Lord Farmer (Con)

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 179 and 183 in my name. It might be a lighter-weight and shorter debate than the important debate we have just had. I should disclose that, taken together, these amendments are a slightly cut-down version of my Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill, my Private Member’s Bill, which secured top place in our ballot. I am, in effect, reintroducing it here given the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the Minister for Health and Social Care, was unable to support it when it was debated in September 2024. In those early weeks of the new Government, she said: “We need the time and we need to be able to roll out our own cross-government package of support for infants, children and families, as noble Lords have today asked us to do. This needs to be comprehensive, rather than piecemeal … the Bill … does not align with how this Government intend to deliver the comprehensive change that our children need”.—[Official Report, 6/9/24; col. 1369.] One year on from their election victory, I and many other noble Lords who spoke in that debate or who championed better, more systematic support in the first two years of children’s lives, and beyond that point, are keen to hear more about what the Government’s comprehensive package will look like, so these five amendments are probing amendments intended to encourage the Government to share their plans for both the Start for Life programme and the family hubs programme that is integral to its delivery and wider family support. It is also a second opportunity to reiterate the intention of that Bill then and these amendments now, which is not to specify what a service offer should look like but simply to require local authorities to publish information on that offer. A large body of evidence points to how critical the first 1,001 days of life, from conception to age two, are to children’s future well-being and the opportunities that they can take advantage of. These days are also filled with stress and worry, alongside much joy, for parents and carers, who often do not know what to expect, what is normal, how best to cope or where to turn for help. The Start for Life programme, based in DHSC, included universal support through the named services in Amendment 179. Again, the Start for Life offer is not the services themselves but rather the information that is published about what is available in terms of health visiting services, promoting positive relationships between infants and their parents or carers, mental health, and breastfeeding and other infant feeding services. Local authorities should also provide additional information on other services as appropriate, particularly maternity, which was not deemed to be in the scope of this Bill, as maternity is primarily about mothers’ health. As an aside, I argued good-naturedly with the legislation clerks that while the baby is inside and connected to the mother, its well-being is practically indivisible from maternal health, but legally that does not hold. I am not rearguing that now, simply explaining why maternity is not specified in the list. In the mess and the muddle of new babies, all families need to know what support is available and to be able to access it easily. Funding was specifically provided in the family hubs and Start for Life programme running in 75 local authority areas for expectant parents to receive a physical copy of their local Start for Life offer and to be able to find it online. However, without Amendment 179, future funding to provide that information is not guaranteed in whichever form is best once the very welcome 2025-26 settlement of £57 million provided for Start for Life by the new Government runs out. I will return to this subject in a moment. Amendment 180 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance to local authorities relating to their duties under the clause that Amendment 179 would insert. Current guidance is non-statutory. Amendment 183 gives accompanying interpretation for the terms used in these new clauses, and Amendment 182 makes provision for data protection. Finally, Amendment 181 requires the Government to publish an annual report that gives a national overview about the support provided in England for infants and their parents and carers, and the outcomes it is delivering. I turn back to my intent in tabling these five amendments. My Private Member’s Bill, which they are based on, was leftover business from the previous Parliament. An earlier Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill was poised to go through with much cross-party support in the other place but was pipped at the post by the snap election. I adopted this Bill because knowing what help is available for families in the early years is essential if they are to access and be connected with all that family hubs and the networks of support that they are at the heart of provide. Access, connection and relationships are the three guiding principles of the Government’s approach to family hubs. Here I declare again my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd. These amendments do not specify that these services must be provided, so this is not tying the Government’s hands with previous policy detail or incurring a large recurring annual cost. They simply require local authorities to publish what is available and make that information readily available, and the Government to publish that aggregated national information picture. I was heartened by the Government’s recent spending review, which committed to continuing investment in and expansion of the family hubs programme and to “working with parents to help give children the best start in life”. This wording is a little tantalising, though. How far up the age range does the best start in life go? Why has “Start for Life” been dropped from the programme name? I am looking at this optimistically. My hope is that there will no longer be what has proven to be a somewhat problematic divide between early years services for all and early intervention for families with older children. The Family Hubs Network organisation has become aware that some local authorities were forced to deprioritise the family hubs part of the family hubs and Start for Life programme because so much of the focus has been on Start for Life.