steve McQueen. Set in England during World War II, it is an example of exactly what film can do. It brings together top talent on screen and off, and it showcases the nation’s history through storytelling and highlights on screen our beautiful country, from London’s East End to Hull’s old town. Our independent sector has produced films such as “Pride”, “The King’s Speech” and “Bend It Like Beckham”, which show our heritage, our communities and our culture to the world and act as a springboard from the grass roots for world-class UK talent on screen and behind the scenes.

While major film production has flourished, smaller-budget independent films have not received sufficient support over the past decade. They face multiple challenges, including rising production costs, crew shortages and declining revenues, which have hampered the growth of this vital sector. While too much of our creative industries has traditionally been concentrated in just one part of our country, independent film thrives everywhere, given the chance. This uplift will not only boost creativity but create jobs, growth and investment in every nation and region. Through that, we will help the independent film sector to reach its full potential.

While the uplift has been designed to support and target British independent film makers, I am glad to say that it is also open to qualifying official co-productions, because film and television co-production is a key way in which the UK increases its cultural ties and collaboration with Europe and the rest of the world.

This Government will go further still to support this critical industry. The skills shortage that has been ignored for too long acts as a brake on the ambitions of this incredible sector. That is why this Government launched Skills England to bring about the skills we need for a decade of national renewal of our communities, business and country. We will focus apprenticeships once more on young people to set them up to succeed and to help fill the 25,000 vacancies in the creative sector. The Secretary of State for Education is overhauling the apprenticeship levy to provide better career opportunities for young people, building on the success of existing high-quality apprenticeships in the creative industries, and we are working closely with Skills England to ensure that the new flexibilities announced by the Prime Minister last month offer shorter apprenticeships and an improved offer for a creative skills pathway for young people embarking on careers in this sector. Every child should have the chance to live a richer, larger life and to consider a career in the arts.

In addition, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is keeping the Government’s mission to deliver economic growth at front of mind when making decisions about planning applications. I am pleased to announce to the House that yesterday MHCLG recovered an application for planning permission for Marlow Film Studios in Buckinghamshire. The merits of that application will now be reviewed by its Ministers in detail before they reach a decision.

Finally, next week the Government will host the international investment summit, where industry leaders, investors and businesses from across the world will come together to put the UK back at the global table and to kick-start a decade of economic renewal. As a critical part of that, our creative industries will be at the summit’s heart. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is a first-choice destination for film production. We are backing up those words with actions today. Britain is open for business, and creativity is back at its heart. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, this is my first chance—with a bit more time on the clock than we have at Questions, and certainly than we had for our heavily subscribed Question for Short Debate on libraries—properly to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, to her place. I know that she has a busy time, speaking both for DCMS and for the Cabinet Office, but she has an excellent team around her, and I look forward to our exchanges on what I am sure she will agree is the far more interesting half of that deal, representing sectors that are a fast-growing part of the economy and enrich our lives in so many ways.

It is in that spirit that I welcome the Statement she has just repeated, but your Lordships might well expect me to, because it is simply confirming a policy that the Conservative Government announced in March. The statutory instrument that the Secretary of State trumpeted yesterday puts into effect the extra support for the independent film sector that my right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt brought in at the Budget this spring. I looked at the press release put out by the Minister’s department but, curiously, I could find no mention of that. Will she start by acknowledging the important role played by Jeremy Hunt, and, indeed, by Lucy Frazer, the former Secretary of State, in winning the argument at His Majesty’s Treasury for this dynamic tax stimulus?

The announcement that we made in March followed months of careful work with brilliant organisations from across the sector, such as Pact and the British Film Institute, and was welcomed by industry titans such as Sir Christopher Nolan, Barbara Broccoli, Sir Steve McQueen and that great Geordie, Sir Ridley Scott. At the time, the BFI described it as

“a game changer for UK filmmakers”

and British storytelling, and

“the most significant policy intervention since the 1990s”.

So the Government’s Statement this week is not so much an original production as a remake of a previous hit. If it were a film, my right honourable friends would surely appear in the credits, at least. Will the Minister give them the acknowledgement that they deserve when she stands up again?

Perhaps she can also tell us a little more about the timing of this Statement. I am very glad that the Government are supporting the London Film Festival; it is an incredible showcase for the brilliant film-making talent that we see on display right across the United Kingdom. That is why the last Conservative Government provided £1.7 million of support for this year’s festival through our creative industries sector vision, announced back in June 2023.

However, if the Secretary of State is going to be governing by gimmick and announcing fiscal policies based on the red-carpet events that she is invited to, would she also recognise that this week marks the start of Frieze London, one of the world’s most influential art fairs? The art world is waiting to see whether the Government will continue the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief at the extended rate and scrapping the sunset clause, as we committed to in the Budget in March? If the Government are recycling good news for the film sector, can the Minister put the art world out of its misery by confirming that today, too?

Every single evening, across the country, people are benefiting from brilliant new productions supported by the theatre tax relief, and astounding concerts supported by the orchestra tax relief. In the Budget in March, we announced that we would keep those at the extended rate permanently. Is the Minister able to give those vital sectors the certainty that they need to be able to continue programming excellent new plays and concerts? If not, why has her department chosen to give just one part of the creative industries special treatment ahead of October’s fiscal event?

But even the film sector is waiting for answers from our new Government in other areas. In another place yesterday, Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chair of the Select Committee, asked when the Government expect to confirm the introduction of the visual effects tax credits. These were also announced in the Budget in March and have been consulted on, and they are desperately needed and urgent. The Secretary of State was unable to give a clear answer in another place yesterday—perhaps the Minister can give your Lordships more information today.

My right honourable friend Sir John Whittingdale highlighted another area where clarity is needed from the noble Baroness’s department. He pointed out that investment in the film industry—and, indeed, across our creative industries—depends on confidence and certainty, not least in the copyright protection regime. He asked the Secretary of State to make it clear that the Government do not intend to extend copyright exceptions to text and data mining, which would damage both the creative and publishing industries massively. The Secretary of State was not able to give him a clear answer yesterday; perhaps the Minister can fill in the gaps today.

Sadly, this is becoming a bit of a picture from our new Government: failing to come up with answers to the big questions that they have had 14 years to think about, and failing to come forward with any new ideas of their own. We have not yet had 100 days of this Government, which is strange because, with all their miserable announcements, their descent into sleaze and the sacking of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to try to signal a reset in Downing Street, it certainly feels like longer. But all they seem to be able to do is recycle Conservative policies. I welcome this Statement and I look forward to the introduction of the football governance Bill, which is another goal that we kindly set up for them. But I have to ask: when do they plan to start governing on their own?

My Lords, I hope to strike a rather more positive note. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches, as we did in the Commons, we welcome all the elements of the Statement; it is a really excellent way of marking the London Film Festival.

The confirmation of the IFTC is very welcome. On these Benches we are huge champions of the creative industries and we absolutely share the ambitions for the sector that the Minister has set out. Our film industry, particularly the independent sector—I pay tribute to PACT and the indefatigable CEO, John McVay— is dealing with a wide range of disruptive changes, from recovery from the pandemic to the rise of streaming platforms and AI.

The confirmation of the IFTC is a welcome first step, but we must also consider international competition. We have seen in the last week that the Irish Government have announced their own boosted tax incentive of 40% for films budgeted under €20 million. In that light, does the Minister consider that this level of tax relief goes far enough? As the Minister will have found, while giving support on these Benches, we always want even more ambition from the Government.

Another key issue that the industry is dealing with is that of a scarcity of skills. Inward investment in the film industry is very welcome, but the boom has also caused skills gaps and shortages for independent films, as the highly paid jobs in large productions are more attractive. This has created a destabilising and precarious production landscape in which smaller productions are struggling to hire the necessary talent to make a successful production. So will the Government address the skills deficit in the creative industries, including replacing the apprenticeship levy with a more flexible training and skills levy to suit the needs of the creative industries and increase take-up? Can the Minister confirm that we will soon see a full reform of the apprenticeship levy, and that she is confident that the reform will suit the needs of the creative industries?

In the context of skills, I welcome the plans put forward for the Marlow film studio site and the Government’s announcement in that respect. This grey-belt site is exactly the kind of location where we should be focusing growth and development. As a party, we support the proposal nationally and locally; the training and skills elements contained in the proposal are particularly welcome.

According to Creative UK, over 70% of creative businesses report not having enough finance. Today’s announcement will be helpful news for the film industry, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our creative industries more broadly can access the finance that they need to flourish? What steps, for instance, will the Government take to protect our independent television production companies, many of which are facing similar issues from the rise of streamers to competition from elsewhere in Europe? We need to establish creative enterprise zones beyond London to grow and regenerate the cultural output of areas across the UK. What are the Government’s plans for these?

Finally, Feryal Clark, the new Minister for AI and Digital Government, recently announced that she expects to resolve copyright disputes between British AI companies and the creative industries

“by the end of the year”,

saying that she wants to

“bring clarity to both the AI sector and also to creative industries”.

Does this mean that the Government plan to bring back a new text and data mining exception of the kind that was backed by the Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review: Digital Technologies, from the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, or will they affirm, as they should, the rights of copyright holders such as film makers, faced with the ingestion of their material, or the performing rights of actors, artists and other creatives, and the need for licences to be taken by large language models? What consultations are the Government engaging in in this rather narrow timescale?

My Lords, as I hope your Lordships have understood from the Secretary of State’s Statement—I think there is consensus across the House— our film industry really is one of the UK’s true economic powerhouses. We are genuinely one of the best places in the world to make films, with our incredible talent and world-class studios and locations.

When I was repeating the Statement, I noted that “Paddington” got quite significant coverage in the debate yesterday, so before I answer the points raised by noble Lords, I just wanted to mention that my own personal favourites are “Suffragette” and “Brassed Off”. These and many other films are not only compelling entertainment but depict important cultural and social moments in our nation’s history. This Government want to make sure that our film sector goes from strength to strength and that we can attract more investment and make more exciting, diverse and original films than ever before.

We cannot be complacent, however, and we recognise the challenges facing the sector. That is why we laid the regulations yesterday, which will provide much-needed support to our independent film sector, providing an uplift to our existing audiovisual expenditure credit specifically targeted to support the growth and success of low-budget films.

Films can be a fantastic driver of regional growth, helping to spread opportunity across the country, but we know that access to and participation in this sector has in some ways become the preserve of the privileged few and we want to change that. We are committed to working with regional partners to create more growth, boost opportunities for all and support people to fulfil their creative potential.

Labour introduced the first film tax credit back in 2007. Since then, our industry has gone from strength to strength. I do not think we should make this a political knockabout around who supports the film industry more. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked for an acknowledgement that this was a policy of the previous Government and I refer him back to the Secretary of State’s Statement, which makes it clear that this is a continuation of that policy. It was a shame that he resorted to political jibes, when this should be something around which we have political consensus. Although the measure announced yesterday was announced by the previous Administration, it is this Government who have designed and laid the necessary regulations to ensure that companies, many of which are eagerly anticipating its introduction and welcomed it yesterday, are able to apply for independent film tax credit from the end of the month. This is the first DCMS SI of this Government and, as such, I believe it shows the priority that we on these Benches place on supporting the industry.

British indie films such as “Pride”, “Billy Elliot” and “Trainspotting” tell award-winning stories about our country, celebrating parts of our culture that often get less exposure. This relief will allow more stories like these to be told, enabling more people to see their lives and experiences reflected on the screen. Yesterday, the film sector reacted incredibly positively to this announcement, and we have already seen Pinewood, in response, announcing a new indie production hub. This relief is open to co-productions, which means it will also boost UK-international collaboration on film. The DCMS-funded UK Global Screen Fund helps British filmmakers co-produce films with international partners and distribute their films globally.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, highlighted the issue of skills. The announcement yesterday is just the start of how this Government will be supporting our world-leading creative industries. We are reviewing the school curriculum, to put creative education back at its heart, which will boost the talent pipeline for our fantastic film sector, as well as looking at the apprenticeship levy he referred to. On his other points about support for television, we recognise that the last 18 months have been quite difficult for the TV production sector and we are committed to supporting it. The Government maintain a range of interventions to support independent TV production companies, including a system of quotas and the terms of trade regime. We are taking steps, through the Media Act, to retain, and as appropriate modernise, these to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. It is also worth noting that there are several existing tax reliefs that independent TV production companies can benefit from, covering animation, children’s TV and high-end TV.

In relation to specific measures and tax credits to support creative industries, I am afraid that I am not going to be able to give definitive answers today. As noble Lords will be aware, the Budget and the spending review are coming later this month: watch this space.

