Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, which I do not expect, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 View all Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-I(a)(Corrected) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (21 Jun 2022)
Baroness Goudie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would substitute the qualification on the National and Cultural identity principles relating to the principle that everyone in Northern Ireland is free to express and celebrate that identity. The amendment would substitute the current limitation that this principle be subordinate to the “sensitivities” of persons with alternate national and cultural identity, with a limitation grounded in respect for the rights of others.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I will be moving the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, today, as she has Covid—she is very sorry not to be here. I will not speak as well as she would on these issues, but I will speak shortly and to the point, as I know that we are under time pressure.
Clause 1 provides that the office of identity and cultural expression may publish guidance on the duty to have regard to the national and cultural identity principles and other principles relating to national and cultural identity. Amendment 5 in this group provides that “other matters” include the
“effective implementation of international human rights standards relevant to cultural identity and language”.
This is to probe how strong the human rights framework is and whether this is incorporated in the work and language of human rights. I hope that the Minister might look at this and see if we could make the clause much better and warmer, so that more people feel that they could go with it. This amendment also fits in well with New Decade, New Approach.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support my noble friend in her amendment, but I will speak to Amendment 5 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. It is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and it provides that “other matters” include the
“effective implementation of international human rights standards relevant to cultural identity and language”.
It is a probing amendment, which emphasises the human rights standards that we have come to expect in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years.
In the Bill, Clause 3 on Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions includes reference to three specific international instruments, including the Council of Europe’s Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This clause requires the commission to provide advice, support and guidance on the effect and implementation of those instruments in relation to relevant language, arts and literature. I am aware that further amendments later on deal with that, but this is the only reference in the Bill to the wider human rights framework, so Amendment 5 would build on that. Do we need to look more closely at how relevant human rights standards will be embedded across the work of all the bodies established under the Bill?
Of course, this issue goes all the way back to the Good Friday agreement of 1998, a copy of which, by pure chance, I happen to have with me today. It says:
“The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights … with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency.”
It goes on to say:
“These additional rights reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and—taken together with the ECHR—constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.”
We have never had a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Over the last 25 years there has not been one. I blame my own Government as much as anybody else for that, as we should have had one. I suppose it is appropriate that the Minister’s colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, made a Statement a few hours ago in the House of Commons with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. I wonder whether, in answering us later, the Minister might touch on how important the ECHR is in Northern Ireland and say whether the announcement today will have any implications for Northern Ireland.
I also support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which widens the debate out to look at the future of other languages in Northern Ireland, including sign language, and what could be achieved.
I will make a general point. We are in Committee and are unlikely to be voting on the amendments, which are overwhelmingly probing amendments, but it seems to me that they have to be in the context of New Decade, New Approach, and as closely related to that agreement as possible. They might not be able to have every single word of it, but it was an agreement across the board in Northern Ireland among all parties represented in the Executive and the British Government, so I hope that when we table amendments we all have that important principle in mind.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I echo the sentiments in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Briefly, I repeat that of course we believe that it would have been hugely preferable for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive to be dealing with these issues today. As a strong believer in devolution, I always believe that these issues should be dealt with by the politicians closest to those who are involved. Indeed, I was speaking earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and confessing that it is difficult for people who are not from Northern Ireland to understand some of the sentiments and the passions that stem from this Bill.
As your Lordships’ Constitution Committee said in its brief report this week, it would of course be preferable for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly to have been dealing with these issues, but none the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, New Decade, New Approach was agreed by the majority—not all—of the parties in Northern Ireland. That was over two years ago and it is now extremely important that we make progress on these issues of identity and language.
The amendments in this group are probing amendments and are primarily about ensuring that the rights of others are respected and that promotion of one cultural and linguistic diversity does not lead to prejudices against the other. It is important that the “sensitivities” of others are not interpreted as encompassing prejudice or intolerance to another’s national or cultural identity. It is also important that proper consideration is given to any potential unintended consequences of the Bill. The word “sensitivities” risks being interpreted subjectively. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, suggested at Second Reading, it might be preferable to align the qualifications with the international standards set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have added my name to Amendments 5 and 6, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, are both probing amendments. I will concentrate my remaining on Amendment 6, which highlights the importance of remembering other languages used in Northern Ireland, including all spoken languages and sign language. It is important that the measures in the Bill do not lead to exclusion of the new communities in Northern Ireland, who do not have any particular affinity to either Irish or Ulster Scots. I am thinking of the fairly extensive Polish, Lithuanian and other eastern and central European communities, as well as the Chinese community, particularly in Belfast and Dungannon.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
The noble Lord is from Dungannon, I understand. No? Forgive me.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement made reference to
“the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including … the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.”
Can the Minister say whether thought has been given to developing a comprehensive and needs-based language strategy, which includes all the other languages used within Northern Ireland, including sign language?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the NDNA deal has been mentioned, as it often is. NDNA was not a single issue. There were many issues in that package. It is with some regret that we find that certain things are being plucked out and described as being agreed. It was all agreed in the context that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed and enacted as one package.
Having said that, to set the context, Amendment 1 would replace the current requirement for a person expressing identity and culture to have regard to the sensitivities of others with an obligation to respect their rights. Of course, we are not averse to this. There needs to be an examination of the merits of any limitation on cultural expression based on the sensitivities of others and vis-à-vis the rights of others.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said that
“consideration should be given to whether restricting the cultural expression and identity of one individual to accommodate the ‘sensitivities’ of another individual is a disproportionate interference with one or other’s right to freedom of expression”.
It is possible that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act and references to convention rights may provide more certainty in this regard. The term “sensitivities” could be construed in various ways. We need to eliminate the risk of the national and cultural identity principles being weaponised in order to interfere with the legitimate expression of, or suppress, unionist culture. What would taking account of sensitivities actually mean in real terms and in practice? Would this cover mere offences or basic intolerance of others? Surely there is a need to ensure that “sensitivities” captures only grievances based on substantive and recognised rights.
We are certainly not suggesting that the HRA or existing interpretation of convention rights are a panacea or a safeguard for our culture. One has to look only at the outworking of the parading issue in Northern Ireland, where the system is often seen to reward violence and restrict public expression and assembly. That, unfortunately, has been the norm for quite a while and gives us great concern.
While I am on my feet, I will speak briefly to Amendment 5, which would enable the office of identity and cultural expression to issue guidance on the implementation of relevant human rights standards. We are against this. In our view this amendment wrongly conflates the proposed operation of the office of identity with the separate and distinct roles of statutory bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
First and foremost, the role of the OICE should be to promote the different cultural and national identities in Northern Ireland. This amendment would open up the risk of the OICE assuming the role of enforcer rather than facilitator of culture and identity. Clause 3 already places the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner under an obligation to
“publish such advice, support and guidance … to public authorities in relation to … the effect and implementation of the international instruments”.
There would be the risk of duplication or conflict, not just between the regional statutory bodies but between the cultural bodies established under the Bill. This does not seem to be the best path forward.
Amendment 6 in this group is a probing amendment. It would
“require the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to develop a comprehensive language strategy to include other languages used in Northern Ireland.”
We are against this because we do not believe that this is the right vehicle to take forward progress on producing strategies for spoken and sign languages in Northern Ireland. Section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the NDNA commitments pertaining to the programme for government envisage this function remaining in the gift of devolved Ministers.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I wish to associate myself with those noble Lords who are sad that this is not being debated in the Assembly. Let me say how sad I am that it is not recognised by some in Northern Ireland that it is their responsibility to be part of that Assembly and that that is the deal. It is a deal that the rest of the United Kingdom, a little bit of which I hope to be able to speak for in this Committee, wants to hold them to instead of being held by them.
Secondly, I opposed the Government’s successful attempt to impose on Northern Ireland changes that were opposed by both communities. I thought that it was wrong. It is not subsidiarity and we should not have done it. However, in this case, we are having to discuss something that has been agreed in principle and which we must carry through. This is therefore a different circumstance, which is why we are doing this. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness who last spoke from the Opposition Bench.
I say to my noble friend that the reference to the European Court of Human Rights is important. It is extremely important that we tie this into the international agreements that we have. If I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I do not much mind what Mr Raab has said. The truth is that we signed up to it—we more or less invented it—and we did so to make sure that everybody stood to the same standards in this area. If ever there were a case for making sure that we insist on the standards enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, this certainly is it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I deeply regret that this issue is being dealt with here. It is obvious from the first quarter of an hour of debate, from the many local issues that have arisen, that local MLAs would understand the nuances far better. It is a crying shame that this is not being dealt with there.
I have one point to make to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. My party did not agree to New Decade, New Approach. In fact, I deeply regret a lot of the proceedings that led up to it and a lot of what is included in it because I fear that this Bill has within it the seeds of a grievance factory, where it is going to be very difficult to make everybody feel that their particularly identity is being represented. Indeed, it may be a shock to many that people do not go round the place wondering who they are each day; it is not something at the top of people’s agenda when they cannot even put money in the meter to keep their lights on. We must understand that it is not the sort of thing that is necessarily top of people’s agenda.
We must avoid two things. First, because this Bill is not subject to debate in the Assembly where implementation of it would take place, this House cannot amend it —because, if the Assembly is not there, the only process is here, and therefore we should not be afraid to do that. Secondly, and equally, we must be wary of imposing conditions that prove to be difficult for the Assembly.
I think there is some merit in what is suggested in Amendment 1. I take the point about other languages, but one has to be careful about who is included in that and who is not. Within the past 36 months, we have had the arrival on our shores of people from varying backgrounds—from Syria and Afghanistan—we have had a significant indigenous Chinese population for as long as I can remember, and we have had people coming from eastern Europe as part of the European Union for many years, who have built up considerable numbers, particularly in the past 15 years or so. So who is included in that and who is not is very difficult. I ask colleagues to bear those points in mind.
My noble friend Lord Morrow makes a valid point about the boundaries where one public body ends and another begins. There could be quite a lot of overreach and overstretch there. If an office dealing with identity issues becomes specifically involved in rights and equality, there is some overlap, but they would be two quite distinct areas, and we must take great care that we do not create a scrambled egg of bodies all competing about where the boundaries of their activities begin and end. I urge a bit of caution from the Minister in that regard.
Bearing in mind that it is a matter of very deep regret that we have to do this, I suggest that the one thing that we try to avoid is making things worse by confusing the role of one public body with another. I do not think it was ever the intention of the negotiators of New Decade, New Approach that the existing equalities and human rights commissions would be subject to override in this area. In the event that somebody feels that their human right has been overruled, they still have the opportunity to have their case taken up by those bodies. The right to do that is not conflicted in any way by anything in this, but we must avoid confusion. The existing lines are relatively clear, and I think we should adhere to them.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, once again we are dealing with an issue that was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Once again, the Government have taken it out of the hands of the Assembly. This has not just arrived since the last Assembly election; this was from before that. I remind some noble Lords that the history of this goes back to the previous three-year suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly by Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin would not come back into the Assembly but made certain demands before it would come back in. One of the demands was on the abortion legislation; it wanted abortion on demand. The second was an Irish language Act. It has to be admitted that it did not get an Irish language Act, because this is the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill, but nevertheless it was part of its demands.
The truth of the matter is that the Government yielded to the demands of Sinn Féin which is why we are having this debate here at Westminster. The new Assembly has certainly not been given the opportunity to debate it, because the Assembly election was just recently. With all the demands that are being made on public finances, I must say that, right across this legislation, I have deep concerns. When one bears in mind that people are fighting to pay their bills and all the demands on public finances at the present moment, I would certainly ask whether this is the best expenditure of public money at this particular time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken to the first group of amendments before us. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I place on record my sorrow that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, is not in her place today to move her amendments. I am sure that I speak for the entire Committee in wishing her a speedy recovery and quick return to your Lordships’ House.
I speak first to Amendments 1 and 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie—with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee for a number of months—for stepping in at a moment’s notice. In broad terms, these amendments seek to amend the Bill’s first clause so that the
“national and cultural identity principles”
provided for in new Section 78F inserted by that clause would respect the “rights of others” rather than taking
“account of … those with different national and cultural identities”,
as drafted in the Bill. Amendment 1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, would make this change, with the second providing a definition of the “rights of others”.
Although I understand the intent behind this amendment, I believe that this would not correctly reflect the national and cultural identity principles that were a matter of careful negotiation between those parties that agreed to New Decade, New Approach, and which are set out in paragraph 25 of that document. They were also set out in the same terms in the accompanying draft legislation that went with New Decade, New Approach. The provision in this Bill therefore reflects the terms under which the parties agreed New Decade, New Approach and re-entered the Executive in January 2020. It has been our approach throughout to reflect in good faith that agreement from January 2020, and I believe that it would be inconsistent with that approach if we were unilaterally to deviate from those principles today.
Amendments 5 and 6 seek to extend the remit of the office of identity and cultural expression. Amendment 5 seeks to include the effective implementation of relevant international human right standards and Amendment 6 would make provision on a comprehensive language strategy to include all spoken and sign languages used in Northern Ireland. As with the national and cultural identity principles, the role and remit of the office of identity and cultural expression have been carefully set out through New Decade, New Approach. I fear that these amendments would represent a deviation from the basis of NDNA; the Government are clear that they will not do this.
As some reassurance, I highlight that new Section 78H(4) will enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to direct the office of identity and cultural expression. They could use this power, for example, to give consideration to certain international standards that they deem relevant or to develop strategies, such as overall language strategies or those on sign language. Of course, they would need to fall within the framework of the principles themselves. In addition, the office itself could decide to consider international human rights standards in the advice and guidance that it provides. Of course, as a number of noble Lords have made clear, we would much prefer this to be taken forward not in your Lordships’ House but by a future Executive and Assembly.
Quickly on the ECHR and human rights, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, my noble friend Lord Deben and others that this Government remain absolutely committed to the Belfast agreement in all its parts. That includes the commitments on the ECHR. As for a Bill of Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, blamed his own Government as much as anyone for the lack of one. As I have always said, the agreement is somewhat ambiguously drafted as to how that should be taken forward, but the policy of successive Governments has been that it is primarily a matter for the Executive and the Assembly. New Decade, New Approach established a committee of the Assembly to look at how this issue might be taken forward.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 2
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Member's explanatory statement
This is part of a set of probing amendments. This is to probe the chosen definition of “public authority” in relevant Clauses.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thoughts to those of the Minister regarding my noble friend Lady Ritchie, who is seriously disappointed that she could not attend this session. She is on the mend and hopes that she can take part on Report.
Before moving on to Amendment 2, I have two general points on who should be doing this. Of course, I agree that it should not be us. When we put forward these ideas all those years ago in the Good Friday agreement and later in New Decade, New Approach, the idea that this should be done in the Moses Room of the House of Lords was anathema. But it has to be done, as the commitment has been made. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that his party had some reservations about New Decade, New Approach, but the agreement was made between the two Governments and is the only one we have before us. It at least forms the basis of this legislation. I also agree with him that, if there are amendments which improve the legislation and are acceptable across the board—that is the essence—I see no reason why we should not accept them.
I turn to the amendment on public bodies. Again, it is probing. Clause 1 of the Bill provides a strange definition of public authorities—those in Schedule 3 to the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, with the exception of the office of identity and cultural expression. Added to it are the commissioners themselves, the office I have just mentioned, the implementation body to which Part VI of the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 applies, and any body referred to in note 2 of the schedule.
I do not disagree with any of those bodies being named or relevant, but the purpose of the amendment is to see whether the legislation should go more widely than that—such as in Wales, for example, where United Kingdom government departments, as well as those of the Government of Wales, are subject to the Welsh Language Act within Wales. For example, if the NIO is a body operating in Northern Ireland specifically about Northern Ireland, should it be subject to the same regulations as a body defined in the legislation? The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has some doubts about that, because it is not named either as a public body under the definition of “public authority” in the legislation.
This is a probing amendment, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what was taken into account when deciding on the definition and what has been done to take note of possible gaps in it. I note the power of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to add or remove authorities from the list. Does the Minister believe that that power would have to be used often and, indeed, whether it should be there at all?
The other amendments in this group go into further detail on the meaning of “public authority” and the expectations and duty that such bodies will be under to engage with the framework and bodies established under the Bill. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply: should other public bodies be added to the list? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 39, which is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I echo what everyone has said: we wish her well and a speedy recovery. I know that, if the Minister does not tell her what she wants to hear, she will want to come back. I give him fair warning of that.
I believe this to be a reasonable and rational amendment that simply ties the charter convention already ratified by the United Kingdom into the language Bill. This charter is designed to protect and promote regional and minority languages and to enable speakers to use them in both private and public life. Furthermore, it obliges the state parties to actively promote the use of these languages—in education, courts, administration, media, culture and economic and social life—and cross- border co-operation.
The UK Government signed the charter in 2000 and it was ratified and came into force on 1 July 2001. The Government signed it in respect of Irish up to and including Article 7 of Part II and Articles 8 to 14 of Part III. As a matter of interest, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are also registered under Part III. Scots, particularly Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland, are registered under Part II, along with Cornish and Manx Gaelic in their respective jurisdictions.
The Good Friday agreement also included a commitment to “linguistic diversity”. COMEX—the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe—is tasked with monitoring how state parties comply with the treaty. Over five periodical reports it has been critical of the UK Government’s lack of compliance with the measures they signed up to in the convention. In its latest report to the UK Government, in March 2021, COMEX concluded:
“Therefore the Committee of Experts reiterates that an Irish Language Act would provide the basis for comprehensive and structured policy for the promotion of Irish in Northern Ireland, which would enable resolute action on the protection and promotion of Irish, in line with the United Kingdom’s undertakings under the Charter. In this context, the Committee of Experts considers that, even once the measures contained in the January 2020 agreement are enacted, there remains a need for a comprehensive Irish Language Act.”
The new clause proposed in Amendment 39 would ensure that the charter is finally included in UK legislation. I commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome the probing amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on some of the matters to do with public authorities. I have tabled a number of amendments, but I assure noble Lords that I am not going to say very much on any of the others, apart from Amendment 4.
Amendment 4 is important because it deals with the insertion of a new concept in legislation, through new Section 78F. It would require public authorities to have due regard to a requirement to strive for promoting parity of esteem. To most noble Lords, parity of esteem will sound wonderful and superficially attractive, but I believe that it is quite dangerous in substance. This concept of parity of esteem has long been a key part of the republican agenda, used as it is to cloak nationalist political demands in the language of individual rights.
I am going to quote from something that Gerry Adams said in 1998. I know that some Members here—probably the Minister himself—will say, “Well, for goodness’ sake, that was 1998. That was a long time ago”, but I think anyone who knows what is going on in Northern Ireland knows that what Gerry Adams said in 1998 he would still say today—and other people are saying it. He said then:
“Specifically, as part of the total restructuring of relationships one of the difficult issues to be tackled is that of cultural symbols and of flags and emblems. The institutional and official ethos of the northern state is British. This has to change. We must ensure that there is parity of esteem and a just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of all our people. This cannot be simply an illusion. It must be the reality. The responsibility for this change rests primarily with the British government.”
He continued:
“In practical terms where British national or cultural symbols are displayed on public buildings or in working environments equal prominence should be given to Irish national or cultural symbols as an immediate expression of parity of esteem. This includes working environments associated with the exercise of public authority – Council offices, courts, police service sites, civil service offices and QUANGOs.”
It is important that these words are looked at carefully. It is not equal treatment for all persons that is being sought. Let me be clear: everybody accepts that all citizens must be treated equally, regardless of any personal characteristics or political aspiration. However, it is the identity and ethos of all people that Sinn Féin demands must have equal prominence.
Put simply, Sinn Féin does not seek equal treatment for all individuals—that is different altogether. It seeks nationalist ideas and aspirations receiving parity. It is not about parity for the messenger; it is rather about parity for the message. The reality is that this is about diluting all sovereign expressions of British identity by developing a concept that requires that Irish national symbols must be given equal public prominence. That is entirely inconsistent with the principle of consent that mandates that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until the majority votes otherwise. The Sinn Féin version of parity of esteem would require the primacy of national identity to be diluted, turning Northern Ireland, in terms of its symbolic identity, into a hybrid British-Irish state. Yet here we have new Section 78F, which transports this Sinn Féin-contrived parity of esteem concept into Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, notwithstanding its complete inconsistency with the principle of consent enshrined in Section 1 of the 1998 Act.
What will requiring having due regard to this concept open the door to? Gerry Adams’s article says that it will mean a demand for the Irish flag to fly alongside the union flag anywhere where it is flying. It will mean that a picture of the Queen will have to be balanced with some republican figure—perhaps Michael Collins, I do not know—and this could go on and on. Of course, of all public bodies, the Northern Ireland Office should see the danger of this and the potential for constant litigation trying to push the boundaries.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I add my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and wish her well. This morning, she sent me an email saying that she is feeling a little better, but we are certainly missing her contributions to this afternoon’s debate.
I have added my name to Amendments 2, 20 and 37, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, are probing amendments to understand a little better from the Minister why this particular definition of “public authority” was chosen in the Bill. I want to add to the questions already asked by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Can the Minister expand on paragraph 23 of the Explanatory Notes and say what kind of circumstances he can imagine where public authorities would be added or removed as a result of this legislation? I should note that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has suggested that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act would provide a better, wider definition of “public bodies”. Does the Minister agree, and can he explain why that definition was not used in this Bill?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments 2, 20, 37 and 39. This set of probing amendments relates to the definition of public authorities that are subject to the Bill’s provisions. We are against it for the following reasons. We are convinced by the case for an expansionist approach to the range of public authorities captured by the Bill. Given the Minister’s insistence that the statement of funding accompanying the Bill does not give rise to any responsibility for the Government, it seems unconscionable that the Executive should have to bear the cost of UK-wide bodies adhering to requirements or requests issued by the offices created under the legislation. More than that, at a time of a crippling cost of living crisis and with mounting challenges facing our health service and criminal justice system, we believe that a precautionary approach is preferred.
Implementation should be targeted. We have consistently expressed concern about whether this legislation is proportionate or reflective of the priorities of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. There is a fear that expanding the extent even further would impact on public confidence. There is already concern about the framing of certain provisions, namely the identity and culture principles and their potential impact on competing fundamental freedoms. It may be prudent, therefore, to display caution and monitor the impact of the Bill before making further wholesale changes. There is already provision in the Bill allowing Ministers to amend the definition of “public authority” moving forward.
The proposed new clause in Amendment 39 would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is worth noting that the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner would already be under an obligation to advise on the effect and implementation of the charter under proposed new Section 78R(3)(a).
I am pleased to speak to Amendment 32 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds of Duncairn, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Hay of Ballyore. As I will reflect in more detail in the debate on subsequent groupings, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner depends not only on the commissioner having identical functions but on their being accorded equal importance, and on this equal importance being made manifest—certainly through each having a similar cost footprint, in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities. In this context, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner are given access to as robust an enforcement mechanism as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner.
In this context, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner, one of which we will address in this grouping and another in the eighth grouping. In my Amendment 32 in this grouping, a public authority is required by proposed new Section 78N to
“have due regard to any published best practice standards”
produced by the Irish language commissioner and to
“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”
this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner is similarly given the responsibility of issuing guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to their guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps they propose to take to comply with this duty.
I very gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded the other. This discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for his or her advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with his or her advice.
I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can have regarded the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in the Bill as anything other than discriminatory when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. I urge the Minister to recognise that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept this modest amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I note all the probing amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. Mr Adams has not gone away. He may not be the Dáil or the Assembly and he may not be here, but he has not gone away. Her point is quite interesting because the Belfast/Good Friday agreement enshrined the constitutional position very clearly. Mr Adams’s quote effectively ignores that and pretends that Northern Ireland is a condominium—in other words, a piece of territory that is being run by two other powers. The protocol is getting us into that sort of territory where we have rules made by a foreign power over which no one in this building has any say.
Dealing specifically with the noble Baroness’s point, I am not a lawyer, but we would need to be sure that there is not a gap in what we do through which some person can prosecute lawfare against the process. I take that point very clearly and will interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. There may be an unintended consequence, which is why I said at the outset that I fear a lot of this legislation and all these bodies have the potential to form a grievance factory. That is what I fear about this legislation.
I would have signed Amendment 32, had there been space, but my colleagues took it up. The fact is that there is an inequality. We can dress it up whatever way we like, but it is there. The perception is clearly that one section of the community with certain aspirations and cultural identities is to be treated in one way and another section is to be treated in another, subservient, way. Perhaps that is not the right word, but noble Lords know what I mean. That should be avoided at all costs, because it undermines any confidence that identity and so on has finally been addressed. We are creating a hierarchy here, and the lessons of recent history tell us that that is not a good thing to do.
With regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I would like an assurance from the Minister that no such premises will be left for people to pursue spurious cases or seek to pretend that the settlement that was entered into in 1998 has a clear constitutional position that is not subject to being equated with a constitutional position that does not currently exist. That is a real fear that that could arise.
I would also like the Minister to take away Amendment 32 and have a look at it, because I assure him that even those of us who are very unenthusiastic about all this are even less enthusiastic about having a hierarchy.
I shall also make a point about Mr Adams and his colleagues. If we go back to 1998 and the years leading up to that negotiation, at no stage whatever in those negotiations did his party seek an Irish language Act. They never put it on the table; they never asked for it. Its first iteration in a public document was at St Andrews, and it was a commitment by the UK Government, knowing full well that the subject was going to be devolved. Sinn Féin only got on the bandwagon after an SDLP Member of the Assembly—Patsy McGlone—put forward a Private Member’s Bill in the Assembly to bring in an Irish language Act. I am sure that the former speaker well recalls that. Sinn Féin did nothing in 1998 with regard to the Irish language Act; anything that we were asked to do in 1998 during the negotiations was done and implemented in full. I just put that point on the record.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, we are talking about equality and respect, but are we also talking about equality and respect for both regional and minority languages? I employ around 200 people across Northern Ireland. A few speak Lithuanian, a few speak Polish, but I am not aware of any who speak Irish. It is very important that we do not assist or encourage those who want to politicise the issue of the Irish language. I believe that there must be great respect for the Irish minority language in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that it is helped by those who try to politicise it. I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear that this legislation will not discriminate against minority languages and favour regional languages.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
Amendment 18 in this group would amend the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice Irish language standards from one of due regard. This proposal is not faithful to the drafting of NDNA, which states that one function of the Irish language commissioner is to consider
“complaints where a public authority has failed to have due regard to those standards.”
By implication, the duty on public authorities is not one of compliance but of due regard; that distinction must be respected. A duty for compliance would potentially require public authorities to adhere to specific guidance despite their being cogent reasons for not doing so. It is unclear whether this approach would lead to public authorities becoming legally liable for not acting on a consideration of competing human rights. A due regard duty is not a loose concept, as this amendment seems to imply. It means that a person under the duty is not free to disregard but must consider all relevant considerations.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I raised this issue in my Second Reading speech and I am happy to speak to these amendments and others on this issue. I really feel that it is important that we should have “comply with” and not “have due regard to” in the Bill. It is really important that people understand why we are doing this; if somebody needs only to “have due regard” to something, they just have to look at it. It is important that they should have to comply with best practice, and I would like to see that left in the Bill.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group, which broadly focus on the role of public authorities within the Bill including, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, made clear, how we have sought to define them. The debate has once again reinforced just how much better it would be if this were being debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly rather than in the Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House.
I speak first the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who cannot be here, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. Amendment 18 seeks to amend new Section 78N, inserted by Clause 2, so that public authorities would have to comply with the best practice standard, rather than have due regard to them, as the current provisions of the Bill require. I will also address Amendment 39, which seeks to place a duty on public authorities to comply with obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Again, I point the noble Baroness to New Decade, New Approach and the draft legislation published alongside it, with which this Bill is consistent. At the risk of repeating myself—I fear that I may have to do it again during the course of this debate—the Government are as far as possible seeking to retain the position reached in New Decade, New Approach, which was not to create a wider set of legal duties than has been proposed by these amendments.
I may offer some reassurance, though. In new Clause 78N(2), to be inserted in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by Clause 2, the Bill sets out that public authorities must “publish a plan” on how they intend to have due regard to the best practice standards; the commissioner must also be consulted on that plan. This seems to me to provide an assurance that public authorities will carry out their duties with rigour and with the support of the commissioner.
Amendment 21 seeks to widen the meaning of “public authorities” to include any UK-wide public authority that provides services to the public in Northern Ireland. New Decade, New Approach was clear that the Executive were to deliver this legislation. The UK Government have brought forward this Bill, which is based on legislation drafted for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The duties in the legislation that was published alongside New Decade, New Approach applied to the public authorities set out in Schedule 3 to the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. There was no such commitment for them to apply to a different range of public authorities.
In some cases, I recognise that public services may be administered on behalf of Northern Ireland departments by the UK Government or a third party through agency or other arrangements. This can be the case for online services, for example. If a designated Northern Ireland department or public body decided to commission out the delivery of a public service, it would still need to consider its duties in so doing; the public authority concerned may decide that this requires it to ensure that the body delivering the services offers provision in the Irish language, for example. I hope that this provides some reassurance on the issue.
Amendment 39 would solely amend the provision on the designation of public authorities in respect of the Bill’s Irish language clause. It would not do the same for the provision on the national and cultural identity principles overseen by the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, nor the measures associated with the Ulster-Scots and Ulster-British tradition. Making differential provision on the public authorities designated under various parts of this cultural framework would undermine the fact that this is a balanced package. That was the clear intention in New Decade, New Approach.
I will now speak more broadly to Amendments 2, 20 and 37, which seek to probe the definition of “public authorities” set out in the Bill. The definition used to define “public authorities” for the purposes of the Bill was taken, as with many other parts of the legislation, from the draft legislation that was published alongside New Decade, New Approach; that legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel at Stormont at the request of the UK Government back in January 2020. I suggest to noble Lords that the range of public authorities brought under the remit of this Bill, from district councils to universities and health trusts, is substantial. We are confident that the approach in the Bill captures the vast majority of public authorities with which the public in Northern Ireland would interact and from which they would receive services.
As noble Lords have pointed out, there is also further provision in the Bill for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to designate additional authorities or specified functions of them should that be required over time. We have ensured that the power for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to designate public authorities are consistent with what the position would have been had the Northern Ireland Assembly, rather than this House, passed the legislation published alongside New Decade, New Approach. In response to an earlier question, the criteria really would be a matter for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Executive to determine. We therefore consider that it would be inconsistent to expand the definition of “public authorities” beyond that set out in the draft legislation published alongside New Decade, New Approach.
Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and his Democratic Unionist Party colleagues seeks to create an additional legal duty on public authorities in respect of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition and guidance published by the associated commissioner. I point out gently that New Decade, New Approach was very clear that the roles and functions of the two commissioners—the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for the promotion of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition—would be different. The provision for both is therefore different, including in respect of duties.
The language commissioner’s role pertains to matters of language alone. Their work focuses on best practice standards on the Irish language for public authorities to follow in providing services to the public. It is understandable that a corresponding legal duty would be needed in this case. By comparison, the commissioner associated with the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition will have a far more wide-ranging role than their Irish language counterpart, going beyond language, as we will probably discuss later, into arts and literature. The proposed legal duty on this wider range of activities would go far beyond the matter of services provided to the public, unlike those on the Irish language best practice standards.
The Bill does, however, provide for the commissioner to provide advice and guidance to public authorities, promote awareness of Ulster Scots services and receive complaints where a public authority has not had due regard to their guidance. There is also, as noble Lords will be aware, a specific legal duty in Clause 5 on the Northern Ireland Department of Education to
“encourage and facilitate the use and understanding of Ulster Scots in the education system”.
Again, this reflects a specific New Decade, New Approach commitment. We hope it will result in Ulster Scots rightly being reflected through the education system, going some way to address the difference in existing legislation, where similar provision has already been made for Irish-medium education. The Government believe that the existing provisions in the Bill will correctly support the development of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition and the Irish language respectively, and will do so consistently with New Decade, New Approach, which was agreed by the two main parties which negotiated it between 2017 and 2020.
Finally, Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to address concerns raised in an article written over the weekend in a publication called Unionist Voice. Indeed, her speech followed the argument contained in that article very closely. For the benefit of those noble Lords who have not read it, the article suggested, as the noble Baroness made clear, that the Bill could require the Irish tricolour to be flown alongside the union flag on public buildings in Northern Ireland. This is not the case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue because it allows me the opportunity to state clearly before the Committee that, in the view of the Government, the article was inaccurate and fundamentally misunderstands the provisions in the Bill.
The Bill does not change the existing law on flag flying from government buildings in Northern Ireland. As I have said many times before, it faithfully delivers on the legislative commitments in New Decade, New Approach. Noble Lords will be aware that the existing flag regulations provide for the union flag, as the national flag of Northern Ireland, to be flown from Northern Ireland government buildings and courthouses on certain occasions, as well as the Royal Standard or the national flag of a visiting head of state. For police buildings, different regulations provide that the PSNI flag and, on certain occasions, the Royal Standard are the only flags that may be flown. In both cases, the law otherwise prohibits the flying of flags. That will remain the case. No provision will be made by this Bill in respect of flying another flag alongside the union flag. I should point out that a number of court judgments over the years have upheld the present law on the flying of the union flag.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred—as did the article over the weekend—to a speech made by Mr Gerry Adams in 1998. I assure the noble Baroness that, to the best of my knowledge, Mr Adams does not direct UK government policy when it comes to the flying of flags in Northern Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom for that matter.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Can he just tell the Committee why the Northern Ireland Office paid out a substantial sum of money to an individual who was offended by there being a picture of Her Majesty the Queen in the Northern Ireland Office?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very familiar with that case, because I was an adviser in the Northern Ireland Office at the time. It was the subject of legal proceedings and, if the noble Baroness will bear with me, I do not really want to reopen what was settled in court. The matter was subject to a court case, and she is well aware of the outcome.
My noble friend Lord Empey and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, talked about the status of Northern Ireland. I can give an assurance that I have given many times before: the Belfast agreement is extremely clear, in the section dealing with constitutional principles, and it does not establish Northern Ireland as a hybrid state or a condominium. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom on the basis of consent. However, the Belfast agreement does contain—as those noble Lords present who helped to negotiate it will attest—important commitments around parity of esteem, which were a central part of the agreement in 1998.