Briefly, the Government believe in human-centred creativity and the potential of AI to open up creative frontiers. Some 35.2% of creative industry businesses are currently using AI technology. We recognise its significance, but are committed to finding the right balance between fostering innovation and ensuring protection for creators. That requires thoughtful engagement with the creative industries and companies driving AI development.

Noble Lords will be aware that this Government have already launched Skills England to bring the skills we need for a decade of national renewal for our communities, businesses and country. Next week, the Government will host the International Investment Summit; we have big ambitions to ensure that the UK is back at the global table. Our creative industries, which reflect the best of this country, will be so important to that.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. There is much in it that I welcome. The film industry needs fiscal certainty—one thing it did not have when I was shadowing the department in 2005, when Gordon Brown thought there were some tax holes and immediately changed the fiscal environment for film. That had the net result of driving “Casino Royale”, then the latest Bond film, across to Prague from Pinewood. I am nervous when the Minister talks about the sorts of films the Government would like to see made—I hope they are not going to interfere in that respect too much. The Minister also alluded to what this can do for the regions, the built environment and the rural environment. What discussions will she have about doing more with English Heritage, Historic Houses, the National Trust and our regional tourist boards to pump-prime regional film production and bring some of our undoubted assets to a wider international audience?

I am not going to respond to the suggestion that my favourite films indicate that we are going to be picking and choosing. The Secretary of State’s Statement made it clear that “The Kings Speech” was also an independent film. There is a balance, as there should be, and a range of voices should be heard. This is the first step in ensuring that we support the film industry, specifically the independent film industry. A particular focus was provided so that this could go ahead of the Budget, for production purposes and so that people did not lose potential funding. The Government are committed to ensuring that, across the piece, we have a creative sector and industry that reflects the country and is supported across the country. At the heart of this will be the skills agenda and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to acquire the skills required.

My Lords, of course the Statement that my noble friend has just repeated is very welcome. Although it builds on the work of the previous Government, much in it is to be commended. I hope we will build on it further. However, I take her back to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Does she accept that, in this country, unlike in many other countries, the various elements of the creative industries are closely connected, and many people work across theatre, television and film in a way that they do not so much, for example, in America? Therefore, it is very important to maintain support, of which tax credits are an important element, across all aspects of the cultural industries. I understand that she cannot say what might be in the Budget, but will she please stress to her colleagues in the Treasury how important it is to maintain the tax credits that are available currently in theatre and for orchestras in order not to have, by withdrawing them, a bad impact on other elements of the industry?

My noble friend is right. To give her some reassurance, I think the Treasury and DCMS are entirely clear on the contribution made by all creative industries to this country’s economy. I remind noble Lords that the creative industries are worth £125 billion in economic value to the UK and employed 2.4 million people in 2022. This is the first step in the Government’s plans for and support for creative industries, but I cannot pre-empt decisions made by the Treasury. As I mentioned earlier, the Budget will be held later this month.

My Lords, this is surely to be welcomed, and I think we are all delighted to hear these announcements, building on what has been said before. However, there is a deep concern in many parts of the country. In Hertfordshire, where I live, we have Elstree, Leavesden, the OMA V and the new studios being built in Broxbourne, and I have been privileged to visit some of those. Not only do we have the challenge of skills shortages for the film industry but we have a massive shortage already with the announcement on building extra houses. Can the Minister assure us that we are getting an integrated strategy, looking across the whole range of needs for skills, so that we can really get ahead of this game? Without that, we will have the facilities but simply not the people available to make the films.

The right reverend Prelate correctly identifies that, across the piece, we have a skills shortage in this country. If we are talking about legacies from previous Governments, this is one that I would not expect noble Lords opposite to be shouting about quite as much as they have in other points they have made. I stress the commitment to skills generally, through creating Skills England, and the intention to transform the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy. Both measures should create opportunities and give employers greater flexibility to train and upskill their workforce. We are very clear that this country will not succeed in the growth that we need to recover as a country without improving basic skills across the piece.

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a rights holder, performer, writer and author. I welcome this Statement, obviously, but I want to concentrate on the Government wanting the country to be

“the best place in the world to make films”,

et cetera. In that regard, Brexit has not helped. Will they therefore fast-track visas for those in the creative sectors to work in the United Kingdom? Secondly, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh outlined, no artist works in one silo in this country; we work across a landscape of different parts of the industry. I therefore encourage a holistic approach, which means greater investment in arts and education, particularly in state schools.

The noble Lord is right that this is a real focus. As he will be aware, the Labour manifesto committed to reset the UK’s relationship with the EU and improve UK-EU trade and investment. I cannot provide a specific response on his point about visas, but I will write with further details.

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s support for the UK film industry and am glad to hear the Minister confirm her support for stories from the nations and regions across the UK. I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland. One of the ways to do this is to support small and medium-sized production companies outside London. We also need to support the development of skills so that people can have a career in the industry outside London and across the nations and regions in which they live—and so that they perhaps do not all have to move into the diocese of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is worried about housing. They certainly should not have to move to London to pursue a career in film. Underpinning commissions for these small and medium-sized production companies are commissions from our public service broadcasters. Does the Minister agree that we should aim for population-based production quotas for each UK nation so that we can deliver permanent and sustainable bases in key production centres across the regions and nations of the UK?

I thank the noble Baroness for her proposal. I will take it back to the Minister of State in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have not discussed this with him previously, but this Government are absolutely committed to all creative industries being represented across the nations and regions as a vital part of our growth and cultural richness. Every child and young person in every part of the country should have the opportunity to learn those skills. While, as a Londoner, I might be biased about the merits of living in London, we are clear that this includes people not automatically having to move to the capital.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and for the support announced for the film industry. I am sure she will be aware that this industry depends crucially on freelancers, but there are real concerns about the financial and mental health of many freelance workers. A recent survey by the Film and TV Charity found that only 12% of freelancers believed that working in the industry was good for their mental health. What steps will the Government take to enhance working conditions for the freelancers who are so crucial to this industry?

I will take back my noble friend’s points about mental health and the role of freelancers and speak to my noble friend Lady Merron and the Minister of State about these significant issues.

My Lords, I think the whole House will agree with the Minister that film production is a real driver for regional growth, including in Scotland, where I live, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. However, about 45 minutes ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, answered a Question on the pausing of the Northern Ireland city deals. The Belfast city deal includes investment for Studio Ulster. The Government are to be commended for promoting investment in film production, but they are simultaneously pausing it. Why?

I understand that there is no pause to the funding for the Belfast deal.

My Lords, recognising the constraints ahead of the Budget and the contribution of our creative industries to growth in this country, could the Minister address the enterprise investment scheme for film and high-end TV? Do DCMS and His Majesty’s Treasury have any plans to look at this? If not, will she encourage them to do so?

I regret that I will have to be slightly repetitive in giving assurances of this Government’s commitment to the creative industries. Some of these issues are decisions for the Treasury, but both DCMS and the Treasury understand how important various measures and reliefs are to the industry. An update will be provided as soon as possible and, as noble Lords are aware, the Budget will be held later this month.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former director of the British Film Institute. I was a guest of the BFI at the opening of the London Film Festival last night for the showing of the film “Blitz”, which was extraordinary. I recommend it to noble Lords on all sides. It tells us a lot about Britain as it was, in the way that cinema can do, and it is worth all the money given by its supporters—and there are a lot of them. The opening speech at the London Film Festival yesterday made reference to the Statement made in the other House earlier that day. The very warm reception given by the huge audience to that announcement was striking. We should recognise that the industry is very supportive of what the Government are doing. It was also supportive of the previous Government’s work, so I want to correct something my noble friend said: the very first film tax credit followed the Downing Street seminar in 1990 with Mrs Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, and was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who is sadly not in his place to receive the credit for making that first step. It was then built on by the great work—I am surprised to hear myself saying it—of George Osborne, who not only provided extra support but extended it, as we have heard, to many other art forms, which are very grateful to the last Government for the work they did. We should recognise that and build on it.

The points I wanted to make have largely been made by others, but one that has not really been answered, which is crucial to the future development of the film industry, is the question of the apprenticeship levy, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Will the Minister be a bit clearer about how wide a view the Government will take on this? The industry is in a terrible mess; without the support of the young coming into it, it will not survive.

I thank my noble friend for his question. I repeat that at the moment we have a skills shortage and significant vacancies—a vacancy margin of about 25,000. We know that our success is down to our skilled and innovative workforce. As a number of noble Lords have highlighted, this goes way beyond people working in a silo. There is something about creativity and working across different parts of the sector that probably benefits that.

We will get more details on the transformation of the apprenticeship levy into the new growth and skills levy in due course. It will create opportunities and give employers greater flexibility to train and upskill their workforce. Through working with Skills England, it will also allow the Government to identify what skills gaps there are, so that we make sure that every single sector, including the creative industries, has the skills it needs for the growth this country requires.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the forthcoming economic growth summit, which I applaud the Government for putting in place. She will be aware that many young growth companies in the creative industries sector currently enjoy IHT relief, particularly those on the AIM market. Can she confirm that she is supportive of this relief, and will she make representations to the Chancellor on this point?

Both I and the Government are clear that the use of tax relief to support creative industries is a really important way in which we increase and support the success of an already successful sector. Any specifics around future relief are obviously a decision for the Treasury, although I repeat what I have said previously—and apologise for repeating it—that DCMS and HMT both understand how important these reliefs are to the industry. As I have previously mentioned, the Budget will be held later this month.

My Lords, when we were in opposition, I visited the National Theatre to be shown around. I was struck by the fact that it was working very hard to get children and young people to come into the theatre, because it recognised the need to have children from a wide spread of different backgrounds in the theatre, ready to take up jobs and apprenticeships. I would be really grateful if my noble friend could talk about the skills agenda and how we are going to link up policy on incentivising filmmaking and the skills required to make sure that children from all backgrounds have the opportunity to be involved in this industry.

My noble friend will be aware of the passion that both the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Education have for giving opportunities to children from all backgrounds. We all probably remember our first visit to the theatre. For far too many children, this is not something that happens through their family. We need to make sure, as the National Theatre does, that children get the opportunity to experience theatre directly.

The work through Skills England, and particularly the curriculum review—Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson has spoken so passionately about creative skills and the passion they can bring to children—is going to be central to how we view the curriculum going forward.

That this House takes note of the state of social care in England, and the case for a comprehensive social care strategy and further support for unpaid carers.

My Lords, before this important debate gets under way, I thought it would be useful to remind the House and all Back-Bench speakers that the advisory speaking time is four minutes. This means that when the Clock has reached three minutes, noble Lords should start making their concluding remarks, and at four minutes their time is up. I have asked the Government Whips to remind noble Lords of this fact during the debate, if necessary. I thank all noble Lords in advance for their understanding, which will allow everyone to contribute to the debate fairly within the allocated time.

My Lords, it is a privilege to be opening today’s debate on such a vital issue to our national life: social care. I am very grateful to the many organisations that have sent me such excellent briefings. I particularly thank the unpaid carers who shared with me their personal experience of caring for a loved one at the drop-in event organised by Carers UK on Tuesday. It was a humbling experience. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords who have such expertise in and commitment to this issue.

I want to start by making some general points that I feel too often get overlooked. First, social care is a hugely valuable public service in its own right, at best allowing millions of our fellow citizens to live independent and fulfilling lives, improving their well-being and that of their families. It is not simply an adjunct to the NHS. Yes, fixing social care will help the NHS address its current problems, and two of the three big shifts articulated in response to the Darzi review—moving from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention—can certainly be assisted by an effective social care system, but bailing out the NHS is not, I contend, its primary purpose.

Secondly, the social care market makes a significant contribution to local economies. Skills for Care estimates that the sector contributes more than £50 billion to the English economy.

Thirdly, social care is not all about older people, or preventing people having to sell their properties to pay for care, as the debate is too often so unhelpfully characterised. Support for working-age adults and lifelong disabled adults, particularly people with learning disabilities, has become the largest area of spend in adult social care and is growing faster than any other part.

In short, we need to frame the debate in a different way: valuing the sector as a contributor to economic activity, as fundamental to promoting the health and well-being of people in local communities and as contributing to the preventive agenda that the NHS on its own has, according to the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and others, failed to deliver. Despite all the very real problems, there is some good and innovative practice at local level, often involving integrated neighbourhood working between social care, community health and the voluntary sector.

All that said, social care has been described— I think rightly—as one of the biggest public policy failures of our time. The last 25 years have seen six government and independent commissions, seven Green and White Papers, 14 parliamentary committee reports and innumerable other reports on social care policy. They have identified policy options to address many of the problems and, time and again, commitments have been made but then reneged on. In particular, the funding has been subject to much analysis—not least by Select Committees of this House—and the options for reform are clear. It certainly does not need a royal commission to crawl all over it again.

There is wide consensus that things cannot carry on as they are. Our adult social care system is not fit for purpose and needs radical reform, following decades of political neglect and underfunding. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his recent report, described it as “dire”. With an ageing population and a growing number of disabled people of working age, demand is increasing but funding is not keeping pace. In reality, publicly funded social care is available only to those with the highest needs and the lowest means.

Recent analysis from Age UK found that more than 2 million older people are now living with some form of unmet need. Healthwatch recently estimated that up to 1.5 million working-age disabled people could be missing out on the social care they are eligible for. Only last week, the County Councils Network pointed out that persistent underfunding of local government in the last decade means that some councils now spend as much as 80% of their budget on care for adults and children.

Looking forwards, the Care Provider Alliance estimates that at least 1.7 million more adults will require social care over the next 15 years. In big-picture terms, the Health Foundation has estimated that meeting growing demand for care, enabling more people to access it and improving services could cost an extra £18 billion by 2032. This is serious stuff indeed.

In short, we have a system struggling with myriad problems, including: an overly stringent means test; catastrophic costs, leading to some people having to sell their homes; high levels of unmet need, so that people go without the care and support they need; a high reliance and unrealistic expectations placed on unpaid carers; patchy quality of care; poor workforce pay and conditions; a fragile and highly fragmented provider market; and a postcode lottery of access.

All these issues have solutions, as the plethora of reports on social care demonstrates. I hope that we will hear lots of potential solutions in today’s debate, but this needs to be addressed in the round, not in a piecemeal fashion with last-minute sticking-plaster solutions.

Far too often, the crucial role of unpaid carers comes last in the list, but today I will deal with it first. It is vital that we recognise the challenges that the UK’s 5.7 million unpaid carers are facing and the critical role they play in supporting people and, frankly, propping up our health and care systems. Finding appropriate support can be extremely challenging, and many carers report having to fight to get the support they need. One unpaid carer I spoke to on Tuesday said that she had found it impossible to get an assessment for her own health needs—despite the fact that this was legislated for in the Care Act 2014—and felt totally burnt out.

The lack of accessible and affordable social care hinders carers’ ability to juggle work and care. The extra expenses associated with caring for a loved one with a complex condition, coupled with the inability to work, can have a massive adverse effect on family finances. The development of a new national carers strategy—which I strongly support—should be a priority for the Government as part of their wider reforms of social care and, crucially, be seen as integral to the development of the national care service. We need to be ambitious here. From these Benches, we want to see it include paid carers’ leave and a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, as well as increasing carer’s allowance, by expanding eligibility to it, and bringing to an end the overpayments scandal.

I turn to the social care workforce. According to Skills for Care, last year there were around 130,000 vacant posts and 1.7 million filled posts. That is a vacancy rate of some 8% and a turnover rate of just under 25%. This is about three times higher than for the wider economy. Skills for Care attributes turnover and vacancies in the sector to a range of factors including low pay, zero-hours contracts and difficulty accessing full-time work. Today’s debate is timely because only this morning, Skills for Care published its annual report, which shows some modest improvements in filled posts and a slightly lower turnover. However, these improvements were mainly driven by international, rather than domestic, recruitment, and there are signs that the supply of international recruits is declining, not least due to changes in visa rules debarring migrant workers from bringing family dependants with them. So domestic recruitment and retention problems continue.

As many in this Chamber have said, the silence in the King’s Speech on social care was deafening, and many people felt badly let down. It felt, once again, as though social care had been pushed to the back of the queue. The Government must, as a matter of urgency, produce an updated vision for social care that tells us what good looks like and then start work immediately on finding a long-term, cross-party solution to putting social care on a sustainable footing. I hope that this House, with all its expertise, can make an important contribution to that debate.

I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to publish a comprehensive reform package for social care with a clear timeline attached for action in this Parliament. I note that the Nuffield Trust has called for a rapid diagnostic exercise similar to the Darzi NHS review to build urgency and the case for change. Can the Minister say whether such an exercise is being considered, and, if so, what the timescale would be?

I recognise the financial constraints the Government face, but that is not a reason for silence or inaction. A comprehensive plan for social care reform can be framed according to short-term, medium-term and long-term actions. The most pressing priority is for the Government to provide an immediate uplift in social care funding in the upcoming Budget to stabilise the sector in the short term. However, there are also a number of short-term and relatively low-cost actions, such as setting up a mandatory professional register of adult social care staff in England, which already exists in Scotland and Wales; requiring direct adult social care representation on all integrated care systems in England; establishing a new commissioner for adult social care to promote the rights of those relying on care; and developing a more simplified, consistent and efficient approach to how councils commission care. These are simply examples of things that could be put in place relatively quickly.

In the upcoming comprehensive spending review, the Government must commit to multiyear settlements to local government, so that the social care system can plan with confidence over the medium term and provide further stability. The Government also need to provide clarity on their plans for social care—including, I hope, more detail about developing a national care service and the fair pay agreement—and what they hope to achieve by when, and how that will be funded. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on this today.

Credible longer-term reform plans must, at the very minimum, cover funding, a workforce plan and support for unpaid carers, which I have already talked about. On the workforce, social care is a job requiring skill, insight, compassion and commitment, but that is not recognised in the terms and conditions on offer. Front-line roles typically attracted only £11 an hour in March this year—58p higher than the national living wage then. I also find it staggering that care workers with five or more years’ experience were earning just 10p more per hour that those with less than a year’s experience. In short, there is no progression. More than 80% of jobs in the economy pay more than social care, so it is scarcely surprising that employers find it hard to attract and retain people already resident here. If you do a similar role in the NHS, you are paid appreciably more.

We need a social care workforce plan sitting alongside the NHS workforce plan with equivalent government commitment to implement its recommendations. Pay is hugely important, but it is not the whole story. Social care needs a formal career structure, along with training and development to help people advance and be appropriately rewarded for doing so. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a royal college of care workers to improve recognition and career progression, and a higher minimum wage for carers.

The Government’s plan to broker a fair pay agreement for social care is welcome in principle—and it is timely, as it is part of the Employment Rights Bill published today—but we need to understand how it will be funded. Will there be commensurate increases in local authority funding, or will the cost be passed on to care providers and self-funders? I would welcome clarification from the Minister on this point.

We need to think about the workforce in the widest possible sense. There is an obvious role for the voluntary sector to provide a lot more of what is often called wraparound support. There is scope for the sector to do so much more and for every area to have a stronger safety net in place.

On funding reform, transformational reform cannot happen without us working out and agreeing, as a society, how we can fund it, both in the short term and into the future. So far, efforts to achieve this have been half-hearted at best and egregious at worst. The lesson from other countries that have successfully grasped the nettle of modernising social care is the need to have a pretty honest conversation with the public about the options for funding it and how the costs are shared between the individual and the state. We need a cross-party commission to look at the realistic options for sustainable long-term funding, not least to try to future-proof the outcome and lessen the risk of a successor Government undoing decisions made.

As the Government develop their approach to social care reform, they should draw on the significant body of existing policy analysis. The main options—free personal care, which of course has my vote, a cap and a comprehensive NHS-style care—are well known and costed. Respected independent commentators such as the Health Foundation have set out the options and costs, so we are not starting from scratch. The sooner work begins on thinking through the options and engaging with the wider public, the better. The nearer we are to the next election, the harder the task will be.

To conclude, despite countless commissions and reports, successive Governments have failed to enact meaningful reform. With many of the policy options already on the table, and a clear willingness for cross-party talks, the Government have the chance, finally, to implement social care reform and to improve the lives of older and disabled people and their carers. This does not need a lengthy royal commission, simply a substantial injection of political will. Social care reform is a top priority for the Liberal Democrats and, as I hope I have demonstrated, we have plenty of ideas to bring to the table. I look forward to hearing the wisdom of other noble Lords on this thorniest of public policy challenges.

My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on her excellent and comprehensive introduction. As the first Back-Bencher to make a speech, at least I will not be repeating anyone else’s. I very much look forward to my noble friend Lady Keeley’s maiden speech.

The fact that there are so many speakers and we are therefore limited in our time tells us how important this matter is. In my short time, I will not be doing the big-picture painting that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, did but will talk about some very specific practical things. I am a non-executive director of the Whittington Health trust, which is our local hospital in north London. We are an integrated care organisation and we face the same challenges that all parts of the National Health Service do. We provide hospital and community care services to half a million people in Islington and Haringey, as well as other London boroughs such as Barnet, Enfield, Camden and Hackney, and it is worth looking at the practical issues involved in how you do this.

Haringey and Islington have multiagency care teams, which work across health and the council to assess and support rising risk patients and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions, keeping people in the community. They are multidisciplinary, with pharmacists, housing officers, social care workers, consultants and district nurses working together. We have a single front door in Islington, which we have just launched, for healthcare and the council to share a single triage point to ensure that patients are seen by the right team and to avoid duplication of input, and to ensure the best way of sharing our limited resources. Again, this sees council staff and Whittington staff working together. We have social workers embedded in our hospital; they are in our teams and in our hospital offices.

These are the practical details that can inform how primary care locally can be further developed, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his report, which points to the need to develop primary care, GP care, social care and community care together. I invite my noble friend and her colleagues to come and visit us at the Whittington, where they will be very welcome indeed. There is no doubt that effective and innovative practice exists. I make a plea not to reinvent the wheel as we work towards the much-needed reform of adult social care.

Secondly, I want to ask my Government to look at who provides care at every level in our communities and at whether it is appropriate that we have care providers that are not going to sustain their care in our communities. For example, in 2023, Beaumont Healthcare, a homecare agency providing care to people with disabilities and complex health conditions in Cambridgeshire, went out of business and handed back the care contract to the local authorities. That would not be unusual, but it was the fifth care provider in Cambridgeshire to hand back care contracts in 2023. We know that the marketisation and privatisation of adult social care following the care Act in 1990 brought with it the dangers and instability that we see today.

I have championed co-operative social enterprise and mutuals for 25 years in your Lordships’ House. Frankly, in rebuilding our economy and in the reform of our public services we need to look at organisations that can provide public services and do so in a sustainable way. I ask my noble friend that, in the rebuilding of health and social care in the UK, we look at the failures and bureaucracy that competition and marketisation have brought and positively seek alternatives, to have a diversity in the provision of social care in our communities.

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for initiating this debate, the importance of which was underlined by the sheer volume of the high-quality briefing that we have all had for it. There is a fairly common analysis in those representations: declining funding for the sector over many years, leading to delays in assessment and then unmet need, in turn putting pressure on carers, aggravated by workforce pressures, which is made worse by poor pay and conditions for the workforce. The whole problem is compounded by decades of indifference by successive Governments.

In the time available I want to focus on young carers. In another place, I met a group of impressive young people, Andover Young Carers. They were different from older carers. Older carers know that they are carers; they see themselves as carers. These young carers did not see themselves as carers at all but as brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and grandchildren. They looked after their relative because that is what they had always done; for them, that was life. Unlike older carers, they had never been non-carers. A further difference was that these young people were coping with the demands of full-time school and college, and at the same time coping with the challenges of the transition from child to adult. Their needs are very different, and I hope that we will not forget them in the short debate today.

The 2021 census showed over 50,000 young carers caring for over 50 hours a week—that is more than the standard working week. Worryingly, within that figure of 15,000, 3,000 were aged between five and nine. The Carers Trust has shown that those young carers at school are at risk of a poorer attendance record and lower academic achievement, and also more liable to social isolation and, sadly, bullying.

What do we do about it? The APPG of which I was the vice-chairman did an inquiry, and we met lots of young carers last year. They told us that, on average, it took three years before their needs were identified and up to 10 years before some of them even got support. That is inexcusable. They also told us that that support came only when they reached absolute crisis point, so we need to identify their needs much earlier, downstream. There needs to be consultation between the various settings of adult services, children’s services and education. There is a memorandum of understanding called No Wrong Doors for Young Carers, which is designed to improve joint working between adult services, children’s services, integrated care boards and other statutory organisations. Despite a requirement for local authorities to have such joint working arrangements in place, recent research by the Carers Trust found that only 7% of local authorities appear to have done so. I will ask the Minister just one question. Does she agree that all local authorities should sign up to that memorandum so that young carers get the support they need?

My Lords, the helpful House of Lords Library briefing paper by Eve Collyer Merritt started with great clarity. The opening statement was:

“Social care services help people living with illness or disability”.