But, as has been stated many times, the regulations relating to the flying of the union flag reflect, and are consistent with, Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom—a position which, I assure noble Lords present, this Conservative and Unionist Government fully support.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am old enough to have been through all the debates on the flags. There was no doubt whatever that what was being upheld was the flag of the United Kingdom, to be flown in circumstances in which it was the flag of the whole United Kingdom, and not to be used for sectarian purposes. That was what the argument was about. It has been supremely successful. It is our flag, and it is flown in the north of Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. It is a pity to worry people unnecessarily because of some comment made 24 years ago by somebody who would have said that anyway. No one has listened to him since on that matter.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, who makes a very powerful point. I agree with him entirely on those matters. The national flag—the union flag—is the flag of Northern Ireland. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that will undermine the position of the union flag or force anybody to fly an Irish tricolour—or any other flag, for that matter—alongside it.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
I have very bad hearing, and I did not hear whether the noble Lord used the Sinn Féin term of “north of Ireland” or “Northern Ireland”. Which was it?
Lord Deben (Con)
I was talking about Northern Ireland, which is the constitutional phrase for the six counties which make up—
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I think we should probably move on. In summary, the provisions of the Bill—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Before we move on, because these matters are important, there is a report, I think in today’s newspapers, about the reduction in the number of days on which the union flag will be flown officially in Northern Ireland—albeit it appears to be related to a general reduction across the United Kingdom, so Northern Ireland would be in line with the rest of the UK. Can the Minister comment on whether this report is correct—that there will be a number of official days removed from the calendar for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Lord Caine (Con)
I can: there has been a review of the number of days on which the union flag is flown officially throughout Great Britain. There has been a reduction in the number of such days, and that will be reflected in Northern Ireland legislation which I will bring before your Lordships’ House fairly soon. All that is doing is ensuring that Northern Ireland is in step with the rest of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, the provisions of the Bill do not have the effect that has been suggested in the noble Baroness’s speech, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a few brief points to make. At the moment, 1998 appears to be a favourite date. I reflect on the fact that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was the last Act that I took through Committee from the Front Bench, 25 years ago—it did reflect the agreement, of course.
I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on how much about the Irish language was mentioned in the Good Friday agreement; it was not reflected in the 1998 Act, of course. What we did say—I was responsible for these issues 25 years ago—was that the British Government would take “resolute action” to promote the Irish language; they had in a previous paragraph referred to Ulster Scots but also, interestingly, to the languages of other ethnic minorities, by which I suppose they mean the languages of Chinese minorities, for example. The only statutory duty was placed
“on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education in line with current provision for integrated education”.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is therefore right that this was not legislated for by way of an Irish language Act but, of course, things changed later with the St Andrews agreement, where further details emerged about what should or should not happen to the Irish language Act. The difference between that agreement and this agreement is what we are dealing with today, I suppose. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the need for equality of treatment for both traditions and languages. We should not deviate from that principle at all.
I am still a bit puzzled about why the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is not covered by this legislation—or, for that matter, the Northern Ireland Office. The Minister will of course know that the Welsh Language Act 1993 is applicable to the Wales Office, the equivalent territorial department, even though the Wales Office is a United Kingdom Government department with a small office in Wales and an office in Whitehall.
We have had some interesting debate on this issue. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Before we come on to Amendment 7, I should announce that Amendment 43A, to be debated with this group, has been corrected and is now printed on a separate supplementary sheet.
Amendment 7
Lord Morrow
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would revise the title of the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions within the Bill. It would remove references to the purpose of the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Commissioner from its title in parity with the position adopted toward the Irish Language Commissioner.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Not moved. Oh, sorry—I was not listening intently. I beg your pardon. I will move my amendment; noble Lords might regret this.
In moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 22 in my name and that of my colleagues. One of the most egregious manifestations of careless discrimination in this Bill finds expression in the proposal to afford the Irish language commissioner a sensible title while affording the Ulster Scots/Ulster British traditions commissioner an absurdly wordy title that invites mockery rather than respect—
“the Commissioner for the enhancement and development of the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition”—
compared with “the Irish Language Commissioner”.
In the first instance, it is unwieldy. Rather than using it, people will call the commissioner something else. In the second instance, when set against the crisp title of “Irish Language Commissioner”, it will become just a joke. In the third instance, the length has the effect of narrowing and truncating the function of the commissioner in a way that makes no sense. The Government have recognised that Ulster Scots is a national minority in the framework convention for national minorities and is subject to its obligations and those associated with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In a context where we are supposed to be concerned about upholding parity of esteem, affording one community a commissioner with a serious, credible title and the other community one with a ridiculous, truncated title is as transparently discriminatory as it is absurd.
Unionists will not be disrespected in this way and will settle for nothing less than an equally credible title to that afforded the Irish language commissioner. We suggest the “Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions commissioner”. Of course, the term “Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition” is already used in the Bill so linking it to the commissioner makes sense. There is, however, the need for a further, very modest amendment, which amounts simply to the adding of an S. The phrase “Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition” is problematic because it suggests that Ulster Scots and Ulster British are a single tradition. That is erroneous and needs to be changed.
Ulster Scots is one of the three traditional strands of cultural identity present in Ulster and, in turn, Northern Ireland since the early 1600s. The earliest written use of the term “Ulster Scot” in relation to the community dates to 1640. The historically minded will immediately notice that the Ulster Scots community as a distinct group actually pre-dates the United Kingdom, which did not come into existence until 1707. The Ulster Scots community has a rich heritage and culture and its own language, a local variant of the Scots language.
The two historic minority cultures in Northern Ireland are Irish and Ulster Scots. There are, however, people from the indigenous community in Northern Ireland who do not identify as either Irish or Ulster Scots. They are from the broad unionist community and refer to themselves as “Ulster British”. This terminology is much more recent but it is nevertheless strongly held by those who identify with it, including the Orange Order, which is one of Northern Ireland’s largest community organisations. It is worth noting that there is no animosity between those who identify as Ulster British and those who identify as Ulster Scots. Much Ulster Scots cultural activity happens in Orange halls and many individual Orange Order members are Ulster Scots. It is simply that not everyone in the community has Scottish roots or identifies as an Ulster Scot.
It is important to ensure that there is a cultural space for those who identify as Ulster British and that they are not excluded from protection or support simply because they do not identify as Ulster Scots. In seeking to curate this space, however, we must not inadvertently muddy the waters in relation to Ulster Scots, and that is what the Bill is in danger of doing, in suggesting that it can be collapsed into Ulster British and vice versa.
Ulster Scots was well known in Northern Ireland up until the 1960s. But during the Troubles all the cultural emphasis moved to ideas of national identity—Irish and British—and Ulster Scots was squeezed into the background. Generations of Ulster Scots grew up without the opportunity to learn about their cultural identity. In 1998, Ulster Scots re-emerged, with the Belfast agreement, but has been under regular assault from politically motivated individuals, who have sought to deny its very existence, even though they are contradicted by a mountain of evidence. They have regularly attacked and ridiculed the community, its culture and its language. The very name of the Ulster Scots community cannot be found in Northern Ireland’s museums—even museums that were set up specifically to tell its story.
Given this backdrop, it is essential that nothing is done here which tends to detract from the status of Ulster Scots as a strong and distinct cultural identity. Ensuring that the name of the commissioner refers to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions—plural—is a small change but would be significant in ensuring proper recognition and respect for diverse groups within our society.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I support the four amendments that have just been spoken to. However, my worry about all of this is that people cannot be corralled into particular identities. Among those who do not identify with, say, an Irish or a Scottish background, there are lots of people whose identity is much more fluid and relaxed. People see themselves as Irish and British; some people see themselves as Irish and Irish. We are in a quagmire. We could have 50 commissioners with no difficulty if we really drilled down to it, and that is the risk with all this.
Sinn Féin has religiously pursued the whole question of the Irish language, not for the love of language—the vast majority of them could not speak a word of it—but because it provides a difference. The quotation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, from Gerry Adams’ speech, or comments, in 1998 illustrates that and what the name of the game is: it has to be different. Indeed, I came across the minutes of a Sinn Féin meeting not long ago, I think it was last year, which had an agenda about the greening of Northern Ireland—the street names and so on. It was not to give respect to the Irish language; it was to show difference and prevent the community coming together and being cohesive. That is the one thing that it cannot cope with, because it implies the status quo.
I remind the Committee that things were divided during the strand 1 negotiations; my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, keeps referring to this, and he is right. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will know, strand 1 was Northern Ireland only, but that seems to have moved along since the NDNA. It was announced jointly by the UK Secretary of State and the Irish Foreign Minister and, while some of the rest of the parties were still reading the draft in the building, they were down at Carson’s statue releasing it to the press. That was how seriously they took it. But that is another matter.
The fundamental point is that the reason Sinn Féin did not propose an Irish language Act and did not deal with this in the talks was that it did not want to have what it called an internal settlement, because that is anathema to its whole rationale. I fear that the danger with all this is that it goes along with its divisive approach that everybody has to be in a particular box to be recognised. That is not where most people are today, particularly our younger generation, who do not see themselves in these boxes.
Nevertheless, we are where we are, as they say. These amendments cover some of the inevitable consequences, and I support them. I hope that the Minister will take them away with him and reflect on them before Report, because I suspect that if we come to Report and things remain as they are, some of us may have to test the opinion of the House on these matters. This is a relatively modest set of amendments that will at least make people feel that, as far as this particular identity is concerned, it is respected and treated equally.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 43A in the name of my noble friend Lord Morrow, but, before I do, I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, since she cannot be here. I hope that she is enjoying the proceedings by video; I am sure she is. We hope to see her back in her rightful place very soon.
I also agree with noble Lords who have mentioned that it is a matter of regret that we are debating this matter at all here in this place and that it should be a matter for the Assembly. Of course, it is not by accident or some kind of inevitability that it is being debated here; it is a deliberate decision of the Government to bring it here. That is something that we debated yesterday on another matter to do with abortion regulations. These are devolved matters, and the devolution settlement should be respected, whatever the issue and whatever our view of that issue may be. If it is a matter that is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, it should remain there. That is the clear position as far as I am concerned; otherwise, we pick and choose the issues that we decide to legislate on in this place, which cannot be right.
On the NDNA agreement, I just say to the Government that we look forward to all aspects of it being delivered. There is an outstanding matter in relation to the restoration of the internal market of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to rapid progress on that, in line with taking forward these other matters under NDNA—there are others matters under that agreement that are outstanding.
Talking of agreements, there has been reference to 1998, going back to the Belfast agreement and the subsequent agreement at St Andrews that amended it. It is true that none of this demand by Sinn Féin for Irish language provision was a part of the main negotiation on the Belfast agreement. Of course, much more recently we had the Assembly elections in 2016 and then the unfortunate collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2017, when Sinn Féin walked out of the Executive and Martin McGuinness resigned as Deputy First Minister. We then had three years in which the Assembly did not operate. We need to remember that, just prior to that, Sinn Féin has agreed a draft programme for government with the DUP—those two parties were in government together. Sinn Féin did not put forward Irish language provision in that, yet it became Sinn Féin’s cause célèbre in the subsequent years.
There is a lot of revisionism in terms of the importance of all this and the priorities, but when you work through the timelines and so on, a lot of this is not borne out by the actuality and reality of the situation. This was not a matter that Sinn Féin made a priority at the time, but it subsequently made it a priority in order to keep the institutions down for three years. That is worth bearing in mind in the context of where we are at the moment with the institutions and the need to implement the whole NDNA agreement.
I turn to Amendment 43A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. When the Minister made the case for the Bill at Second Reading, he referred to the fact that the Government had made available some funds—I think it was in the region of £4 million—to the Irish Language Investment Fund
“to support capital projects associated with the Irish language.”—[Official Report, 7/6/22; col. 1097.]
This commitment, it was said, was based in the section of the NDNA agreement that dealt with Northern Ireland’s “unique circumstances”.
However, when you read that section of the document, it contains merely a passing reference:
“This could include areas such as … Support for languages and broadcasting”.
There was no explicit commitment to £4 million or any other sum for capital projects, yet this passing reference has crystallised into a hard figure for investment. This £4 million of investment follows £8 million that has already been spent by the UK Government on building Irish language centres in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that this £4 million is likely to be matched by the Irish Government, so the total for building Irish language centres is likely to be nearer £16 million. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether he has had any discussions with or heard from the Irish Government on that point. Has there been any similar investment for the Ulster Scots community? I am sad to say that the answer is, no, there has not been—not a single penny.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Does the noble Lord agree that the expenditure undertaken in these areas by local authorities also needs to be taken into account, as they have roads? The behaviour of some local authorities appears to me very partial and one-sided.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
The noble Lord makes a very good point, which is often overlooked when we talk about these issues—certainly, in this place because there is a lot of concentration, necessarily and inevitably, on the functions of Northern Ireland departments, the Assembly and the Executive. There has undoubtedly been a very aggressive campaign on this, lavishly funded by certain councils, particularly those west of the Bann. Taking that into account, as the noble Lord has pointed out, makes my point about the necessity of catching up all the more relevant, pertinent and urgent.
The Ulster Scots community is representative of the lion’s share of the unionist community in Northern Ireland, disadvantaged by years of underinvestment in its identity. We must ensure that it is not short-changed. Broadcasting is one example where we could see a very immediate change, I hope, if funding is made available. We need to see financial equality between the two broadcast funds and the footprint of the Ulster-Scots Broadcast Fund extended to include greater coproduction with Scotland and a presence on the UK-wide network in recognition of Ulster Scots as a national minority of the United Kingdom.
We also need to see dedicated and sustained resources to support Ulster-Scots projects on the east-west axis, in line with Amendment 30 in this group, between communities and schools—cultural and educational institutions—to engage the Ulster Scots community and diaspora throughout the United Kingdom. Recognition of the Ulster Scots nature of the commissioner’s brief, in line with Amendment 30 and more specifically through Amendment 43A, will facilitate this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. I hope he will take these amendments on board, take them away and reflect on how, if implemented, they would go some way to restoring equality and parity of esteem in this area.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, again, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to this group of amendments. I start by saying that the Government are committed to supporting the culture and heritage of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland. This includes £1 million in funding for Northern Ireland Screen’s Ulster-Scots Broadcast Fund, which was delivered last year, and the formal recognition this year of Ulster Scots as a national minority under the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Bill does not in any way take away from the recognised status of Ulster Scots in a number of international instruments. Indeed, its provisions protect that status and actually broaden it.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the Bill seeks faithfully to deliver on the legislative commitments in what the then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Dame Arlene Foster, described in January 2020 as a “fair and balanced” package. It was very clear in that package that the remit of the commissioner in respect of the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition would be matters of “language, arts and literature” and not culture and heritage. In the Bill we are sticking faithfully to what was in New Decade, New Approach.
Perhaps I might give some reassurance. In the new cultural framework provided for by the Bill, the office of identity and cultural expression will have an important grant-making power and will be able to commission research, support educational programmes and provide guidance reflecting Northern Ireland’s diversity of national and cultural identities. That would seem naturally to include the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition, given its prominence, and I hope that provides some small degree of reassurance on that point.
I also highlight that the Irish language commissioner’s role is limited to language, reflecting the particular needs of Irish speakers. If we were to widen the provision for one commissioner to include cultural matters, it is perfectly possible, given the nature of Northern Ireland, that demands could then follow from those expecting the same of both. So we need to be slightly careful on these matters.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I am most grateful to the Minister. I am not constrained by anything Dame Arlene might have said at the time about “fair and balanced”. The Minister knows my views on this. We have to be careful. I am attracted to the use of the word “heritage”. That is because the—let us say—profile of the respective identities is different. The Irish have coalesced around language to an extent to which the Ulster Scots and Ulster British have not. When you are looking at equality of treatment—I see the point the Minister is making; and I said earlier that we should not be constrained in our deliberations because this is being debated here and not at Stormont, as we would all prefer—there is a difference between the profiles. Heritage matters greatly and is expressed in different ways. I fear that we are boxing people in with the definitions in the legislation.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. On this, as on many issues, I have a huge amount of respect for what he says. But in this particular area, and on the point he makes, all we are doing in this legislation is reflecting the language and the remit set out in New Decade, New Approach. I completely appreciate that my noble friend and his party were not signatories to or supporters of that agreement. Nevertheless, there was an agreement in January 2020 which formed the basis of the restoration of devolved government and that is what we are seeking faithfully to implement here.
Amendments 7 and 22 are important. Taken together, they seek to differentiate between the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition by pluralising them and making them “traditions”. I note the sensitivity of this matter and, indeed, of the title of the associated commissioner in this context, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for the way in which he spoke about these matters.
Let me say this: although I am not in a position to commit fully to anything today, I genuinely have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendments and the intention behind them. If he will allow it, I will therefore endeavour to explore them further ahead of Report.
Amendment 43A—a late addition to the Marshalled List on which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, spoke—seeks to place the Secretary of State under a duty to
“establish and maintain a fund to … connect Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland with Ulster Scots in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
On this, again, I say that the Government are committed to supporting the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition —or traditions, if you like—which forms an integral part of Northern Ireland’s rich tapestry. However, the creation of such a fund as provided for by this amendment would go way beyond what was set out in New Decade, New Approach. We therefore cannot accept this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked me a number of detailed questions regarding funding, the answers to which I do not have readily to hand. However, I think he referred to Irish language centres; from memory, that was a commitment under the Hillsborough Castle agreement back in 2010, although I would have to double-check that. Anyhow, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him in detail well in advance of Report so that, if he wishes to explore these matters further, he will be able to do so.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Perhaps I am overconfident but I detect a glimmer of hope here. Keeping that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
“(5) The Secretary of State must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the operation of the Office in line with the duties prescribed in section 9(2A) and 9(2B) of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 8, 12, 31 and 45 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Hay and Lord McCrea.
These amendments go to the issue of good housekeeping, as it were, in terms of Parliament having access to a report in relation to the office of identity and cultural expression and, in Amendment 12, to an annual assessment and report on the costs arising from the Irish language commissioner. By virtue of Amendment 31, the same provision would also apply in relation to the Ulster Scots commissioner—if I may use that shorthand. Amendment 45 would put an obligation on the Secretary of State to
“lay before Parliament a report assessing the costs to the public purse of the establishment and operation of each of the three bodies”.
These are sensible and not particularly controversial provisions. I do not think that they should evoke alarm anywhere. Obviously, each body will publish its own financial reports and details in its own right, but it is right that these requirements are placed on the Secretary of State so that parliamentarians have a full, open and transparent picture of what is being expended and how it is being expended in terms of each of these novel, new bodies.
As has come up today and was discussed at Second Reading, the costs of all these new arrangements in NDNA, as reflected in this legislation, are somewhat subject to guesstimates. So far, nobody has been able to put a figure on what all this will actually cost. As has been raised by many people, there is a genuine concern that, when we come to prioritising expenditure in Northern Ireland—opinion polls have reflected this concern time and again—the issue at the heart of this legislation is not a high priority for people in either community, or of no community, in Northern Ireland. The health service, education, public services generally, the police service, the operation of the courts, the environment—as we know, all these issues are seen as extremely more deserving of high prioritisation when it comes to public expenditure in Northern Ireland, as you would expect.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this proposal simply because it is not something for this Parliament. We are here only because there is no Northern Ireland Assembly.
I have to say to my DUP colleagues that it is a much more serious thing when those who are in favour of unionism and of the north of Ireland and Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom, as I am, decide not to make the system work because the system is there to be the means whereby the union works. It is no good saying, “Well, the Sinn Féiners did this, that and the other”. They do not believe in the system; that is why we do not agree with them. It is a much more serious question when the people who do believe in the system make it impossible to do these things in Northern Ireland. Those of us who are unionists need to say to them that it is no longer sensible or acceptable to tell the British Government that they cannot have what is sensible devolution. The idea that this has to come back here because we cannot debate it in the Northern Ireland Assembly seems to me unacceptable and unreasonable. I therefore hope, of course, that the Government will make sure that there is a proper report to the Assembly. The Assembly will no doubt be careful about the spending of its money. We are already spending per head of population a great deal more money in Northern Ireland than we are, for example, in my own area of Wales, where we manage the language issue much more effectively.
The last thing I want to say to the DUP, very simply, is this: having a sense of generosity would be so attractive—just a sense of recognising that other people have a different way of looking at things. I am perfectly able to say “the north of Ireland” because quite a lot of people in Northern Ireland think that. It does not mean to say that I am not entirely in favour of the union, as long as there is a majority for it.
We really do have to get out of this lack of generosity. I want to hear people reaching out across the divide instead of constantly looking at the papers and saying, “This is not quite right for me and, my goodness me, we have not quite got that”. It is time to have a different way. I would remember that “new decade, new start” is rather a good phrase. I would like to have a new start with a bit of generosity from those who have been in power and have had control for a very long time.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord had to say. When it comes to a spirit of generosity, it is with a spirit of generosity that the party I represent has been willing to go into and be part of an Executive in Northern Ireland with those who for years sought to murder us. I take no lectures bearing in mind that some of us who are gathered here are not supposed to be here as far as Sinn Féin/IRA is concerned because our family was to be wiped out completely in one last action of the IRA. Therefore, when it comes to generosity, it is very difficult to accept those in government. I am speaking personally on this. I found it very difficult to watch those who paraded on the roads of Ulster with terrorist weapons in their hands to destroy us every night. For 25 years, I sat in the back of an armoured police car, having to be guarded; my family were not allowed to travel with me. So when it comes to generosity, I suggest that the people I represent have been very generous.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn for the way in which moved his amendment. The effect of this group of amendments would be to place the Secretary of State under a duty to assess ahead of commencement, and annually thereafter, the costs arising from the three bodies.
I genuinely appreciate the intent behind these amendments but it is, as my noble friend Lord Deben made clear in his comments, not a matter for UK Government Ministers to conduct annual assessments for public bodies for which they are not directly responsible. The three public authorities established by this Bill will be administered, supported and funded by the Executive Office and fall squarely under the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
My noble friend referred to the estimated costs of the bodies. That will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly, although my officials—I think this is in the Explanatory Notes—have estimated through comparison with similar bodies a figure in the range of around £9 million per annum for all three bodies to run. As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, expenditure from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise. That is why, in the case of all three authorities, specific provision is made for the Executive Office to lay a copy of the statement of accounts and the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland before the Assembly.
Although Parts 6 and 7, which we will come on to later, make provision for the Secretary of State to ensure the implementation of the provisions in this Bill if that is absolutely necessary, I again highlight that it is not the intention of either the Government or that part of the Bill to result in a situation in which the Secretary of State routinely involves himself in transferred matters.
These amendments would make the Secretary of State’s involvement in transferred matters of identity, language and culture a permanent feature. We would prefer those to remain considerations for Northern Ireland’s devolved institutions. For that reason, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for the manner in which he has dealt with the issue. I understand where he is coming from. The tone and tenor in all these debates relating to Northern Ireland are important. Seeking to raise a matter to do with financial accountability does not, and should not, evoke the level of vitriol that we heard from the noble Lord behind me in relation to these matters. Whatever his underlying attitude to a particular party or to the unionist community in Northern Ireland, these are important matters, which have been the subject of detailed scrutiny, not just by the DUP but, being subject to three years’ negotiation, by all the other parties as well: the Alliance Party; the Ulster Unionists, who were involved in the negotiation, so I totally respect what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about the final bit of it; the SDLP; and Sinn Féin.
It is not in any spirit of a lack of generosity that we want proper, detailed scrutiny in Committee of aspects of legislation. After all, we would not have an NDNA agreement if it was not for the fact that the DUP, along with Sinn Féin and other parties, subscribed to it. We would not have had the restoration of the Assembly had it not been for the fact that Arlene Foster, Sinn Féin and other parties said, “On this basis, we can move forward.” It was not everything that we wanted—far from it. I am sure that it was not everything that other parties wanted—far from it. But, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, can testify, neither were the Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement or anything else.
My noble friend Lord McCrea makes a very fair point. Those of us who have been subject to murder attacks by Sinn Féin have been prepared to sit alongside Sinn Féin Ministers—I have been an Executive Minister, sitting and working alongside them—who have never apologised or expressed an ounce of regret for any of the actions that they carried out. Indeed, they still eulogise those murderers today, which is a source of great contention and problems in Northern Ireland. If we are talking about generosity, let us remember that. The explosion in this debate is perhaps illustrative of a wider problem which exists with some people who perhaps do not have the degree of understanding that their long experience should give them, nor, certainly, a respect for the way in which Northern Ireland matters should be properly debated and discussed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lexden
“Castlereagh FoundationThe Secretary of State must establish and provide funding for the Castlereagh Foundation, as contained in the New Decade, New Approach Deal.”
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to find myself in the company of unionist noble friends in this group of two amendments. Mine is a probing amendment.
Reading the New Decade, New Approach document, to which the Bill owes so much, my ageing unionist and historian’s eyes alighted on a reference in paragraph 25, on page 49, to the establishment of a Castlereagh foundation. “How very satisfactory,” I thought, “that an institution is to be set up bearing this famous name.” Viscount Castlereagh, later the second Marquess of Londonderry, was the younger Pitt’s right-hand man in bringing about the Act of Union 1801. After his death in distressing circumstances exactly 200 years ago, his coffin was placed next to Pitt’s in Westminster Abbey. He is the subject of a brilliant biography by Professor John Bew, a man not unconnected with our own dear noble Lord, Lord Bew.
Pitt and Castlereagh united Great Britain and Ireland under the Westminster Parliament, but they were prevented from accomplishing their full ambitions. Alongside the Act of Union, they wanted to establish equality of citizenship between Catholics and Protestants throughout the newly created United Kingdom, through what is known in the history books as Catholic emancipation. King George III stopped them. The course of subsequent history might have been different if Catholics had had their sense of injustice addressed in 1801, as the two great architects of the Act of Union had intended.
I am, for these reasons, naturally keen to know more about the proposed Castlereagh foundation. New Decade, New Approach is not very forthcoming; it states only that the Government will provide the necessary funding to establish the foundation, which will
“support academic research through Universities and other partners to explore identity and the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland.”
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. It reminds me of an issue in a negotiation that has been brought in at the last minute as a kind of balancing act. It has all the hallmarks that it is not thought-through, but looks good and allows people to point to it as a great opportunity and success. However, there is a very serious point here and my noble friend paints it, as usual, in a very significant historical context.
Has the Minister had the opportunity to look in some detail at this? Obviously, with the terms of reference, there is a cost involved and all sorts of things that will need to be established—are we going to seek funding from third-party sources, whether it be academia, business or various trusts or foundations? Nevertheless, I do not think that this should be treated as a throw-away; there is a very serious purpose here. If we understand the background and history that we have come from, perhaps it is not too much to hope that we can avoid some of the mistakes that we might otherwise make in the future. Our history can teach us a lot. Some objective academic work would be warmly welcomed and would contribute to progress in Northern Ireland.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, in his amendment. I am currently reading the biography of Castlereagh by Professor Bew—I also commend his biography of Clement Attlee, which is very good. I am not quite sure that there is a connection between the two, other than the author.
It is a very good idea to establish an organisation such as this. Anything that promotes reconciliation is bound to do good. I merely reflect, on the previous—rather heated—group of amendments on costs, that, of course, the issue of cost is important, particularly at the current time with all the pressures on the health service and everything else; however, if the costs of these things mean that you can establish the Assembly and Executive, then it will be worth it.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 10 is in my name. I have good news for noble Lords: this will be my briefest contribution because there is no way that I can gainsay anything that has already been said. I will not move my amendment because I give way to the learned, able, capable noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and all those who have spoken on this issue. That is all I have to contribute on that issue.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the speeches that have been made on this group of amendments. I thank, in particular, my noble friend, Lord Lexden and the noble Lords for the DUP for tabling the amendment. It is hard for me to add a great deal to what my noble friend Lord Lexden said about Castlereagh. A few weeks ago I had the great privilege of spending two or three hours at Castlereagh’s childhood and family home, Mount Stewart in County Down. For noble Lords who have not been, the restoration carried a few years ago by the National Trust is outstanding. It is impossible to leave Mount Stewart without being very conscious of the towering contribution that Castlereagh made to Irish, British and European history and politics. I concur with everything that my noble friend Lord Lexden said about Castlereagh, Pitt and the union. I think I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the Catholic hierarchy at the time welcomed the Act of Union on the understanding that Catholic emancipation would be delivered, and I agree that it is one of the great tragedies of history that what was the right measure in 1800 was not accompanied by those measures which were blocked by King George III. I also concur with every word that has been said about Professor John Bew’s outstanding biography of Castlereagh, which I read a number of years ago. It managed to fill quite lot of time on flights between London and Belfast at the time of the Stormont House agreement.
My noble friend also referred to Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, who was murdered by republicans on this day 100 years ago. I had the great privilege this morning of attending a ceremony in the Chamber of the House of Commons where the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, unveiled a plaque to the former Member of Parliament for North Down.
On the amendment, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed through New Decade, New Approach to fund the establishment of the Castlereagh foundation. It is envisaged that the foundation will explore matters of identity, which my noble friend Lord Empey raised, and the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland. It appears to me that the amendments that have been tabled are important and can assist the Government in meeting the commitments in New Decade, New Approach. If noble Lords will allow, I would like to take away the amendments, look at them more closely, discuss their contents with noble Lords and return to this subject on Report.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, that seems a very satisfactory basis on which to leave the matter. I hope unionist friends concur. We look forward to further progress and, all being well, a government amendment on Report following discussion. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, sent a nice note to me in the chair to explain why she had to leave, so she will not be moving any of her amendments.
Baroness Goudie
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement that Best Practice Irish Language Standards produced by the Irish Language Commissioner be subject to the approval of the First and deputy First Ministers.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ritchie. Briefly, we put these amendments down to ensure that, if the Assembly is not sitting or if there is a problem, the Secretary of State can continue what needs to be done both at the time and in the long term into the future.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, for speaking to these amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, which I will address with Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
Amendments 13 and 16 would remove the obligation on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to approve best practice Irish language standards produced by the Irish language commissioner. New Decade, New Approach—I must keep referring back to this document, I am afraid—sets out a series of clear safeguards for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the bodies established by the Bill, including for the approval of best practice standards. I assure the noble Baroness that these safeguards were a critical part of securing what I referred to earlier as the balanced package of measures in New Decade, New Approach. Without them, we would probably not have reached an agreement. The Government are faithfully putting these safeguards into effect in the legislation, including through the provision on the approval of the Irish language best practice standards. To remove those safeguards would undermine the balanced nature of the measures. I therefore cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, also seeks to amend Clause 2 so that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would be obligated to take regard of advice provided by the Irish language commissioner in relation to best practice standards. I am somewhat inferring that this is to introduce a safeguard whereby the First Minister or Deputy First Minister could not simply ignore the advice of the Irish language commissioner if they were to disagree with it. We very much hope that future First and Deputy First Ministers would take a pragmatic approach to approving best practice standards. This would logically include taking the views of the commissioner into account, and in all honesty I struggle to see a situation in which that would not be the case. I therefore urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
I am conscious that there were amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As the Chair has indicated, she is not in a position to speak to them.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Morrow
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will seek to be brief but I will not be as brief as the last time I spoke. I know that will please noble Lords. I will speak to Amendments 33, 34, 35 and 36 in which are tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord McCrea and Lord Hay.
As I have expressed previously, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner depends not on each commissioner having identical functions but on them being accorded equal importance and on this equal importance being made manifest, certainly through each having a similar cost footprint in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities.
As I noted in earlier debates, I have real concern that the functions of the two commissioners as currently defined are such that the Irish language commissioner is likely to have a bigger impact, absorbing more taxpayers’ money and engaging extensively with more than 70 public authorities, while the impact of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner is likely to be much narrower.
In this context, two things follow. First, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner are given access to as robust enforcement mechanisms as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner. Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that while the functions of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioners are not made identical, they are made similarly extensive, affording both the nationalist and unionist communities commissioners who will have an equally extensive impact on the governance of the nation and the allocation of public spending.
In this context, where there are already grounds for thinking that the current definition of the two commissioners is such that one is likely to have a significantly bigger impact on public spending than the other, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner.
In the first instance, all public authorities are required by new Section 78N to have
“due regard to any published best practice standards”
produced by the Irish language commissioner and to
“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”
this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner is similarly given the power to provide guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to this guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to
“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”
this duty.
I gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded to the other.
This particular discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by my Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for the commissioner’s advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with the commissioner’s advice.
Unbelievably, however, the inexplicable, discriminatory difference of treatment afforded the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner compared with the Irish language commissioner in terms of enforcement also extends to the provisions on complaints. Whereas a member of the public can complain to the Irish language commissioner about any public authority that has not followed the Irish language commissioner’s guidance where this has negatively impacted the complainant—which gives the commissioner the opportunity to take action—the scope for a member of the public to complain to the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner pertains only to the failure of public authorities to comply with one aspect of the commissioner’s functions, specifically one which is not deemed sufficiently central to appear in the principal role in new Section 78R(1), and which, when mentioned, is mentioned only in brackets.
Quite apart from any other concerns about unequal treatment, it seems clear that even at this very basic level of definition in the Bill, we are already letting go of the principle of parity of esteem and affording one community a commissioner with enforcement powers with respect to all the commissioner’s main functions, while affording the other commissioner enforcement powers only in relation to a secondary function in brackets, leaving the commissioner’s principal functions as defined by new Section 78Q(1) without an enforcement mechanism. My Amendments 33 to 36 address this discriminatory difference of treatment and enable a member of the public to complain to the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner if they are negatively affected if any advice issued by the commissioner is ignored and they similarly give the commissioner power to take action.
I very much hope that noble Lords will be able to appreciate why the unionist community has been shocked by the difference of treatment afforded it by this Bill. I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can regard the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in this Bill as anything other than direct discrimination when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. This is wholly indefensible and inexplicable. I urge the Minister to recognise this and the fact that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept these modest amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, unlike a good wine, sometimes negotiations do not age well. Sometimes we get it right; sometimes we get it wrong. I think the noble Lord has a fair point. I do not know, because I was not involved in the detail of these negotiations, what the rationale was to reach the final form of New Decade, New Approach. No doubt the Minister will say to me that he is trying to follow as faithfully as possible the agreement that was reached, but that does not mean that we have to be slavish in our acceptance of the provisions.