That is so often forgotten. I think the people in this Chamber today know that—we would not be here if we did not. Indeed, I see assembled before us a number of what I would call the usual suspects for debates of this kind. However, vast sections of the population do not comprehend at all what social care services are. When we have a candidate for leading the Conservative Party who refers to carers recruited overseas as “bottom wipers”, I find myself in an angry rage at her astonishing ignorance, and feel that many politicians require some educating.

That problem explains, in part, the catastrophic neglect by successive Governments, who come to the elections and find that nobody is the slightest bit interested in it as a vote winner. It seems that this Labour Government, whom I expected better of, are also kicking the can down the road. That is one theme that I think will remain constant through this debate today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, set out clearly and admirably the challenges, and I can do no more than repeat her words and support her call for a long-term strategy for what should be a growing workforce and the desperate need for training of staff too—especially in dementia, I would say. In view of the fact that over half of home recipients of care and over 70% of care home residents have a degree of dementia, it is surely unacceptable that fewer than half of residential carers have any training whatever in how to manage that condition. I suppose that at this point I ought to draw the House’s attention to my lifelong professional interest in this area and current role as an ambassador with the Alzheimer’s Society.

Since the Dilnot commission report of 2011, there has been talk of capping care costs in residential care, but I am pleased to say that the one thing the Government have said is that they do not support that line. Capping costs simply transfers the burden from those who have the resources, albeit often locked up in property and capital assets, to the Government and, by extension therefore, to the working population through taxes. It has the effect of unjustifiably allowing older people who need residential care to hang on to properties and pass them on to their children, while adding an extra tax burden on to younger people, most of whom will not own homes. There are many ways to ensure that payment can be deferred so individuals and spouses do not have to pay and, in that sense, I agree with the Government’s announcement.

I do not think we can ever get away from the profound unfairness that was established in 1948, when healthcare and social care were separated. We are in danger of recreating a national care service which makes all the same mistakes as the behemoth of the National Health Service. Please do not move away from having a locally focused and locally accountable social care service. By all means have a national strategy but not, please, a national care service.

My Lords, I too welcome this debate. I particularly appreciated the initial appeal by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for a reframing of a broader conversation. Like others across this House, I pay tribute to the many unpaid carers and those who work in social care, who invest their lives in the well-being of others. As has been said, in this debate we acknowledge together that our social care system is in urgent need of reform and that this is a key moment. I share the hope that the Government will take the first steps in that reform in the very near future. Social care impacts us all, in terms of our responsibilities and needs. It brings the most vulnerable in our society from the margins to the centre of our attention and our love.

Last year, the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care published its excellent report, Care and Support Reimagined. The commission was chaired by Dr Anna Dixon MBE and the right reverend James Newcombe, then Lord Bishop of Carlisle. The report commends the development of a national care covenant. The biblical notion of covenant is based not around commercial contract but around a wider societal promise and mutual expectation, and is focused on relationships, mutuality and partnership. It demands a shared vision across society and common values.

I particularly draw the House’ attention to the seven values and principles from the commission’s work, which I believe offer an excellent underpinning for the Government’s future work. Social care should be universal, fair and characterised by loving kindness, which, as we all know, is transformative. Social care should foster trust, be inclusive and promote mutuality. It is an expression of empathy, focused on what each individual wants or needs, rather than being paternalistic and presumptive.

A number of Lords have highlighted, or will do so, the need for workforce planning. Clearly, that is needed as part of a holistic, integrated, systemic approach. We are entering a period in wider society when new technologies are likely to lead to a rapid decline in the number of roles in many industries, such as warehousing and call centres, as many roles become automated. The renewal of social care gives us the opportunity to rethink and expand the workforce in an area of our lives which needs to remain distinctly personal and deeply humane. In social care, we must think not only of how to be efficient but of how to create communities of kindness. As the Motion implies, there is an urgent need to offer a matrix of support for voluntary carers, not least the funding of respite to enable rest and sabbath in their demanding roles.

So much that is good is offered by home carers, volunteers, partnerships with faith communities, local authorities and businesses. The Government now have a significant opportunity and responsibility to reimagine care and support, and the need to begin this task is very urgent.

My Lords, I welcome this debate and declare that I receive NHS home care.

The whole social care landscape is unbelievably complex, as we have heard. Select Committee reports in both Houses in recent years have all stressed the need for urgency to establish a new and sustainable framework for care, yet nothing is done. My noble friend Lady Tyler is right in making the case for a comprehensive strategy. The LGA, in its White Paper in June about social care, said that stabilising and supporting the care workforce must be an immediate priority, as must measures to improve pay. According to the charity Skills for Care, more than 80% of general workers are paid more than care workers, which demonstrates how low their pay is.

Our population is getting older and those with long-term disabilities are living longer, so there is no time to lose. Sir Ed Davey has called for a social care commission, so I ask the Minister whether this is being considered as a first step and, if the answer is positive, whether it could be started as soon as possible.

I want to turn now to the status of care workers. In my experience, they are worth their weight in gold. They have to be skilled to cope with all manner of machines and appliances, from feeding pumps to bed hoists, ventilators, catheters, humidifiers and suction machines, to name but a few. They have to keep cheerful and calm, however irritated or grumpy they feel. They are all truly on the front line. Nearly all of them could get much more money stacking supermarket shelves. Home carers do not get paid for travelling between clients in London and, in some districts, they have to pay parking charges. Carers notice that healthcare professionals, such as podiatrists, get free parking and can usually choose their hours for home visits. This tells carers that society in general does not rate them as equal partners in looking after someone. We should treat them as professionals giving a vital service and pay them accordingly.

As for retaining staff, it was interesting to note from Skills for Care that care workers from overseas tended to stay longer than the domestic workforce. Simplifying the whole system of care will surely help the NHS manage hospital admissions and discharges, and take the pressure off local authorities, which have to spend a lot of their scarce resources on matters such as financial assessments.

It was disheartening that the gracious Speech did not mention care. We do not want to hear the words “in due course” from the Minister, rather the word “straightaway”, and for the Government to be prepared to put far more money into the social care we need. Thank you.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in your Lordships’ House for the first time in this debate, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and to listen to the comprehensive opening by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.

First, I thank noble Lords on all sides of this House for the warm welcome I have received. It is a pleasure to be reacquainted with former colleagues from all sides who also served in the House of Commons. I give special thanks to my noble friends Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Blake of Leeds, who were my supporters at my introduction. Thank you also to Black Rod and her team, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the doorkeepers, police officers and all the House staff who have been so helpful, supportive and welcoming.

For the past 19 years, I have represented the great city of Salford, being the first woman MP elected to represent the constituency of Worsley in 2005. I have served as a Government Whip and as deputy leader of the House of Commons, working with my noble friend Lady Harman, who was leader of the House of Commons. In opposition, my shadow ministerial roles included social care and the arts.

Before I was elected, I worked as a consultant with the Princess Royal Trust for Carers—now the Carers Trust—on a project to evaluate the then Labour Government’s national strategy for carers. We consulted over 4,000 unpaid family carers. One issue that became very clear was that carers did not receive support unless they were identified as carers, which was a particular problem for young carers, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

In 2010, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill on the identification of carers. Unfortunately, this did not progress and there is still a need to identify unpaid carers so that they can be supported.

Further, the national strategy for carers was not refreshed by Governments that came in after 2010, meaning that, for 14 years, we have had no high-level strategy across government departments to support carers.

I have raised these and other concerns repeatedly, particularly when I served as the shadow Cabinet Minister for Mental Health and Social Care. To my mind, support for carers has been left too much to carers groups and even to carers themselves.

Katy Styles is a full-time carer for her husband, who has motor neurone disease. Alongside her caring responsibilities, Katy has founded the “We Care” campaign to empower carers to feel visible and valued. This campaign is motivated by the belief that

“all carers deserve so much better”

and I wholeheartedly agree.

I have worked on carers issues across the years, and I acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who has done so much for carers. I hope that our new Labour Government will redevelop a national carers strategy and work to improve life for carers.

I have also worked for a number of years to highlight the appalling treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who are held for too long in inappropriate in-patient units. The families affected need champions of their cause, which they have in the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It is a privilege for me to be in your Lordships’ House at the same time as the noble Baroness, so that I too can raise their concerns and issues.

My most recent roles were as shadow Minister for Music and as shadow Minister for the Arts. I have worked with many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, on issues related to music and the decline of music education in state schools. Music and the arts can offer children and young people so much in the way of confidence, teamwork and well-being. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House on what can be done to bring the joy of music and the arts to all young people, not just those whose families can afford it.

I conclude by saying how happy I am to be working with noble Lords and learning from the great collective wisdom that resides in this House.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and honour to welcome my noble friend Lady Keeley to your Lordships’ House and to be the first to congratulate her on her marvellous maiden speech. As your Lordships have heard, we have worked together on these issues for some years and I thank her for her kind tribute.

Time does not permit me to do justice to the great experience, expertise and wisdom that she brings to your Lordships’ House. As noble Lords have heard, she was first elected to the House of Commons in 2005, as the first ever woman MP for the Worsley constituency, which later changed its name to Worsley and Eccles South. She served as chair of the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party and held government jobs in the Treasury and as deputy leader of the Commons. In opposition, she has held an impressive variety of shadow Minister posts. Her last, as your Lordships heard, was as shadow Minister of Culture, Media and Sport, where she championed music and tourism, and worked closely with the voluntary sector as shadow Minister for Civil Society. She combined all this with close attention to her constituency and an active role in local issues, much admired by all her constituents. She begins another phase of her public service today in this House, where I know she will be a valued and valuable Member.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—whom I always want to call my noble friend—for her very welcome debate. I hope that she and other noble Lords will forgive me for a little trip down memory lane. I remember the many social care debates in which I have taken part in your Lordships’ House when it was very difficult to assemble a reasonable speakers list—far from the distinguished gathering that we have today. So few were those noble Lords interested in or concerned about the subject that I used to refer to them, as I have been reminded, as “the usual suspects”. Happily, the number of suspects has greatly increased today. In those days, it was also difficult to get detailed briefings; we have come a long way, with the raft of excellent material that we have from many sources today.

Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for including unpaid carers in her Motion. Going again down memory lane, I remind your Lordships that, when I became involved in the carers movement in the 1980s, the word “carer” was not in the Oxford English Dictionary and spell-check always changed it to “career”. When I went to collect my gong at the palace in 1993, my citation was announced as “for services to careers”. We have come a long way since then.

Carers are central to legislation now and some individual bits of legislation are aimed at them specifically. Even spell-check has caught up. However, I met a carer at a drop-in this week who told me that she feels completely rubbed out by a system that makes her fight for the slightest assessment of her own needs, despite that being enshrined in legislation since 1995, as we have heard, and strengthened in the Care Act 2014. Another told me of her struggles with mental health as a direct result of all the caring stress.

Your Lordships all know what needs to be done. We cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. We must shift resources from hospital to the community. We must focus on prevention and early intervention. We must find a way to share the risk so that catastrophic care costs do not fall in an unfair way. We have known all this for years but, above all, we must understand that you cannot fix social care without supporting the main providers of social care: not staff, care homes or care workers but the unpaid carers, who are there all the time, providing £162 billion a year, as the value of their care, to individuals in need—often at terrible cost to their own mental and physical health, not to mention their finances. If they withdrew their labour or worked to rule, they would get more attention, but they are not going to do that because they are motivated by love, duty or a combination of both.

As the All-Party Group on Carers, which I had the honour to chair, so forcefully said, carers’ problems can be addressed by developing a new national carers strategy, which would set a clear direction of travel and a long-term vision for how carers can be supported, look at the interaction between different policies and departments and ensure that their needs are recognised and responded to at the highest levels of government.

It is 16 years since the last national strategy was developed, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Surely it is time for another. If not now, when? The problem is going to get only more acute as our population ages and lives with increasing comorbidities. As the increased interest in this once-neglected subject shows, this is not someone else’s problem. We are all—every one of us—a hair’s breadth, a fall, or an accident away from being cared for or being a carer. As we have heard, there is a strong economic case for supporting carers. The Government need the will and determination to do it, but the rewards will be ample, for not only 6 million carers but every one of us.

My Lords, I first declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner at DAC Beachcroft. Last week I attended an excellent event with leaders in social care. What an impressive group they were, full of ideas and so very open to greater engagement and innovation. They easily persuaded me that innovation is the key to reforming the social care sector—and innovation must be enabled, not stifled.

Leaders in the sector are already championing a wealth of innovative solutions, from everyday innovations such as the decaffeination principle, which helps to reduce falls, to whole-system changes in approach. These should be encouraged and supported through financial support and regulatory understanding.