There is a perception issue here; there is no doubt about that. The Minister may have a very convincing explanation—he is usually very capable at providing them—but he has a bit of an uphill task, given the fairly broad, fairly substantial gap between the powers of the two commissioners. Perhaps he can put our minds at rest, but even if he is following New Decade, New Approach as far as I am concerned that does not mean that he has to be a slavish follower of it. I look forward to him perhaps considering before Report whether something can be done to remove the perception of inequality between the powers of these respective commissioners.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, accepting the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I do not believe that there is only a perception of a difference; this legislation would actually make a difference between the two. NDNA did not give acceptance or credence to lack of parity of esteem; in actual fact, it was demanding that. It was not seeking to be used for discrimination against the unionist community; in actual fact, it was demanding that both communities in Northern Ireland were treated with that parity of esteem.
Lord Caine (Con)
Once again, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for the way in which he moved his amendment. To comment briefly on the words of my noble friend Lord Empey, I think it was Duff Cooper whose memoirs were entitled Old Men Forget. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but even I have forgotten some of the details of the New Decade, New Approach negotiations that took place over those torturous three years between 2017 and 2020.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for tabling these amendments, which relate to extending the grounds upon which an individual can make a complaint to the process for the Ulster Scots commissioner. I have a number of concerns regarding the amendments; I will set them out briefly.
My first concern is that it would not be appropriate to amend one of the commissioner’s complaints procedures but not the other. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord would undermine the position reached in New Decade, New Approach that the commissioner should be able to investigate relevant complaints about a public authority’s lack of due regard to advice provided in respect of facilitating the use of Ulster Scots. That is why the Bill specifically refers to “published facilitation guidance”.
I highlight to noble Lords that, in preparing this legislation, the Government have provided the essential clarity on the complaints process for the commissioner so that it provides similar clarity and certainty to the complaints process provided for the Irish language commissioner. The role of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner and their work to provide advice and guidance will cover the same public authorities as the office of identity and cultural expression and the Irish language commissioner. The public will be able to make complaints to each commissioner in the same way.
On the parity of esteem point made by my noble friend Lord Empey and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, as I said on an earlier group of amendments, the commissioners have been designed to meet the different needs of different parts of the community. They are different in function, and therefore there are certain disparities in their powers. Again, that was the position reached in New Decade, New Approach; the Government are faithfully trying to follow it.
I suspect that I have not reassured the noble Lord on this issue. He may wish to return to it but, for now, I would be grateful if he would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, having listened carefully to the Minister—again, he has enticed me enough for me to withdraw my amendment at this time—I just want to say this to him: I am not going away. We will be watching carefully. I think that he has taken on board what we have said; I appreciate that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
“(aa) arrange for a statement to be made to each House of Parliament, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when they use the powers of direction under this Clause.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to quite a difficult part of the Bill, in my view. The Minister referred to the fact that he could not quite remember all the detail in New Decade, New Approach. Of course, there have been so many agreements that even my memory is starting to fade now, and I am much older than the Minister. My other impression is that, if you are an old man or woman in Northern Ireland, you are likely to remember far more than if you were from Wales, for all sorts of different reasons.
Memories go back a long way. One of my memories, which I do not like, is of being on a plane between Belfast and London and having to sign a document that suspended the Assembly. I thought that that was one of the most unpleasant things I would ever have to do, because the whole purpose of the Good Friday agreement and the subsequent agreements was to ensure that Northern Ireland had its own Government, Parliament and apparatus of government. To see that go caused huge distress—I use that word specifically—to all of us who had been involved in trying to bring about change in Northern Ireland. When the Secretary of State and this Parliament, this House of Lords and the House of Commons, are given powers to intervene, whether it is in this Bill or on the abortion regulations yesterday—whatever it may be—it is awful that it has to happen, because it goes completely against everything that we thought, and I hoped, devolution would bring to Northern Ireland.
Again, these are probing amendments. Obviously, we will not put them to votes, but we need to know in what capacity the Secretary of State would intervene. I understand that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must make agreements on various issues affected by this legislation. I also understand that there could be considerable differences in view between them. However, there comes a time when there is no mechanism by which this legislation could go forward if either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister effectively vetoed the other. The legislation would not go forward. I hope that it will not happen, and that the Minister can indicate in his reply that he believes that it will not happen. When the Secretary of State has to step in, could that be constrained a bit more by way of scrutiny? All the legislation says is that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the direction that he or she makes. I do not know whether that is sufficient. The Secretary of State should be made to make a statement, preferably an Oral Statement, to both Houses about why he or she has decided to step in and intervene. The balance would then be struck a little more.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie has tabled amendments that go into a bit more detail about that and put down a timescale. They intend that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should appoint a commissioner within 30 days, say, and if that does not happen the Secretary of State should be given another 30 days so that it is done in a day. This is all meant to bring out the Minister’s views on what should happen if the Secretary of State intervenes.
I should also point out the excellent report by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. The very last paragraph is important. It states:
“The powers could be exercised by the Secretary of State even if there were a functioning Executive and Assembly. The Government states in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the powers may be used when the Secretary of State deems it ‘necessary’ to do so, but this is not reflected in the Bill. Clause 6(3) should be amended so that the power of direction in clause 6(2)(b) may be used only when the Secretary of State considers it necessary, rather than appropriate.”
There is a big difference between the two words. What is also interesting about this report is that it expresses exactly the same view that I have just expressed to the Committee about the difficulties—and sorrow, in many ways—of the Secretary of State having to come in and intervene. In a way, it underlies this Committee—indeed, all the stages of this Bill. This Bill simply should not be a matter for this House or the House of Commons; it should be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is why we set it up 25 years ago.
I am interested in what the Minister has to say on this. I do not oppose the Secretary of State having such powers but there should be more scrutiny of and restrictions on how he or she would exercise them. I beg to move.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a Statement to the Commons and the Lords when he or she exercised the override powers established in Clause 6. This would be in addition to an existing obligation to lay a copy in both Houses of any direction given to a Minister or department in Northern Ireland.
I have to say, the amendment is a bit of window dressing. It misses the point completely. Granting the Government powers to take decisions unilaterally in the absence of cross-community agreement rides roughshod over the Belfast agreement as well as the delicate safeguards contained in New Decade, New Approach. It is not enough to suggest that an extra half hour on the Order Paper of this House would make up for the gulf in democratic accountability established by it. For that reason, I and my colleagues are opposed to it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I must say, I take a similar view to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. For three years, when the Assembly was closed following Sinn Féin’s withdrawal in 2017, the noble Viscount, when he was answering at the Dispatch Box, would say, “Well, because of the Sewel convention, we cannot do this; it is a devolved matter. The Northern Ireland Office cannot do that”. We now seem to have moved. We do not hear the Sewel convention mentioned very much around this place. We seem to have a situation now where, effectively, we are fireproofing bits of legislation against disagreements even though they may be legitimately expressed and exercised by Ministers in Northern Ireland.
The whole mechanism that was agreed in 1998 is not what many of us would ultimately like, but the concept of a mutual veto is there for a purpose. We would not have devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, knows, if people did not feel a sense that they each had a hand on the steering wheel. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, mentioned, some of the people with whom we have shared power are not necessarily dinner companions. Once you take away the exercise of a veto, you take away a part of the settlement.
I know that colleagues here did not agree with it in 1998; I am well aware of that, and I understand the rationale for it, but perhaps they now understand our rationale for not agreeing with New Decade, New Approach. As far as I can see, all people would have to do is not agree, and all that those who would like to see a particular measure would have to do is sit on their hands and wait for the Secretary of State to overrule. If we get into that, Sewel is out the window and you start to decay the whole process; we need to take very great care that we do not undermine it. It is an awkward, difficult and complicated system because, if you know that you do not have to agree with the person across from you, the temptation is to wait it out until the Secretary of State intervenes and takes your side.
For a brief period, I held the office at the OFMDFM. I know how complicated this is. The first week I held the office, I and the Deputy First Minister could not agree on the notepaper; as a consequence, the department could not send a letter out for a week until we agreed. We agreed because we had to, and we got a compromise. However, if I had known that I could sit it out and that the Secretary of State would come over and take my side, I would have been under no obligation to agree.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Or the other side. Whichever—the point is still valid. I am just saying that, if you throw out or undermine the concept that people have to agree, however difficult it is, for one thing, the temptation is that it will spread. That will be my only contribution.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 43, to which I have put my name. I would in fact have put my name to Clause 7 stand part if the field had not been too crowded when I arrived at the Public Bill Office. I speak to Amendment 43 in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who I think noble Lords know has had to leave for Northern Ireland and who was the tabler of the amendment.
I am in danger of making the same, or a very similar, speech to the one I made at Second Reading. Indeed, I am in danger of making the speech I might have made yesterday on the abortion regulations if I had not constrained myself and kept silent. I should avoid doing that, so I shall be fairly brief.
My concern is that, while the Government proclaim their rock-solid adherence to the Good Friday agreement, as noble Lords have already said, the increasing number of powers being given to the Secretary of State to appoint or conduct himself effectively as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive is undermining the Good Friday agreement, and manifestly so.
I know a great deal less about Northern Ireland than practically every other noble Lord in this Committee. However, I know something about planning law. One of the features of planning law is that, if a local planning committee made up of local councillors finds itself in a position where it is legally obliged—there is no way out—to grant a planning permission that it does not want to grant because it is politically unattractive, it has the option of sitting on its hands or simply refusing it and allowing the applicant to appeal to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Then it can say, when the inspector has granted the planning permission, “Ah, well, it was nothing to do with us. You see, we opposed it but the inspector has forced it upon us”. This creates a dishonesty in local government that should not really be allowed.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, put his finger on this in relation to Northern Ireland. If you have a devolved Administration that requires some form of consent and collaboration but you know that the decision will be taken by the Secretary of State if you refuse or fail to achieve that level of consent and collaboration, that is of course the easy way out, as it is for planning committees that do not want to confront their residents and explain why they have granted an unpopular permission. That is the position that the Government are getting themselves into. It was clear in the discussion yesterday of the abortion regulations and it is clear here today. No rationale has been presented by the Government for how they see devolution in the light of these new powers that are constantly being conferred on the Secretary of State to appoint himself as a Minister and conduct himself in that way.
Amendment 43 is very simple. It says that the Secretary of State cannot exercise these powers if there is a functioning Assembly or if there has been a delay of less than six months since the Assembly and Executive were operating. It puts a firebreak in and puts the pressure back on local politicians in Northern Ireland to reach consent, collaborate and work together in the way that the Good Friday agreement was framed. It is a very simple measure in that respect and should commend itself to the Government. From what I understood of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, he might see it as having some merit, too. I very much hope that, when he comes to reply, my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some succour to those of us who would like to see this amendment pass.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has eloquently set out the dangers of the approach that the Government are taking through the insertion of Clauses 6 and 7. I support Amendment 43 in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Our position that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill would go further in deleting the Secretary of State’s override powers completely. However, I understand entirely that, when we have a functioning Assembly, there certainly should be no question of the Secretary of State having the power to intervene.
The issue is very clear, as was illustrated yesterday in the debate on the abortion regulations. These clauses are another example of what one noble Lord described as the Government’s pick-and-mix approach to devolution and the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement. Some issues are picked out to be legislated for here in Westminster and other issues are not touched at all; we saw this between 2017 and 2020, when the Government’s attitude was that they could do nothing at all to move issues forward, legislate or step in.
However, now, they are doing so on other issues. We had it with yesterday’s regulations on abortion, which is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and was lifted out of it to be legislated for here. We had it on the protocol, where the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act were disgracefully amended by secondary legislation to ensure that, for the vote on the protocol—it was given to the Assembly and therefore, by definition, was devolved to it—the voting mechanism was changed. The very architecture of the Belfast agreement was changed at the Government’s whim without agreement among the parties.
Here is another example. As the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, have said, this goes to the heart of the operation of the institutions in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that people will inevitably feel that, going forward, if there are intractable or difficult issues, they will go with their competing demands to whoever is in power at Westminster and demand that it should act in their favour—although I suspect that unionists will be less keen to do that than nationalists, given the track record of success at getting Westminster to legislate over the wishes of the Assembly. I fear that it seems to be a rather one-sided approach. There is no justification on this issue in terms of the principle of devolution, which applies throughout the United Kingdom; the Sewel convention has been mentioned. It undermines the principle of devolution and the Belfast agreement as amended.
I throw this point in also; obviously the Minister can deal with it when he comes to reply. He said that the New Decade, New Approach document should be faithfully followed, that part of this legislation is about putting into practice and law the provisions of that agreement, and that it should be departed from very rarely—if at all—but can he point to anywhere in the NDNA agreement that says that the Secretary of State would have override powers or intervention powers? Where is that provision to be found?
Of course, the Secretary of State and the Government always implicitly have such powers but it seems to me that, when parties make an agreement in the context of an operational assembly and an agreement on how things should be agreed between them, that assembly is where the matter should lie. Yes, there will be difficulties in reaching agreements—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed to one particularly good example about notepaper—but the point is that there have been serious issues on which there was disagreement initially but agreement was eventually reached between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or between the parties in the Executive, because it had to be.
I hear Ministers continually referring to their support for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and how committed they are to it, yet their actions in recent months have been very concerning in terms of their approach to the institutions and powers of the Executive and the Assembly as set out in that agreement. They are effectively undermining it.
I believe that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill and I lend my support to Amendment 43. I also happen to agree with Amendment 40, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the sense that, if there is a situation where this clause does go through and the Secretary of State does have that power, he or she should be required to come and make a Statement to Parliament, as opposed to not having that obligation. Again, that would be an opportunity to hold people to account.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Not having been intimately involved in the New Decade, New Approach negotiations, is the noble Lord saying that there were no provisions in that agreement for Secretary of State override powers? Am I right in taking that as his position? If that is the case, could it be that a deal has been done with Sinn Féin to guarantee that, irrespective of what happens in the Assembly, its particular version of events will be implemented by the Secretary of State? Is that possible?
The genesis of the Irish language Act is in the final communiqué of the St Andrews agreement, where the British Government commit to introducing such an Act. I just wonder whether a private understanding has occurred; I am sure that the Minister can clarify that if that is the case. However, if the noble Lord is saying that we are putting into this piece of supposedly devolved legislation a clause that means that the Assembly in and of itself is not the final arbiter of its decisions, the sooner we have that clarified, the better.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. A lot of those questions are for the Minister; I look forward to hearing what he has to say in relation to these matters.
I want to clarify the point about the St Andrews agreement and the Irish language provisions, which were also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He is quite correct that Sinn Féin went to the Government at the very last minute and wanted provision to be made but, of course, it was not a matter for the negotiations between the parties; it was a last-minute effort by the Sinn Féin negotiators to get the Government to commit to doing it. Of course, the Government made some commitments but they were not binding on the local parties and, because it was a devolved matter, that is where it stayed.
As far as we are concerned, just like abortion, the issues of identity and language are matters for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is the basis on which agreements were made. Going forward, I believe that it is dangerous for the stability of the Assembly and all the other institutions if the Government take this pick-and-mix approach and decide that they will act unilaterally on certain issues. That is not sustainable and will ultimately cause major problems. It has done so already but it will cause more problems down the line.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about Amendment 40, which I co-signed. It is primarily a probing amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made the point that if the Bill goes through unamended, it is extremely important that this House and the House of Commons are able to probe exactly why the Secretary of State has deemed something to be appropriate. “Appropriate” is a very subjective term, and it is not sufficient just to lay orders before Parliament. It is important that it is fleshed out, discussed, debated and aired. I agree with the earlier comment about some of the statements in this House and in the House of Commons not always being sufficient. If the Bill goes through unamended, it is important that there is some form of parliamentary scrutiny of why the Secretary of State has taken these measures because he or she has deemed them to be appropriate.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, some very important constitutional points have been brought up in this debate, and I know my noble friend will want to reflect with care upon them. Since this is the last debate in Committee, I shall make a simple general point. It takes the form of an injunction to my noble friend. It is that between now and Report, he seeks to do all that is possible within the Bill to address the considerable and deeply felt reservations and concerns that have been brought up during these proceedings. This is a Bill for which we unionists will never feel any enthusiasm, but it would be good if on Report there will at least be some diminution of the concerns and reservations that have been expressed this afternoon.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords across the Committee for the amendments that have been tabled and for their contributions. If I may, I will try to speak to all of them in this group.
Turning first to Amendment 41 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Goudie, to which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred, it would introduce a threshold to the step-in powers conferred on the Secretary of State if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister do not appoint an Irish language commissioner or approve best practice standards, either once the legislation comes into force or when a vacancy arises.
I again understand the noble Baronesses’ intention in wanting to ensure that the provisions of this long-awaited Bill are not stymied by inaction on the part of the Executive, and their desire for the Secretary of State to move quickly if such inaction were to present itself. This is an issue that was raised with the Irish language group Conradh Na Gaeilge when I met it in Belfast three or four weeks ago.
My starting point is, of course, that the Government would not wish to intervene routinely in transferred matters and the use of any powers in the Bill would require careful consideration. Judging by the comments that have been made, I am sure that noble Lords share my belief that deviating from that principle would be undesirable. However, the Government believe that it is important to have these powers as a contingency to avoid inaction. They have been carefully drafted to allow the Secretary of State to use his discretion and to consider the circumstances at the time.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, wanted me to elaborate a little on that. Some of the considerations that the Secretary of State might want to take into account in exercising these powers and having regard to the circumstances at the time might include: whether the matter of identity and language was causing political instability in Northern Ireland; whether the institutions were functioning; whether the First and Deputy First Ministers were acting in good faith in implementing the legislation; and, indeed, whether these issues were surmountable without such an intervention. They would be the kinds of considerations that he would take account of.
The stipulated timeframe of 30 days in the amendment seems impractical, particularly in respect of public appointments that take time and need to be conducted with rigour. Such a timeframe would almost certainly preclude the correct process from taking place and the proper and thorough consideration of best practice standards by the First and Deputy First Ministers.
Finally, my understanding is that the amendment would apply solely with reference to the Irish language commissioner and not the commissioner to enhance and develop the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition; nor would it apply to the appointment of the director and members of the office of identity and cultural expression. Therefore, the Government will not be able to accept such an amendment.
Amendment 42 seeks to give the Secretary of State a further area where step-in powers could be exercised; namely, in relation to strategies relating to the Irish language and Ulster Scots, as set out in Section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This is a separate undertaking from the legislative commitments on identity and language that were set out in New Decade, New Approach and, for that reason, we have decided not to include such a provision here.
Amendment 40, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when the direction powers under Clause 6 are used. I hear the comments of my noble friend Lord Empey, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, who gave some support to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. If I may put it like this, I understand the desire for more scrutiny and transparency to be introduced if the Secretary of State were to be in the unfortunate position of having to use these powers. The powers, as I have said, have been carefully drafted, but I assure noble Lords that I will go away and look further into this issue following our discussions today.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I am most grateful to the Minister for his last comment, but this is a fundamental issue around the devolution settlement. If we are making big distinctions over the areas of transferred powers in which a Secretary of State has the potential to intervene, it is an encouragement for people in the relevant devolved Administration because it is a disincentive to agree.
We also have to bear in mind the implications of this for the other devolved institutions. I wonder how we would sell this to the Scottish Parliament, or the Welsh Senedd for that matter. If we take one issue and put it on a pedestal, the potential is there for that boundary—that envelope—to be pushed further forward. I can assure the noble Lord of that, though I am sure he is well aware of it.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend; I will touch on what he said shortly, I think. I give my assurance to the noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment that I will go away and look at this further before Report.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendments, which were spoken to by my noble friend Lord Moylan, and to the members of the Democratic Unionist Party who are in the Committee today for their amendments, which all focus on the powers conferred on the Secretary of State arising from the provisions in Clauses 6 and 7. I will turn to those clauses now, if I may.
I completely understand the noble Lord’s intent that these powers should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, if at all. I repeat my earlier assurances: the Government would not wish routinely to intervene in transferred matters and the use of any powers in the Bill would require very careful consideration indeed. I have set out some of the factors that the Secretary of State might have to take into account in deciding whether to use the powers in these clauses because we agree that deviating from the overall principles—protecting the devolution settlement and not routinely intervening in transferred matters—would be undesirable.
However, in our view, it remains important to have these powers in the event that matters such as those we are discussing today—identity and language—remain a source of instability. I need not remind the Committee of the potential and capacity that they have to poison and paralyse politics in Northern Ireland, as they did during the period between 2017 and 2020. That is why these powers have been drafted and included; they afford the Secretary of State the latitude to use his discretion if these issues remain a matter of discord.
I complete accept the comments of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn in referring to New Decade, New Approach. However, the reason we are taking these powers—almost as an insurance policy, if you like—is to deal with the fact that, some two and a half years after New Decade, New Approach, key elements and provisions of that agreement have not been implemented. The Government feel that they have an obligation to ensure that they can be delivered.
At the risk of opening an entirely new front at this late stage, I have heard a number of comments about the Belfast agreement. Noble Lords have heard me express on many occasions my support for that agreement, which has been consistent since 10 April 1998. I gently remind noble Lords that there is a provision in the Belfast agreement that explicitly states that Parliament’s ability to make law for Northern Ireland remains unaffected. That is also reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
As I said, the powers have been drafted to give the Secretary of State latitude to use his discretion in these areas. They also reflect the fact that the UK Government are necessarily bringing forward in this United Kingdom Parliament primary legislation that was originally for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to introduce. In our view, it is right in those circumstances that the Secretary of State has the power to ensure the implementation of these commitments, as I have just said.
Of course, as has been stated many times, it is our sincere hope that a new Executive will be formed soon, will implement this legislation and will set up the new bodies for which this Bill provides. With Clause 6, though, the Government are seeking to ensure that there is a path to the implementation of the legislation. The Government are committed to ensuring that the legislation works in practice, and that the commissioners and the office can function effectively so that these New Decade, New Approach commitments are conclusively delivered. Clause 7 is necessary to ensure the effective operation of the provisions made in Clause 6 should the Secretary of State judge it necessary to intervene.
Finally, I very much take on board the comments of my noble friend Lord Lexden. I will reflect on what he said. With those remarks, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Well, there we are. My Lords, it is not easy. My heart tells me that the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds, and others are right that the devolution settlement should be protected. If you set up an Assembly and a Government, they should be allowed to get on with things and should not be interfered with every 24 hours by the United Kingdom Government; I accept that. That is one reason I tabled what I thought was a fairly modest amendment to just say, let us have a Statement instead of a directive. It could even go further and have a parliamentary debate, or whatever.
As always, the issue boils down to a short supply of trust. That has to be built up. It has been lost over the past number of years, inevitably, for all sorts of reasons, but there is a difference between this legislation and others, which is that this is essential to the restoration of the Assembly. Sinn Féin brought the Assembly down because of the lack of an Irish language Act, and therefore, if we are saying, “Look, there is so much disagreement we can’t pass this; it’s not going to happen”, the chances are we will go back to square one again. The problem is that people in the unionist community will say, “Well, that’s a veto too, over the Assembly being set up.” I am uncomfortable with it, but I cannot see off the top of my head any way around it. There may be people much cleverer than me who can think of a solution—there we are; there is a good example of someone much cleverer than me.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The solution is the agreement. Let us suppose Sinn Féin proposes a convicted murderer or somebody who is anathema to a large section of the community to be a commissioner and a DUP Deputy First Minister says, “I can’t appoint that individual, my conscience won’t allow me”. All Sinn Féin has to do is sit it out, whereas if we both know that we have to get agreement, we have to compromise. That is the core of the agreement, and we are taking it out. We have taken it out since the agreement was made. In my opinion, we took it out at St Andrews—the same principle—but that is one example.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Yes, I understand, and if I was the Secretary of State under those circumstances, I would not invoke special powers, which this Act would eventually do; I would get on a plane and go over there and have a chat for the next two weeks to try to resolve it, negotiate around it and deal with it that way. That is how we have always dealt with things in Northern Ireland. Frankly, that is how what is going on there now should be dealt with. That is the way to do it. That is why I am less than comfortable with this, but I just cannot see a way around it.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes a good point. We assume in all the agreements we have made that we can resolve these issues among ourselves. It could be that the Secretary of State could be a referee in all this, and that could be somehow put into legislation. Then, at the end of the day, the decisions are taken by those who should be taking the decisions, rather than a rather clumsy, clunky entrance which says, “All right, you lot, I’ve had enough of you, I’m going to pass the legislation.”
Lord Caine (Con)
I am following the noble Lord very closely. He is absolutely right to say that these are uncomfortable powers. He will be aware, since he has been around in politics a long time, that one does not always necessarily have to be comfortable with something to deem it necessary. He referred earlier to his act on the aeroplane of signing the suspension order of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2000. I recall that suspension was deemed necessary to preserve the institutions.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Of course. No one said that any of this is easy; far from it. When he wound up, the Minister was very kind to say that he would look at all the different ideas that have emerged from the discussions and debates here today and come back on Report with something that might satisfy all Members, which will be very difficult in these circumstances. I am sure he understands the feeling behind what is being said: we want this to work, not just because it sets up the Assembly and the Government but because it is right in itself for the Irish language and the Ulster Scots tradition. However, at the same time, we have to ensure that progress is made. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and hope that the Minister will come back with a slighter better one on Report.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I can be very brief. I have listened intently to what the Minister has said, and to what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Empey, and others have said. It strikes me that the Minister has said that the Government are doing this to implement NDNA, but if the truth be told, NDNA is not being implemented. Rather, it is being cherry-picked: “We’ll do that, but we won’t do that.” It is getting a bit monotonous, and suspicion is rife across Northern Ireland as to what exactly is going on here.
Lord Caine (Con)
I apologise for having to take issue with the noble Lord right at the conclusion of the debate, but I challenge the assertion that New Decade, New Approach is being cherry-picked. The legislation I took through this House at the end of last year and the beginning of this one focused primarily on the robustness and resilience of the institutions. The noble Lord will remember that in all the discussions on New Decade, New Approach, they were key demands of the Democratic Unionist Party. I was involved in those talks quite intimately; they were key demands of the DUP, and they have been delivered to the best of our ability.
There is a whole host of other commitments in New Decade, New Approach about the veterans’ commissioner, support for the Northern Ireland centenary, et cetera—I could go on. I tabled a Written Ministerial Statement a few weeks ago, setting out in great detail all that had been delivered on New Decade, New Approach, to the extent that members of the Opposition were quite surprised at just how much had been delivered by this Government. The idea that we are cherry-picking or favouring one side over the other is, frankly, not correct.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I am speaking now about Clause 7, which the Minister is very familiar with. Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, we were told that the Irish language Act was not a part of the Belfast agreement. I accept that; it was not. It was not a part of the St Andrews agreement. Was a private arrangement made? Somehow, mysteriously, this all started to evolve. Those were issues for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. They should be allowed to get on with that. Was the protocol included in any of this? Was the Executive consulted in relation to that? I can clearly state that the answer is no—although I am not a member of the Executive, I have enough party colleagues who are in it.
Finally, in the 1998 Act, there are very narrow grounds, to put it mildly, on which Westminster can actually intervene. One of those grounds is national security, as I referred to yesterday. So this is being expanded all the time—“Oh, we’ll do this, and we’ll do that”—and it leaves one side or the other totally demoralised. I suspect that the architects of the Belfast agreement, some of whom are here, and those who signed up to it are bitterly disappointed at the way the whole thing has been treated and pulled. At times, they must wonder whether it will survive. It is kicked into touch when it has to be, and then parts of it are implemented and parts of it are not. We have to get to the stage where trust is built between the communities in Northern Ireland and the Government in London.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, I hope the procedural gods will forgive me for allowing that, but I think it was very important to get those things on to the record, and I stand by my decision.
House of Lords
Social Care: Children
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Derby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, published on 23 May; and what plans they have to make experience of being in care a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful to Josh MacAlister for his important work, which matches our ambition for vulnerable children and their families. We will consider the recommendations in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, including the recommendation to make experience of being in care a protected characteristic. The Government will publish the detailed and ambitious implementation strategy later this year.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Today, 100 young people in the care system met Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place to express their views on how the care system can be improved, and I know that, like me, she had the privilege of meeting and talking with some of them. Can she say more about how young people will be directly included in the national implementation board of this care review?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I did indeed by chance meet a group of young people wearing badges reading “Our care”, so the opportunity was irresistible in view of the right reverend Prelate’s Question. We are building on the work that Josh MacAlister did. He had an advisory board made up of people with experience of the care system, and we are continuing with that approach for our implementation board.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
The report recommends technology to achieve frictionless sharing of information, and a national data and technology task force. Is this the body that would decide on the unique identifying number for which the children’s workforce has been calling, to avoid children disappearing through the cracks between services?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government committed in the Health and Social Care Act to develop a unique identifier, and that work is continuing. I believe it is separate to her reference.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the SEND Green Paper said very little about social care, and the independent review the right reverend Prelate spoke about defers responsibility back to the same Green Paper. This has caused groups such as the Disabled Children’s Partnership to raise concern that reform of funding for disabled children’s social care will not be addressed. Will the Government ensure that this does not happen and that problems in disabled children’s social care will be resolved?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very concerned if the perception is as the noble Lord describes. I encourage those involved with particular expertise in that area to contribute to the consultation on the Green Paper, which is open until 22 July. Our ambition is clear: that we address the problems in the system comprehensively.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister has taken on board—I am sure she has—a recommendation from the report that more senior social workers should carry on having case loads. My experience as a family judge was that senior social workers were completely divorced from the sorts of cases that were actually coming before the courts. I would be grateful to know if the Government will take that forward.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are considering all 80 recommendations in the report, of which this is an important one. We have identified the five priority recommendations, but the implementation board will report back on all our actions by the end of the year.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the focus that the review has placed on supported lodgings. However, work still needs to be done to enable supported lodgings to become a fully recognised provision. Will the Government commit to meeting Home for Good, a charity that has recently set up a supported lodgings network, to provide a definition and guidance on this provision?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises an important issue. Indeed, one of the young women to whom I was speaking just before this Question talked about exactly the point that he raises. I would be delighted to meet the organisation that he mentioned.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I too had the privilege of meeting some of those young people a little earlier, which included hearing a rather harrowing story of two brothers who had been brought up in foster care. The review recommends more support, both practical and financial, for kinship carers, which include grandparents, aunts, uncles and others who care for family members. Is the Minister able to say what is going to happen to that recommendation and whether the Government are planning to take it forward?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government recognise the incredible role that kinship carers play in the system. It would be premature for me to judge what the Government will decide, but obviously it is being considered carefully along with the other recommendations.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Minister suggested that there would be two national children’s identification numbers. Is that correct? Can that be right?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the House if that is the impression that I gave. I am happy to write to set out the Government’s position in detail.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the report recommends that schools are made a statutory safeguarding partner in the care system, to represent the voice of education in partnership arrangements. Will the Government take advantage of the opportunity that the Schools Bill presents? I recommend the amendment tabled in my name to that end. which would formalise the role that our schools already play, to give them the recognition and voice that they need to do that job effectively.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I look forward to debating the noble Baroness’s amendment in detail. We know that schools already play an incredibly important part in safeguarding children and represent an important source of information about whether or not a child is safe. However, I cannot prejudge the final decisions.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, since there is time, I will ask another question. The review calls for a reformed children’s social care system to be based on children’s rights, putting children’s voices at the centre of decisions. What framework will the Government use for this approach? Will they consider using the existing UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Baroness Barran (Con)
A decision has not been taken on that, but the noble Baroness exposes an important issue. For a long time, the voice of the child and the welfare of the child being paramount has been a concept that we are all extremely familiar with, but we must ensure that it happens in practice as well as in legislation.
Royal Navy: Ships
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the recently announced Ocean Surveillance Ship and National Flagship will be built concurrently; and when those vessels are expected to enter service with the Royal Navy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the new multi-role ocean surveillance programme announced in the defence Command Paper of 2021 currently in its concept phase, and the national flagship programme in its design stage, with a competitive procurement process in progress, it is too early to discuss build arrangements for the two programmes.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, five years ago the shipbuilding strategy came out, and I was impressed and pleased that the Government seemed to have gripped this very important issue. I said so on the Floor of the House. However, I said to the Minister that many times over the years I had been promised ships and had never stood on their quarterdeck. I have the same feeling with this. We have ordered five frigates since then and not a single other ship. Three years ago, we were told that we were ordering three fleet solid support ships. They are still not ordered. This really worries me. When it comes to these two ships, does the Minister agree that the oceanographic surveillance ship is way more important for our nation and defence than the other ship, because of data links et cetera going across the Atlantic? With the possibility of a world war, it is the sort of thing that Putin would have a go at.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I do not share his pessimism. I am tempted to ask under which government regime shipbuilding was in such a poor state. Thanks to the national shipbuilding strategy, we now see one of the most exciting programmes in UK shipbuilding for decades. That is recognised in the industry—and in his single service. These are two exciting prospects. As he knows, the MROS will replace HMS “Scott”. I will not say that it is a Trojan horse; it is a sturdy reliable Clydesdale which plods away doing its work. These two boats—
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord manages to induce a bit of pessimism in me. These two ships are a very important addition to the fleet.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
The original budget for the flagship was some £200 million. The Defence Secretary now says that it may be up to £250 million. With inflation running in the shipbuilding pipeline at some 8%, can my noble friend tell your Lordships’ House potentially what the upper limit for that budget would be, for the flagship to continue to offer value for money? Also, when was the last time that the Government or any Government delivered a warship for its original budget?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will take the last question first. My noble friend is aware that very strict procurement rules now govern MoD procurement, and that the budgets for the Type 26 and Type 31 are very vigilantly watched. On the possible price range for the national flagship I cannot be specific about figures but, to put these sums in perspective, over four years the projected cost amounts to an impact on the defence budget in the region of 0.1%.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the ocean surveillance ship has the purpose of safeguarding critical infrastructure in the north Atlantic. When it was announced in March 2021, the service date of 2024 was given, but in a Written Answer last November, the Government said there was no date for entry into service. Why has the service date been allowed to drag in that way? In relation to the national flagship, why is it necessary for a ship whose purpose is to showcase the United Kingdom’s economy, and to boost trade and investment, to be provided from the defence budget? The defence budget is not elastic, although this Government seem to think so.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I remind the noble Lord that the defence budget has one of the biggest settlements, from this Government, that it has seen in decades. That includes a period when the noble Lord was active in support of government. I say to the noble Lord that the MROSS is a technically complicated ship. It is in its concept and assessment phase. He will understand the complicated progress that is then made to the point of being able to talk about initial operating capability, never mind going into service. It is an important addition to the fleet.