The new chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, Sir Julian Hartley, supported by an excellent chair, will have a testing challenge on his hands to persuade people that the CQC can indeed be fit for purpose. The sector urgently needs more effective and outcomes-focused regulation, and transparent, consistent and partnership-based commissioning. I hear encouraging things about Care Inspectorate Wales, where a spirit of partnership has been cultivated to positive effect. That may be a useful example for England to follow.

As the Darzi report forcefully points out, we must see a far greater recognition of the role that social care plays in supporting the NHS. A successful social care system is and always must be a core part of moving our cultural focus from cure to prevention and wellness, and to making the gradual shift from hospital care to community-based care. Sadly, while we tell people to stay in their homes for as long as possible, we do not then offer them the support they need.

Social care should be viewed much more positively, in this place and elsewhere, and not just as the service of last resort. It really needs to move out of the “too difficult” box, as stakeholders, including sector leaders, are brought into the discussion, to contribute to shaping the future in a more meaningful way. This includes those younger carers, instanced by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and those key unpaid carers, as so clearly demonstrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and in the outstanding maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley.

While I welcome the new Government’s stated desire to build a consensus for reform, I find talk of a royal commission disheartening and evocative of the long-grass era. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, pointed out in her outstandingly good and wide-ranging opening speech, reform has been avoided for many years, and this cannot be allowed to continue. I hope that today’s debate will come to be seen as one of many landmarks on the route to sustainable reform of social care in England.

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley for her outstanding speech. May we hear many more from her.

Of late, we have heard quite a lot of brave words about the prospects for a national care service, but I am very sorry to say that I do not have a great deal of faith in the idea of grand schemes. For example, we have seen the creation of integrated care boards, but these are yet to have much of an impact outside the Whittington Hospital. As always, it is the funding that counts. As long as we have two types of funding arrangements, one for the NHS and another for social and community care, the latter will always be the poor relation. While local authorities continue to be starved of funds, we will always have major problems—and we have very little money. We have our brave new Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, laying out his ambitious plans, but it is inevitable that he will not be able to do everything, and we will have to ask: what is the highest priority? What will give us the biggest bang for our buck? That is where funding for social and community care should come top of the list. It is least expensive but will do the most to save the NHS. Think of the advantages that it would bring not just to the NHS—we all know about those—but to all those in desperate need in the community.

There are many practical solutions that we could adopt now. First and foremost, we must repair the damage we have inflicted on the caring staff. The way they are currently treated is nothing short of a national disgrace. Not only are they underpaid, they are completely undervalued. Some 20% of new recruits leave within 12 months for better paid jobs in supermarkets. Being a carer of those in need—the elderly or disabled—can be fulfilling, but not if you feel undervalued and underappreciated. There is little prospect of career progression and, as we have heard, if you last in the job for, say, five years, your pay is just 10p an hour more than you were getting when you started. Little wonder there are such high vacancy rates, and that the total numbers have held up only because of a cohort of foreign workers that sadly is now drying up.

But we can correct the problems. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—we have to set up a national register of care workers so that they can be registered as the professionals that they are. We should assure that they are given a recognised qualification after a nationally approved training programme. Amazingly, that does not exist—they do not have a nationally recognised qualification. We should open up satisfying career progression, possibly even leading to a career in nursing. They should, of course, be paid at a rate that reflects the vital importance of their work that they do as caring professionals. It might cost a bit of cash, but think what we could save the NHS.

Secondly, as we have heard, there is the whole issue of the inadequate recompense that we pay those who care for relatives or friends at home. If you manage to jump through the tortuous series of bureaucratic hoops, you are allowed £76.70 a week, after you have had to give up paid employment to gain the full amount. Yet we know that the value of home care to the economy is at least in the order of £5 billion a year. Talk about slave labour.

Finally, there is the cap on the costs of care beyond which those in need have to pay—set so low that few can gain any support. It is now time for the Government to at least reconsider whether the Dilnot report can offer some help. These were proposals that last the Government almost adopted but finally scrapped. We will, of course, have to consider how we might provide the money, but I am running out of time. If noble Lords want to know more about what I think, perhaps they can read my book on how to save the NHS.

Oh!

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on bringing this debate to the House today. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, a warm welcome and congratulate her on her maiden speech.

I hold a lasting power of attorney for a younger close relative who has had a local authority package of care for over 20 years and in recent years we privately funded a homecare package for my husband, who had Alzheimer’s. So I speak from what they call now the “lived experience”. So I first say thank you to all those who work in the social care sector—and, to the Government, here are my 10 priorities for a bit of activity now that they are in office.

First, there are not enough carers—we know that. Please make this a priority. Stop talking about integrating health and social care—just make sure that it is happening. Look at where it works and where it does not; legislate if necessary. It is a postcode lottery. Put in place, through primary care, a system where those reaching the fragility of old age, or diagnosed with a disease—I am thinking particularly of dementia—are not just left to deteriorate at home without some overview.

With regard to carers, there are many vulnerable people who have no carers at all—not even relatives. Do not wait for a crisis before they come into contact with health. It will cost a lot more. For those who have carers, flag them up on GP and hospital records. Unpaid carers often get ill themselves—often brought on by exhaustion. Please stop sending very elderly people to hospital unnecessarily and then keeping them there for days or even weeks on end. Not every fall on to a carpet needs an A&E admission. Please keep people at home where possible.

A comprehensive, fairly funded care policy has been promised by all Governments but never delivered—please do it. Anyone who thinks that the country cannot afford it will soon find out what it costs their family when they need it. Please consider the plight of couples where one partner uses up all the savings on care and the second person is left with virtually no financial means at all. Please consider—I know this is a Conservative idea—using tax relief as an incentive, not a penalty, to help resolve the financial challenge of a social care policy. Please try and make out-of-home placements as local as possible, particularly where children are affected. This is more important than looking for the cheapest option.

Ten years for a plan—which I believe is what is proposed—or even a Royal Commission, is far too long. Do not say, “Nothing can be done until everything is done”. Be brave—that is what those needing care have to be every day.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on her excellent speech and on initiating this debate. I thank her. It was very moving to hear the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, today. She was a good friend and it was very moving to see her.

I want to make just a few points. The demand for social care is absolutely colossal. Last year, more than 2 million adults needed social care support. There were some 5,485 requests per day. The social care sector faces huge workforce pressures. There were about 131,000 vacant posts in the sector last year, some 8.1%. The rate of turnover was more than 25%. Of course, these pressures are not surprising in the context of low pay, zero-hours contracts and problems gaining a full-time job.

The backdrop to paid social care is, as others have mentioned, a huge unpaid care sector involving some 4.7 million people or 9% of the entire population. Carers UK estimates that the number of unpaid carers is something like 10.6 million, some 20% of the population—absolutely huge. I think the House will agree that it is quite shocking that some 44% of working-age carers who are caring for 35 or more hours a week live in poverty. The majority of carers are women and the majority have disabilities or long-term conditions. The carer’s allowance, payable to people who provide at least 35 hours per week of care for a person receiving certain benefits, is only £81.90 per week. Is that not an unliveable wage? The level of this benefit and its restrictions in scope are utterly unacceptable. A small compensation is that some carers are eligible for council tax reduction, universal credit, pension credit and so on, but the financial position of carers needs to be comprehensively addressed.

I welcome Keir Starmer’s plans for the spring of 2025 to shift care from hospitals to communities and integrate health and social care. These reforms should greatly help patients. For the adult social care workforce, Labour has pledged a fair pay agreement to cover terms of pay, conditions and training standards. This agreement is also vital, but it has to be matched by increases in local authority spending.

Sensibly, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is arguing that NHS trusts must buy beds in care homes to reduce delayed discharges from hospital and increase treatment capacity. This is all incredibly valuable. Of course, Stephen Kinnock, Minister of State for Care, is right to prioritise the involvement of people receiving care and their families in planning care services. I am sure that all Members of the House will support these initiatives.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on securing this debate and compliment her on her excellent summary of the dire state of adult social care in the UK. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her maiden speech. She leapt fully armed into the role required of a second Chamber with her depth of knowledge and wisdom, and I very much look forward to listening to her future contributions in this Chamber—and was it not lovely to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, today?

And here we are again. The subject is adult care, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is in her place, I am her pale shadow; it must be Thursday. There have been countless Thursdays. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is quite right that for more than 14 years adult social care has been a matter of national shame. It is particularly frustrating that we are having this debate a couple of weeks before the Budget, as I realise Minister will not be able to say anything about funding today.

There are reasons to be cheerful. If the Government are preparing a 10-year plan, at least that is practical and, let us face it, realistic. Please, no more promises to fix social care “once and for all”; we know what happens to those promises. Please, no more talk of royal commissions; we know the issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said. Solutions require money—for local government, the workforce and family support. When a politician stops talking about money and talks about reorganisation and reconfiguration, you know that nothing is going to happen.

I have been an unpaid carer, on and off, for 24 years—for my mother, my husband and my brother. I am glad I did not have to go begging to a cruel and indifferent state for financial support during that time, and I am deeply sorry for anyone who is forced to do so. The exhaustion and stress are bad enough; add poverty into that, and it is no wonder so many people have been forced out of the labour market and no wonder we have so many skills gaps. We need a task force to get on with this, and possibly an ombudsman service to deal with potential injustice.

Some improvements may save money, or at least improve another arm of our public services—for instance, releasing hospital beds or releasing people back into the labour market. But let us not kid ourselves: adequate funding for local authorities, better care homes and decent pay for the workforce will all cost money. The question is: where will that money come from?

I do not think there is a single system where everyone will be better off. To make promises about not having to sell a home was breathtakingly dishonest. We live in such an unequal society that solutions will have to be different for individuals, whether we like it or not. We have rising demand, increasing costs and 14 years of short-termism. I am tempted to say that any action will be an improvement but, if the Government do nothing else, they need to adequately fund local government, and adequately pay workers in social care.

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow such a witty, wise and moving speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and agree with her that the most serious problem in social care is financing care for people who cannot pay for themselves; it is not the potent political issue that often eclipses it: the fear of home owners and, let us be honest, their heirs that catastrophic care costs will consume the value of the parental home.

Most proposals to deal with this involve the taxpayer meeting anyone’s social care costs above, say, £100,000. That was what Dilnot proposed, and both parties have flirted with it. I congratulate the Government if they are distancing themselves from it now. Extending free social care to some, let alone all home owners would pre-empt public funds desperately needed for councils’ social care budgets. If there is a way to protect people’s homes from bearing the catastrophic cost of social care in old age, it is insurance.

Andrew Dilnot noted that elderly social care looks like an eminently insurable risk. We know the average proportion of elderly people who need social care, the average length of stay and the average annual cost of that care, so it is simple to calculate the necessary premium to insure against having to sell your home. But the private insurance industry was adamant that it would not provide such policies, mainly because of the incalculable and therefore uninsurable risk that future medical advances may prolong the period during which people need such care. Dilnot therefore abandoned the idea of insurance, but there is an alternative to private insurance, which was rejected by my own party for ideological reasons. I hope the same ideological reasons will make it appeal to the Government.

The alternative to private insurance is for the state to offer or underwrite such insurance. My Conservative friends were appalled that I, who had drafted the Thatcher privatisation programme, should propose nationalising an element of insurance. What apostasy! But if a state body provides or underwrites insurance against the current known risks of long-term elderly care, the only costs which would fall on the taxpayer would be those added if advances in medical care prolong the duration that people need social care. The reality is that the state already bears that risk. If we set a cap on care costs, the taxpayer will find themselves also paying billions to protect home owners from the costs of known risks of long-term care, which could be met by insurance.

The second reason why private insurers will not provide such policies is that they believe people will not pay contributions during their working lives, on top of saving for their pensions and repaying their mortgages. The alternative to trying to persuade people to contribute during their working lives is to enable them to take out such insurance after they retire by taking a modest charge on their homes, which would be realised only when they die or sell their homes. I set out the details for this in a pamphlet called Solving the Social Care Dilemma?: a Responsible Solution. I hope that the Minister and her apparently open-minded Secretary of State will give this proposal serious consideration. If not, they will find the pressures to divert money to enable home owners to bequeath to their undeserving heirs almost irresistible.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for introducing this debate and for her fantastic introduction. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her excellent maiden speech and add that I would really like to give my noble friend Lady Donaghy a virtual hug.

I want to make a joint or double point: carers deserve pensions—decent pensions. I am talking here about paid carers and unpaid carers. As far as paid carers are concerned, we had this great promise in the Labour manifesto of a fair pay agreement in the care industry. It would be a sector-collective agreement that would set fair pay terms and conditions along with training standards. That has to include decent pensions. I suspect that, because of the nature of employment within the care sector, relying on existing automatic enrolment provisions will not be sufficient. I hope that, in establishing the arrangements for the fair pay agreement, the need to consider pensions is built in and not there simply as an afterthought.

The treatment of unpaid carers and their lack of decent pensions—I have addressed this issue many times before—is one of the prime reasons for the gender pension gap. Whatever we may say about shared responsibilities, in practice it is women who end up undertaking the great majority of unpaid care. They do not get any pension, yet we have a pension system which relies on people earning. The basic state pension is not enough; they need a pension in addition, but do not get one because they are not being paid. Well, the state needs to provide them with additional pension top-up. I am not going to set out too much detail now about how that should be done but, for me, the most attractive option is some form of pension credits. In addition to the normal state pension, for the years that you provide unpaid care, whether for children or parents, you should receive additional credits for additional state pension. I hope that my noble friend will acknowledge these issues, which we will need to discuss.

My Lords, last week I was attending a conference—no, not that one. It was the Cerebral Palsy Scotland conference, where there was much talk about social care. I declare my interest as the chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland.

The Government have a headline commitment, as I understand it, to create a national care service, but there is no detail about timescales or resources. Coming from Scotland, the mere mention of a national care service makes me shudder. The SNP’s plan for a national care service has already wasted £28 million. Parliamentary committees and NHS bosses have warned about its flaws. Council leaders and unions have pulled their support. It will cost more billions—that is just to set it up—and, despite this, not one person’s care across Scotland has been improved. I urge the Minister: please do not make the same mistakes down here.

At our conference last week, one of the sessions laid out a job description for unpaid carers. It included the provision of personal care, housework, mobility assistance, medication management, emotional support, transportation, advocacy, respite care, health monitoring, project management, financial support and advice. They do all this, and they remain invisible and unappreciated. The most common theme that comes up in any conversation with unpaid carers, or any carers, is: “I wish I had known about it sooner”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said in her excellent maiden speech, identification is key. Professionals already have a responsibility for this, but it does not seem to be working. Despite the effort put into carers’ resources, research by the King’s Fund found that it does not always translate into the support that carers want. A carers’ strategy could look at what could be done to improve this.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, said in her excellent introduction, we must stop looking at social care through the prism of the NHS. We will never get it right if we view social care only as the application for the ill or the old. The people I spoke to at the Cerebral Palsy Scotland conference last week were neither ill nor old; they are just asking for some support to live their lives in the way the rest of us, who do not rely on assistance, take for granted.

What they need and want are good PAs, personal assistants, who help you do what you want, whether that is going to work or going to the pub. Such flexible outcomes do not fit easily into local authority care packages, and there are not enough PAs. Many of the agencies previously supplying staff did not survive Covid. People are resorting to permanent ads on sites such as Facebook and Indeed. It is a bit of a lottery who applies. People often do not turn up to interviews or trial shifts, and you are really stuck if your PA does not turn up or is ill. The challenges of becoming an employer, dealing with recruitment, PAYE and pensions, too often defeat people.

I recommend that the Minister looks at the PA model delivered by the charity Enable, which works with local authorities across Scotland. It deals with employer issues and provides a personalised service to people. It may be one example of good local practice that would benefit from support to extend it further afield. At any time, any one of us could suddenly become responsible for the care of another person, or any one of us might need to be cared for. It is time the Government moved social care up their priorities list.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, helped us all with her comprehensive and thoughtful introduction to this debate, and with the urgency she injected into it. I thank her for that. I also thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for her marvellous maiden speech.

The Library briefing for this debate states that

“the social care sector in England is facing workforce, resource and funding pressures”.

It echoes similar comments from the Public Accounts Committee. These bald statements can scarcely convey the awful state of our social care system, which the wider public woke up to during the pandemic and which the recent report from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, described even more trenchantly as “dire”.

At the same time, the social care sector is trying to handle unprecedented demand and is largely reliant on millions of people providing unpaid care. The service is close to cracking apart. There is universal acceptance that this is placing huge strains on people and their families, as we have heard today, as well as the health service. Yet the political will to change it has just not been there. Much has been promised but almost nothing has changed.

Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, I was a member of the Adult Social Care Committee, which reported to this House 18 months ago. We highlighted the need for support for those who cannot support themselves, which would enable them to live fruitful, active and valuable lives—what one witness described to us as a “gloriously ordinary life”. We used that as our title, to encapsulate what we believed public policy could achieve if the political will were there.

Yet our report concluded, largely based on the voices of lived experience, that many disabled adults and older people continue to be denied choice and control over their lives, largely due to a lack of resources. The cruel reality for local authorities, which provide most adult care, and for the people who rely on these services, was a 29% real-terms reduction in spending power and an estimated 12% drop in spending per person on adult social care services in the previous 10 years. That is the challenge facing the Government now.

Our new Government clearly intend to make this a priority, and they will not be short of advice. Innumerable reports have attempted to address, for example, the highly sensitive question of who pays for the unsustainable costs of social care. Unfortunately, the previous Government refused to grasp this nettle. The new Government have announced their intention to create a national care service and to improve NHS and social care integration as part of a 10-year plan. Although I understand why they are thinking of a 10-year programme—I suspect it will take at least that time to put right the huge imbalance between the funding of the health service and the social care service—the Government have the opportunity to make a real difference now, in the course of this Parliament, and to offer some hope to the millions who rely on care now. They need to show they are determined to, at last, make our social care service visible and fairer—a kinder system that enables people to live positive and valuable lives. The Select Committee report offers some signposts for action that I hope the Government will consider, including establishing a commissioner for care and support to show how adult social care, properly delivered, can have a transformational power in people’s lives.

Finally, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on unpaid carers, as well as the wise words of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, our marvellous champion for carers in this House. I urge the Government to develop a system that is not based on the assumption that families will automatically provide care without any financial support because there is no other option. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that unpaid carers need better financial compensation if their caring duties prevent them working, or help with juggling work and care if they can remain employed. That would be a great start.

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of both UCLH NHS Foundation Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for what she said, because I now do not have to say it—but, yes, it is an integrated care system and it actually works. I also declare interests as the former chair of Independent Age and a present trustee of the Rayne Foundation.

I say a major thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for initiating this debate and for what she said. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, on an amazing maiden speech, and I give a virtual hug to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, because she deserves one. It was wonderful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, speak.

We have heard a lot about how the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, described our social care system as “dire”. It is dire for many reasons. NHS hospitals cannot discharge people who are fit to receive packages of care because there is nowhere for them to go and no money with which to do that. It makes everyone feel powerless. If we had Care England’s proposal for a national tariff of £1,500 per week for intermediate care for people coming out of hospital, people would be able to get out of hospital and we would be able to free up some beds and make the system work better. That is one small thing we could do. It may be expensive, but it is not that expensive.

It is dire because the social care workforce is so often undervalued, underpaid and insecure, as we have heard. It has a fragmented provider landscape and commissioning arrangements that limit innovation and change. That means insufficient support for untold numbers of unpaid carers who are looking after loved ones day in, day out, until they too cannot cope and are in crisis. It is dire.

However, there are ideas out there of what might help, which is why I cited my interest as trustee of the Rayne Foundation, which has a new grant programme for adult social care workforce development, Better Careers for Better Care. It is based on the theory that, if you value and invest in the workforce, people will receive better care if they need it; that way there will be fewer crises and it will cost less, so that both unpaid carers and the care workforce will feel more able to cope and be more appreciated. That should lead to a better and more secure quality of care for those who need it, and I think that the Government need to look at that very closely.

Care England has produced some policy papers, with proposals so breathtakingly obvious that I am amazed that the Government have not yet taken them up. Among them is increasing the minimum wage in the sector to £15 an hour—and we know that there is a manifesto pledge to do something. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on pensions being added to that, because that is essential. The other thing is having a proper professional register of care workers, paid for by government; that way we know that the care workers are up to the job.

These are first steps. Valuing the social care workforce is fundamental to providing high-quality care and fundamental for those providing unpaid care, for whom respite is being able to step away from their loved ones for just a few hours. Can the Minister tell us how far the social care strategy has been developed and whether the urgency that we have all expressed has been acknowledged? Might she tell us to what extent, in the shorter term, the Government will examine how the care workforce is treated and valued and move to a system where development and training are the norm? That alone would make a difference in a complex landscape where we need urgent action.

My Lords, I declare an interest, as a member of my family is a full-time unpaid carer. I suspect that many of us have unpaid carers in our families and, if we have not got them yet, we are likely to have them in future.

We have had a plethora of reports, an avalanche of committees and this, that and the other on this subject. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on initiating this debate. Why do not the Government simply take this debate—and have no more committees—and act on it? That seems to me simpler than having yet another committee, which will take time.

I hope that we will eventually get to a national care service. I am reasonably confident that this Government are going to do something about it and that we will have no more debates asking whether the Government will do this; next time, my noble friend will come to us and tell us, “This is the start that the Government have made on dealing with the problem”. That is the least that we expect of my noble friend, and I hope that she will do it.

I shall say one quick word about professional carers—and in my family I also have experience of those. If any Member of this House has seen the local authority forms that one has to fill in to qualify for care, they will know that they require two PhDs and a couple of lawyers to fill in. It is a nightmare. Could we please simplify the bureaucracy? It is not fair on those who do not have the legal background. My daughter helped somebody in my family, because she is a lawyer, but it is not fair that there should be such enormous difficulties. And of course even paid carers tend not to turn up for Christmas and New Year’s Day.

Some unpaid carers are full time. It is not just about those who are working and losing money through the bureaucracy; some of them are full time, and they do not end up with any pension at all because they have had to give up their jobs to get £81.90 a week—I think that is the amount. We are talking about something between 5 million and 10 million such people. We do not know how many unpaid carers are full time and how many have given up their jobs. It is pretty expensive having a disabled person at home, as it requires more heating and one has to use more people for repairs. It is a costly business to have a person who requires care in the house.

If there is to be one single change on behalf of full-time unpaid carers, it should be to provide them with respite care. The ones I know are desperately up against it; they just need a break—otherwise, they cannot continue. We are not talking about 35 hours a week for them; we are talking getting on for about 150 hours a week. They are full time, and they have to be there and ready at night, in case there is a need for help. We should give unpaid carers some respite care; that is what they need. If we can come away with that alone, it would make such a big change to the lives of at least some of them. A bit of respite care every few years is not enough of a break from the onerous responsibility of caring.

Let me give an example. I know of one carer and the person she was looking after had a catheter, which got blocked, and on that occasion the nurse could not clear it. It required a visit to hospital. I mentioned this to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, as she knows about it. The result was that the ambulance came but could not take the patient to the hospital where the consultant looking after him was. It took him to another hospital, but that was no good. The unpaid carer would have had to get a car, but could not park anywhere near UCH, so had to pay for taxis. It is a cumbersome extra burden that should not be necessary.

Finally, there is one council that still provides unpaid adult social care: Hammersmith. Noble Lords should have a look at what it is doing and at why it is so successful.

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire and a member of the Older People’s Housing Taskforce. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for initiating this important debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, on her maiden speech, which was excellent. I also express my thanks to the extraordinary contribution made by the many people employed in the sector and the carers—with that, I also pass a virtual hug across the Chamber to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.

As many have outlined, social care and health are in crisis. We are all living longer, which is great news, but an ageing population means that more of us will need care for longer. We just do not have the care or health service that is up to providing the services that we need today. As has been mentioned here, it is not just pensioners; there has been a 25% increase in working-age adults needing care and a near doubling of SEN over the past 10 years.

The instinctive solution is to say that we need more funding—more money. Unfortunately, that is just not practicable. In my experience of councils, they have seen the share of expenditure taken up by social care increase from 50% to over 70% in the past 15 years—somebody said that it was 80% for some councils. If we look at government expenditure, we see that the amount spent on health, social care and social security has gone up from 30% to 45% over the past 30 years. The health and social care workforce is forecast to increase from roughly one in 10 of the current working population to one in five over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, this is simply not sustainable. We need a radical change of direction, and we need to be honest with ourselves and stop kicking this can down the road.

As a society, we need to support people to live healthier for longer and to live independently. Of current health outcomes, only 20% are down to health interventions; around 30% are down to the environment in which we live and another 30% are down to the choices we make about how we live our lives. It is outside the health system that we can make the biggest differences to our longer-term health and independence.

As the Darzi report mentioned, we need to change the NHS, focusing on prevention, early intervention and a move away from medicalisation. This means more GPs, community health, better public health and changing how we work, with things such as community health hubs that bring together a multifaceted approach and treatment outside of hospitals. We need to accept that this will mean a transfer of funds away from the acute sector and the consequences of that.