On the budget of the national flagship, the national flagship will achieve two things. It will promote the UK in its foreign policy and security objectives, but it will also be an addition to the Royal Navy and, by adopting its soft diplomacy role, it will free up people in the Royal Navy to do other military tasks. It is a very natural addendum to the MoD.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. The whole point of the ocean surveillance ship was to protect critical infrastructure pertaining to our digital capability and communications. I am not disinclined to be optimistic, but it will take some time before we can protect those cables properly. Is there any strategy, or any co-ordination with our allies and NATO, to protect that infrastructure until those ships actually provide it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, we currently have HMS “Scott” continuing to do very important and necessary work. I would not want to give any impression that that infrastructure is not being protected. It is, but what we naturally look to is a replacement and successor for HMS “Scott”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord West’s Question, I think the House will be disappointed that the Minister said that it was too early to say anything about when the design would take place, when the ordering would take place and when we can expect these two ships to be in operational service. Would the Minister go back to the Ministry of Defence and say that we would like greater clarity on timing of all this? Furthermore, if it is the Government’s intention that these ships are built in Britain, will that be the default position? Should there be one British tender for either or both of these ships that will see them, particularly the national British flagship, built in Britain?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
They are very different ships, as the noble Lord will understand. The intention is that the National Shipbuilding Office for the MROSS will seek to maximise the opportunities for UK industry in these programmes, but within the boundaries of our international legal obligations. As he is aware, national security will be attached to the national flagship and it will be built in the UK.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, years ago, we were able to say that there were about 50 destroyers and frigates available for service in the Royal Navy. What is the present figure and is it sufficient for the threats that we face?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I cannot give my noble friend a precise figure for the entire fleet of ships, but I can say that, as he is aware, there have been significant additions in recent years, not least the two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. We have an exciting programme of frigate building for the Type 26 and Type 31 and, of course, we have the Type 23s continuing in service and supporting. We are satisfied that we have the capability we need for the tasks that befall us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is it not the case that these ships require crews, and that crews require uniforms and other facilities on board for domestic purposes? Therefore, can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that none of the cotton products will include cotton from Xinjiang? It is absolutely fundamental, and I am very pleased that the Minister for Health is sitting next to the Minister, because exactly the same applies in the NHS. Do not trust the paperwork. The forensic company Oritain, using element analysis, can tell from the fabric where the cotton was grown. We do not want, on flagships for the Royal Navy, cotton produced by slave labour in China.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not have that specific information before me, but the noble Lord’s point is noted and I shall make inquiries.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees that much has changed in the world since the OSS was first conceived and the contract let. Would the Minister concede that it is inappropriate to stand at the Dispatch Box and find reasons why this project is being delayed? It would be more appropriate for the Minister to explain how it is being expedited and sped up to meet the new world situation.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The MROSS is not a military engagement ship, per se; it is a ship that will do important surveillance activity, with reference to our subsea cables and energy infrastructure. I do not for one minute disagree: it is an important project; the MoD recognises that, but it is complex. That is why proper regard to due process must be taken.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the context of Ukraine, can the noble Baroness say what role the Royal Navy is playing in deterring Russian aggression? Given that there are 25 million tonnes of grain blockaded in ports around the Black Sea, what advice is the Royal Navy giving, particularly to neutral countries and their navies, to get that food out to feed starving people in the Horn of Africa?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, maritime activity in the Black Sea is governed by the Montreux convention, which Turkey has deployed. For the moment, that restricts activity. The United Kingdom Government are consulting with allies and partners on how on earth we can try to get some of that grain shipped, either by sea or by land.
Social Care: Adults
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, published on 13 May, which found that more than 500,000 people in England were waiting (1) for a social care assessment, (2) for their care package to begin, or (3) for a review of their care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Local authorities are responsible for meeting the needs of those who require care and support under the Care Act. The ADASS survey highlights that their waiting lists are increasing, which is why we are investing to support improved outcomes and experiences of care for people and their families, including through an additional £5.4 billion over three years to begin a comprehensive programme of reform.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, both the ADASS survey on social care waiting lists of 500,000 and Age UK’s estimate of 1.6 million people with unmet care needs are a stark wake-up call for the Government’s mantra of having fixed social care. The Minister knows that the official figures that he always quotes and quotes today are nowhere near enough to meet current and future demands, as key stakeholders and the expert think tanks routinely remind him. What are the Government doing to prioritise care and support in people’s homes and local communities? Does the Minister not recognise that the situation is getting worse, not better?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Many noble Lords recognise the challenges faced by not just this sector but all sectors, during Covid. One issue we have been looking at for many years, over subsequent Governments—we discussed this during the Health and Care Bill—is that social care was seen as a Cinderella service for many years. For the first time, thanks to noble Lords’ support, we managed to get the Health and Care Bill through to have a properly integrated health and care system. We are also looking at how we can make sure that we properly understand the health and care landscape, with the register and the hub, and that it is a vocation that more people find attractive.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I urge my noble friend, in light of the extraordinary number of vacancies in the social care sector—more and more staff are leaving to join other sectors—to urge the Government to revisit the Immigration Rules that do not allow overseas care workers, who could fill those gaps, to come in. We have a special system for agricultural workers; surely my noble friend agrees that we must not put picking fruit and vegetables above the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question, but make the point that it is important that we look not only to our domestic workforce but to recruit people from far and wide to fill those gaps. We have always done that. As I often say from this place, we must remember that public services in this country were saved by people from the Commonwealth after the war. They played a very important role in making sure that this country and its public services recovered after the war. On recruitment from overseas, on 15 February, we added care workers to the health and care visa and shortage occupation list, allowing these roles to be recruited from overseas. We hope that will enable us to fill thousands of eligible vacancies.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I go back to the previous question: this ADASS survey shows that almost 170,000 hours of homecare a week could not be delivered for the first three months of this year, because of a shortage of care workers. This is a sevenfold increase on the previous year. The changes proposed to the social care system will not increase the rates of pay for social care workers, at the moment, to make it attractive to others, who can work in hospitality. But there is a dire need for people now. What will the Government do right now to help solve this crisis?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness will acknowledge, some of the problems have been in evidence for a long time. Sometimes, we are tackling the legacy of this neglect of the social care system. At the same time, we have to remember that many social care providers are not run by the state; they are private providers. Following the People at the Heart of Care White Paper, we want to make sure that, first, we encourage better conditions for workers. We also want to make sure that local authorities determine a fair rate of pay based on local market conditions. We have seen an increase in the national living wage, which means care workers will get an increase. But we are looking at all this as part of the overview of the social care landscape.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister comment on the March 2022 progress report on the Out of Sight – Who Cares? report, which came out in October 2020? It found that of the 17 recommendations, none had been fully achieved and only four had been partially achieved. Can the Minister say when Government will address these recommendations and end the excessive use of the dehumanising isolation, segregation and seclusion within adult social care?
Lord Kamall (Con)
On that specific question, I will have to go back to the department and get an answer. I will commit to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, 500,000 is a staggering number, but the number experiencing the deepest emotional and physical impact on families may be in the millions. Is the noble Lord and his department aware of the costs associated with neglecting these people and how many may have lost their lives while waiting for these services?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When we look at the 500,000 number, we are talking about an assessment of any kind. These are not people who are outside the system; sometimes they may be in the system but waiting for another assessment within the system. For example, they could be waiting for Care Act deprivation of liberty safeguards, occupational therapy assessments, the beginning of direct payments or a review of their care. It means they are in the system but just waiting for another part of the system to work. The other thing about the report was that there was a 61% response rate, and it was extrapolated from that. Anyone who has read behavioural economists Daniel Ariely or Daniel Kahneman will know that people are more likely to focus on losses rather than gains and, similarly, in surveys people are more likely to report bad things than things that are going well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what these figures show is that local authorities with insufficient resources are introducing rationing of services to some of the most vulnerable people in the country? Why did we pay more in national insurance if the money was not to be made available to social care until three years down the line and the crisis is now?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I wonder if I could correct my noble friend. The Government implemented a comprehensive review of the programme on adult social care with a £5.4 billion investment over three years from April 2022, of which £1.7 billion will be used to begin major improvements across adult social care in England, including but not limited to £500 million investment in the workforce and £150 million to improve technology. As many noble Lords recognise, for too long this sector has been neglected. In some cases, there is a lack of understanding about the breadth of the sector. We are trying to understand it and get people to register, and then we can improve it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Some hospital NHS trusts have a third to a quarter of their beds bed-blocked by people who are clinically ready for discharge but cannot leave because of no social package being available. What are the Government doing now to deal with this problem? It undermines the NHS waiting list backlog as well.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, and the fact is that if some patients do stay in hospital too long, they can lose control of certain faculties and see muscular deterioration. So it is our priority to ensure that people discharge safely, as quickly as possible, to the most appropriate place. Local areas should work together to plan and deliver hospital discharge, and the department is working with NHS England, NHS Improvement, local government and social care providers to monitor and understand the underlying causes and do something about them.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government say this is a long-term problem, but they have been in power now for 10 years. What have the Government been doing to address this issue, bearing in mind that Andy Burnham identified this as a problem and was attacked by the Front Benches when he put forward some suggestions on how they could deal with it? This is a crisis made by this Government.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I will have to humbly disagree with the noble Lord, because this has been a problem for subsequent Governments, as we discussed during the passage of the Health and Care Bill. In some cases we can see reports going back 50 years. What has happened over the years is that Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments have put those reports on shelves to gather dust. We were the first Government to introduce an integrated health and care system and to grasp the nettle.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, there is some anecdotal evidence that patients are being discharged from hospital without having a full care package in place. Could my noble friend say exactly what the Government’s policy is to ensure this does not happen? These are some of the most vulnerable people, such as individuals who have had a stroke. On occasions, they are sent home with no support mechanism at all.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. It is a really important issue that we discussed many times not only during the passage of the Health and Care Bill but subsequently. We have to make sure that everyone in the system is working together to make sure that a hospital knows who it is discharging to and that the carer who will receive or help that person has not only the support but the facilities and capabilities at home, or wherever that person is being discharged to, to work with that person. There are gaps in the system; it is not perfect in all places. We are working with local authorities and others to make sure we improve the system.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to associate himself with today’s celebration of the arrival of the HMT “Empire Windrush” in 1948, whereby a statue has been unveiled at Waterloo station to remember that it was Caribbean citizens who, frankly, came to the rescue of the National Health Service? Are there lessons to be learned that the Minister might wish to apply to today’s situation?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am so keen to answer that question because of my own Caribbean background. In fact, my father was part of that Windrush generation. He travelled from Guyana to Trinidad in 1952, and then from Trinidad to the United Kingdom, where he worked first on the railways and then as a bus driver. His brother worked in a post office and his sister was a nurse. That shows the vital contribution that people from the Caribbean made to this country post war.
Housing: Private Renters
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their English Housing Survey: a segmentation analysis of private renters, published on 16 June, what plans they have to improve conditions for private renters.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
First, I declare my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. Our White Paper sets out how we will provide a better deal for renters and our commitment to consult on introducing a decent homes standard in the sector—the first Government ever to do so. This will mean that homes must be free from serious hazards and disrepair, warm and dry, and with decent facilities. We will also provide councils with the powers they need for robust and effective enforcement to drive up standards.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, by planning to remove Section 21, the Government have rightly recognised that security of tenure is one of the biggest issues for renters. The White Paper talks about the need to protect renters from evictions while also talking about making the eviction process as straight- forward as possible. The Government say:
“After eviction, tenants cannot always find suitable housing nearby, interrupting their employment and children’s education”,
yet the White Paper also says:
“Claim forms for possession will be simplified and streamlined for landlords.”
I ask the Minister for clarification: is it the Government’s aim to make it easy for landlords to get their house back at short notice even if the tenant is not at fault, or is it to give tenants security and to protect them from the cost of unwanted moves?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this 12-point plan of reforms is to ensure that we balance the interests between landlord and tenant, but first remove the Section 21 no-fault evictions. In doing so, we are enhancing the grounds around Section 8 so that it is easier to remove tenants who disrupt the community and cause persistent anti-social behaviour, while bringing grounds for egregious rent arrears and moving and selling grounds, because landlords have a right to ask the tenant to leave if they need to sell the property. We are making those grounds work for the landlord so that we can remove Section 21. It is all about balancing those interests.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the measures that my noble friend announced on Monday, which will improve the terms of trade for private tenants, particularly against bad landlords. But is there not a risk that these bad landlords see the legislation coming and, before it is enacted, introduce leases that deny tenants that protection? Is it not imperative that this legislation is introduced as soon as possible and, if possible, backdated to the time of its Second Reading?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I always appreciate my noble friend’s eagle eye. We do not want landlords gaming the system, and we want to make it very clear that any abuse of the future system will not be tolerated. We are committed to ensuring that local councils will have the right powers to crack down on any rogue practices such as those that my noble friend has outlined.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, on Monday, in response to my letter about landlords leaving long-term lettings in favour of the more lucrative Airbnb, particularly at a time of increasing demand, the Minister replied that the English Housing Survey says that we are seeing some landlords leaving but an equal number coming in. Can the Minister tell us the source of the statistics that allow the Government to make that assertion, against mounting evidence to the contrary? I could not find it in the quoted English Housing Survey, nor the Government’s Private Landlord Survey, and the National Landlords Association could not help either. This is a vital piece of data, given what we believe is really happening on the ground.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I suppose I should always be very careful about giving data. In response in the other place, the Minister—who was driving forward with the 12-point plan—made it clear that we are seeing as many landlords leaving the sector as we are seeing entering the sector. I will go back and find the data that underpinned my remarks in the debate we had earlier this week.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem with the private rental sector is that many people in it would rather be in social housing at a fair rent, and that, because of a shortage in that housing, private landlords are often able to exploit some of the most vulnerable in our society? What could we do about that in the future, to increase social rented?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is important to recognise the balance of having more tenants who cannot afford renting in the private sector having social or affordable homes. That is why we have an £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme, and we are seeking to double the amount of social rented homes that we build to 32,000, because clearly, the housing benefit bill has been growing astronomically and we need to contain that over time.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Agreeing as I certainly do with the thrust of the previous four questions, I ask whether the Minister can confirm that in the last 20 years, the proportion of households living in private rented accommodation has doubled, whilst the proportion of owner-occupiers has reduced and the proportion living in social rented accommodation has reduced dramatically. This is despite the fact, as the previous questioner has pointed out, that the private rented sector is often the most expensive and certainly the least popular of the various forms of tenure. Is the Minister satisfied with these trends and is he happy for them to continue, or does he not think that it would be preferable to enable more people to move into the owner-occupied sector or the social rented sector, and stop this huge rise in the private rented sector?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am not going to glorify one type of tenure over another. The noble Lord is right, however, in the sense that we have seen a doubling of the amount of private rented, but it is approximately the same proportion of the amount of housing stock: it has broadly stayed around 19%. You can look at percentages, or at the absolute amount. One of the benefits of Governments over the last few decades is that the proportion of non-decent private rented sector homes—those with category 1 hazards—has come down dramatically. In 2006, to pick a date at random, it was 46%. It is now down to 21% of homes, which is still too high, but that is why we are bringing in these measures, to drive that down even further. For young people, who are mobile, private renting is often a very good option and I am not going to knock it, but we do recognise that we need to build more homes for sale and have more social homes. I acknowledge that, but let us not put one form of tenure ahead of another.
Lord Bird (CB)
Can we look at this in a very cautious sort of way? I am glad that the Minister used the word “balance”. I remember the Rent Act 1965, which was so well-intentioned that it led to a 25% fall in the amount of rented accommodation. The reason for that was that they did not keep the balance, and in the private sector, probably more than any other housing sector, we need to keep that balance, so that it looks as though both sides win.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure I detected a question, but I am completely with the noble Lord in spirit, in the sense that it is an important comment. We need to recognise that landlords have a choice. We need to make sure that it works for tenants but also that when landlords have reasonable grounds to recover their property, those conditions are in place. These reforms seek to get that balance right.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister reaffirm the assertion he made that the fundamental problem we have is an overall shortage of accommodation, with a growing population? In those circumstances, what policy do the Government have—any radical turn? Does he not recognise that many people now want to stay at home, do not want to work in offices and do not want to go to retail premises, which are now declining? Waitrose is converting some of its property into homes. When will the Government encourage people to stay at home? Then, we can use offices and retail premises to create more accommodation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
That is a very reasonable point. In a sense, we have to recognise that the world is changing and that there are opportunities to build more homes. We see that in the urban setting, where retail will diminish; people are buying online far more than before. Equally, I talk to my friends who live in the country—I am a city guy—who say that there are also agricultural areas that could easily be rezoned to provide opportunities for growth. We need to look at that, and that is why we are bringing forward the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to look at how we reform the planning system so that we get the right use of the right places and grow in the right way.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, many local authorities borrowed money to invest in commercial property; they were not allowed to borrow money to invest in social housing. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House how much money those local authorities that invested in commercial property have now lost, and how much they might have bettered themselves and the country had they been able to invest in social housing.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, as someone who was a local authority leader for six years and in local government for 20 years, I know that not all councils invested in commercial property. We have some examples, such as Croydon, that got into that sort of game, but I do not think it was something that most councils did. Most councils have been seeking to get back into the council house building business. In 2018 we removed the cap on the housing revenue account, and I think it is great that this generation of council leaders are building more council homes for their residents. Proper oversight will ensure that the sorts of practices that the noble Baroness mentions are kept to the absolute minimum. If necessary, we will move in to take over control if it gets really bad.
Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders (2nd Report, HL Paper 17) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the last edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders was issued in 2017. Although preparations for a new edition were almost complete in early 2020, publication was inevitably delayed by the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to the rapid adoption first of virtual and then of hybrid sittings. Only now, as the House has returned almost entirely to pre-pandemic procedures, has the committee been able to complete this work.
If the report is agreed today, a new edition of the Companion will be published online later this week and hard copies will be ready for when the House returns in September. The new edition will take account of changes to our procedures agreed by the House since 2017, giving us all an up-to-date, accurate edition of the Companion once again.
The report, which is, in most respects, identical to the committee’s seventh report of the last Session, also proposes a few minor but substantive changes to which I now seek the House’s agreement. I had originally intended to move the Motion to agree the seventh report on 16 May, but following representations made to me by number of noble Lords, I decided not to move the report but instead go back to your Lordships’ committee to ask it to look again at two particular issues. First, there is the proposal relating to the Lord Speaker’s leave of absence. I hope the recommendation that we have now brought forward, which seeks to accommodate the House’s legitimate interest in the Lord Speaker’s performance of his public duties, will be supported. Secondly, we have looked again at the recommendation on taking young children through the Division Lobbies. I must outline that this is not a change but confirmation of pre-existing, uncodified practice and I hope that the House will agree that the wording that we have now proposed reflects this.
Before concluding, I want to offer some further reflections on the short debate that took place last Thursday on the Motion to appoint the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, to the committee. The purpose of the Companion is to describe procedures that the House itself has agreed and is not to instigate changes to those procedures. Preparing a new edition is thus largely a technical exercise, updating the text to ensure that it accurately reflects current procedure. This means incorporating any changes to our procedures that the House has agreed since the last edition, as well as reflecting changes in statute law or updating references to Commons procedure. The entire text is carefully checked, errors corrected, and footnote references checked and updated.
Since the Procedure Committee was first appointed in 1940, the Companion has been published under the authority of that committee. The committee triages changes and brings points of substance to the House for a full debate, while taking responsibility for approving the many purely editorial or technical changes that are required when updating any document of this length and complexity.
I take very seriously concerns expressed by noble Lords. As I said in responding to last Thursday’s short debate, there is nothing unexpected in the new edition of the Companion, which, in substance, reflects the many changes that the House itself has agreed since 2017. But, to ensure the maximum possible transparency, I approved publication of the complete draft text of the new edition of the Companion, which was published electronically on Friday 17 June and made available in the Library. I have also arranged for copies of papers considered by the Procedure and Privileges Committee while preparing the latest addition to be placed in the Library of the House. These papers provide an audit trail of the committee’s decision-making.
I hope that, with these assurances, the House will now be content to agree the report that is before it today and thereby allow us to finalise the text of the new edition of the Companion. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may first say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker, in particular for arranging a meeting that I had this morning with the Clerk Assistant. I accept that the Companion has never been approved as such on the Floor of the House but rather that its component parts have been.
However, I rise on a small but not unimportant point that concerns the wording and use of language. I refer to paragraph 6 of the report, which my noble friend himself has just referred to, which proposes the following words:
“‘He or she seeks the leave of the House when such absences relate to the public duties of the Lord Speaker’”.
That is a wholly reasonable proposition, from which I do not dissent. Paragraph 8 proposes the words:
“‘If the Lord Speaker knows that an oral question is not going to be asked, they inform the House before they call.’”
In other words, in the first of two paragraphs separated by one, we refer to “he or she” and, in the second, we use the gender-neutral language of “they”. I plead that we have consistency and use the former, rather than the latter, throughout the Companion when we are referring to the Lord Speaker and, indeed, to others.
The Companion is a very valued companion. Many of us find it extremely helpful and important, but consistency of language is something that we have the right to expect. I ask my noble friend to respond positively to that suggestion.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. As I say, we have worked as a committee. My predecessor’s 20 Procedure Committee and Procedure and Privileges Committee reports have been agreed by the House.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised was on language. I have looked into this because much of this occurred before my responsibilities, but the process of changing exclusively, for instance, masculine language in core documents has been going on for quite a considerable time and I think that this is universally agreed. It is fair to say that the Companion uses both “he or she” and in other places “they”. The Government have recently reaffirmed that legislation should be drafted in a gender-neutral way but—I think this was important when I looked into this—using gendered pronouns in specific cases. Clearly, one of those would be in referring to mothers of children.
It is also fair to say that we have had a degree of flexibility, mindful of guidelines but also in varying iterations. I am mindful of the point about consistency and accept that we should look at this. I will ask the House, however, to agree the report before us because, from 2017 until now, it is important that we have a Companion we can use.
The other thing I have asked, and we are going to look at it very strongly, is that the online version should be a contemporary version so that the House, over varying periods before it is reprinted, is always updated. This is so that, although some of us quake at the thought of lengthy documents and looking at them online, there is a resource we can all have the current version of.
I suggest that we will, obviously, in our consideration of all these matters look at revisions as they come up and have matters of substance always before your Lordships. I am mindful of what has been said today but I ask, please, for the consent of your Lordships to the report so that we can bring out a Companion which is updated. That is why I earnestly hope that the House will agree to the Motion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, can I say how grateful I am to him for changing the language that referred to the Lord Speaker, rather than “he or she”, as “they”? However, I am a bit puzzled as to why, having got rid of “they” and substituted “he or she”, he has continued with “they” elsewhere. What is the reason for that?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before the noble Lord responds, can I just say that in respect of the Lord Speaker’s duties and the issues regarding school-age children and other matters, nothing is unexpected in this new draft of the Companion? I offer my full support to the Senior Deputy Speaker, and I hope the House can now quickly agree this report. We have important business to discuss today.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Senior Deputy Speaker’s Motion to approve the report and the idea that the online version should, at any moment, be the most up-to-date version. Can I ask one quick question about paragraph 8? If a Member withdraws her or his Question before the day it is due to be asked, does that Member lose their right to ask the set number of Questions in each year? Is that withdrawn Question counted as one of the number you are allowed to ask in any given year?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I am looking to my right, as they say. It is helpful that we have it on the record: providing they give 24-hours’ notice, a noble Lord would not lose their opportunity. I hope that is helpful.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth that in one reference I have “he or she” and in another there is a “they”, but what I really desperately want is for the House to agree that we have a new, up-to-date Companion.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That is what we want to do. As to this reference, the report is to ask the House to agree to the words that are in this document. As I have said, there is flexibility; there are varying moments when different terms are used. I find it difficult to believe that noble Lords would find it difficult to interpret or understand, but the points have been made and I have taken them back. Looking at various Members of the committee who are already here, I am sure that they will take note of the points which have been made.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry—I want to make a point which can be put on the record. As someone who learned English as her third language and is quite sticky about the grammar, I find that this is a terrible sentence, because it starts in the singular and finishes in the plural. This is not English.
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
At Second Reading, all who spoke acknowledged the importance of our social security system providing support as quickly as possible for those who are nearing the end of their lives. This Bill will ensure that more people in their final year of life can access the benefits for which they are eligible in a fast-tracked and simplified way. It is right that the Government are making eligibility changes for this fast-tracked access, so that those expected to live for 12 months or less, rather than the current six months, can benefit. This Bill will mean that thousands more people at the end of their lives will be able to access benefits earlier than they currently do. It will also result in a consistent end-of-life definition being used across health and welfare services in England and Wales, which will be more easily understood by clinicians and end-of-life charities.
I thank all noble Lords for their support in ensuring that this Bill passes through the House quickly. Clearly, we all recognise the significant positive impact this change will have for people who are nearing the end of their lives, and their families. I was also very grateful to noble Lords who engaged with me so constructively while the Bill was passing through this House. Several noble Lords signalled their overall support while also raising important issues, which I will ensure are taken into account as we work to implement the changes that we progress.
I end by paying tribute to all the campaigners and charities that have worked in this area; their support has been crucial in reaching this point and I am sure that all noble Lords join me in recognising the admirable support they provide people nearing the end of their lives.
The Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill will provide thousands more people with vital financial support, so that they can worry a little less about their finances and focus more on sharing the valuable time they have left with the people who matter to them the most.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and thank all noble Lords who participated in this Bill at the previous stage. It is a short Bill, but one which will have real benefits to people who have been told they have less than 12 months to live. The House can do few things that matter more than to make people’s final months easier than they might otherwise be. The change is long overdue, and we are very pleased to support it. Once again, I commend Marie Curie, MNDA and all the charities that have campaigned to get to this point.
We chose not to table amendments to the Bill, even though I would have liked the opportunity to explore some of the issues about the support available to people nearing the end of their life. However, it is really important to get this onto the statute book as soon as possible because, at the moment, some benefits are available only to those with six months to live and others are for those with 12. That is confusing for clinicians and patients, so we want to support this getting there as fast as possible. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government will reward our restraint by ensuring that the Bill gets through the other place before the Summer Recess.
Since we are not having a Committee or Report stage, I would like to ask two quick questions, of which I have given notice to the Minister. She is aware that various stakeholders, while supporting the Bill, had argued for a more open-ended approach than the one the Government chose to take. This Bill will allow special rules awards to be made for three years, whereas the Scottish Government have taken a different, more open-ended approach. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach they have chosen to take in this Bill? Will they take advantage of the opportunity afforded by devolution to compare their approach with that taken by the Scottish Government, and implemented only recently?
In that vein, I ask about the success metrics for this policy change. Will the Minister’s department monitor whether more people are able to fast-track their claims? Will they monitor if fewer people are dying before their claims for benefits under the normal rules have been cleared? That has been an issue; it takes so long to process claims for PIP that people are dying before their claims are processed. Will the Government monitor if claimants find the process easy to manage?
I would like to express my thanks to the Minister and her officials for involving us, and to colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. We send the Bill to the Commons with our full support, and we wish it Godspeed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Janke cannot be in her place today, so I am delighted to thank, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Minister for her remarks and all Peers who have taken part during passage of this Bill. I also want to thank the Minister’s officials, who have been very helpful. It was encouraging that the Bill is supported cross-party. It may be a short Bill, but we believe that its effects will be transformative to those individuals, and their families, who have to face a terminal illness and the financial shocks that go with it as they live the last few months of their lives.
We, too, decided not to table amendments, though we would have liked to, because we felt it was important that this Bill proceeded quickly. Prior to the Second Reading, we had discussions with Marie Curie and other organisations about whether the Government should review the impact of the legislation after a year and make an assessment as to whether the provisions of the Act have had a significant impact on reducing levels of poverty for individuals with a life expectancy of less than 12 months.
We draw the same parallel as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that in Scotland they deleted any reference to timeframes. I think this would help to give us a comparator once the Bill has been enacted and put into practice in England for a year.
I want to pick up also the point that the noble Baroness made about time for the processing of claims. I made this point at Second Reading, and I hope that for everyone it will be as speedy as possible. I was reassured the Minister said that moving it to 12 months would not slow the process down, but we remain concerned that for some people it is still not as fast as it should be, given the straits that they find themselves in.
At the Second Reading I raised the current anomalies in the rules for the benefits of severely disabled children aged under three, compared to those over three. The Minister kindly agreed to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister for myself and Together for Short Lives. Unfortunately, I have been offered a policy officer to answer my questions by email, which, while being very kind—and I appreciate the offer—is not quite what the Minister said. As I said at Second Reading, this is a policy decision to treat seriously ill small children differently to their older peers, so please can I repeat my request for a meeting with the relevant Minister?
That aside, from these Benches we welcome this short but vital Bill and look forward in hope that it will ease some of the financial difficulties faced by terminally ill people and their families.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Brinton, for their supportive comments, and may I say that we are doing everything we can to get this through the other place in time? Everybody is on red alert to do so.
I would particularly like to address the points made by both noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Brinton. The noble Baroness Sherlock is interested in the department’s approach to evaluating the changes being proposed in this Bill and whether this will also cover a comparison with the approach taken by the Scottish Government. I can confirm that we will continue to monitor our own approach and watch with interest the different approach taken by the Scottish Government as it is fully rolled out.
We will also continue to conduct audits of medical evidence provided to us in support of claims made under the fast-track special rule process and to monitor feedback that claimants provide to the DWP through our existing communication channels. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also expressed interest in the metrics that would be used to judge the success of the new approach for claims made under the special rules for end of life. The department considers the time taken for these claimants to receive the financial support that they are eligible for as a measure of the policy’s success. I am extremely pleased that the department has a strong record of processing claims made under the special rules in a matter of a few days on average. We also had a constructive relationship with end-of- life charities and will continue to work with them to ensure that the policy intent behind the Bill is being met.
On the noble Baroness’s question about people dying while waiting for the outcome of a claim under normal rules, we want to do all we can to ensure that people get the support they are entitled to while living with a long-term disability or health condition. It is obviously incredibly sad when someone passes away while waiting for the outcome of a PIP claim. The cause of death for PIP claimants is not collated centrally by the department. However, there is no evidence to suggest that someone’s reason for claiming PIP was the cause of their death, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is interested in whether we will check that claimants find the process easy to manage. I assure all noble Lords that the department is engaging with stakeholders, and clinicians involved in supporting people to claim under the special rules, to ensure that they understand and can navigate the process. We will continue to do so. The department is also looking at making process improvements for the end-to-end customer journey for claims made under the special rules and will use the direct experience of claimants to inform that work as it progresses.
Regarding the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I did agree to a meeting. I am not quite sure what has happened, but I will go back and advise people that we will meet. It will get me into trouble but I will do it. I have held two all-Peers briefings on this Bill. As always, my door is open. Going forward, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is sponsoring this Bill in the other place, will be happy to reach out on any outstanding questions that noble Lords may have.
Schools Bill [HL]
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2022)
Lord Lucas
“(4) Regulations must, in relation to a register under section 436B, make provision about the right of appeal to an independent body against any interpretation or discretion applied by a local authority in compiling the register or in taking action based on information contained in or requested for the register.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that parents have the ability to argue effectively with a local authority who refuses to accept good reasons for not complying with their requests.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 112A, I shall speak to my other amendments in this group. The focus of the group is the relationship between local authorities and home educators, which is well illustrated—we shall come to it later—by the text of Amendment 128A, which reads:
“Local authorities must … recognise that the first responsibility for educating a child lies with its parents … be supportive of those who elect to educate their children at home … recognise that home education is of itself not a safeguarding issue, and … acknowledge that in many instance the decision to home educate reflects failures by other institutions of the state.”
I would add that they also must recognise that home education can be very different from school education. You inherently have much more flexibility in the structure. You do not need to follow all the systems and rules which make a school practical. You may choose to do things very differently.
There are local authorities where relationships are very good. One email sent to me, from someone under Gloucestershire County Council, said that the EHE team are a “genuine delight” and that, “Talking to our caseworker just feels like boasting about how well our daughter is doing and being reassured about any concerns I have by a person with a great deal of knowledge and experience of elective home education.” I have also talked to home educators in Coventry who described the team there as “very well liked, at ease with the children and respectful of parents” and said that 85% of home educators ask for a visit because it is an open conversation and a totally supportive experience. As a result, Coventry has a higher than average rate of school attendance orders, because the team in Coventry knows what is going on and home educators, when they know of a problem elsewhere, pass it on to the team because they know that things will be fairly dealt with by the team.
There are other local authorities—I will not name them in public, but if anyone would like to see the documentation I have on them I would be happy, if I have permission, to share it—where the team appears not to have any relevant experience either of home education or of teaching. There is a totally oppositional attitude to home educators and no understanding that the structures of schools do not necessarily apply to home education. There have been extraordinary exchanges between people who do not appear to have sufficient qualifications to be a teaching assistant and a home educator who has been a teacher for 20 years, asking the most ridiculous questions. Under those circumstances, it does not surprise me that the relationship between the local authority and the home education community breaks down; a lot of difficulties arise because of that.
I do not stick to any particular formula in my amendments in this group, but their overall objective is to suggest to my noble friend that there are ways in which the Bill can incentivise local authorities to act well, so that it is easy to be a good local authority. Being a bad local authority is a path that is not conducive to the efficient exercising of its functions, and therefore it gradually becomes one which is not followed.