Housing has an absolutely crucial role. An active, healthy life involves having friends and living somewhere suitable that promotes independence. We do not need more mass housing estates; we need to bring people into cities, towns and larger villages, where they can be part of the community and where services are on their doorstep. It is about having the right accommodation for the right point in your life. Having the right housing saves money. In Central Bedfordshire Council, we estimate that extra care facilities save the council and the NHS around £4,000 per apartment and improve the lives of the people living in them.

Technology has a huge role to play, and innovation, as was mentioned earlier. That will happen only if we have real devolution and integration at a local level. I am not in favour of a national social service, but one locally led by local leaders, with devolution of health, housing, DWP, skills and other budgets. Underpinning all this is the need for a cultural change, personally and as a society. The state has a crucial role in supporting those who need it, but it is also there to facilitate the changes we as a society need to make as we plan for our future. It is about facilitating as much as delivering. It is not just funding, it is housing, health and social care—it is culture. We need a radical structural change.

My Lords, in 1983, I almost became the Labour candidate for Worsley. I did not, and I am delighted I did not, because we might not have had my noble friend Lady Keeley as the Member of Parliament for Worsley. She had a very distinguished career in the House of Commons and we all look forward very much to working with her.

Every Government have spectacularly failed on social care, including the one I was a member of. I want to refer very briefly today to the example of my own local authority in Wales: yes, I know the debate is about England but as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, it can also take best practice from somewhere else. Torfaen Borough Council has taken an initiative on adult social care. As we all know and have heard, there will always be people who will have to go into hospital and residential care, but most people do not want to do that; most people would prefer to stay at home. The impact of people going into hospital unnecessarily is, of course, delayed discharges and the enormous social and financial costs of that. Torfaen Council’s initiative is about ensuring that people remain in their homes as long as they can. It is a type of “care in the community plus”. I do not think that care in the community worked very well all those years ago, but the idea was good, and if there is an improved care in the community, as this initiative is, we can all learn from it.

My noble friend Lord Dubs referred to Hammersmith. Of course, if we look at individual local authorities, perhaps elsewhere can learn from them. Torfaen Council employs teams of community connectors, as it calls them, and these people liaise with carers, paid and unpaid, with the voluntary sector, with community groups, with churches, with community councillors, with the NHS and with GP surgeries. In other words, the whole local community comes together to look after its people and ensure that they stay in their homes. This might not seem possible, but I assure your Lordships that over the last couple of years it has proved very successful. Of all the local authorities in Wales, Torfaen Council is the best at dealing with and tackling delayed discharge. More and more people are staying in their homes. They have the confidence to do so and the ability and finance to do it. My plea today to my noble friend the Minister is, despite the fact that her remit does not go beyond the River Wye, nevertheless to be able to look at and even come to Torfaen and see the good work that it is doing. This work has been acknowledged by a substantial grant from research organisations; it is working; it is less costly than what is happening at the moment; and, above all else, it means that we can tackle, in the community, the problem that social care is at the moment.

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on initiating this important debate and warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, on her excellent maiden speech. My contribution will focus on a rather niche area: the urgent need to fix social care data so that an evidenced-based social care strategy can be developed apace.

The head of the Office for Statistics Regulation, Ed Humpherson, said:

“I am responsible for regulating data across economics, employment, health and more and it is social care that stands out by far for its low quality or even absent data”.

The Data That Cares report and its precursor, published by Future Care Capital, highlighted in some detail the egregious neglect of social care data, as did the OSR’s subsequent publications on the topic. However, progress in remedying the situation has been slow.

How will the Government devise a comprehensive social care strategy if they lack robust information about demand and provision, including information about the estimated 25% to 30% of adults in England who fund their own care? I stress “estimated” because we do not know for certain how many adults are currently in receipt of care. How will the Government proceed if they cannot meaningfully compare public spending on different types of social care services in different places and connected with different providers for cohorts of working-age adults with different needs; and, crucially, if they lack access to reliable data about the quality of care currently provided, as laid bare in the Homecare Association’s recent report on the subject? Can the Minister provide some reassurance and confirm whether the Government intend to continue implementing the Care Data Matters road map and, if not, let us know what will replace it?

If I were to make one suggestion, I would recommend that the Minister make full use of provisions in Part 2 of the Health and Care Act 2022 and immediately mandate the collection of timely, standardised data, including financial data, from social care providers that wish to be registered with the CQC or take receipt of public funds in connection with service provision—or, better, extend the scope of those powers to help them better understand the unregistered and private care market. This should be accompanied by a commitment to reciprocity to help providers make the most of data sharing to improve provision.

In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of investing in data-driven and tech-enabled care, otherwise we are apt to neglect a dynamo which could drive up productivity in a sector beset by growing workforce shortages and, crucially, unmet need. The Government could instead support economic growth in the UK by investing in CareTech research and development to capitalise on the one global market that is guaranteed to expand over the coming years. The Minister could usefully support initiatives such as Care City and the social care test bed anchored by the University of Liverpool’s Civic Health Innovation Labs, working in partnership with the National Care Forum, in the interests of making swift progress. The time for procrastination has long since passed.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I completely agree with him about the importance of technology and data, and will refer to it later in my contribution. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. She and I first got to know each other very well during the pandemic, because we were officers of the All-Party Group on Coronavirus, which had a busy time—we can probably leave the rest of it there. I also know about her passion for social care. She is a very welcome addition to your Lordships’ House.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield on securing this important and timely debate. She rightly said that the debate must be reframed, and this has been reflected in the thoughtful contributions from so many Members of your Lordships’ House. I also thank the House of Lords Library and the many organisations that have sent us briefings.

Our Lib Dem leader, Sir Ed Davey, made social care a core policy for the Lib Dem manifesto in the recent election. His experience as a child carer when his mother was ill and dying, as well as his parental role as a carer to his lovely son John, means that he knows at first hand how vital social care is, especially the role of unpaid carers. It is good that a party leader has put forward such a comprehensive package of measures to increase support for the vital work that unpaid carers do. I think this is the first time in living memory that one party has had social care as its principal policy.

The Lib Dems also point out that the current structures of the health and social care systems, as well as the failures in the structural funding of social care, have brought the sector close to catastrophic failure. It is worth going back and reflecting briefly on the Dilnot report, commissioned by Labour and published in 2010, just as the general election happened. That led all three major parties to agree to work together to accept it; that acceptance happened by 2013. Legislation even went through, and the Queen signed the Bill. As Sir Andrew said in a podcast,

“in politics 101, you learn that once the Queen has signed the Bill, you’re over the line”,

but after the 2015 general election, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed it until 2020. Five years later, there is still no change.

The Dilnot commission recommended a partnership model with a much more generous means test and a lifetime cap of between £25,000 and £50,000 on social care costs, to ensure that the state steps in when people face catastrophic costs that cannot be planned for. Sir Andrew said:

“It was a recommendation for social insurance, collective provision, with a relatively large excess”.

That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for his contribution on the need for nationally funded insurance in the future. We have heard him speak of this regularly during the passage of the Health and Care Act and on various other occasions. Will the Government now look at this?

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, outlined the financial problems that local authorities have with the 20% drop in accessible money. This is compounded by the fact that, as a result of demographic changes, the number of those needing care is continuing to increase. We are nowhere near the peak yet.

One key point that has not really been covered so far today is that disabled people’s care is treated the same as elderly care. It is certainly completely inappropriate to use the same financial systems. When the Government come to look at whatever the new financial systems are, will they use a different frame for young adults with disabilities, who do not have years of working behind them to have their own home and other resources?

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, spoke of the need for dementia training for all care workers, and she is right. The social care sector needs to learn from good practice, but dementia training should be compulsory.

Many noble Lords have already commented on the workforce issues. I will not cover those again, but I note that 25% of the workforce is not British and 27% of the workforce is aged 55 or over, compared with 31% of the workforce across the economy. This is particularly worrying, as our demography means the need for skilled care workers will increase. There will be a horrible hole in a very short period.

It was good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that the Rayne Foundation will provide grants for workforce improvement. I hope that demography among the workforce will be looked at.

As many noble Lords have said, we must professionalise the roles in care. We need regulation—my party favours a royal college of care—but also progression and career pathways, including apprenticeships and innovative schemes to make it attractive to young people. In the Netherlands, some care homes now offer free accommodation and 10 hours’ work per week to local students to live on-site. Not only does this help students see the reality of social care, but there have been two unexpected benefits that may surprise us. First, some of the students have changed their entire view about what they want to do after they graduate and are now working in social care. Secondly, the engagement of young people living in the home means that residents’ health is improving, including slowing down dementia.

I am reminded of a project I saw in Japan 20 years ago, where a group of 80 year-old war widows got together to do about five hours’ work a week, to give themselves some money to be able to communicate with families who lived off the island that they lived on. Their GP said their care needs went down 30%. Why do we not learn from that?

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also talked about healthy living and social prescribing. Its substantial increase over the last four or five years is one thing that the last Government got really right.

My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester spoke of the breadth of skills and the attitudes of excellent carers. We should celebrate them and their contribution to individuals, but we must remember that they also contribute to society as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, talked about the need for outcomes regulation, but that will not happen without the shift that he also discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, talked about good practice in his local area, but I also argue, as my noble friend Lady Thomas did, for the need for lifetime home standards in new homes—M4(2)—which would transform the lives of elderly people and stop them having to move out of their own homes. This goes way beyond the area of social care, but it could transform it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, talked about early intervention for people, and she is right that that will certainly reduce the need for care. The increasing use of fracture clinics, not just to mend the bones but to invite physios and occupational therapists to work with people after their first fall, is reducing falls in later life once people are home.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, is right that there is no need for a commission—many noble Lords have said that—but we have to reframe a national care service on a par with the NHS. It should not be the whipping boy. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, is right that local services are vital in that. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, was also right to speak about funding.

I thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford’s care covenant was interesting. The Church of England’s policy working group, with its excellent values-based dialogue, is really important—as is kindness, which perhaps the CQC ought to look at. If you go into a home and see kindness, you know that, if it is led from the top, it pervades everything that happens in that home.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke of effective data. Thanks to Skills for Care, we have excellent workforce data, but he is right that we also need demand data.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about an effective integrated service. She is right that it works. The problem is the funding structures; they are a real issue. For example, in my mother’s last days, my brother and I witnessed the argument between the NHS and the local authority about whether her nursing needs in the care home were as a result of dementia or the fact that her osteoporosis had cracked her vertebra. That was a ridiculous debate. She was an elderly lady who needed nursing care, and that problem should not have been going on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is also right that resources must be shifted from the NHS to social care. I do not want to hear another Minister say that delayed discharges are the problem. Every single NHS Minister says that, but they never actually tackle the problem, which is to change social care.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for the warning about what is happening in Scotland. We should learn from those errors, too.

Many others have spoken about unpaid carers. Although I have already covered that with the work that our leader does, we absolutely know that we will fail our carers if we do not identify carers of all ages. We must commit to secure funding for care services, otherwise we will push them to the limits. That is particularly important for young carers because of the risk to them of losing their education and other support systems.

If we are the usual suspects on social care, it is time that Ministers started to listen. We have not discussed housing, transport or community activities—all those will also help. Labour’s response since the election has been disappointing, and I hope that the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that things will happen under this Government is true, because the time for action is now.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for bringing this important debate to the House today. I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, to the House and congratulate her on her maiden speech.

It is estimated that 10 million of us are affected by adult care services in England at any one time. It is fair to say that there are few of us whom this issue does not touch. We saw that very clearly today when seeing and hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. Personally, it was lovely to see her in the Chamber once again, even though she was on a screen. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made it very clear how important adult social care services are. Yet this is a sector facing profound challenges, and the Government are failing at the moment to provide detailed and costed plans on how they will support the social care system as it performs this most vital role.

The Opposition have concerns about the Government’s approach to adult social care for four key reasons. Many of the Government’s pledges lack detail, including on how exactly they will be delivered and funded; the Government’s policies fail to focus on the immediate challenges faced by the sector, with very little information on how the immediate industry stressors will be resolved; the Government have failed to set out a plan to end our reliance on foreign workers to fill vacancies in the social care sector; and they have failed to set out plans to recognise and support—as we have heard clearly today—unpaid carers. I urge the Government to listen the concerns of noble Lords in today’s debate and to take a pragmatic, detail-orientated and financially sound approach to reforming the social care system in England.