I note the breadth of powers given to local authorities in the Bill, in particular the ability to make any demand of a home educator under a totally open new subsection that allows them to ask whatever they want and, if the parent does not provide it, to dump them into school attendance order proceedings without any appeal. That is a system in which it would be tremendously easy to be a bad local authority. Local authorities will have total power over home educators, with no one controlling how those powers are used. There will be no incentive for local authorities to improve. I do not think that is a reflection of the long relationships and discussions that the Department for Education has had with home educators. It was immensely surprising to the home education community that the Bill should be written in this way. I very much hope that we will be able to persuade the Government to make some changes.
Amendment 112A and other amendments suggest that there should be a right of appeal—a space in which a home-educating parent can argue in front of an independent tribunal with a local authority. As we are giving local authorities such huge powers, in fairness, there surely must be some form of appeal—some outside oversight over whether they are being reasonable.
Amendment 130A asks that data held by the local authority should be made routinely available to home educators. If we want a good, open, conversational relationship between good home educators and their local authority, sharing information plays a very important part.
We should have available to us, as legislators—indeed, as the Government—data on the penalties imposed by local authorities. That is a very good indicator of the state of relationships between the home education community and local authorities. We need early indicators in the system so that we can see when things are going right or, maybe, not so right.
Amendment 136ZA brings in the phrase “light touch”. This is one much used in conversation between the Department for Education and home educators. I should really like to know what the department means by it. It startles me to think that some local authorities whose work I have looked at could be defined as light touch, but perhaps it can. I need to understand where the department stands on this. I should like an arrangement where the people in local authorities charged with looking after home education had some relevant qualifications and experience.
If you have in a team someone who knows what home education looks like and someone with strong teaching experience, that seems to be the combination, looking nationwide, that works really well in local authorities. The main thing is that the people in the local authority should have enough experience and qualification to feel confident in the judgments they are making. If not, they have to rely on getting out the baseball bat and beating home educators around the head, because they do not understand the arguments being made. Getting qualifications and a level of performance into local authorities is an important aim.
On Amendments 137B and 137C, I say that being able to tip parents into punitive action after just one fault does not seem the right way: there should be a pattern of behaviour that then requires the whips and scorpions to be got out. Amendment 137B states:
“Except in circumstances of deliberate rule breaking, the school attendance order process must be preceded by a process of communication where the education being provided can be adjusted and services under section 436G offered.”
In other words, this should be a supportive dialogue between the local authority and the home educator. Where the home educator is failing, there are conversations about how things could be made better; where the local authority can help with that process, it does; and only if that process breaks down do we get into the punitive provisions. That is the nature of the relationship between home educators and local authorities in a lot of areas. That would be a better template for the legislation: to take the pattern of behaviour which is current in local authorities where there is a very good relationship between home educators and the local authority, rather than the pattern of behaviour exemplified by the more punitive local authorities.
Amendment 137C is another right of appeal. Amendment 138ZA looks at dealing with a child who is in mid-assessment. If a school recommends a child for assessment for special needs, and then the parent withdraws that child because there is clearly a problem in school and they think home education will be better, that process of assessment ought to be completed before the local authority can tip the parent into a punitive process. The process of assessment is entirely in the hands of the local authority; it can make it fast if it wants to. I know a lot of them have long backlogs on this, but that is up to them—they can prioritise a child if they are worried about them—but they should not be able to tip parents into a school attendance order process where they have failed to provide the assessment that the school has said is necessary.
Similarly, if it is clear to a medical practitioner that a mental health assessment is needed—this would be common in the case of people suffering from school refusal or trauma as a result of events at school, when a proper assessment needs to be made—it seems entirely appropriate that the local authority should wait until that process is complete, and until there is not an independent medical professional standing in the way saying, “No, don’t do this now. We don’t know what the right thing to do for this child is.”
Amendment 138A looks at things in a more general sense. It says that this is a really disruptive process for the family and the child. Local authorities really need a proper justification for what they do and need to ascertain where the child stands in this process.
Amendment 143B asks that a refusal of the revocation of a school attendance order must be reasonable. That may be implicit in the law as it stands, but I would be grateful if my noble friend could confirm it.
Amendment 143F argues that if a parent re-offends, the circumstances should be reinvestigated as they may have changed and things may be different. Just having the ability to reimpose an endless series of penalties does not seem in accordance with the general practice of English law.
Amendment 143I gives the Government an opportunity to justify why stronger penalties are needed. We seem to be entering a level of penalties that I find excessive in the context of not sending your child to school, but I would be interested to listen to what my noble friend said.
Although it is not in this group, Amendment 143IA asks that Ofsted should have oversight of the local authorities’ performance on elective home education, which would be a very constructive way of making sure that local authorities were aware that if they fell down seriously, in looking after home educators, somebody would be on their tail. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his introduction to Amendment 112A and the many others in this group. Amendment 112A is important, as it gives parents the right of appeal to a local authority that refuses to accept their reasons for why their child is not being taught in school.
I am particularly supportive of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: to be seen as being open and positive with parents who want to home educate their children. Some years ago, I saw an excellent example while on a study tour of Education Otherwise in California. I visited the American River Charter School, an independent home school based at Sierra community college, north of Sacramento. It was a parent-driven, teacher-supported, not in the mainstream school, the equivalent of an FE college. Many of the students participate in educational field trips and come together to do lab work with supervising teachers, but only if the parents want it.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I shall speak to Amendments 130 and 139 in my name. I can be pretty brief, given the comprehensive outline that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has given, and indeed the words from my noble friend Lady Brinton.
Amendment 130 addresses the difficulty and expense of home-educated children sitting public examinations. They need to find a school or examination centre that will accept them, since not all will if they do not know the children and do not wish to see their results reduced by young people who may not have been taught for their exams and whose results may bring down their overall ratings. That is quite a hurdle for many home-educating parents.
Having found somewhere for their children to sit the exams, home schoolers then have to pay for them. That can easily run to hundreds of pounds. Home schoolers are not necessarily wealthy people and may find the cost of exam fees prohibitive. However, home-educated children are entitled to get credit for their knowledge and skills, just like school-educated children. This amendment probes the possibility of financial assistance for children who could otherwise not afford to be awarded GCSEs or A-levels. Could there, for example, be a system for those on universal credit or of limited means to be helped with exam fees?
Amendment 139 suggests that the opinion of the authorities should be supplemented by a suitably qualified independent assessor to ensure that home educators are given a fair hearing if their child is subject to a school attendance order and the parent or guardian feels that it is inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already touched on the reasons for that. It is an extra check and balance for those who do not want their child to attend school and feel that the order is not in the best interests of the child, and fear too an overbearing authority. This is surely a measure that the Minister could acknowledge and accept.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, very well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; like the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I do not propose to spend much time going over the points that he has made. I read the somewhat testy exchanges—when everyone was a bit tired, I think—at the end of the day on Monday, so it is nice to be having a debate about how we can better support parents rather than causing them any anxiety, if that is the concern.
In that context, having some means of appeal is really important. That might be through the ombudsman that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is proposing in Amendment 171X or by some other means. I have been sat here wondering whether the Office of the Schools Adjudicator might be another possibility of a pre-existing office that could perform the function of refereeing and providing some kind of safeguard against the possibility that some rogue local authorities might overuse some of the powers being talked about; that is a worry, given the variety among local authorities that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about.
Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about exams, which I put my name to, is important. It is really important that parents have a positive reason to register and are not just doing it because the law tells them to and that if they do not then they will be subject to penalty. This would be one of those positive reasons that we could offer. I am not sure whether the local authority having to find the funds itself is the answer because, as we know, local authorities struggle to find the funds to do much these days. If the Minister were to agree with this, perhaps she could reflect on the national funding formula or some other means whereby the money could find its way to elective home educators so that their children can have a link with a school and an examination centre. That all seems very positive in the wider scheme of things.
I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the scale of change regarding the penalties being proposed for parents who fail to abide by this. There is a further amendment on school attendance orders and there having to be some kind of judgment about what is suitable education from someone who at least knows something about education; that is also an important safeguard that we could put in to protect parents.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 171X on the proposal for an ombudsman to provide protection for home educators. I support many other amendments in the group. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lucas for putting this focus on the need to provide protection from overzealous local authorities.
I also need to apologise for not speaking at Second Reading due to a variety of home and personal health matters. I also need to declare an interest, in that I am part of a family that home educates. I cannot disclose all the details, which are private, but I have two sons whom primarily my wife home educates. She is incredibly well qualified for that work. They are teenagers and their education is going incredibly well. I fear I might be the only Peer in that situation, but if there are any others we might be able to form a little club.
I want primarily to speak from this perspective, as somebody from a home education family, on the Bill and the relevant clauses. First, as many others have done, I honour the many parents and caregivers, including my wife, who work tirelessly to raise their children, often at no cost to the state, for their outstanding outcomes and work in a variety of different contexts and for a variety of different reasons. If noble Lords want to find out more about how amazing home education can be, an exhibition has just been announced in Parliament in the Upper Waiting Hall, commencing the week of 4 July, which I highly recommend noble Lords pop in and see.
I need to start by saying that I cannot support the Bill. I believe much of it was designed after consultation merely to make the lives of officials in the department and at large in local authorities easier. Not enough is in it to help parents and families, or indeed society. It feels like it was a bit of a one-sided consultation.
We shall see how colleagues in the other place view the Bill. Arguably, the way it is currently drafted in many parts is an affront to freedom and makes a mockery of our claims to be about rolling back the state and enabling ordinary citizens to take back control. If it transpires, as has been reported in the press, that the Bill was launched without proper political vetting and that it will be radically altered by the other place when the politicians have time to look at it, then we all have to ask why our time is being wasted with what appears to be an incredibly lazy piece of legislation, designed to make officials’ lives easier, not those of citizens.
Frankly, I would rather that this part of the Bill, on registration of children who are not at school, which includes many in home education, did not exist, especially in its current form. It has not been thought through; more consultation is needed. Registration is a hammer to crack a nut, the nut being bad actors—I commend the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on raising this very real issue; it is not one that we want to sweep under the carpet—such as those in informal schools who, frankly, would raise children to oppose the existence of this country, or commit future generations to violence against citizens of this country, or inflict neglect and abuse. Many of these situations have been talked about.
Largely, I feel that this has been designed to fix an IT problem. As much was confirmed to me by a government representative, who I will not mention, who I discussed this with. I said that the Government could get this data anyway: we have birth certificates, local authorities ask who is in households and we have pupil registration in formal schools. We could triangulate that data—I come from an IT background; that is the kind of thing we can do with IT—to find out who was not in school. But of course, that is too difficult for the Government to do right now; IT is a very difficult area. So, to make us do all the work for local authorities and government, a registration programme is to be brought in when we could have fixed it with good IT and good use of the powers that already exist to safeguard children who are suspected of being abused or neglected. This is on top of a risk that the data, once collected, could be used intentionally or unintentionally to harm, or get hacked, which has happened.
I will not say much more on this point because I want to get to my amendment, but I suggest that registration could be voluntary to begin with but highly incentivised, perhaps using the Oak National Academy, the online school set up by the Government, as a resource and a referrer, which could provide amazing data if parents consented to it being provided and analysed.
What incentives might there be for signing up voluntarily to such a scheme? We talked about the cost of exams and paying for them. It costs £150 to £200 per GCSE; I am feeling the pain of that right now. Many families have to fork out a huge amount of money for those exams.
Another incentive might be the provision of forecast grades in the event of situations such as Covid. This was brought home for many home-educating families, whose children basically had to resit because no resource was available; children in school could get forecast grades from their teachers. The Oak National Academy might be a place that could provide such forecasts, based on its data.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I would like to come in on Amendment 112A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and say I agree with a great deal of what he said. Indeed, we have discussed it in the past; there is an issue here. I am not convinced by the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that we can do it all by current IT methods—I think there are problems there. Although I have some sympathy with some of the things he is saying, actually this is a very difficult area.
Amendment 112A is, to my mind, incredibly important, because one of the things we have to do is work out the best type of appeal system. My starting point is really where I ended up when I spoke on Monday, which is to say that this legislation on home education needs to be seen as supportive, not punitive. That is very important. If we can develop a supportive method of local authorities and home educators co-operating together, there will not be many problems in the future, and ideally, practices and strategies could be developed, both by local authorities and by home educators, for dealing with the problems that will inevitably emerge.
The appeal system must deal with many of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised. When I was consulting widely on my Bill, I had such a wide range of claims as to why local authorities were doing it badly. I cannot go through them all now, but some suggested that a local authority was blind to the individual needs of the child. It might have been about educational achievement, but it might also have been about behaviour, because at times it was clear that the school was pushing the child out of the school because their behaviour was so challenging. So you actually have a problem that is, in a way, the reverse of what we expect—the school saying, “This kid is a problem: let’s get them out of the school.” That has to be dealt with, too. The rights of the parents to appeal to an independent person or organisation is, to my mind, incredibly important. As I say, I could give many other examples that came to me when I was consulting on the Bill.
But I also have to say that this is two-sided, and it is the classic problem we deal with in Parliament, time and time again, of the balance between individual rights and the rights of society, to protect the vulnerable. At times, some of those home-educated children are vulnerable, and that is something we have to face—and it is difficult to face. As I said on Monday, my knowledge of education generally is not particularly good, but as a former probation officer and senior probation officer of 40-odd years before I became an MP, and having taken children into care on occasion when I had to when social services could not do so for legal reasons, I can tell noble Lords that it is not just a difficult decision: some parents are incredibly cunning, incredibly devious and incredibly cruel. That comes out if you talk to someone like the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who has chaired committees dealing with abuse. You realise how clever some cruel people can be in fooling anyone—doctors, probation officers, social workers, the general public, neighbours, all sorts of people—into thinking everything is all right.
One thing in my mind, and I want to make this clear, is that when I put that Bill forward, I put it forward as an education measure, not a social or psychological measure. But in doing so, I recognised that if a child was not being given a proper education—and by proper education I do not mean some set educational system but growing up able to read, write and be numerate—we had to be able to be sure that that was being done. The interesting thing for me is that, of all the people I talked to about home education, when I dealing with the Bill, it was actually a small but significant minority who said that the education authority must never be allowed to see the child or should not see the child with them. I remember one parent saying to me, when I said, “Well, why should they not see the child?”, that the child does not like being seen by a stranger. That immediately made me raise my eyebrows, because if a child of school age is nervous about being seen by a stranger, you wonder how the education is being done—unless they have got special needs, because there may be circumstances in which they will be nervous about being seen by a stranger. But by and large, children are far more resilient than we give them credit for. Indeed, one of the problems in society, I often think, is that parents are overprotective, and we do not recognise that children are actually very resilient and can cope with situations like this.
But what I want to make clear here is that the problem is two-way, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described. It is also that, at times, the education authority will have a concern that the child is not being properly educated. If you say that the education authority cannot see the child, how will it ever know? One person said to me that the authority could ask to see written work. But you will not even know whether that child did the written work. So it is not just a measure about behaviour here, or about abuse or radicalisation; it is also about whether the child is being properly educated. As I have said, I do not mean some particular system of education, because I know that troubles quite a few home educators; it is about being able to cope in society as you grow up, and I gave an example on Monday of someone who was left very vulnerable because of the way that home education was done.
My argument here, and this is something I ask the Minister to really take on board—it is a difficult one—is about how to get an appeal system that can work in both directions. It is absolutely right that the parent can appeal against the local authority that does not understand the problems that they or the child are facing, but it has also got to be one where the education authority can say, “We are not absolutely sure that this child is being educated. We are not absolutely sure that there is not some more nefarious process.” Indeed, one of the cases I took up before as a result of my Bill that got some publicity in the press involved three children, if I remember right, in one of the London local authorities who were being trafficked. Two of them just disappeared and, to my knowledge, though I have not checked up recently, have never been seen since. Now, the local authority—or to be more precise, the school—was worried about what was happening, because it knew what had happened to one of the children but did not know what had happened to the other two.
So I say: if you do not have a system where the local authority can say, “We need to be able to see the child, and see that the child is receiving an education”, then you have got a system that is almost designed to blow up in your face. Sooner or later, at some abuse inquiry or other inquiry into a case, you will find it being said, “Well, we the education authority were not allowed to see the child, so we could not know.” I ask those Members who are taking a very clear view on the rights of the parent here to recognise that the rights of the child are absolutely important: in key situations, they override the rights of the parent. I think all of us accept that in other circumstances—if you did not, it would be very bizarre; you would be arguing that whatever the parent did to the child was acceptable.
I have not got a model for the Minister, I am sorry to say. I wish I could say, “This is the way to do it”—I have not got that. I would be very willing to engage with her in further discussions, if that would be helpful, and I think people like the noble Lord, Lord Laming, might be very useful on this too. What you need is a system designed to be supportive, not punitive. That is the key to this. Then you start by saying, “We know what a lot of these parents want,” because the examples are already there—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave them. Those are the ones who appeal, but we also need the ability of the local authority or education authority to appeal against not being able to see the child, where it is worried about the child and might need to visit more often than it would do otherwise. I think that is profoundly important. As I say, I would be happy to offer whatever help I can in getting that bit right.
As I said on Monday, I commend the Government for taking my Bill on board and delivering on it in the way that they have. It is very commendable, but this is the most difficult area. The education authority must have the right to see the child and must have some rights over how often and in what circumstances. However, that needs to be appealable in both directions: by parents and by the education authority.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140 but before that I note that the debate has raised a number of fundamental issues. Listening to it tells me that we have another set of issues that the Government need to take away and think carefully about. I understand that Report is due to start in little over a fortnight. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, is absolutely correct about the need to have these discussions; fundamental issues are being debated around whether there should be an appeals system and what kind of system it should be, and what the exact role of a local authority is. The noble Lord made a very important point: the Bill should be about supporting home educators and not about a punitive system.
I want to give another example of how I see the problem in this group. My Amendment 140
“aims to clarify the provisions on school attendance orders to ensure that school attendance orders should only be issued when in the opinion of the local authority this course of action is in the best interest of the child.”
At the moment, the Bill reads:
“A local authority in England must serve an order under this section 10 on a person”,
and gives reasons in paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (c) gives the reason that
“in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school.”
What is the meaning of the word “expedient”? Sometimes these words have meanings that maybe the Government do not intend. My interpretation of the word “expedient” is that it is about attaining an end. It is a convenience to attain the end, but it may not be right to attain that end.
That has led me to consider who in a local authority is responsible for making a decision. Ministers may reply that this will all be shown to us in guidance. I am quite bothered about that, because a huge number of issues have been raised, in all parts of the Chamber, about how this system will actually work.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Does the noble Lord agree that the word “expediency” seems to display a state of mind and a prejudice against home learning? It will, as he rightly points out, put undue power in the hands of officials.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I agree with the noble Lord that it could well do that. I noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I hope I quote him correctly. He said that it will be tremendously easy to be a bad local authority. Given the way that this has all been written, that may prove to be true. He also said that there needs to be oversight as to whether a local authority is being reasonable. There has to be a system to assess this. I spent many years in a local authority environment. Officers and councillors will change, and case histories may not be fully understood, and yet decisions are being made. I do not know what protections are in place against poor-quality decisions being made.
My amendment says that the absolute requirement is the best interest of the child, not that a decision is deemed by a local authority to be expedient. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond as to why the Bill has been written in this way. It may be convenient to be expedient but it may not be proper. For that reason, we need to have a further discussion. I do not see how Report can happen in a fortnight to three weeks’ time. The Bill needs its Report deferred until the autumn.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 112A, which relates to a point that I raised at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, there has to be a check on parents to avoid those who might abuse the freedoms. The local authority may be the right place to do that but the merits or otherwise of home education versus school education, and the structure of the curriculum, can end up as matters of educational doctrine. If a local education authority takes a view that starts as biased against home education and the freedoms within, it may well take a view that is prejudicial to the parents, in the way in which my noble friend Lord Lucas said.
There has to be a right for parents to go to some appeal process, whether in the form of the amendment or the ombudsman proposed by my noble friend Lord Wei. It may well be that the objections to the way in which the local authority runs its schools is the primary reason why somebody wants to educate their children separately. To have that education authority then be judge and jury over whether the child is being given an adequate alternative education just allows one set of educational doctrines to run roughshod over other people’s rights.
I completely accept the need for checks on parents but, as others have said, my noble friend the Minister needs to think about how, when the Bill comes back, there can be proper provision to deal with this matter—whether in the form of the amendment or something similar.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I may have omitted to declare an interest as chair of the Department for Education stakeholders’ group and other similar interests listed in the register. If so, my apologies.
I have added my name to Amendment 143I in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I should make it clear that it is the increase in fines and custody that I have difficulty with. It might be better to do away with fines altogether.
I am heartened by the statement in the department’s factsheet that
“The government does not intend to criminalise parents”
in respect of school attendance orders. But Clause 50 does not achieve this aim.
When I was a magistrate, I recall cases of parents who, with the best will in the world, simply could not control their children. They were rarely parents who could manage the fines prescribed. As for the custodial option, the Farmer review emphasised how
“disruptive and costly short sentences are to family life”
and ties. What does the imprisonment of a parent do for a child’s attitude to school?
There are deep reasons for school refusal that should be investigated, as I also recall from my time as a teacher. Different means to ensure the essential participation in education that children must have must be developed, and indeed in some schools are adopted, but in this time of a cost of living crisis, at least we should not increase the penalties, which can be justified in very few cases.
In conclusion, I take issue with the “hammers and nuts” of the noble Lord, Lord Wei. The nut of not being in school is a very large nut indeed. Of course there are parents who educate their children well and who are going to have no trouble with a register, although I quite understand that there needs to be some clarity, but children who are badly educated or not educated account for a much larger number. It may be that noble Lords do not come into contact with these children very often. In other debates in this Committee, we have spoken about where these children are and why they are not educated. It would take a lot of time to go through this, but it is a much larger number than the number of children who are well educated. We really must do something about this. That is why the register is a good idea.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will clarify my position. A number of noble Lords have mentioned—and perhaps implied—that what I was trying to say was that we do not go after these bad actors and do not pursue those using home education as an excuse to provide a poor, non-existent or abusive context for learning or non-learning. That is not what I am saying. I am actually in favour of strengthening the use of other means for the identification and pursuing of families, parents or caregivers who are not home educating and are instead using it as a cover for their practices. Personally, I think we should be as hard as we can on that and strengthen our response as much as possible, whether through data, local authorities or other action.
Right now, some people are using home education as an excuse to say, “Stay away; don’t look here; go away”. However, if the ombudsman, or any other mechanism, were to agree with the local authority that there are good grounds to pursue families such as these and ask for any kind of information it wants—and if, on the evidence, if it looks as though home education is not happening—then, yes, let us go after those many families who are thought not really to be home educating. In addition, let us support those families who are struggling. I did not want to be misunderstood on that front.
However, my main concern is about where there are miscarriages of justice and we get into matters of educational philosophy. I ask noble Lords to consider Finland, where education is not really monitored until the very end. Nevertheless, Finland has pretty much the best education in the world because it does not spend 30% of time in education—as we do—monitoring, testing and checking the learning; the Finns just let the learning happen and train the teachers. I believe teachers there are given the equivalent of bankers’ salaries to make them some of the best education and learning facilitators—if you like—in the world. I would therefore just caution against this monitoring and the need to know what people are doing—I do not think we need to do this. If we have suspicions that what is going on is bad, we need to pursue this and use every power we can to sort that out. However, I am not sure that it is the right approach to ask about everyone in the country who is doing home education—whether good or bad—just because they might be doing something wrong. The ombudsman would make sense of this; it would also make sense not to put families under such an investigatory lens for too long. I have friends who have waited two years for national insurance numbers for their teenagers. Imagine a home-educating family having to wait two years, just to be told that they are not abusing the system but are instead teaching well.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that if we look at this as a supportive, not punitive, measure, we need not get into the trap he is describing.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the tenor of many of the amendments in this group, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: they strengthen parents’ hands against any overbearing local authorities. That is not to suggest that all local authorities will be overbearing, but it ensures that they are not necessarily interpreting their role always as one of policing. This is all about balancing powers and having a sense of proportionality. I like the idea of the home school ombudsman suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, although I would rather it were not needed because I do not like lots of this part of the Schools Bill.
I listened carefully, in particular, to what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, including his last point on this being supportive, not punitive. Those points are very important, but I want to raise my qualms about this. Of course, those noble Lords who raised the point about bad actors are correct: some parents are cruel and some represent a threat to their children. However, in a free society, do we not assume that the vast majority of parents are not a threat to their children? At the moment, as far as I know, we have not nationalised parenting. We are not saying that we are better at doing it than parents; we assume that parents are good at it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I shall come in briefly on this because I did not put my name to my noble friend’s amendment on examinations. I am sorry to go back to a smaller point, but one thing that happens in education is that you usually need a certificate to carry on. It is your pathway to the next step. I have not been deaf to what has been said about the rights of home education but, to go back to one of the building blocks of our system, to gain access to the next stage of education, training or employment, you generally need the examination that proves you have done it. It does not prove much else; it just proves you have been through the process and reached a certain point. I hope the state will allow and support people to get the proof that says they have done the work to get through. If you do not have it, everything shuts down suddenly. You cannot do much else; it does not matter if you can quote Shakespeare fluently, you have still failed English if you do not have the qualification.
Think also about the home-schooling groups who have special educational needs, such as some of the groups I have met. They will sometimes need help and structure to be able to take that exam. It will be important to have some form of interaction around that; it is an important point in their process. The Government have been very keen on testing whether education is successful, usually using examination results, so if home education is to do anything, it needs that to go through.
I cannot resist making a comment about my noble friend Lord Shipley’s statement about having “expedient” in a Bill and not defining how it is used. If you wanted to cause trouble—I suspect somebody in the department was having a bad day when they drafted this—that was an excellent way of doing it; I congratulate them. Unless we get some clarification, and realise that we are trying to make sure that those who are doing things well are supported and those who are doing things badly are identified and stopped if necessary, we are going to have carnage when we come to Report.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there should be a right of appeal, but some of the language was not helpful. He constantly used the word “punitive” if any local authority intervenes in any way. As my noble friend Lord Soley said, this is a difficult balancing act to get right, and we have to be careful of the language that we use.
I know—to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wei—of plenty of people, friends of mine, who are really good home educators. They have a different approach, and I do not think anyone would be opposed to that. They are not the people who worry me. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, we have a lot of experience in this area; there are unfortunately others who do not.
This House has a duty to do two things: to ensure that the legislation is fair and capable of not penalising people who understandably prefer their children to be home educated; but we also have a responsibility to protect those children, as children do have rights. I profoundly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—of course children have rights. We cannot absolve ourselves of that responsibility.
It is a difficult one for the Government—they cannot duck it. I started to look up whether “expedient” was the right word, but that is not what concerns me. I am concerned that while there is a right for people to home educate their children, provided they act responsibly, there is nothing wrong with local authorities having a list and being able to assure themselves that it is taking place in an appropriate manner. It should not be seen as punitive—I agree with that—but it does not absolve them from asking some questions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Soley that a child has to be seen. I have had personal experience of cases where parents have deliberately tried to ensure that the children were not seen. These are real threats to children. We have a responsibility to protect them and to ensure that the way Government monitor home education is fair. On balance, I support the right of appeal. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate carefully, and it has been extremely sensitively presented, but it has raised a lot of questions. I shall certainly not talk about home schooling, on which I have no expertise whatever, but I am going to make a comment about procedure, of which I have a learnt a little over the years.
This is not the first group of amendments where I have sensed there is serious need for proper discussion between Committee and Report. It has alarmed me, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned, that the date being pencilled in for Report is the week beginning 10 July. We will probably not finish Committee stage until Monday 27 June. The minimum period between Committee and Report is 14 days. We would be abusing Standing Orders, or require a special resolution, to reduce it further.
I do not want to inflame the conversation, but this badly prepared Bill is crying out to have a longer period between Committee and Report. The only excuse that the Government can make—it is not an excuse but a genuine problem that Governments face—is that towards the end of a parliamentary Session there is urgent time pressure to apply the minimum gaps between Committee and Report. However, that is not the case here, right at the beginning of a Session. When the Commons have tons of Bills to consider and we have a very small number, there is no pressing requirement for the Government to apply the minimum gap.
I hope that it does not sound like a threat when I give notice that I think that there are many people in this House, on all sides, who feel that it is important for there to be a proper gap. There are mechanisms with any Chamber for majorities, if a majority exists, to ensure that this happens. I hope that it does not come to anything like that, but I urge the Government to think carefully about doing as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, and allowing Report to take place in the autumn.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I echo the two phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, used: we want to protect the vulnerable and protect the rights of children. There are some amazing home educators who do an amazing job, but there are also some amazing local authorities which do a very good job as well. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, praised local authorities, and I pay tribute to my former local authority. We had a boy with a phobia of being in school who had to be home educated. It was not because his single-parent mum, a nurse, wanted that, but because we just could not physically get him into school, so we home educated him. And guess what? Knowsley LA—I will name-check them—supported my school in doing that, in financial terms as well.
There are lots of examples of good local authorities, just as there are hundreds of thousands of examples of good home educators, but it should not be “us and them”. Disagreeing with whoever said it, I like the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is an opportunity to reset the dial in terms of home education, to do the things that protect the vulnerable and protect the child, but to ensure that local authorities work with home educators. There are all sorts of ways in which we can do that.
Hopefully, if we do it that way, in a few years’ time, home educators will realise the value and importance of local authorities and how much they can bring to the table. Perhaps there are ways of doing it. I like the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, of an ombudsperson. That might be a mechanism for ensuring that home educators do not feel threatened, because they would know that there is a way of dealing with it. As long as that does not lead to a massive increase in bureaucracy, maybe we should consider it.
Let us also remind ourselves of an important point which has not yet been made. Through formula funding, every child who goes to school is worth a sum of money; is it £6,400? Home educators do not get that money, so every child who is not taught at school but taught at home saves the Government money and those home educators have to pay for it. They give up not only their time but considerable money to home educate. Therefore, it seems sensible that we should show willing and give something back to home educators. Maybe one way would be by taking Amendment 130, tabled by my noble friend Lady Garden, and looking at supporting them when they want to take examinations.
Lord Wei (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but the point about Finland is important, because many of us in education policy—I helped to set up Teach First—have studied this material and I do not believe Finland is as exceptional as people make it out to be. I brought Professor Hattie over 10 years ago, who is a researcher who studied 15,000 randomised control studies on education—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, knows what I am talking about. He looked at 30 million children across thousands of studies and found three things that affected their education the most by a standard deviation. They were simple: how well does the teacher, or the parent in home education, know the child? How difficult is the work? If it is too hard or too easy, it makes a big difference. And when they mark their work or give feedback, how good is that feedback? Those three things can work in any system or country, whether private or public. All the things we argue about in politics—private/public, the size of the class and teacher pay—were shown to make a limited difference in the randomised studies. Incidentally, televisions and screens were very bad, and keeping kids back a year took things back by a standard deviation.
We could debate Finland for a long time, but I would argue that home education has many of the hallmarks that the Finnish enjoy. They are: an incredibly great relationship between the well-paid teacher and the child; and the time, because they are not being monitored all the time, to set work at an appropriate level; and to give great feedback.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for that and would, at some point, like to talk to him about Finland. One of the other things we forget is that, just as a teacher in the classroom—I still miss teaching and miss my time in the classroom, because I got a great deal from that—home educators get a great deal from being with their children, learning with them and teaching them. We forget the importance that can have for the family home and for parents, whether they are a family or a single parent.
I end by going back to the point I was making: it is really important that we get this right. This is an opportunity to reset the dial, so that we achieve what we are all trying to get.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I missed the opportunity to speak before the Front-Bench spokesperson got up. The point I want to make on home schooling is that it is as much about the rights of the child as it is about the rights of the parent. In the debates on Monday and today, I think that we have heard too much about the rights of the parents, but the rights of the child not to be abused and to get a decent education are important. They are not important; they are crucial. Those rights might be a counterpoint to those of the parents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked a rhetorical question: is the state going to adjudicate? The answer is yes. Who else will adjudicate between the rights of the parent and the rights of the child? The education authority and the social services authority clearly have crucial roles there. Noble Lords need only cast their minds back to all the dreadful cases that have occurred where the school or social services have failed. This is not about home education. What is notable about many cases of child abuse is that those children were at school, although their absence from school too frequently was a hallmark that should have been picked up. The local education authority and the local authority more generally have an important role. They should not be demonised, in the way some speakers have suggested, as if the hallmarks were bureaucracy and interfering with parental rights.
I have two more points, the first of which is on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on data. I am afraid he made two conflicting points: first, that the data was available anyway and, secondly, that it would be hacked. If the data is available anyway, it can be hacked.
The other point is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question for the Minister. Noble Lords have referred to decisions made by the local authority. Do they not come under the aegis of the Local Government Ombudsman in any event? Why do we need a special ombudsman service? If the Government are trying to cut back on bureaucracy, they can use the tried and tested system we already have.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just want to clarify or ask a question. At the moment, we have a system in which social services or child protection agencies, quite rightly, are the part of the state that intervenes in those terrible cases where we suspect that a child is being abused. Is he not concerned if, through its education role, the local authority now has to do that job? That is almost the implication. In schooling, we have the phrase “in loco parentis”: the idea is that parents entrust their child to teachers and the education authority, because they say that “You educate them, but we parent them.” Is there not a danger of posing a conflict between parents and children in this competition of rights? For the majority of the time, that is not a problem. Even when it is, the appropriate body would be social services. I am worried about education being dragged into what is effectively social services. Keeping an eye on kids is one thing; it is not the same as being social workers with their expertise.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Sorry, I was just waiting, because every time I have tried to stand up someone has spoken. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, reminded me that I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—hard won and well deserved, I think.
We have heard a fascinating debate with a wide range of views. It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Wei. We could have so many discussions about Finland and Teach First, but he was really quite amazing at contextualising the Bill at the beginning of his remarks. It is very interesting that he comes from his Government’s perspective, but he put us firmly in the context of what he saw that is wrong about it. That is what we have been talking about over the past five days. I appreciate those comments.
Most home-schooling parents are, of course, wonderfully motivated and they deserve our full support, but we need to safeguard children. To pick up the right of appeal issue from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Knight, we have an excellent local authority model in the form of school admission appeal panels, comprising independent individuals with no links to the local authority. They give impartial judgments on children’s admission to schools. So, there are good models out there.
We know that, under the Education Act 1996, parents are responsible for ensuring that the education provided is sufficient, full-time and suitable to age and ability. They can choose to employ private tutors to assist them—there is no requirement, of course. Learning can take place in different locations and is not limited to the child’s home.
We have not mentioned Covid during this debate, which caused a huge increase in home schooling. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services estimated that the number of children being home educated at some point during 2020-21 was 115,542. That is a 34% increase on the 2019-20 total. It further remarked that in many cases, home schooling
“does not seem the most appropriate route for the children concerned.”
So, concerns have been raised. This has been a long debate, so I will draw my comments to a close. We are therefore keen to follow this register’s impact as it is developed and implemented across England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. I start by saying that I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Lucas. I had the pleasure of talking to a number of home educators from Gloucestershire yesterday and to the local authority, thanks to an introduction from my honourable friend Siobhan Baillie. Clearly, the relationships between the two were extremely strong and good, as my noble friend pointed out.
I will start my remarks with Amendments 112A and 137C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 171X from my noble friend Lord Wei. The issues of appeal are extremely important. I will summarise the current routes for your Lordships, but also make some commitments to the Committee about how we can make sure that the concerns that have been aired this afternoon, and by home educators I have spoken to, can be addressed.
Lord Addington (LD)
Before the noble Baroness finishes that point, if somebody has special educational needs—we had an example from my noble friend Lord Storey—and they are still interacting with the education system to an extent, would they still get that support despite the fact they are home educated? I appreciate that it is a difficult interchange—I probably did not declare my interests properly before—but could we get an example? The primary problem with this is the fact that home educators are a very broad church.
Baroness Barran (Con)
So, as the noble Lord knows extremely well, is the spectrum of educational needs. I know that one is not allowed to have props in the Chamber, but I commend to the noble Lord the flowchart at the back of the policy notes on this part of the Bill. It sets out the process, including where a child has special educational needs. I think it is easier to follow than me trying to explain at the Dispatch Box.
Turning to Amendment 130A from my noble friend Lord Lucas, individuals already have the right to ask local authorities for copies of their personal information and inquire how they are using it by submitting a subject access request. A parent can demand that inaccurate information is corrected, and if the local authority fails to do so, the parent can complain to the Information Commissioner, who has significant enforcement powers.
Turning to Amendment 134A, I repeat that it is not possible for fines or penalty notices to be given to parents for failing to provide information for the registers and the Bill does not provide for that, but if parents fail to demonstrate that their child is receiving a suitable education, it is right that the local authority begin the process of issuing a school attendance order. If the parent is unable to evidence that the education they are providing is suitable, the process will lead to an order being issued. If the parent then breaches the order, they may be fined by the magistrates’ court. On collecting and publishing data on this, the Bill already provides flexibility to require this through regulations.
I now turn to Amendments 136ZA, 136B, 136C, 137B, 138ZA, 138A, 139 and 140, from my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. My department’s guidance for local authorities highlights that the authority should initially attempt to resolve doubts through informal inquiries.
The noble Lord raised the point of expediency, and I am grateful, because I absolutely understand why, and why it sounds anything other than what one might expect. The current test for issuing a school attendance order is that the child is not receiving a suitable education, in the opinion of the local authority and, as the noble Lord said, that it would be expedient for the child to attend school. That is the test contained in the existing Section 437 of the Education Act 1996, and new Section 436J mirrors that test, so this will keep the test for issuing a school attendance order the same in both England and Wales. I again point the noble Lord to my favourite flowchart, from which he will see that, prior to issuing a school attendance order, there needs to be a preliminary notice, which is covered at new Section 436I(3)(c), where it says that one of the conditions for issuing a preliminary notice is:
“the child is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise”.
I absolutely understand his question, but I hope I have reassured him and the House that, while it may appear to be one thing, it is covered absolutely properly in the legislation dating from the 1996 Act. The current law, supported by guidance, requires that local authorities take all relevant factors into account when considering whether it is expedient for a child to attend school, and that includes where the child has expressed an opinion about attending school—the voice of the child was something that a number of your Lordships raised.
Local authorities should have the in-house expertise to make these decisions, but if they do not, they can and should consult a suitably qualified external expert. We will make this clear in our guidance. It is crucial that the time a child is in receipt of unsuitable education is minimised, and therefore it is right that local authorities move to initiate formal school attendance order procedures as soon as possible where home education appears unsuitable. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly mentioned the work of many charities; we may be thinking about the same ones. If he goes back to the schools White Paper, he will see that our approach on attendance is: support first, support second, support third, with enforcement very much down the line. We are working with a number of charities which are leaders in this field.
Amendment 143B from my noble friend Lord Lucas is unnecessary, because if local authorities were to refuse to revoke a school attendance order on an unreasonable basis, that refusal would in itself be unlawful.
My noble friend’s Amendment 143F would mean that if a parent was found guilty of breaching a school attendance order and continued to breach it, the local authority could take no further action to enforce it: it would have to restart the process and make a new order. That would obviously be a waste of public resources, but, more significantly, would add to an already lengthy timeframe in which a child may be in receipt of an unsuitable education. I should be very happy to follow up with my noble friend on the specific example he gave, where that home education may have changed, to check that we have that very reasonable point covered.
Finally, I speak to Amendment 143I, also tabled by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. A breach of a school attendance order is currently punishable by a fine of up to £1,000, compared to a maximum fine of £2,500, or up to three months’ imprisonment, for the offence of knowingly failing to cause a child to attend the school at which they are registered. This means that there is currently an incentive for some parents to remove their child from school under the guise of home education rather than incur the greater penalty associated with non-attendance. By aligning the penalties, we can increase the deterrent and help ensure that as many children as possible are in receipt of a suitable education.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Brinton, asked about the change in custodial sentence. Wider criminal justice legislation, which has not yet come into force, will raise sentences in magistrates’ courts from three months to 51 weeks. New Section 436Q is simply in line with that wider change, and until it comes into force, the maximum sentence under new Section 436Q will remain at three months, as set out in subsection (9). The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised the issue of publication of individual data, and I am happy to repeat that we are taking that away to consider it.
I hope that I have answered the bulk of the points raised in this group and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment 112A—
Lord Wei (Con)
I think that my amendment might have been missed out. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister had any thoughts on Amendment 171X and the idea of an ombudsman with the expertise to adjudicate and mediate to prevent any expensive court cases that might otherwise occur.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise. I referred to my noble friend’s amendment right at the beginning of my remarks and reflected that we will consider what options there are to make sure that there is a system that feels fair to parents and in which parents have trust and confidence. With that, I ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his Amendment 112A and hope that other noble Lords will not move theirs.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those replies. I shall read them in Hansard and return to her if I have any points of detail to make. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Wei that we need an appeal system that feels fair and builds trust. There are different ways of doing it. It clearly should not be by internal local authority appeals, the Local Government Ombudsmen have not proved helpful in elective home education cases to date and the Secretary of State system is a bit on the impenetrable side, so I very much hope this is an area where we will make improvements.
My noble friend’s remarks put a lot of weight on the forthcoming guidance. If at any stage a draft of that can be shared, I would be most grateful to have a look at it. It would shortcut a lot of debate if we had a clear feeling of where the Government are heading.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope my noble friend picked up the point, but if not, I will repeat it: we plan to develop the guidance in co-operation with home-educating parents and local authorities. I am sure that, when a draft is ready, we would be happy to share it with other Members of the House.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I was not trying to hurry my noble friend; I was just saying this is clearly quite important.
Picking up on other points made in the debate, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and I are so much in agreement on this. We approach it from different angles, but we both agree on the need for the system to be supportive and for children who are not being properly educated to be rescued with speed. The question is: how do we do this fairly and leave home education as a supported system?
My general experience of this—and I hope that talking to Gloucestershire will mean that my noble friend shares it—is that where there is a supportive system, money is much better directed. Money goes to supporting the education of children, rather than being used to try to control their parents, and there is a much better flow of information about what is happening. Providing facilities for parents, including maths and English catch-up and even swimming lessons, means we get to see these children and get the information without having to be punitive about it. There is a flow of information because we are working with the home education community. The numbers that remain outside the easy orbit gets small, and they can be focused on. Building something that is supportive and works with home education is a double benefit—using the money well and allowing us to catch up with children who are being failed swiftly. I very much hope that that is the direction the Bill will take.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Before calling Amendment 114A, I inform the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely and that if Amendment 114A is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 115 or 116 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 114A
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to Clause 48, page 42, and Clause 49, page 47, in the name of Lord Lucas, are intended to simplify the immediate duty to one of registration, leaving it to the local authority to then inform the parents of the other requirements, and to increase the timescale to accommodate for additional responsibilities on parents. “School days” are used to exempt parents from having to disrupt holidays to provide the required information.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 114A is the first appearance of an amendment that deals with longer time limits. Such amendments seem to be scattered through a number of groups. I will try not to repeat myself, or indeed focus on them at this moment because there are many more of them in later groups.
The principle I am working to is that the time limits being set should work for a reasonably together, reasonably collaborative parent. We have to allow for the fact that children go on holidays and that out of term time, it may be hard to get hold of them. We should look at longer limits than are set out in the Bill, and at the concept of “school days”—the parental equivalent of working days—as the form these limits should take.
I am interested to know where my noble friend finds herself on this and all the other amendments on time limits. I am aiming to help the Government produce a system that works fairly. If we have a system that trips parents easily into school attendance orders, then we need to allow parents time to react first. I particularly think that we need to give parents time to get it wrong first. I know how often I managed to get things wrong. Reading through my amendments in putting together these groups, I can see that my drafting has not exactly been perfect. We ought to have human time limits. They should not be overlong, but they ought to allow for the real lives of the home educators involved. After all, local authorities are not known as the fastest people in the world when it comes to responding to inquiries. There ought to be some equality of allowance.
In this group, Amendment 122C questions whether, in this section of the Bill, the Government intend to catch hired home tutors—people picking up an individual from a tutor supplier and saying, “We’d love you to come in a couple of days a week to support us in home education”. Would they be caught by Amendment 122C? Where is the boundary between organised provision of education and a parent asking an individual to come in and help?
Amendment 126A asks that we look at the benefit of registering tutors, in much the same style as we have done with parking operators. The Government are expanding the number of tutors and their use in the schooling system, but we do not have a system that in any way is protective of the public. There is no useful form of registration for tutors. To my mind, this is a subject to which the Government should be bending a thought. The best I can hope for from my noble friend is, “Yes, we’re thinking of looking at it”, but I do think that they should be.
I have read through Amendment 128A before. This does need to be said somewhere, and I suspect it is in the guidance my noble friend has been talking about. The basis on which local authorities are supposed to be interacting with home education need to be made clear to them.
All the other amendments in this group—apart from Amendment 140B, which is just an example of an appeal—consider ways in which the support the Government mention in the Bill but do not, as far as I can see in the impact assessment, provide any money for, might be provided. They look at things that good local authorities already do. Amendment 173 suggests that this support should be in place before we pitch into activating the registration system.
The point was made when considering the last group that home educators are actually saving the state a lot of money. My noble friend said we should not start giving money to home educators, and that this was a decision they had made. Yes, but we should give money to local authorities so that their support for home educators is properly funded. In previous iterations, I have suggested that half the money the Government save should go to local authorities—with no undue ring-fencing—the intention being that it is a fund to provide for their support of home educators, to be used in a way that works best locally. That is not in the impact assessment at the moment, and I very much hope that the Government will have a figure in front of us before the Bill leaves this House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I remind the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the comprehensive introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to the wide-ranging amendments in this group has once again set the tone for many of us with concerns about this part of the Bill as originally drafted. I think that everyone, including the Minister, has said that they want to see the relationship between home-educating parents and their local authority start from a position of trust and support, while ensuring that there is a system that protects children too.
I am pleased that at the end of his speech the noble Lord mentioned that there should be some money for local authorities to help support home educators. That was one of the points I mentioned about the northern California home educators I saw at Sierra College, just outside Sacramento. That was exactly what had happened. The school board here understood that it could help parents without changing parents’ way of educating their children. As a result of that trust, the entire tone changed between the home educators and the school board.
I have signed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans’s Amendments 115, 117 and 119, which extend from 15 to 30 days the period in which parents must register their child and provide the information. Other amendments in this group do the same. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talks about “school days”, not just “days”, and that is very helpful and supportive as well. Amendment 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will ensure that children or teachers get the support for any special educational need or disability that they would have already got.
In previous groups I have talked about the problem that many parents have had of not getting the support they need for their child, even though they may be entitled to it. If they have had some support, it has not been enough to provide the specific support that the child needs, whether for special educational needs, disability or a mental or physical health problem. I have given examples of that before. As a result, some parents have been forced to withdraw their children from school, often because they felt that their child was literally not safe—perhaps a medical procedure requires a school nurse to do it but there is no longer a school nurse available. Sometimes parents have been threatened with off-rolling by the school. Sometimes the promised special educational needs support has not happened.
In the last group the noble Lord, Lord Soley, gave a further good example of children being withdrawn from school because of their challenging behaviour. It is important to recognise that children with this challenging behaviour should also get support. If they end up out of school with their parents trying to cope, that is a very big burden for parents. The behaviour of parents, when accused by the local authority of not doing things, often causes friction. Local authorities should always come from the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined: that of teachers always wanting to help, understand and get to the root of the problem and provide the support that will change the child’s behaviour.
I believe the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is vital. A child with SEN, a disability or a health problem who is out of school should have the support that they would have got in school. They need it wherever they receive their education. His amendment needs to succeed.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group, of which Amendments 115, 117 and 119 were originally tabled by my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans, who is unable to be present in the Chamber today.
As he is absent, I will focus on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which also extend the relevant period in which a parent must comply with registration and provide information, as requested from a local authority, from 15 days to 28 days, 30 days or 30 school days respectively. I know my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans would have been happy to support these amendments, as do I, given their shared principle that giving parents sufficient breathing space to comply is helpful.
Fifteen days is simply too short a timeframe to register a child or provide any information necessary in accordance with the register. To begin with, parents may not even be aware of the obligation to register their child in the first place, making it imperative that there is a reasonable timeframe to inform the local authority that the child is eligible for registration. Home schooling is not subject to the traditional school calendar, meaning that a two-week holiday, far from unusual, would take up the entirety of the relevant period to comply. Fifteen days appears somewhat punitive and may unintentionally mean that parents fall foul of it, particularly where circumstances make it impossible to comply. I am not aware of any specific rationale behind this compliance timeframe of 15 days, so I would welcome the Government’s reason for it.
As it stands, I do not believe that the Government have reasonably considered the complexities of some families’ lives and the multitude of reasons for delays that could occur. Rather than being unnecessarily tight, as currently stipulated, the relevant period ought to reflect a more reasonable timeframe. I hope the Government will provide home-schooling parents with a relevant compliance period that reflects real-life circumstances, whether that is 28 days, 30 days or 30 school days.
Finally, I add my support to Amendment 128A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which helpfully defines the correct relationship between local authorities and home-schooling parents, and the constructive and non-judgmental attitude that local authorities should have when dealing with elective home educators.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and I absolutely agree with everything he has just said. I rise to speak to Amendments 116, 118, 125 and 126 in my name. I tabled these amendments on behalf of home educators. There are quite a lot of them so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence.
As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the first two refer to wishing to lengthen the relevant period in a number of different situations. My amendments lengthen from 15 to 28 days the period in which parents are required to comply with duties imposed by local authorities, but I would be happy to go along with the 30 days in the other amendments. Parents would argue that they may need time to consult, possibly obtain legal advice or, at the very least, consider all the implications, and 28 or 30 days is a much more reasonable timeframe for that than 15.
Amendment 125 finds itself in this group. It seeks to ensure that the less structured but enormously beneficial forest schools and farm schools are not overlooked. Both teach a great deal to pupils and get them out in the open, with fresh air and acquiring a new understanding of natural surroundings, animals, crops and all the other invaluable work of farms. My daughter teaches four year-olds, who really love their forest school lessons. It is some of the most pleasurable and productive learning they achieve. It is particularly beneficial for town and disadvantaged children, who may never have walked through woods or seen a cow.
Amendment 126 ensures that someone who has made strenuous efforts to provide information should not be penalised if the information is deemed inadequate. People can do only their best, and we would not wish to see parents fined for matters that were not their fault.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 129. I put my name to this because I saw it and said, “Yes, this is right”. What level of support are you going to give to a certain group with special educational needs, particularly if they do not have the plan? Anyone who has looked at special educational needs knows that there is a great struggle to get the plan. We have a bureaucratic legal system in which whether you get it often depends on the lawyer you have employed. I know that this was not the original intention of the Bill, because I did it. Going through this process, there was supposed to be something called a graduated approach involved. Can we have some indication of what the Government feel the process will be in future? I assume that the new review of special educational needs will come up with something that is an improvement.
The law of unintended consequences, or the cock-up theory of history, means that we have a mess in special educational needs at the moment. I do not think anybody seriously disputes that, but I hope that in future we will not be so dependent on the plan, the statement mark 2, the gold star tattooed on the back of your neck or whichever way you identify special educational needs; you will not be as determined on the higher classification. Many people are getting the plan now because they are not getting any support, their education is deteriorating and they are suddenly finding themselves in the higher-needs group.
I did the Bill and the noble Baroness did not, so maybe this fault falls more on me than on her, but that is the state of affairs at the moment. Some indication that the Government will intervene before they get to this crucial point would be very reassuring, at least with regard to their thinking and lines of progression on this. It is not happening at the moment, and some assurance that it will happen in future, or at least that the Government plan for it to happen in future, would make life a little easier.
Lord Storey (LD)
I was slightly diverted there. I am going to be very brief. I am diverted because—is Amendment 123 in this group? Yes, it is.
I will perhaps ask the Minister a question. Any teacher who is teaching children in a school has to have disclosure and barring clearance. Regarding the practice—and I do not complain about this—where some home educators use teachers either to teach their own children, not all the time but occasionally, and maybe a group of children, presumably those teachers have to also have safeguarding qualifications. What I am trying to say in this amendment is that there are cases—and this actually was raised with me by some home educators—where, for example, and I think this is very good practice, the children will meet other adults who are not qualified teachers but have particular expertise in a particular area to instruct or teach their children. What this amendment seeks is to ensure that those adults also have safeguarding clearance. I do not know what the current situation is on that.
I also want to respond to the point in Amendment 129, which my noble friend Lord Addington signed. This is the issue which I still struggle with. For those pupils who are permanently excluded from school—and in the vast majority of cases they are young people with special educational needs—if there is not a pupil referral unit on the site of the school, they get moved to an alternative provider. As we have discussed, I think in Written and Oral Questions, many local authorities, often because there is a shortage of places or because they have not got the money, look for the cheapest provider. I had a meeting yesterday with Ofsted, which told me—I was absolutely horrified by this—that one unregistered provider charges £50 a day plus taxi fares, including the £50, almost just to look after that child. That child could have special educational needs, so this cannot be allowed to go on. We need to take a firm hand. I am sort of having a second go at this, because I was chairing the session today at the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Education. The Minister on special educational needs spoke about this and I was very reassured, but hoped I could be reassured from our Minister on this issue as well. Other than that, that is all I want to say.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to repeat much of the good stuff that has been said, but I shall just mention our Amendment 128, which amends Clause 48 on sharing data between local authorities when a child moves. We are just pointing out that we must have regard to child protection and the safety of their parents when this is done. We are concerned that, where there are circumstances in which a parent is moving as a consequence of domestic violence or is a victim of or witness to crime, that they are protected. To be absolutely clear, we want to make sure that information can be shared, and that it can be shared safely and quickly.
On Amendment 129, about the support provided by local authorities to children with special needs or disabilities, we are very interested in supporting this. We take the points raised on time limits and school days and would be sympathetic to any reasonable amendments along these lines at Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the second group of amendments, starting with Amendment 128A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I would remind the House that the law is already clear that parents have a right to educate their children at home. The Government continue to support this where it is done in the best interests of the child. Our guidance on home education for local authorities is clear that elective home education, of itself, is not an inherent safeguarding risk, and local authorities should not treat it as such. We are also aware that there are a number of reasons why parents may choose elective home education. Sometimes, as your Lordships have already raised this afternoon, this may not be their choice, for example due to off-rolling, which is why we believe it would be valuable to require the recording of reasons for home education, so we can identify some of the wider system issues which my noble friend rightly points to in his amendment.
On Amendment 128, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the information held in registers will of course be protected under UK GDPR, like any other data, and the Bill only enables data to be shared with prescribed partners where the local authority feels that it is appropriate and proportionate to promote the education, safety and welfare of children. I am very familiar with the issues that she raises in relation to domestic abuse and just how devious some people can be in trying to track down a former partner, which is why that proportionality of risk is so important.
I would like to thank again my noble friend Lord Lucas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for Amendments 114A through to 119. We believe that the timeframe of 15 days in which parents or out-of-school providers must provide information for a local authority register strikes the right balance between minimising the amount of time a child would spend in potentially unsuitable education and allowing sufficient time to send the required information. In addition, defining the period in terms of “school days” would, we believe, be an inappropriate and impractical measurement for home-educated children who, as we heard in the debate, by definition do not necessarily follow a school calendar. But I think the issue with the timings and those proposed by my noble friend in later amendments on the school attendance order process is that, if you take them all together, it would more than double the length of time that a child would be without suitable education. It would take the total number of days to 120, instead of 51 on the Government’s proposed process. I think that is the way I would ask your Lordships to think about it. Each individual step may look tight to some of your Lordships, and to some home educators and proprietors of education institutions, but when we look at it in the round, the fact that a child could be in unsuitable education for 120 days, versus 51, is the point I would ask your Lordships to reflect on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, proposed Amendment 126. The monetary penalty for failing to provide information, contained in the new Section 436E, only applies to persons who provide out-of-school education to children without their parents being present. Parents who fail in their duty to provide information, or who provide false information, for the register would not be subject to any financial penalty. Rather, as I mentioned earlier, the local authority will be required then to initiate the process of finding out whether a child is receiving suitable education. That is obviously the central point of their inquiry. If they find that a child is not receiving this, then it could lead to a school attendance order. And if that attendance order is not complied with, it could eventually result in a fine being imposed, but only if the parent convinces neither the local authority nor the magistrates’ court that their child is being suitably educated.
Lord Addington (LD)
That was fairly helpful, but we are now overly dependent on the plans; I do not think there is any doubt about that. The Government are effectively saying that an identified need which is either not severe or has not yet gone through the process would still give some form of obligation, recognition and an entitlement to support in certain circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Under the changes proposed in the Bill—if I understood the noble Lord correctly.
I turn to Amendment 173 from my noble friend Lord Lucas. We would like the system of registration to be implemented as soon as possible to—I hope—reassure those parents who are doing a great job supporting their children at home. It will offer support to those parents who are struggling to provide education to their children at home, help safeguard those children who may be more vulnerable and not in school, and allow local authorities to better target their resources to those families who want or need support. We will take sufficient time prior to the registration system coming into force to ensure the registers work for everyone and that local authorities are clear on their support duty. Therefore, we do not feel it is helpful to set a strict implementation plan for the new support duty in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised Amendment 123. I hope he will be reassured that it is already a criminal offence knowingly to recruit someone to work in a regulated activity with children who has been barred from working with children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lord Lucas brought forward Amendments 122C, 125 and 126A. A threshold set out in regulations will ensure that the duty to provide information targets only those providers that are used for a substantial proportion of a child’s education. I was not altogether surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the issue of unregulated alternative provision. I know we are going to be debating it in more detail in a subsequent group, so I hope I can save my remarks on that for later.
There is also a power in new Section 436E(6) to make regulations creating specific exemptions to the requirement for providers to provide information, which could be used to exclude certain settings from scope. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on this. However, where providers are eligible, the duty will be vital in aiding identification of eligible children and ensuring the registration system is effective in safeguarding them from harm and promoting their education.
My noble friend—I mean my noble friend Lord Lucas; I have so many noble friends—referred to the importance of adequate funding. We are still in the process of determining what the minimum expectation on local authorities should be in terms of their new support duty. To ensure that it is as effective as possible, it is right that we undertake the necessary consideration and assessment of need, including how this can be achieved and the costs involved. We will engage closely with stakeholders on this prior to the statutory guidance being issued and we have also committed to undertake a new burdens assessment to identify the level of funding that may be required to support local authorities so that they can discharge their duty effectively and well. Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lord Lucas—
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I have a very quick question before the Minister sits down. She talked about making sure that people have the relevant safeguarding qualifications and going through the process. Whose responsibility is that? Does the parent of a home-educated child have a legal duty to do the checking or does that power and responsibility lie with someone else? If it was a school, it would be the school’s responsibility. I am not sure whose responsibility this is.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s specific question, but I will get an answer and respond to her.
In closing, I ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw Amendment 114A and other noble Lords not to move the amendments in their names.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, yet again, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her replies. I assume that the Government have all the powers they need to create this guidance that we are all placing so much reliance on. I hope my noble friend will tell me if that is not the case, but I assume that it is. I look forward to reading her replies in more detail in Hansard and picking up any issues I have with them in correspondence. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others to Clause 48 in Baroness Garden’s name, are intended to lengthen the “relevant period”.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I shall move Amendment 120 and speak to Amendments 122, 123 and 134 in my name. I can be brief because we have effectively discussed all this already. The first three amendments all refer to wishing to lengthen the relevant period from 15 to 28 days in a number of different situations but, of course, I would be very happy to accept the amendment that suggests 30 days. I really will not go into detail on each of them, although Amendment 134 does ring the changes, as here, for some reason, it is 14 days. One wonders why, when we have had 15 all along, suddenly here only 14 days are given to challenge a monetary penalty. Could the Minister explain how these periods are arrived at? It would be helpful if we knew how the Government decided that some should be 14 and some 15. Anyway, my amendment does not waver. We still consider 28 days a reasonable time for such representations. I will not repeat previous arguments but will just say that that is a much more reasonable period in which to challenge and work out an appropriate response. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. My noble friend covered the government arguments on this subject clearly under the previous group. I expect to come back at her in one form or another when I have the time to analyse the detailed timescale she is looking at—in other words, the whole distance between a worried local authority saying that a child is not being looked after properly and being able to enforce, and how that all works together. But I shall not move my amendments at this time.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this is a technical question and compassion for parents who are often struggling to deal with vulnerable children must be factored in. These amendments are intended to simplify the immediate duty to one of registration, leaving it to the local authority then to inform the parents of the other requirements and increase the timescale to accommodate additional responsibilities on parents. School days are used to exempt parents from having to disrupt holidays to provide the required information. These all seem sensible alternatives to what is currently proposed by the Government. I conclude by asking the Minister what analysis lies behind the Government’s choice of a 15-day period in these proposals.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, represented tonight by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, for Amendments 120, 120A, 121, 122 and 122A. As debated with your Lordships earlier this evening, the relevant period has been set at 15 days to minimise the amount of time that children are potentially not in receipt of a suitable education and to allow local authorities to use their powers effectively. Therefore, extending this timeframe could reduce local authority visibility where, for example, a child might be missing education, and prevent them quickly redirecting their resource, where a child ceases to be eligible for registration, to those children and families still eligible. As I said in the earlier group, our approach to this has been to look at the total length of the process and consider the balance between the requirements placed on parents and providers with the rights of the child to access a suitable education as quickly as possible. As I said, the amendments would increase that from 51 days to 120 days, and I am sure all the former teachers in the Committee will be able to convert that into a term or more in a nanosecond. That is the reason we would resist these amendments.
Turning to Amendment 124 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, the response time for providers has been set to 15 days for similar reasons—so that local authorities can be sure that their registers are accurate and they are discharging their duties effectively to ensure that children are in receipt of a suitable education. By extending the timeframe, local authorities would not be able to identify where certain children are receiving their education or, at worst, if they are attending unsuitable settings such as illegal schools.
Finally, turning to Amendment 134: we consider extending the 14-day period unnecessary, as a person served with a warning notice is already able to extend their period to respond to 28 days if they provide notice that they will be making representations. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, to withdraw her Amendment 120 and other noble Lords not to move theirs.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I am not sure she entirely agreed with us; still, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 48 standing part of the Bill to enable us again to have a full discussion of the issues in this part. Part 3 has drawn significant criticism from home educators and I want to put their significant anxieties and concerns about the introduction of the children not in school register to the Committee. They are very fearful of its consequences and its unintended consequences for their children and their children’s education. Sadly, many feel demonised by the tone of this part. As we have heard from the Government, their intention behind this part of the legislation is to tackle the increasing number of pupils who are disengaging from schools and increasing non-attendance. I hope, therefore, that this debate will allow the Minister to explain to the Committee, and put on record comprehensively, the reasons this part is being introduced. More importantly, I hope it will give the opportunity for the fears and anxieties of home educators to be alleviated, to allow the Government’s significant reassurances to be given to home educators and for this Committee to hear those comments before Report.
I think all of us in this Committee would recognise that home-educating families begin and continue with home education as they passionately believe the home is the best setting for their children to learn and thrive. There are many reasons why school is not a suitable environment for some children. Often, it is because the specific needs of the child cannot adequately be accommodated by a school, which may already be managing a lot of competing needs of the children in its care. By way of illustration, may I spend a few minutes giving the situations and views of two home-educating families?
First, I have first-hand experience of how a five year-old boy has thrived from being home educated. This little boy, settled now with his new adopted family, can be quite disruptive. In a school environment it became clear that, if bored, he would cause trouble and risked being too easily dismissed as the naughty kid in the class. Through home education this five year-old little boy now has a reading age of eight: he loves Shakespeare and reading about classical Greek mythology. In maths he is doing algebra because he loves it, and does it over and over. He is confident and, although only five, can have a proper conversation with anyone, including me. All that was needed was a different educational environment in which he could flourish. His parents and the home-educating community of which they are a part are terrified by this part of the Bill. His parents can understand the intent behind it, but they feel that
“this legislation is effectively punishing parents for doing what they feel is right by their child”.
My second example illustrates how a child’s specific health needs often mean home education is the only choice. For one mum the health of her daughter was paramount; her daughter developed absence seizures in year 1, a debilitating condition which affected her brain. Despite requests, her school refused to facilitate necessary long-term changes to benefit her health. They asked for her to attend school late once a week, so she could wake naturally, as advised by her consultant. Even though this was trialled prior to lockdown, when the school reopened the family was threatened with a fine. It appeared to the family that the school was far more concerned about the impact on its attendance figures than the needs of their daughter. Now, through home education, in which the family was able to deliver the needs advised by the medical professionals, the young girl has recovered from the seizures and her parents are determined to keep it that way. Her mum said:
“I am terrified the Schools Bill will result in her being forced back into school and the seizures recurring.”
What assurances can the Minister give both these families, and the many others that have contacted us, that the register will not be used by local authorities to force children back into school? For example, condition C in new Section 436B could be read as saying that consent needs to be secured to educate your child at home. Parents—and especially parents of children with special educational needs—need assurances that their child will not be compelled to attend a school that is unable or unsuitable to provide for that child. What assurances can the Minister give that this will not be the case? Will the Government consider tabling an amendment to this condition to ensure that this is not the case?
The renewed focus on reducing the number of children not in school must not lead to an overaggressive approach from schools and local authorities towards home educators. Can the Minister state or comment on whether it is envisaged that guidance about the use of the register regarding home educators will be issued? We already hear reports from home educators of overreach by schools and local authorities, threatening fines and prosecutions, and making parents feel like they are troublesome or elitist and making the wrong choice for their children. There is a lack of empathy and understanding that, for home educators, it is the successful education of their children that is utmost in their mind. How will the Government ensure that the regulation around the children not in school register and any associated guidance will not be used as a stick to erode parents’ democratic right to decide how best to educate their children?
In this part of the Bill, there is a huge increase in information for families to provide—so much so that it is intrusive. Home-educating families are already known to their local authority. Why is more personal and sensitive data needed? New Section 436C(2) states that the register may contain
“any other information the local authority consider appropriate.”
What information did the noble Baroness have in mind when this subsection was drafted? What reassurances can she give that the information requested by local authorities will not grow and be extended in different ways by different local authorities, creating a postcode lottery of registration information?
It is so important to be clear about what data will be published, who it will be shared with and how it will be kept secure, as the failure to provide this data, as people have said in the past, can result in fines and imprisonment.
New Section 436D creates a duty on parents to provide information requested by the local authority, but there must be exemptions for victims of domestic violence. One woman who works with home educators wrote to me to explain that local authorities will now require the names of both parents. The fear of data breaches from authorities is causing terror among some women who have fled abusive former partners. One mother she met through her work has already had to relocate three times, including once to a refuge with her daughter, because both social services and the local authority elective home education staff divulged her address to her former partner who, by court order, was not allowed to hold her or her daughter’s address. This situation happened under the current protections we have in place. How will the Minister protect victims of domestic abuse when the regulation around the register seems to eradicate this protection completely?
Many home educators are part of local groups and networks. They offer each other support and share information. That is why new Section 436E is a concern for those home educators who are part of active home education groups. It could allow for financial penalties to be levied against child tutors, childminders or home education groups where parents share care of their children. I am sure that was not the intent of this section, and therefore ask the Minister to look again to see whether the breadth of this section can be re-examined so that there are no other unintended consequences of this nature.
Finally, one of the stated aims of this part of the legislation is to give more support to home educators. However, it is not clear what support will be afforded to home educators, as it is left to the local authorities to decide what they think is fit. Furthermore, there is no clear and detailed framework to ensure that local authorities assess children’s education fairly and consistently. What support do the Government envisage being given to home education by this part of the Bill and by local authorities?
In conclusion, I thank all the organisations and home-educating parents who have contacted me; there have been many, including Education Otherwise, Square Peg and the elective home education art project, to name a few. I hope I have managed to get across their main concerns today. All the themes of their comments were the same: that home educators felt demonised not encouraged, unfairly victimised, and powerless to counter the additional local authority powers and demands. Clearly, this reaction from home educators was not the Government’s intention, so I hope that this debate, and the other debates we have on clauses in this part, will allow the Minister to allay the genuine fears of home educators across the country and consider how this part can be changed before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, whose introduction to this clause stand part debate was helpful, especially with the examples she provided. I also agree with her about ensuring that no data for victims of domestic abuse should be published or passed on. When doing my work on stalking law reform, I met a woman who was such a victim. She and her son had had to repeatedly move after her violent and stalker husband had found her. After the third move a big red flag was put on her file, but the social worker at the local authority decided to give her ex-husband her address because she felt that he should have access to his son. Unfortunately, he attacked both her and him. We cannot always guarantee the behaviour of people, but in this case we know that victims of domestic abuse are targets for their ex-partners.