We have heard several pledges from the Government. The Labour manifesto pledged a “fair pay agreement”, with terms for pay and conditions, and training standards for adult social care workers. The Labour manifesto also included an aim to create a national care service and a “new legal right” for people in residential care to see their families. While these may be admirable statements, at the moment they lack crucial detail.

The “fair pay agreement” is set to be enmeshed in the Employment Rights Bill. However, this Bill is only being introduced to Parliament today. Although we welcome the Government’s intention to ensure fairness in the pay, conditions and training of carers, it is a shame that they have taken so long to publish the Bill, thereby failing to give the House ample time to examine the contents of the Bill before today’s debate.

It is also crucial that the Government focus on those who receive care, not just the workers in the sector. Can the Minister confirm to the House what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that social care bills are affordable and that the services that people receive in the social care system are of the highest quality?

Given this lack of detail, it is unclear whether the Government have considered the most basic of governmental truths, “What is spent must be funded”. Unless pay increases for carers are matched by an adequate increase in local government funding, as we have heard, and direct financial support for older people, care providers and local council budgets will be further squeezed.

Regarding the national care service, there is little available detail on how this will evolve, how it will be set up or how much it will cost. Can the Minister confirm when we will see further plans for this service?

The Prime Minister has said that the Government are building a 10-year plan for healthcare reform which they expect to publish in spring 2025, after consultation. Although I am sure that this House will appreciate the need for a considered and long-term approach to social care, so any new system will be equipped to handle the care needs of an ever-ageing population, there are many pressing issues facing social care now.

With the Employment Rights Bill only just introduced, scant detail on the proposed national care service and the 10-year plan not due to be published for several months, it seems that the Government have no immediate plans to improve the state of social care in England.

In the year 2023-24, there were record levels of international recruitment for social care workers, while the sector struggled to recruit and retain domestic employees. More specifically, 105,000 international recruits started direct care roles in the independent social care sector in 2023-24, whereas the number of people in the workforce with British nationality shrunk by 30,000. Over the last two years, 185,000 international recruits joined this sector and the number of British workers fell by 70,000.

Clearly, the social care sector could not function today without the wonderful contribution of workers from overseas. We must be grateful to those who come from overseas to provide these vital services. Without them, many people would simply not receive the care they need.

However, in their manifesto, the Government pledged to

“end the long-term reliance on overseas workers in some parts of the economy by bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as health and social care, and construction”,

and to “reduce net migration”. The Opposition must ask the Government how they intend to honour their manifesto commitment to deliver lower immigration and wean the social care sector off overseas workers?

The 2021 census found that approximately 4.7 million people were providing unpaid care in England. This represented around 9% of the entire population and, as we have heard today—I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for making this very clear—that includes children. The report from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, noted the “huge contribution” of unpaid carers. It called for a “fresh approach” so that the NHS can provide unpaid carers with support and treat them as an “equal partner” when working up care plans. However, the fantastic work of these truly selfless and very kind people is notably absent from the Government’s social care reforms. What steps are the Government taking to better recognise the invaluable contribution that unpaid carers make in our society?

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will provide greater detail on what the “fair pay agreement” and the National Care Service involve, and when can this House expect to see a detailed cost analysis of the proposed social care reforms? Do the Government have any policies currently in play that will ease immediate pressures on the social care sector in England? I reiterate my earlier question: how do the Government intend to honour their manifesto commitment to deliver lower immigration and wean the social care sector off overseas workers? Finally, how are the Government going to support unpaid carers and ensure that their voices are heard during the creation of care plans?

Having a functional, efficient and, above all, compassionate social care system in England is of critical importance to all of us. Without this, there will be no way to relieve the strain on the NHS, which is currently treating those who would be much better served by local community care services. The Opposition urge the Government to listen to our concerns and urgently provide this House with detailed, costed and pragmatic plans for the social care sector in England.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for securing this important debate—and very timely it is too, at the beginning of a Government’s time. I also thank noble Lords from across the House for their contributions. There was reference to the usual suspects being an extended group, and I certainly welcome that. I have noticed how balanced the numbers of contributions from all sides have been, which is not always the case when it comes to debates, particularly of this nature, and that chimes very well with the approach of this new Government.

It is a particular pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her maiden speech. Of course she chose this debate to make it. I would have expected nowhere else, because she brings tremendous experience, insight and sensitivity to this subject, and many others, and I am sure that we will hear much from her.

I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to social care, but also to acknowledge the role of unpaid carers. Like other noble Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was very specific in her title, and I will attempt to do justice to the title as I continue.

I share, as have other noble Lords who have said similar, my tribute to all those who provide care and support for family and friends, both those who are unpaid carers and those who work as care professionals. I use the word “professionals” deliberately, because they make a vital contribution to communities and the well-being of individuals up and down the country. They show tremendous dedication and skill in doing so.

It is important to note that today also marks World Mental Health Day. As I hope noble Lords are aware, improvement of mental health outcomes is an absolute priority for this Government. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley was quite right to speak about the impact on the mental health of carers.

I turn to what our approach will be and the state of social care. I, like other noble Lords, acknowledge the current state that we have inherited coming into government. People are suffering without the care that they need. They are fighting complicated and complex systems, as noble Lords have described, often just to receive a quality of care that is not what it should be. There are inconsistent standards and chronic staff shortages, and people are not always treated with the care, dignity and respect that they deserve. In his independent investigation into the National Health Service, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, outlined that, in recent years:

“Social care has not been valued or resourced sufficiently, which has both a profound human cost and economic consequences”.

We are all living longer, and that is increasing the demand for adult social care services. For the first time ever, in 2022-23, over 2 million requests for adult social care support were received by local authorities. The London School of Economics projects that demand for publicly funded social care will rise by 43% between 2018 and 2038, as a direct consequence of the demographic pressures to which noble Lords have referred.

Despite growing demand, access to local authority-funded adult social care has declined, as the number of people receiving long-term care has decreased since 2015-16. This is our starting point, along with the economic situation in which we find ourselves, including the £22 billion black hole. It is against that context that we will tackle this issue.

While there is no doubt about the appalling state of adult social care at present, there were a number of questions about a royal commission. We will be setting out the next steps—I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on this—to build consensus on a long-term plan and comprehensive strategy. That will be through a process of consensus called for by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, which engages stakeholders and those with lived experience, and is cross-party. That is why I take particular pleasure in hearing contributions from around the House today.

It is important to remember—the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and my noble friend Lady Warwick made this point—that social care includes around 300,000 working-age disabled people who, without social care, would not be able to lead their lives, contribute to society and, in some cases, participate in employment. My noble friend Lady Warwick referred to a wish to see the ability to lead a gloriously ordinary life, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, talked about the need for flexibility. Both are absolutely right, because that is what social care should do. Our ambition is for care to be tailored to people’s needs and circumstances, and to be delivered by a professional, qualified and valued workforce.

It is important that social care prevents people developing more acute needs, rather than intervening just at the point of crisis. Let us also consider the contribution to the economy and the potential for growth. With more than 1.5 million staff, the adult social workforce is larger than those of the NHS and the construction and transport industries.

As I mentioned earlier, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who also spoke of the need for working collaboratively. My honourable friend the Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock MP, has already held two significant round-table meetings, one with people with lived experience and unpaid family carers, and another with key stakeholders in the sector. I mention it because this will be the way that this Government continue to address the challenge that we have before us.

What will the government action be? The 10-year plan will set out what joined-up looks like. My noble friend Lady Thornton raised some first-rate examples, particularly focusing on the way that the Whittington assists with support for social care, and I am grateful to her for that.

Here is what we will do. We will move from treatment to prevention. We will support local systems to prioritise early intervention, to begin to address unmet care needs and reduce the pressure on the health service and other services. There will also be a shift from hospital to home, which noble Lords have called for, and more care in the community. We will see more neighbourhood health centres, which bring together a range of services to ensure that, under one roof, healthcare is closer to home. There will also be a shift, called for in today’s debate, from analogue to digital: I can assure noble Lords that we are exploring how to build on existing progress towards digitising social care records.

On housing, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, rightly made the point that it is about having the right housing for the right time in our lives. This Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes over this Parliament to ensure that people have access to quality housing, and that will support people to live independently in a place that they can call home.

In the course of the debate, there has been much reference to the Government’s plans for a national care service: I have heard enthusiasm, caution and concern, which covers the whole range. This Government are fully committed to building a national care service. This will be one where care is delivered locally and will be what people need, but it will be based on national standards to improve the consistency of care. I believe that that will help to build trust and give reassurance on the quality of care being received by those who need it and will build confidence and trust among their families and carers.

I turn to the workforce. My noble friend Lord Turnberg was right to say that staff are undervalued. As I said in my opening speech, we want to see care and support workers regarded as professionals and for those who work in care to be respected accordingly. We will establish the first ever fair pay agreement for those working in adult social care. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, described care workers as truly being on the front line—I recall that she said that they are worth their weight in gold, and I understand why she says that. We will engage with those working in the social care profession, and with the trade unions, stakeholders and providers, in order to make sure that we can have that agreement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked how funding will happen. We will consult widely on how we design the fair pay agreement, because we have to engage with all those who will be affected by it. I can give an assurance that all voices will be heard, so we can ensure that the financial impacts on the adult social care market, local government and self-funders will all be considered. I am pleased that the Government are fulfilling a manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation in the first 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill. That signals the first phase of delivering an adult social care fair pay agreement.

In addition, since entering government we have launched the learning and development support scheme, helping care workers and their managers to complete courses and qualifications, gain recognition for existing expertise and develop new skills and specialisms. We will continue to develop the care workforce pathway, which is a new national career structure for adult social care. Again, noble Lords are absolutely right to call for this.

I turn now to another crucial part of the debate, unpaid carers. There are 4.7 million unpaid carers in England providing unpaid care for those they want to ensure live the best life they can. Some 1.4 million are providing more than 50 hours per week. The noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about 3,000 of those being five to nine year-olds. I absolutely agree that their needs are entirely different, so NHS England will support the ongoing identification of young carers by producing young carer GP guidance and using data to inform greater join-up between health, education and social care, in order to support those families where it is needed.

Unpaid family carers have to look after their own health and well-being, not just that of those they care for, and they must have the support to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, was clear that a “fresh approach” is needed to improve support for unpaid carers and the outcomes for those they care for. We will be carefully considering those findings as part of our 10-year plan and as we develop the plans to reform adult social care.

I want to assure noble Lords today that we have heard the calls, including from my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Keeley, for a cross-government carers strategy. This has to be addressed in the wider context of an urgent need for a renewed vision of adult social care. As we do that, we will consider how we can best support unpaid carers, because we are committed to ensuring that families have the support they need. We will be collaborating with our counterparts across government, unpaid carers and sector partners to make sure that unpaid carers are visible and not “rubbed out”—as the experience of one unpaid carer was described; and I am sure that they are not alone—and that they are supported.

May I, too, give a virtual hug to my noble friend Lady Donaghy? She is probably a bit overwhelmed, but in my experience you can never have too many hugs.

I recognise that many unpaid carers can face challenges in balancing employment with caring. The Government’s plan to make work pay sets out an agenda to ensure that workplace rights will be fit for modern times and empower working people, including those who provide unpaid care. This Government are committed to delivering this plan in full, reviewing the implementation of carer’s leave and examining all the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and my noble friend Lord Dubs were right to emphasise the need for respite and carer breaks. The better care fund includes funding that can be used for carer support, including short breaks and respite services. I know it is not making the major difference noble Lords are seeking, and that will be part of our considerations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to financial support for unpaid family carers. Understandably, unpaid carers often turn to the benefits system for financial support. We will be keeping the carer’s allowance under review because we want to see whether it is meeting its objective to give unpaid carers the help and support they need and deserve.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and other noble Lords asked what the Government are doing about funding pressures. We recognise that local authorities are facing significant challenges in funding adult social care. We will be working closely with them because we acknowledge that the distribution formula has not been updated for a decade, and we will be working with Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Donaghy for acknowledging that the timing of the upcoming Budget constrains my ability to comment on funding, and I hope noble Lords will be kind and be sympathetic to that point.

My noble friend Lady Keeley raised the issue of those with autism. The number of people with learning disabilities or autism in mental health hospitals is unacceptable, and too many people are still being inappropriately detained. I look forward to our proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act to ensure that people get the support they need in the community.

My noble friends Lord Murphy, Lord Dubs and Lady Thornton gave great examples of good practice. I assure them and other noble Lords that we are looking at best practice and the reforms we will make for social care, the social care workforce and unpaid carers in order to change the landscape. It will not be easy. We start with a very challenging inheritance, to put it mildly, but we are determined to get there, and I am grateful to noble Lords today.