The Minister has heard from noble Lords across the Committee over the last two days of debate concerns about this part of the Bill, particularly Clause 48, with questions about the language. My noble friend Lord Shipley raised concerns about the word “expediency”, but plenty of other concerns were raised too. For example, how exactly will data be held and used?
There are concerns too about the tone of the legislation, which is designed on the basis of home educators being a problem, as we have heard from many people speaking today. I know the Minister does not agree with that and is urging us to be careful with our language, but we are hearing from parents that the tone of the Bill is what worries them.
Once again, many parents have said that, unfortunately, their relationship with the local authority has been the root of their problems, which has meant that the child had to be withdrawn from school. Far too many local authorities have taken the view of having a hostile and difficult relationship. It has been helpful to listen to the debate and hear the supportive way in which many amendments, often led by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have tried to change that tone. It would be good to see that in revisions from the Minister at a later stage.
Concerns about the principles that underpin this clause also worry many. So I completely agree, first, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, that we should ask the Minister to respond to the clause standing part, but also with my noble friend Lord Shipley’s earlier comment that, with Report stage starting in under two weeks, it is completely wrong to proceed with this part of the Bill while there are so many unsolved problems: those of principle, language and attitude. Frankly, this means that there must be a delay to starting Report while the Government think again—at least until the autumn.
Lord Storey (LD)
I was not going to speak on this group, but I am now. My noble friend Lady Brinton is right: the tone is really important; we underlined that in previous debates.
I am very nervous that we said right at the beginning—I think there was agreement across the Committee—that this was about protecting the vulnerable and ensuring the rights of children. I guess that all noble Lords here have been bombarded with emails from home educators, and we must be careful that we do not believe everything that they tell us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was talking, I received an email giving a completely different view about how some home educators are suing one other over what they said; some are being told to be quiet. The noble Baroness mentioned a couple of organisations, but, for some people, there is more at stake here. We must remember—I repeat this—that the vast majority of home educators are doing a fantastic job; they want support and to work together. If we ramp up the fear that they will be threatened, they will feel threatened. We should try to ensure that they completely understand what we are trying to do to support them and their child.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are respectful of the right of parents to educate their children at home, but we cannot agree that this clause should not be part of the Bill. There are clearly important measures that we support quite strongly and want to see enacted. We support the principle of a register. However, there have been some helpful suggestions for improvement—particularly on new Sections 436C and 436D(2), inserted by Clause 48—and the Minister has committed to go away and consider those further.
On the issues around data we raised in relation to Amendment 128 in an earlier group, having thought about what the Minister said and the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and other noble Lords, I think it is worth some further consideration, because clearly there are risks and we would not want to rush into anything that would cause more problems. We hope that, with some improvements, this clause will be a helpful and necessary change that will safeguard children. It is not about forcing children back into school; it is about balance between freedom to decide and safeguarding.
On the comments that we have just heard from my noble friend, this Bill is not ready for Report. We do not think that the Government will have time to reconsider some of the issues that have been raised. It would seem appropriate, given everything that has been said, for us at least to wait for the regulatory review to be completed before we take this Bill to Report.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for giving us the opportunity again to ensure that the tone we take when talking about this issue—as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and many other noble Lords in this debate have said—is one of support, of explaining what the Government are seeking to achieve with these measures and of trying to allay some the concerns we have heard, while being clear that we do not lose sight of the importance of protecting a child’s right to education. In doing so, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that the introduction of registers is not, in any way, intended to undermine or interfere with the parents’ right to educate their child how they choose. This clause includes no measures on monitoring or assessing the education that parents may be providing. Local authorities’ existing powers are already sufficient in this regard, and we have already provided guidance to support local authorities to determine whether education is suitable.
As many noble Lords have said, we know that many parents who home educate do it very well—often to a very high standard and in challenging circumstances. However, that is not the case for all. That is a key point I would like to emphasise: this Bill is about establishing registers so that we know who and where home-educated children are; it is not about forcing them back to school.
A school attendance order can be issued only if the local authority is not satisfied that the education provided for the child is suitable. The example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of the little boy thriving at home with his new adopted family is clearly a case where the home education being provided is suitable and, if demonstrated as she described, the local authority could only agree with that. Similarly, on her example of a girl in year 1 who developed seizures, if the education being provided at home is suitable—and that is demonstrated to the local authority—the local authority could not reasonably issue a school attendance order. In addition, the current law, supported by guidance, already requires local authorities to take all relevant factors into account when taking a view on whether it is expedient for a child to attend school, including any medical grounds.
I turn now to the noble Baroness’s question about parents needing local authorities’ consent to home educate. I can reassure the noble Baroness that condition C in new Section 436B simply does not do that; it establishes that a home-educated child is eligible to be included on the local authority’s register. That is a statement of fact; there is nothing about consent involved in new Section 436B.
As we heard in an earlier debate, we must recognise that there are growing numbers of children not in school, particularly after the pandemic, and there are concerns that some of these children will not be receiving suitable education—and, in some cases, not at all. We need to be able to assure ourselves that they are receiving a suitable education, and that is what these provisions are all about. While parents of eligible children will be required to provide information to local authorities for inclusion on their registers, local authorities will be able to require only that information which is prescribed in legislation. Any additional information prescribed will be intended to support the promotion of the education, welfare or safety of children.
I have also heard the concerns about data sharing—which was raised not just in this group—and was sorry to hear about the specific situation the noble Baroness described; that absolutely should not have occurred. As my noble friend the Minister has explained, there will be protections in place: the clause allows local authorities to share information only with certain prescribed persons, to be set out in regulations, when they consider it appropriate for the purposes of ensuring the safety, welfare or education of a child—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is quite deep concern about this issue, and I wonder whether the regulations could be made available to us before Report.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can absolutely take that point away and see whether it is possible. If that is not the mechanism by which we can provide further detail and assurance, I will look at what else we can do to explore, and reassure on, that issue further.
As my noble friend the Minister said, under UK GDPR, parents have the right to object to any processing where UK legislation requires such processing, which would include the sharing of information to prescribed persons. The organisation responsible for that processing would then need to review the request and decide whether the processing is in the best interest of the child or family, and either uphold the request in the specific circumstances or proceed with the processing. The parent also has a formal route of complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has a range of powers in this area. It is essential, however, for local authorities to be able to share information, if needed, to support multi-agency safeguarding and education efforts, with the appropriate safeguards in place.
On the question of statutory guidance, which the noble Baroness asked about also, this will help ensure the consistency of interpretation and implementation of duties across local authorities. As we said, we will ensure that it is created in close collaboration with local authorities and home educators, and includes advice on how local authorities can best promote positive engagement, as we have heard the concerns from parents where that has not been the case. We have also heard examples of best practice, and that is what we will seek to draw on in drafting the guidance.
There was a concern about financial penalties for tutors or childminders and home education groups. The duty on providers to share information on request will be important in helping to identify those children who are not—but should be—on registers, and those regulations will be used to set a threshold at which an education provider comes into the scope of the duty in Section 436E, ensuring the duty is only placed on providers that provide a substantial proportion of an eligible child’s education. There is also the power to make regulations to create specific exemptions to this duty, and we have indicated our intention to use that power to exclude informal groups of home-educating parents from the scope of this measure.
I thank the noble Baroness once again for the opportunity to reiterate some of those points, and I think we have heard the areas that the Government will take away and look at to ensure that we continue to have a message for support for home educators, but not lose sight of the importance of what we are trying to achieve with these registers.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a good answer, but I feel my noble friend has not addressed the reasonable fears of some home educators about the way this Bill is drafted at present. For instance, in new Section 436C(1)(c),
“such details of the means by which the child is being educated as may be prescribed”
is a completely open phrase. This is an area which is used by some local authorities to pressure parents. They pursue parents for timetables, the details of subjects of studied and other things which do not necessarily form part of home education. Home education is not subject bound. Schools have to do it that way; if the Times has its way, schools may not have to do it that way, but they do so at the moment. Home education may follow timetables, or it may be something much looser. The age at which a child begins to read can be quite late in home education, or it can be very early. These things vary enormously from the practice which is necessary in school. That new Section 436C(1)(c) is in this Bill, and opens and then flows through to the school attendance order provisions, is a source of considerable worry, and I think reasonably so.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment specifies that the period within which a person must satisfy a local authority that a child is receiving education is a minimum of 28 days.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 136 and speak to Amendments 137, 138, 139, 141, 142 and 143 in my name. It might have been less painful if most of these had been grouped with my other amendments seeking to increase or specify relevant periods for parents to respond to notices.
Amendment 136 relates to “the period specified” within which a person must satisfy the local authority; home educators would wish this to say “of at least 28 days”, for reasons we have already set out. Amendment 137 replaces a period of not less than 10 days with our favoured 28 days. Amendment 138 once again specifies 28 days in place of the vaguer “specified in the notice”.
Amendment 139 moves into another area of concern: that of authorities taking on roles which may run counter to the wishes of parents or the best interests of the child. It would be preferable if the authorities’ wishes were supplemented by those of a “suitably qualified independent adviser”, and we have touched on this already in an earlier group, and surely the Minister can see that would allay fears of overriding officialdom.
Amendments 141, 142 and 143 all ask to replace 10 days with 28 days. Parents do not wish to dodge their responsibilities, but they do wish to have sufficient time to assess, research and respond in a way which, as ever, serves the best interest of the child.
I hope the Minister will appreciate how strongly home educators feel that this Bill is giving undue powers to authorities, powers which they feel more than able to fulfil themselves. Once again, we have to be aware of cautions over parents who do not have the best interests of their children in keeping them off school, but so very many excellent home educators can surely be allowed to serve their children without heavy-handed monitoring. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to take part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendment 137D and 143IB. Amendment 137D replicates Amendment 171V that I had in an earlier group, for children who are home educated or out of school long-term for other reasons.
Amendment 137D sets out that a local authority must take account of the advice of a doctor, social worker or youth offending officer when considering school attendance orders. This comes back to the issue that I have talked about often in these groups, where some parents have their children out of school not because they want to but because their child is not safe in school, whether that is for medical, psychological or other reasons. For the reasons I said earlier, and I will not go through them again, many parents say that the officer at their local authority refused to acknowledge the reasons why the pupil was out of school. This amendment ensures that the advice of the relevant independent expert must be taken into account when considering orders and school nomination notice for a school attendance order.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group: Amendments 136A and 137A are timing amendments, and we have covered that subject already.
Amendments 140A, 143A, 143C, 143D, 143E and 143H are of a technical nature. I think the quickest thing would be for me to listen to the Minister’s reply, because I think I have made my intentions clear in the amendments.
Amendment 143IA goes back to an earlier discussion on the relationship between local authorities and home educators. It suggests that having Ofsted report on the quality of the home education provision in a local authority, and on the quality of the work that it does on school attendance, would be a useful way of redressing the balance between home educators and a local authority, and that it would direct the attention of the local authority to the need to perform well in this area, and would have similar benefits in the case of attendance.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have in Amendment 143G a very simple provision that, on acquittal for breaching a school attendance order, that particular school attendance order dies—no ifs, no buts. Surely, natural justice mandates that the court’s decision is respected for that specific attendance order.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the general thrust of these amendments is to make school attendance order conditions easier for parents by, for example, increasing the information handover period, compelling consideration of the child’s relevant medical conditions—looking at the child holistically.
An important factor that has not had enough mention is that of the impact of poverty on attendance. Poverty affects school attendance for a variety of reasons, and in the third decade of the 21st century some children are unable to attend school because their parents cannot afford fuel or travel costs, or they are more likely to be absent with sickness as their families cannot afford heating or hot water, or to provide a healthy diet.
For some children, not having the right uniform and missing breakfast are barriers to them setting foot in school. Children are having to take days off school due to unwashed, ill fitting or shabby clothes. This often leads to bullying, which is a huge concern when children are unable to dress like their peers and have poorer-quality clothing, shoes and school bags. I have seen and experienced these issues first-hand as a barrier to attendance, and teachers themselves often provide for children in these desperate circumstances. It cannot be right that in a society as wealthy as Britain, we still have children living like this. Poor attendance adds to the inequalities that they face.
We know that schools are often the first point of contact when dealing with such inequalities, so it is important that we have the correct resources and tools to deal with them. Our Amendment 144 ensures that schools’ attendance policies consider how to support staff who have been given new responsibilities for implementing the policies. This whole Bill will give hard-pressed teachers even more responsibilities, so we require recognition of that and to get them the support that they deserve in those areas.
Naturally, none of these measures will increase the resources for education, financial or physical. In the debate on Monday, I noted to your Lordships the paper-thin state of local government finances, and schools are finely balanced within that equation. Such an increase in monitoring and evaluation of attendance policies will be yet another job for an already hard-pressed member of the senior management team in a school. I have served in that capacity for decades; it is an extremely stressful occupation. This is one reason it is increasingly difficult to recruit heads and deputies in the secondary sector.
Our Amendment 146 will mandate the Secretary of State to produce a breakdown of those fined to allow assessment of disparities and compel them to consider the measures to address this. If we examine the data, attendance fines and fixed penalty notices are vastly skewed towards women, who are more often caregivers, and less affluent people, who are more often dealing with truant children. The Secretary of State should be forced to recognise this injustice and tackle it. I pose the question: where is the levelling-up agenda here?
I must stress that we do not disagree with this clause in principle. I set out earlier that we must ensure that the children at greatest risk attend school regularly, but I must press the Minister on what her department’s hard evidence is—whether behavioural science or otherwise—that fines will increase the information given or get more absent children into school. Children with poor attendance need support and staff need the resources to help them deal with it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox, Lady Chapman, Lady Brinton, Lady Bennett and Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for their amendments in this group. I shall speak to Amendments 136 to 143, from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and Amendments 136A and 137A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We have worked closely with a group of local authorities in developing the timeframes set out in the Bill. As we discussed in previous groups on school attendance order timeframes, we want to ensure that the school attendance order process is as efficient as possible, so that any child not receiving a suitable education is placed in adequate provision swiftly and can benefit from the full-time education to which they are entitled.
Amendment 143D, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would bypass the existing procedures under the Children and Families Act 2014 and associated secondary legislation for amending an education, health and care plan. Clause 49, as drafted, does not prevent a parent seeking to have the name of a school changed or removed from their child’s education, health and care plan, in line with the existing process and timescales set out in the Act. Following that process, a parent may apply for the school attendance order to be revoked as normal.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for their Amendments 140A, 143A and 143C. If local authorities were required to revoke orders simply on the grounds that a child has moved to a new area, the continuity of the child’s education and the local authority’s duties to safeguard children—and to satisfy itself that every child is receiving a suitable education—would be impeded.
When a child leaves the local authority area, including, as in the example given in Amendment 140A, to move to Wales, we expect both local authorities to work together to co-ordinate and facilitate the movement of children and parents subject to school attendance orders. We expect local authorities to facilitate this swiftly and efficiently, given the importance of ensuring that all children have access to suitable full-time education, in line with their common-law obligation to act within a reasonable timeframe. We will set out further details on this issue in future guidance.
On Amendment 143E, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, I assure him that school attendance orders already apply only to children of compulsory school age. This is included under new Section 436J(4), introduced through this Bill.
On Amendments 143G and 143H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, Clause 50 as drafted already allows the court to use its discretion to rule that a school attendance order ceases to be in force in the event of an acquittal for breaching the order. This discretion is valuable, as there may be circumstances where there are clear reasons for the order to remain in force.
If the court finds that a parent has had their child registered at the school named in the order, they would find the parent not guilty of the offence, but there may be individual factors making it important for the child to continue attending that school and, therefore, for the order to remain in force; for example, if there had been a previous pattern of school attendance orders being required in respect of that child.
Amendment 143IA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would create duties on Ofsted to oversee local authorities’ exercise of their functions in relation to electively home-educated children and school attendance in a way that encourages a positive relationship between the two. As your Lordships have heard me and my noble friend say several times this evening, that is absolutely our goal. Ofsted already covers both elective home education and children missing education as part of its children’s social care remit; local authorities are held to account in relation to those functions.
On school attendance, through recently published attendance guidance, which we intend to put on a statutory footing through the Bill, local authorities are expected to provide attendance support to pupils who face barriers to attendance prior to considering any legal intervention. As I said earlier, in response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, it is “support, support and support” before there is any kind of enforcement. We understand that the reasons children may not be attending school are often very complex and support is almost always the right answer.
On Amendment 137D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, local authorities are already required by law to take account of relevant factors when making decisions, including on preliminary notices. They should have the necessary in-house expertise to make these decisions but, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, that is not always the case. If local authorities do not have the expertise, they are able to consult an external expert. Parents are able to ask local authorities to take account of expert advice when making decisions, and the local authority must consider this external evidence and any other relevant considerations in line with public law.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her full reply. There are still some issues that we may wish to come back to on Report, but she has dealt comprehensively with a lot of the matters that were raised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 49, and the other clauses and the schedule set out in the group, standing part of the Bill. I do so partly because the Bill is such a mess. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, pointed out that a lot more discussion is needed on it, but we also need to facilitate a debate on the rights of home-schooling families. That is not clear to the families themselves, nor to me because of the Bill.
We have already had extensive debates on this on previous groups, so I will not go on, but I will briefly reflect the worry that many home-schooling families have expressed to me and to other noble Lords. The Minister said on Monday that the Government are not criminalising anything and that it is dangerous to talk in these terms, but that is the sort of language that we have heard from home educators; that is how they feel. If that is not right, they need to be told, and told clearly. They are genuinely fearful that their way of life will be trammelled by this legislation and that the state will use the legal system against them.
Can the Minister please take this opportunity to make a clear statement to home-schooling families about what the legislation means for them, what safeguards will be in place to protect their way of life and what work the Government will do to ensure that positive support, rather than coercion, is provided by local authorities? There are some points from Monday’s debate that might be worth reiterating, but I am aware that it is getting on and it would be wonderful to get through the Bill today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely on this group. I therefore invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already expressed the worries from home educators and why she is opposing the clause standing part. My queries are more probing as to whether these clauses and the schedule should stand part.
On Clause 49 on school attendance orders, many Peers have already raised a surfeit of problems during the debate. Unlike the current system on the government website that I described, there is no sense of a ladder of penalties, of support between each stage before progressing on, or how local authorities will work as constructively as they can with parents and pupils before the process for school attendance orders kicks in. I know that the Minister said before the break that the guidance will talk about support. The problem is that, if that guidance is not in the Bill or referred to in the Bill, it might easily be missed and ignored.
On Clause 50 and failure to comply with the school attendance order, I want to come back to something the Minister said at the end of the debate on the first group. I am sorry, and I appreciate that the Minister is probably getting frustrated by this, but I have frustrations myself. She said in response to my question that prison terms were increasing from three months to 51 weeks because magistrates’ powers were now being increased from three months to 51 weeks. In fact, the current maximum is six months. It is going up to 51 weeks, but it is not currently three months. I was slightly bemused by that.
Usually, a maximum prison sentence is defined by the level of the offence, not the sentencing power of the court that is going to hear it. That is exactly why I quoted examples of crimes that would receive sentences of up to six months—threatening someone with a weapon or a second offence of possession of a gun. The example that I gave of a 12-month sentence—I appreciate that 51 weeks is not quite 12 months—was of very serious harassment and stalking, over an extended period, which involved a large team of police investigating over many months, not to mention the distress it caused to the 30 people who were the targets.
I am hearing from the Minister’s response that the drafters decided that, because magistrates will have the opportunity to sentence a convicted criminal to up to 51 weeks, that should be in the Bill. There are three worries and three groups of people involved in this. First and most importantly, what is the impact on children of a parent, especially if it is a single parent, going to prison? For three months, a temporary foster placement or possibly a short-term placement with kinship carers might be possible, but social services view a 51-week sentence very differently, even if the parent comes out after half the sentence has been served.
The second is the impact on prisons. We already know that our prisons are overcrowded. I have no idea of the numbers the Minister thinks are likely to be involved, but it might be useful to have an indication. The third is the impact on the parent who is themselves imprisoned. I ask the Minister if the Ministry of Justice has said that it is content with lines 18 to 20 in Clause 50 and this new, much-increased maximum sentence of 51 weeks.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, sort of said “all home educators” and I briefly want to say that that is not the case. Some home educators feel threatened by a number of people in their organisation, particularly a number of ex-home educators who are running and providing services. I am happy to show the noble Baroness the evidence for that privately.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I did not say “all”. I am well aware that there are others, but I did not say “all”.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness said “home educators”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, corrected by saying “some home educators”, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said “home educators”. When she said that, it indicated to me that she was talking about all home educators.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am really sorry; the noble Lord is going to have to check this in Hansard. I have my copy and that is not what I said.
Lord Storey (LD)
If I am wrong, I am wrong and will apologise, but I make the point quite strongly that a large number of home educators are getting on with home educating. Within the home education movement, there are home educators who are behaving in an unacceptable way. In the first debate we had—I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was with us—we all agreed, or the feeling of the debate was, that we need to use language that brings home educators together and works with local authorities. That is really important.
I turn to the issue of school attendance, which, again, we discussed previously. Part of me asks that, if school attendance is important—of course it is; it is hugely important, and we want to make sure every child and young person is in school—what are the tools in our kit to ensure that it happens? It must be through encouragement, reward and so on. If that is the case, should we say that there should be no sanctions, and let us do it through all other means? If we want school attendance to thrive in our society, we should not be suggesting that parents be fined, taken to court or, as my noble friend Lady Brinton mentioned, criminalised. Should we have a serious discussion about doing away with all those sanctions? If so, we need to know the consequences. I prefer a carrot-and-stick approach, but the carrot should be the overriding way we encourage parents to ensure that their children are in school.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to detain the Committee either, but my ears also pricked up at the question of six months or 12 months. I was part of the Bill Committee when we agreed that magistrates should have the power to hand down sentences of up to a year. This is a slightly odd one; I do not think I have ever seen an offence drafted quite like this, especially given the journey that people would go on to be subject to these orders. I absolutely accept that, for a situation to get this point, the circumstances would be extremely unusual. If you need to send a parent to prison for a year for failing to get their child to school, there is a lot more going on. There will probably have been multiple interventions from social services and elsewhere before we ever got to that point. Whether the child would still be in the care of a parent who needed to go to prison for failing to get them to school is an interesting question.
It is usual, I should think, with an offence such as this, for a Minister to explain why a penalty of a year will have any more of a deterrent effect then a penalty of six months, eight months or three months. I know they would be available to a magistrate, but it is unusual to see it done in this way. I do not know whether that is because it is a Bill of the Department for Education, rather than the MoJ, which is perhaps more used to dealing with such clauses. It would be helpful if the Minister said a bit more about this.
I am content that these clauses should stand part of the Bill, but I am sensitive to the concerns of home educators, particularly those who are doing a good job. We do not want them to feel undermined or threatened in any way by this. We can stand here and say “Well, they shouldn’t; there’s no need for them to”, but the fact is that that is how they already feel, so we have a job of work to do to meet them where they are on this. At this point, it would be helpful if the Minister said what she can on that, but we do not want the clauses removed from the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I shall speak to Clauses 49, 50 and 51 and Schedule 4, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, opposes. She asked me to summarise the purpose of this part of the Bill. The overarching purpose is that we should feel confident that every child in this country is getting a suitable education, that we should offer support to those home-educating parents who feel they need it, and that we should address the very small number of children who are not in school or being suitably educated at home, and who are exposed to a range of risks which we have discussed tonight.
The other point behind the noble Baroness’s very fair question was to ask us about the spirit in which we approach this and how we are doing it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, it does not matter whether we tell parents to think a certain thing: if we feel it, we feel it. I hope that the Committee senses that we acknowledge that. I feel it is our responsibility to try to address those anxieties and put ourselves in the shoes of parents who are worried about the proposals. It is material, in our commitment to develop guidance for local authorities, that we will do that in partnership with local authorities and home-educating parents, so both voices are there. I hope very much that we will reach a good place with them, and that that recap responds to the noble Baroness’s question.
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Chapman, regarding their questions. My understanding is that we are bringing the offence in this Bill in line with other similar offences, but both noble Baronesses have asked extremely good and detailed questions and I will respond to them in writing.
Clause 49 amends the school attendance order process in England to make an order a more effective measure for parents who are not providing their child with a suitable education, or who fail to demonstrate that they are doing so to local authorities. If a local authority knows that a suitable education is not being provided, or cannot deduce whether it is, it is important that this be acted on quickly to make sure that children get a suitable education as quickly as possible. For this reason, additional timeframes have been introduced and in some existing cases, as the Committee has debated tonight, shortened. We are trying to bring more consistency by aligning the process for and effect of orders for academy schools more closely with that for maintained schools.
Clause 50 similarly seeks to increase the efficiency of the process where a parent fails to comply with a school attendance order in England, and to support the child’s right to education and minimise the amount of time that a child misses education. Today, if a child is registered at a school but their parent keeps them at home without a valid reason, the parent commits an offence and can potentially receive a heavier penalty than if they simply withdraw the child from school completely without providing any education at all and ignore a school attendance order. Equalising the maximum penalties for those two situations removes this perverse incentive to take children out of school without providing suitable home education. These changes are only being made to the school attendance order process in England. Therefore, Clause 51 and Schedule 4 make consequential amendments to help separate the two processes in England and Wales and to ensure they are reflected in relevant legislation such as the Children Act 1989 and the Education Act 1996.
With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness not to oppose Clause 49, the other clauses and Schedule 4.
Baroness Whitaker
“(c) that those policies take into account shared protected characteristics of registered pupils, as set out in the Equality Act 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require schools to take greater account of gender, ethnicity, religion etc. when designing attendance policies.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, although this amendment was scheduled to be in the last group, amendments have been moved around a bit. I am sorry I missed it.
The rationale of Amendment 143J is that attendance policies should respect protected characteristics—that is, those that are cardinal to a child’s identity and enjoin small, short absences such as for religious or other festivals or necessary travel by parents. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand the importance of schools developing their attendance policies in a way that considers the characteristics of individual pupils, including those with protected characteristics that may mean they face greater barriers to attendance. The Equality Act 2010 protects pupils with certain characteristics, such as race, disability and religion, from discrimination in their educational setting. Schools have clear duties under the Act, and we expect them to develop all policies, including attendance policies, in line with those duties.
The department recently published attendance guidance, Working Together To Improve School Attendance, which we intend to put on a statutory footing through the Bill. In addition, through this guidance and their own Equality Act obligations, academy trust boards and governing bodies of maintained schools are expected to ensure that their schools have an attendance policy that considers their obligations under the Act.
As I believe the amendment to be unnecessary, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(f) the extent to which mental illness has contributed to truancy, and how mental health will be considered in developing the policy.”
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Good mental health is fundamental to thriving in life. I knew it from the other side of the tracks. My dear, late mother suffered greatly with mental health throughout her life, so I grew up and grew old trying to deal with it. It made me much more aware of what it means. I always used to say that if my mother came into school or wherever wearing a plaster cast on her arm, they would know that she had a broken arm. However, they did not know that she had a broken mind. At times it was extremely challenging. It made me a better person, more understanding and very aware of mental health issues.
More than one in 10 children aged 10 to 15 say they have no one to talk to or would not talk to anyone in school if they felt worried or sad. This is the same proportion of children who have a diagnosable mental health problem. Research shows that 50% of mental health problems are established by the age of 14 and 75% are by the age of 24. Young people in the UK today are dealing with high levels of stress due to a variety of issues.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely in this group. I invite the noble Baroness to take part.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, especially today when the Anti-Bullying Alliance is asking all of us to encourage children to talk to someone if they are isolated, depressed or bullied. We know that they are not alone, but of course they feel fearfully alone.
Amendment 145 returns us to the issue of mental health in children in schools, which I raised in earlier parts of the Bill. It looks specifically at school attendance policy and ensuring that any mental health illness that has contributed to truancy is taken into account. That is helpful and fits neatly with my other amendments about following the advice of a doctor.
Amendment 170 is more general, and asks for Ofsted to assess the mental health of a student body—the overall health of all children in a school. We know that children and young people, their parents, their families, Ministers and parliamentarians are all too aware of the effect of the pandemic on their mental health. It is really important that we learn from that.
That is why I am particularly pleased to see Amendment 171M placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report each year on the physical health and mental health of children at school in England. This is particularly helpful, especially with all the concerns expressed recently. I particularly like the physical side: we all talk all the time about how important it is that children take exercise and that they eat properly. On all sides of the House, we discuss it often. But I do not think we actually assess what is happening in schools. For the Secretary of State to have to prepare an annual report on this will be extraordinarily helpful. I particularly like, in the amendment, proposed new paragraph (b)(iii) and (iv), which specifies
“the length of time spent by pupils waiting for mental health support provided through their school”
and
“the adequacy of provision of mental health support in and through schools.”
That is because at the moment there is no focus. We keep saying that schools are the front line of mental health problems; indeed, we know that money has been put in by the NHS to provide counselling services, but we need to be able to see how long children are waiting and whether that money is sufficient. I have to say, wearing my health portfolio hat, that we know that mental health is still really underfunded, so we need to understand if delays continue even after some of this money has reached the front line.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is absolutely right: the NHS cannot do this on its own. But I would go further: managing children’s mental health problems must be a joint venture between the child’s school and their access to mental health services. By cataloguing this in a report, the Secretary of State can be held accountable, alongside the Secretary of State for Health, for making sure that the Government deliver on their promises for mental health for our children.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on the issue raised by these amendments. I support the thrust of them, although I do not support all the details, particularly the one about Ofsted. I think that would not be an Ofsted role, but I agree that we need to have focus on it and that some organisation needs to give it.
My worry is that we are in the foothills of learning about what we should do with mental health in school. When I taught, which was many years ago now, it was never even discussed. It was not on our agenda, yet the children I taught in the inner city were just as likely to suffer from mental health problems as the generation that we have now. We are very much learning how to deal with this, which is worth bearing in mind.
I do not know what the answers are, but I think there is a problem and it is growing. In a way, it is becoming more evident to us because we did not analyse it in that way. Historically, we have always assumed that children did not suffer from mental health problems. It could be unhappiness at home, bad behaviour or whatever, but in schools we did not focus on mental health being a problem, except in the most extreme cases. Things are being done, but we really are in the foothills and we had such a long way to go before now.
There is the whole issue about CAMHS and its underfunding. It is a disgrace—we all know that. So much more needs to be done. I was interested in hearing from the Minister was about prevention work and the things that we can reasonably expect schools to do to head off people needing more acute services. The work I do in the Birmingham Education Partnership has had some success in this. We received a grant from the clinical commissioning group—so it was actually health money—about three or four years ago. We have rolled out a programme across the city now. I think it has been taken up by the DfE and is either closely aligned to, or has become part of, the DfE initiative, where it is getting mental health leads in schools.
All that is good, and I have seen the good work happening, but it is not universally successful. In Birmingham, where we have over 400 schools, we have put in extra money, resource and effort; we value this highly and prioritise it. After three or four years, however, we have still not rolled it out to every school, and we have only one person on this. This is a major problem. That is where my concerns are.
I will end up not disagreeing at all with what the Minister says about the initiative that has been launched for mental health leads, but it is not at the pace or speed that we need. We are starting from way behind if you look at any other area of school activity, be it phonics, numeracy, PE, sports or art. We have only just started on the journey of understanding what to do to support our young people with mental health difficulties. I should like to hear from the Minister what else is going to happen, and how they will build on the small seeds which have been slowly put into the ground and will take decades to help solve the problem.
If we are to get this right, we must have a picture that schools will not be staffed as they are at the moment. I worry that it is the teacher who has become the mental health lead. To be honest, if it is the physics teacher doing that, we need them in the physics lab teaching physics lessons. We cannot constantly take teachers away from the subjects we need them to teach to give them extra responsibilities to address important issues.
I know I am harking back a bit but, in the days of Every Child Matters and Sure Start, the aim that we made a start on when I was in the department was for a school to be staffed with people other than teachers. I remember visiting a school in the north-east, in Gateshead, where the secondary head proudly told me that just under 50% of his staff were teaching. The other 51% were not teaching: they were counsellors, mentors, assistants, lab assistants, careers advisers—all those other things. Unless you have that multitude of roles within the school, you cannot expect schools to be a key player in this; they just cannot do it. They can enable politicians to tick the box, make a speech and say, “I have done this”, but they will not be delivering effectively.
My vision would be to go back to the model of schools as bases where we can begin to support children’s mental health needs. The only way to do that adequately is to staff them with people who have the skills to do it. Of course, teachers have a role in that and we need mental health leads. I do not have a problem with that, but we cannot have nothing between the mental health lead and CAMHS. That is what we have at the moment: there is nothing in between, as far as a school is concerned. That is my worry.
It is a shame that Amendment 171Y was not spoken to as it is about testing eyesight. It is a great little amendment and it would be effective. I happened to work with some researchers once who did research in American kindergartens, the lowest schools in the system; they were experts in literacy and numeracy. They did eye tests on all five and six year-olds, and the number of children proven to need glasses at that point was unbelievable. They gave the kids a pair of glasses and kept a pair of glasses at the school—it was in a deprived area—and the attainment rate at the school rose significantly. No one had spotted that poor eyesight meant that the child did not know that they were missing out to some extent, especially children sitting at the back of classes. It is an important amendment, which would not need as much resource as mental health, but it would add to well-being and health. That would acknowledge the point that if we want to remove barriers to children’s learning, making sure they are mentally and physically well is a prerequisite for everything else.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to raise some qualms about this set of amendments. For different reasons, I find myself agreeing with the way the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, has just raised some issues.
I have spoken, on earlier amendments, about my concern about pathologising and medicalising all sorts of everyday experiences for children and adolescents. If we see the trials and tribulations of growing up— goodness knows, there are many of them—too much through the prism of mental health, we can contribute to children being anxious and worried about their own mental health. There is a kind of danger that we make children self-absorbed or unable to get over things and undermine their resilience. Important work has been done on this. One of my favourite books is The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education by Professors Kathryn Ecclestone and Dennis Hayes, which was ahead of its time in worrying about some of these issues and raising them. There is a whole body of research on this work.
Lord Storey (LD)
For the first time, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in many of the things that she said. This is a first.
One thing I want to add is that the Covid lockdown certainly created real problems. However, you can go further back and say that the recession created a situation whereby local authorities had massive cuts to their budgets. For example, my local authority in Liverpool lost a third of its budget, and services such as CAMHS just went. The resource was not there.
We all understand that young children’s mental health is hugely important, but we have not really thought it through. I do not mean this as any criticism at all. Governments will say, “Yes, we’ve got this scheme going, we’re doing this and we’re doing that”, but I would much prefer it if we completely understood what provision we needed to provide in all our schools and then made sure that it was absolutely Rolls-Royce. I would rather we said that, in every single primary and secondary school in England and Wales, we will ensure that somebody referred to CAMHS is seen within 10 days. Currently, we cannot do that. On Monday, we took evidence from a group of parents regarding, I am sorry to say, alternative provision. A very young, single parent talked us through how she had waited never mind days but months to get referred to CAMHS. Let us do just one small thing at a time and be successful in it.
The second thing I want to say, which my noble friend Lady Brinton mentioned, is the importance of linking up with health. We are not very good at this. I remember that health was the real problem for the education, health and care plans in the Children and Families Act. Getting health to work with education was an absolute nightmare, so good luck on that one. I do not understand why that is the case.
I turn to Amendment 171Y. Noble Lords will be sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has had to catch a train back to Cardiff, so she asked me whether I would read out her speech—am I allowed to say that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord can speak to the amendment, but he should not read out the noble Baroness’s speech, as she is not here.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am learning all the time, after 10 years.
Some 80% of all learning is visual. A child who has undiagnosed, uncorrected vision problems faces academic disadvantages, particularly in literacy and numeracy. This affects their safety, social and cultural development, and physical agility, and disadvantages them for life. The current child screening programme recommended by the National Screening Committee is targeted at four to five year-olds starting school, but a recent pre-Covid study suggested that only around 50% of local authorities are fully compliant with its specifications, and there is no commissioned post-screening follow-up. There is no provision for vision screening in other age groups, despite the numbers needing visual correction increasing in secondary school years.
The prevalence of myopia—short-sightedness—among 10 to 16 year-olds has more than doubled in the past 50 years from 7.2% to 16.4% and continues to grow. During Covid, short-sightedness may have increased between 1.4 and three times, driven by more time indoors and increased screen time. Up to 15% of pupils need spectacles or need their spectacles reviewed. Although an NHS eye examination is free for under 16 year-olds, a child might not be fully aware of, or may be reluctant to admit to, vision problems that would be picked up by a simple universal screening programme. Parents, teachers and carers might also not realise that the child’s vision is deficient. Universal screening would ensure that advice is available to all.
Basic smartphone or laptop-enabled screening could take less than one minute per eye to carry out. It builds on screening carried out in developing countries by volunteers using an “E” shape. Here, training of volunteers or support staff takes only half a day. Reports from schools are positive. It simply alerts the parent or guardian that the child should have a free NHS eye check. The details of the standard can be agreed by the Secretaries of State for Education and Health, with appropriate input from professional bodies and education advisers.
The amendment would not interfere with the NHS’s special schools eye care service, which began to roll out in April 2021 to over 70 special schools. Four in five children with learning difficulties attend special schools and are 28% more likely to have a sight problem than other children; 23% need glasses. The NHS service in special schools is praised by schools and parents. It has already identified that half of children in special schools have a sight problem, and more than 4,000 children have already benefited from it. I hope the Minister can provide an assurance that the rollout of the NHS’s special schools eye care service will restart, to reach a further 130,000 children in the next few years.
The amendment empowers the Secretary of State to set the standards to provide simple screening for all schools to alert to possible vision problems, which, if unaddressed, threaten the academic potential and social development of the child. It aims to remove health inequalities and to enable all children to access the support they need.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, taking first Amendment 145, the Government recognise that some pupils, such as those with mental ill-health, may face greater barriers to attendance than their peers. To ensure that all pupils receive the support they need to remove barriers to attendance, the department has recently published new attendance guidance entitled Working Together to Improve School Attendance. Through this Bill, we intend to make this guidance statutory.
The new guidance sets a clear expectation on all schools to have an attendance policy that is applied in such a way that it considers the individual needs of pupils and supports pupils to overcome barriers to attendance. This includes supporting pupils with mental ill-health, so that they can attend school regularly. This is in addition to obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ofsted will consider schools’ efforts to improve or sustain high attendance as part of its regular inspections, which includes efforts on their attendance policies.
On Amendment 170, it is right that schools should be accountable for their role in supporting their pupils’ mental health, but requiring Ofsted inspectors to assess pupils’ mental health and then to restrict inspection outcomes on that basis, as this amendment would do, would place responsibility for pupils’ mental health squarely on the shoulders of the individual school. I hope your Lordships would accept that that is not appropriate. Many factors can influence a pupil’s mental health and some of these, such as the culture of a school, are inside the school’s control, but many others are not.
As I think noble Lords have agreed on previous debates on mental health, it is not for schools to take on the role of providing specialist mental health support. It is important that we hold schools to account for the right things: delivering a high-quality curriculum that meets people’s needs; providing strong pastoral support; promoting a strong ethos and an inclusive culture; ensuring pupils are safe and feel safe; and engaging effectively with parents and local services. These elements play a key role in supporting pupils’ mental health and are an essential focus of Ofsted’s school inspections.
On Amendment 171M, the department already gathers and assesses a range of data on children and young people’s mental and physical health to improve our understanding and inform the support we provide children, young people and education settings. We do this through publishing an annual State of the Nation report. The department also undertakes and publishes pupil, parent and teacher omnibus surveys, which include a range of questions about the type and level of mental health support provided in schools.
What the debate has been trying to get at—and we have had this for several days in Committee—is thinking through and making sure the Government continue to be held to account for improving the provision of mental health services for young people, including in the support they get through schools. We have put quite a lot of thought and work into that, but there is definitely more to do.
To take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, we have a policy of putting funding in place so that every school can have a mental health lead trained by 2025. That mental health lead can take a whole-school view of the school’s role in supporting pupils’ mental health. A lot of that might be about prevention, discussion in PSHE classes, the school’s ethos and other things. They will then be equipped with the training to make sure they develop the right approach for their school, but we know that they should not provide specialist mental health support. That is why we are rolling out mental health support teams to provide both early support within schools and that link to specialist support. That is funded by the NHS.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Picking up on the glasses point raised by my noble friend Lady Morris and in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I remember that we had a huge influx of Roma children to Newport a couple of years ago. Ensuring that they got their eyes tested was very much part of what we did for them—it opened up a whole new world and we kept a spare pair of glasses in school for them. We had about 150 children in one fell swoop. It was a great idea and I have seen it work in practice.
The new guidance to which the Minister refers will no doubt be welcomed, if there is specific awareness of mental health issues. I note her response regarding Ofsted and the comments from other noble Lords, but I still think that there are opportunities that could be developed. We indeed want to hold the Government to account for improving and developing the approach towards mental health matters; it is about playing catch-up, and this is not going to go away. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to stop large families being classed as a school.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, large families are not a school unless they are very large families and fish. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 147 and 152.
I applaud the Government for including in this Bill Clause 56, which seeks to ensure that schools currently avoiding registration and inspection are included in Ofsted’s remit in the future. This is a far more important issue than we may have considered it. This country has been standing by while an unknown number of extremist, fundamentalist, isolationist schools are teaching children to reject the values of the country in which they are growing up. What will some of those children do when they grow up? Will they join a terrorist organisation? We simply do not know.
Ofsted has written to me to give us the benefit of some of its information, which is worth quoting. It says that at least 6,000 children are being educated in 900 unregistered schools, or, as it puts it, likely many more. It is very concerning that Ofsted has issued more than 100 warning notices to those it believes are running illegal schools, and 40 % of those settings have not changed to comply with registration as a result. These are people who do not respect the law, so we have to be very tough with them.
It is worrying that children are not learning the most fundamental subjects, including maths and English. Not only is the narrow religious curriculum in many unregistered schools unacceptable but these schools may have unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Ofsted says that it found settings with severe health and safety hazards, and other problems. No one is able to check on these things so long as schools evade registration.
I want to thank Rob Cann of Humanists UK for his very detailed briefing and the precise wording of these amendments.
In Clause 56, the Government are seeking to extend registration to independent education institutions—that is fantastic—but only to those which provide all, or the majority, of the child’s education. Herein lies a significant loophole. The proprietors of some such settings know that if they are inspected, they will have to choose between changing to something very different and closing down. They are therefore very wily and will do all they can to continue to evade regulation and inspection. They will use every loophole they can find to wriggle out of their safeguarding duties. Amendment 146B would limit registration to establishments that provide 18 hours of teaching for 39 weeks of the year. That would be something, but I believe these schools would adjust their regime and continue to avoid registration.
Without doubt, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, these proprietors—who all know one another; there are little groups of them—will get together and split their provision into separate morning and afternoon settings, or some other configuration such as one teacher taking kids in the morning, another in the afternoon. Neither will then be subject to registration under Clause 56 as it stands, and I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on this loophole and whether the Government are content to see these extremist schools escape the important purpose of this Bill.
I recognise that Clause 56(2) allows further tightening definitions to be done through regulations. Here, I am going to say something from experience. Nine years ago, I allowed, if you like, the Government to have a little adjustment to my proposal for an amendment on the face of a Bill on the basis that they would introduce regulations and deal with the problem. I thought, “Well, that sounds okay”. Was I naive? Nine years later, nothing has happened, so I am not impressed with the idea that this can be dealt with through regulations. I fear that it simply would not be done. That is a bit cynical, but it really is my experience.
My Amendment 147 has been carefully thought through. By applying registration only to establishments providing at least a quarter of a child’s education, it would not catch common after-school classes in music, sport or, indeed, religion. I very much hope the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Amendment 152 would close off another loophole for unregistered schools. Many of them operate in private dwellings; indeed, 85% of illegal education settings in Hackney, the borough with the greatest prevalence of illegal schools, are private dwellings. If the proprietor puts down a mattress in a school, on inspection, the school may be classified as a dwelling and a warrant would be required under the law as it stands. Without a warrant, the inspection would be invalidated, so, as Clause 63 stands, a warrant will be required for almost every investigation to prevent that. This will generate unacceptable pressure on the courts, the courts will then put a whole lot of pressure on the inspectors to prove that they really need the warrant, and the whole system could be snarled up. It is reasonable to suppose that determined proprietors will disguise their settings as dwellings to try to protect themselves from Ofsted’s new powers. As I said, they will do just about anything.
Clause 63 introduces a requirement that inspectors can enter a private dwelling only if a warrant has been issued, and a request for a warrant is permissible only if consent has been refused. This leaves in limbo the situation of an inspection in what could be deemed a private dwelling where consent has been given. I am sure this is not the intention, but the wording leaves open the situation of those inspections where consent is given but there is a problem; it leaves an issue.
Registration and inspection of schools must, of course, be dealt with sensitively and authorities cannot be given free access to private dwellings without a warrant if consent is not given. Nevertheless, if the first intimation for Ofsted that a school is in a so-called private dwelling is when it attempts to enter the building, it will need to go away, fill in the forms and ultimately get a warrant, which could take a week or more. This will allow lots of time for the proprietors to conceal, dispose of or fabricate false evidence about whether a school was in operation within the dwelling. Surprise is essential in such situations.
Some proprietors will be less cunning than others and perhaps have less need to be, if a proprietor provides access immediately to an inspector arriving at the address. Amendment 152 clarifies that a warrant will be required only where consent has not been given for entry and where the setting visibly appears to be a dwelling. That sounds a bit pedantic, but it is important, on the basis that these people may just put a mattress down somewhere and claim it is a private dwelling. What is a private dwelling? All sorts of things can be done by them.
I hope the Minister will therefore ask officials to give serious consideration to the following two points. First, the current drafting of Clause 63 is poor and risks making matters worse for Ofsted inspectors. The element of surprise is so important, yet Clause 63 seems to reduce the scope for that surprise. Secondly, the clause does not clarify what a private dwelling is. Will the Minister ensure that, if possible, a definition of a private dwelling for the purposes of the Bill is given in it?
I failed at the beginning of my speech to thank the Minister very much indeed for the discussion we had, and I remember that one of her points was: how on earth do you define a private dwelling—it is probably impossible? I hope that efforts will be made to define a private dwelling to avoid what I call the mattress problem.
Again, I emphasise that the Government seek to achieve a very important objective in these clauses. I hope these comments are helpful; they are certainly intended to be.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I should like briefly to add my support to these two very sensible amendments, which would stop unscrupulous unregistered schools circumventing the law and speed up the inspection process.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 171C and 171D. I strongly support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as well. I think she has a very correct estimate of the challenges and has presented some situations that are rather familiar in how they will be used to try to circumvent the Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister for her courtesy and for the time with her and her officials to discuss the matters raised in these amendments.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall speak to my own Amendment 149, and also speak to Amendment 152 and 171C. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for the amendments and congratulate the Government for, for the first time, trying to sort this problem out. I do not want to repeat everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, because she has painted the situation as it has existed, which is, frankly, totally unacceptable in our society.
I met with people from Ofsted yesterday—and I have had a long-running dialogue with Ofsted over the issue of unregistered schools. I asked them if we have sorted this issue out. They said, “Yes, Government have done the right things now, and this will make a real contribution”. They paused and said that, if we wanted to do something further, we could do, just to close that very small loophole in the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised. I hope between Committee and Report, the Government might look at this again. It would be silly to have got so far, and not be able to deal with that last bit where they morph into private dwellings. I know the Minister is very keen that we deal with this, and so I hope she will think carefully about that.
I turn to unregistered schools. We talk a lot about young children and attendance at school, and a lot of time, quite rightly, we talk about special educational needs. If there is one group of young people who are constantly forgotten, and pushed from pillar to post, it is those young people who are excluded from school. They are often excluded from school for all the wrong reasons. They are often young people who have special educational needs. In fact, the vast majority of young people excluded from school have special needs. Just think what happens to them. If they are lucky, there is a pupil referral unit on the site, and that seems to me to be the right model. I know the Government are looking at expanding the number of pupil referral units. It seems right to me that they are on the school campus and they can draw from the expertise of the school, and the young people can, we hope, go back into mainstream schooling—if that is the right expression to use. I welcome that, but that is not going to deal with the problem, because the progress in providing that number of pupil referral units will take a long time.
So what happens? If they are lucky, these young people go to a registered provider, but there are not enough registered providers. There is also the issue, which we have talked about quite a lot in this Chamber, of unregistered providers. Some providers are genuine, but some just want to make money and they are almost babysitting those young people. It is absolutely awful: Ofsted told me of a number of providers that charge £50 a day, plus the taxi fare in. If you speak to Ofsted, they will tell you that. What do you get for £50? You get somebody childminding a really vulnerable young person who has special educational needs. Why does that happen? It is because we do not have the places in registered schools, and also because local authorities are strapped for cash. In the past, I have questioned why local authorities do that. I think they do it because they are strapped for cash, but also there is not the provision available. If most of the young people have special educational needs, that special educational needs money does not get to them. Certainly, the staff in these establishments do not have the qualifications, the training, the expertise or the interest in giving them the support and education these young people need.
I do not have all the answers to the current situation we are in. Clearly, the Government are looking at this issue and we need to keep it high on our agenda and keep coming back to it. Noble Lords can be sure that we on these Benches will do that.
There are a couple of practices that I do not like, and which can be closed down straightaway. There is the “managed move”, which used to happen with local authorities: a young person who was disruptive, rather than being permanently excluded from school, was moved to another school to be managed. Sometimes it worked at the other school, or then they would maybe be moved to another school, and if it did not work, they would go back to their original school. If that failed, they would be permanently excluded. Now they go on a dual register, so they are on the register of the school that they are excluded from and the school or alternative provision that they are going to but then, come the examinations, they are immediately taken off the host school, because they affect the overall results. We must examine that very carefully indeed.
The Minister knows the problem better than anybody. I just hope that we can come to some sensible moves on this.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I want to embellish a couple of points particularly pertinent to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Meacher.
Some noble Lords may remember that a few years ago we created care orders in cases of FGM for the family court. What emerged from the research that I did into that was that it was the family units that were espousing FGM but, furthermore, they liked to see themselves as a society—and, in certain cases, belonged to a society—that initiated and believed in female genital mutilation. I make this point because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, it is very easy for a small group of people to move from being a family unit to being accepted possibly as a “school” and thereby having the moral authority to take forward these practices and propagate them. I mention this as a point which we should bear in mind, given what my noble friend Lady Meacher and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were warning us about.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is a characteristically sensible suggestion. I hope that the Government are mindful and assure the House that there is no loophole or that an amendment will be used to close it. The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn raise similar important issue. The Minister is nodding, so I am sure that she will have something positive to say about this.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about excluded children, is an important one. Maybe we cannot deal with everything in his remarks through this Bill, but I hope that we can attend to those issues that have been around for such a long time. We still see managed moves used far too frequently. It is gaming the system. We know that it goes on. I am sure that when we put in measures to deal with that there will then be another set of behaviours to tackle, but such is life.
On our Amendment 171G, I was very keen to get something in the Bill that has come out of Josh MacAlister’s potentially ground-breaking report. MacAlister’s argument is that in too many places the contribution and voice of education is missing from multi-agency safeguarding conversations. I hear often from partners, usually in health, how difficult it is to engage with schools. Schools want their voices to be heard and to have a statutory role but are unable to do so at the moment. The recommendation from the MacAlister report is that there should be the opportunity that there is in this Bill—well, I am saying that it is an opportunity in this Bill. If we do not take it, I wonder whether when we get the Government’s full response to the MacAlister report we will look back at this and regret that we did not take the opportunity of what is quite a simple recommendation.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly, following on from the noble Baroness. As usual in education debates, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council, which accredits and represents some 1,400 schools, and as the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies, which has some 580 of those schools in its membership. There is not a household name among them, and none of them is large in size: many have no more than 200 pupils, some less. But all of them are serving their local communities; responding to their parents’ wishes; striving to keep fees down; and fulfilling their charitable purposes, not just by providing education—recognised as a charitable purpose in law for over 400 years—but by delivering wider public benefit through bursaries, partnership projects with local state schools, and participation in local community projects. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not give further details in full reply to the noble Baroness.
This amendment seems to have been dug out of the Labour Party’s archives.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It has not been dug out of an archive. I expect it to be in our next manifesto, so I expect the noble Lord to have to engage with this on a regular basis.
Lord Lexden
I want to give some background, if I may. At the general election of February 1974 the Labour manifesto declared:
“All forms of tax-relief and charitable status for public schools will be withdrawn.”
With some redrafting, “private schools” being substituted for “public schools” for example, this remained the Labour Party’s position during the rest of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s. At the 1992 election, the threat to charitable status disappeared, 30 years later to suddenly come back now, a weary ghost from the past.
What has happened during the last 30 years? Something significant has occurred: schools in the two sectors of education have moved ever closer together. The credit for this, of course, belongs to the schools themselves. They were drawn together by a recognition of the mutual benefits of partnership in so many different areas—in teaching, particularly in specialist subjects, music, drama and sport. Today this large programme of joint work is underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between the Independent Schools Council and the Government. Details are available on the council’s Schools Together website. Extensive though the programme is, there is more to be done. The best thing that everyone who has the interests of education at heart can do is to press independent and state schools to do more together. Noble Lords opposite should perhaps visit some independent schools to see what partnership work they are carrying out with state sector colleagues—that is the word they use, “colleagues”.
When I was at the Independent Schools Council, years ago, I found it quite difficult to interest the Conservative Party in any of this; Tony Blair’s Government was a different matter. Education Ministers, including Charles Clarke and David Miliband, came to the council’s offices for discussions. An official independent/state schools partnership scheme was set up to encourage progress, backed by modest funding from the Department for Education. In 2000, the then Schools Minister wrote that there had been “a huge cultural change”. In January 2001, she wrote: “There are no plans to legislate to remove charitable status from independent schools.” The same Minister got independent schools seats in the General Teaching Council and introduced special fast-track arrangements to help teachers in independent schools get QTS. She referred to them earlier in these debates. Always listen carefully to everything the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, says in this House. I am sorry she is not in her place at the moment.
For years, independent schools have used the benefits of their charitable status, and more besides, to give help with fees. Back in 2001, I used to say that for every pound of benefit received, they provided £2.30 in help with fees. What would be the effect of overturning a law that has stood for over 400 years by confiscating the schools’ charitable status? Fees would rise, bursaries would fall, and schools would become more socially exclusive. I think the policy embodied in this amendment should go back to the Labour Party’s archives.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, that was a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on a number of important issues, which I will try and cover in my remarks. I turn first to Amendment 146A from my noble friend Lord Lucas, which would exempt settings that are classified as being a family from regulation under the Education and Skills Act 2008. I can assure my noble friend that the Government already, and will continue to, consider private arrangements where parents home educate their own children only as exempt.
Turning to Amendment 146B from the noble Lord, Lord Knight: we consulted in 2020 on defining full-time provision as being 18 or more hours per week. However, we concluded that this approach would encourage gaming of the system, allowing settings to opt out of regulation by operating just short of the threshold. We heard powerfully from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about how there are settings determined to do just that. So, guidance will be produced to help settings to understand where the registration requirements apply.
Amendments 147 and 149 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to register part-time provision and other unregistered provision where local authorities place children. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also highlighted some of the cultural sensitivities that arise in addressing some of these settings. Unregistered alternative provision, as the noble Lord knows, can provide a valuable hook back into learning for children who have complex needs or require bespoke packages. Its use, though, as the noble Lord knows extremely well, requires extremely careful planning and oversight. We absolutely agree on the need to act to address poor commissioning practice, and I know my officials would be very keen to meet with the noble Lord if he would be agreeable to discuss this further. As we set out in the recent special educational needs and alternative provision Green Paper, we are absolutely committed to strengthening protections for children in unregistered alternative provision, and we will be issuing a call for evidence before the summer on its use. I know the noble Lord will contribute to that.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Regulating part-time settings would address the risk that currently unregistered full-time provision is split into separate settings. I know this is also a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. However, most part-time provision does serve a legitimate purpose, and this risks interrupting the support and education that those settings provide, where it is provided legitimately. We believe that automatically applying the regulatory regime for independent schools to therapeutic and part-time settings would be inappropriate and likely to introduce unnecessary burdens. However, we will look at this again in the light of the call for evidence.
On Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, Clause 63 introduces, as she described, new search powers. The powers as drafted aim to balance the need to enable Ofsted to search effectively with the safeguarding of civil liberties. This amendment would risk disrupting that balance. I know that the noble Baroness’s concern is that one would lose the element of surprise if inspectors went to an address and then had to go away and get a warrant, but requiring warrants before people’s homes are searched, particularly where consent is not given to enter the property, is a proportionate safeguard.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
This is not quite the right moment to do this, but I thank the Minister for allowing me to say a word. Has she been in touch with Ofsted and is she satisfied that it is reassured that it will be able to inspect these illegal schools—these, in my view, very high-risk schools? Is Ofsted content?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am obviously cautious about speaking on behalf of Ofsted, but we have worked closely with it in developing this legislation. My understanding is that it is content, but I would not want to speak on its behalf, as it is an independent body.
Lord Storey (LD)
That is a very fair answer but between Committee and Report, will the Minister just make sure that Ofsted is completely content and there are no further loopholes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be delighted to do that.
I was talking about how institutions might be operating separately but effectively as one institution. The evidence Ofsted might use to establish that could relate to individuals acting in concert or other evidence of links between the activities, such as the same pupils being educated on different premises. Clause 63 is intended to enhance Ofsted’s powers of inspection in these circumstances. This could include the investigation of so-called “tapestry schools”, with which the noble Lord is rightly concerned. In brief, we believe that those loopholes are closed.
As I explained, we do not believe it appropriate to regulate part-time settings until we have considered the response to the call for evidence on unregistered alternative provision. However, as we have discussed at length, parents have a duty to ensure that their children who are of compulsory school age receive a suitable full-time education. As we know from our earlier debates, local authorities can check this, and where a parent cannot demonstrate that the settings a child attends provide a suitable education, a school attendance order could of course be issued. A parent who sends their child to a different setting that provides only a narrow religious education with no secular education each weekday is very unlikely to be ensuring that their child receives a suitable full-time education, which I think is the point the noble Lord is rightly concerned about. I would be delighted to meet with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to work through some of these examples in detail to assure them that we are meeting the spirit of their amendments.
Amendment 154 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman, would remove the charitable status of independent educational institutions. When the noble Baroness talked about a change of tone, I thought for a minute that we were going to go to a certain place, but I thank her for the very measured way in which she made her case.
Independent schools that are charities are already obliged to show public benefit, as the noble Baroness acknowledged. She questioned the strength of that, but we are concerned that we should avoid piecemeal reform of charity law, aimed at only one group of charities. The amendment risks creating pressure to extend the removal of charitable status to other sectors. All charities must exist for public benefit, but they are not required to serve the whole public. It is not clear why this principle should change for one group, namely independent schools, and not for other charities.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden explained better than I can and with much greater experience, 85% of independent school council members are already involved in cross-sector working. I have met with a number of schools that are in different partnerships. I think there is a real sense of mutual benefit for the private schools and state-funded schools working together. I know that the noble Baroness and the Government will not agree on this point, but we see independent schools as an asset in our school system. Our responsibility is to make sure they fulfil their charitable purpose and that we use that asset to maximum benefit.
Finally, on Amendment 171G, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, schools are already under a statutory duty to act in accordance with the arrangements set out by local safeguarding partners. The noble Baroness will remember the recommendations made in Sir Alan Wood’s report following the review of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. The Government legislated in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to remove the requirement for local authorities to establish local safeguarding children’s boards. The 2004 Children Act was then amended by the 2017 Act to include provisions relating to those three safeguarding partners—the local authority, police and health—including a duty to make arrangements for them and any appropriate relevant agencies to work together to deliver their safeguarding functions. So there is some history here that we need to remember and take into consideration. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out that the independent review included a recommendation to make schools a statutory safeguarding partner. It is something that needs proper consideration and to which we will respond in our implementation strategy later this year.
I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his Amendment 146A and I ask other noble Lords not to move the amendments in their names.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the answer she gave on my amendment. I had a lot of sympathy for Amendment 149, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. If we are to require home educators to provide a suitable education, we should make the same requirement of local authorities. What is important is that all children get a suitable education, and we should not accept backsliding by the state on that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, would expect, as editor of the Good Schools Guide and a product of Eton, I do not have any sympathy for her amendment. It just seems self-defeating. If you take away the charitable exemption so that independent schools start paying rates, they will do that much less charitable work. That charitable benefit goes straight through to charitable work; the sufferers will be the people currently benefiting from the charity. It will all come back to the state because, although the local authorities may get some additional money from business rates, the state will find itself educating a lot more pupils who are currently being educated elsewhere, not at its expense. The same applies to VAT, but in spades. It appears merely to be an unsatisfactory solution to a long-running niggle. This Government’s approach to try to get the two sectors working together, integrated and benefiting each other, so that they become part of a unified system in rather the way that the health service works with private providers, seems a much better idea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Education and childcare behaviour orders(1) The Education and Skills Act 2008 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 96 (unregistered independent educational institutions: offence), at the end insert—“(5) Schedule A1 makes provision enabling a court to make an education and childcare behaviour order where a person is convicted of an offence under this section.”(3) Before Schedule 1 insert—“Schedule A1Education and childcare behaviour ordersMaking an education and childcare behaviour order
1 (1) Where a person (the “defendant”) is convicted of an offence under section 96 (conducting an unregistered independent educational institution) after the coming into force of this Schedule, the prosecution may apply for an education and childcare behaviour order.(2) On an application under sub-paragraph (1), the court may make an education and childcare behaviour order if it thinks it is appropriate to do so for the purpose of protecting children from the risk of harm arising from the defendant conducting an unregistered independent educational institution or otherwise providing children with education, childcare, instruction or supervision. (3) An education and childcare behaviour order is an order which, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)—(a) requires the defendant to do anything specified in the order, or(b) prohibits the defendant from doing anything specified in the order.(4) The court may make an education and childcare behaviour order in respect of the defendant only if it is made in addition to—(a) a sentence imposed in respect of the offence under section 96, or(b) an order discharging the offender conditionally.(5) If, following an application by the prosecution for an education and childcare behaviour order, the court decides not to make such an order, it must state in open court its reasons for that decision.Duration of education and childcare behaviour order
2 (1) An education and childcare behaviour order takes effect on the day on which it is made.(2) An education and childcare behaviour order must specify the period for which it has effect, which must be a fixed period of at least six months and not more than three years.(3) Where a court makes an education and childcare behaviour order in respect of a defendant who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Application for variation or discharge of education and childcare behaviour order
3 (1) The defendant may apply to the appropriate court for an order varying or discharging an education and childcare behaviour order.(2) On an application under this paragraph, the court may by order vary or discharge the education and childcare behaviour order.(3) A defendant may not make an application under this paragraph—(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the order was made, or(b) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which any previous application under this paragraph was refused.(4) In this paragraph, the “appropriate court” means—(a) the court that made the order, or(b) a magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant lives.Offence of breaching education and childcare behaviour order
4 (1) A person who breaches an education and childcare behaviour order is guilty of an offence.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine (or to both).(3) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, for “51 weeks” in sub-paragraph (2), substitute “six months”.(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this paragraph, it is not open to the court by or before which the person is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge.”(4) In section 379 of the Sentencing Act 2020, in the table in subsection (1), after the entry for the Serious Crime Act 2007 insert—
“Education and Skills Act 2008 | ||
Schedule A1 | education and childcare behaviour order | offence of conducting an unregistered independent education institution”.” |
This amendment would enable a court, after having convicted a person of the offence of operating an unregistered independent educational institution, to make an order requiring or prohibiting certain behaviour by that person, if the court considers it appropriate in order to protect children from a risk of harm. Breach of an order would constitute a further criminal offence.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part in this debate remotely—at least I hope she is—and I invite her to move Amendment 150.
Clause 60: Failure to meet standards: suspension of registration
Amendment 150
Baroness Brinton
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment aimed at understanding the protections that are in place for day pupils where a school has already been found not to be safe for boarding pupils.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Part 4, on independent educational institutions, particularly Clause 60, the detail seems to put independent schools on a standards system closer to that of publicly funded schools. As I said at Second Reading, I was struggling to understand the rationale for the provision under Clause 60(2), which says that the Secretary of State needs to be
“satisfied that … standards is or are not being met”
and have
“reasonable cause to believe that … one or more students at the institution will or may be exposed to the risk of harm”.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it seems delightful that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who, with the rest of us, objected to the Henry VIII powers in the earlier parts of the Bill, should be asking for Henry VIII to return to deal with the Abbot of Ampleforth, who is the seat of the schools problems when it comes to safeguarding.
This is the bit of the Bill that I would very much like to listen to the Government’s rationale behind. I also hope that they will consider the other amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—if not now, at least in terms of thinking through what happens when IICSA finally reports. As we have seen in this House with the Valuing Everyone training, when everyone knows what they must do if they see something wrong, wrong happens much less often.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 171Z on mandatory reporting. This is an area I am very interested in, having started my career in a sports setting, not least because I have a Private Member’s Bill in the queuing system that seeks to address the issue. Having the chance to debate this as part of the Schools Bill was an opportunity not to be missed, and perhaps is the first step in addressing this serious issue.
I thank Tom Perry from Mandate Now for his support on this issue over the years and for his advice on what is required in various settings. If the Government were minded to accept this amendment, it would send out a strong message that they are listening and have an interest in protecting children and young people. I and many others having been debating this for a long time and, over the years, we have been given many reasons why this is not possible to bring in: the cost; that it puts people in a difficult situation when having to report; and that there are other mechanisms which can be used. None of these seems a particularly adequate reason. I have also been told that, if mandatory reporting comes in, the number of cases will rise—well, of course, they will. However, we know from other jurisdictions that those cases stabilise over time.
The fact that this legislation exists in 86% of Europe may not be enough to convince some that it is necessary, but this is also about increasing knowledge and understanding. Schools are a place that have reasonable contact with young people. I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s response. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I suspect that it might include her saying that it will be difficult to do this in a school setting without doing it in a wider setting. If that is the case, I look forward to support of my Private Member’s Bill when we get the chance to debate it.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments give us another opportunity to talk about the important issue of safeguarding. It is an issue that has fallen between the cracks of the ambiguity we have dissected and discovered in our debates on most clauses of this Bill. The fact that there have been so many probing amendments in Committee speaks to the level of uncertainty in the House about dealing with such a vaguely worded Bill bereft of ideas and vision for making a better educational opportunity possible for all children and young people.
I acknowledge that the DfE has published an updated version of the statutory safeguarding and child protection guidance for schools in England, Keeping Children Safe in Education, which will be implemented this September. That contains important new guidance, not least the new paragraph setting out that
“children may not feel ready or know how to tell someone that they are being abused”.
It also includes the recommendation that
“governors and trustees receive appropriate safeguarding and child protection … training at induction”,
and then at regular intervals afterwards.
Nevertheless, there is always more that could be done. An old headmaster of mine used to say, “The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement”—I seem to remember he had it printed on a T-shirt. In a previous debate, my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned the MacAlister review, which proposed that schools be made a statutory partner. The review said:
“In too many places the contribution and voice of education is missing from partnership arrangements, and so schools should be included as a statutory safeguarding partner”,
which we have also proposed as an amendment in another group. Would it be worth the Minister giving an update on the Government’s progress on working through the review’s recommendations, and is becoming a statutory partner something that the DfE is likely to accept?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, turning first to Amendment 150, I hope I can clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a stop boarding requirement is discretionary but can only be supplemental to any suspension of registration which may be imposed in relation to an independent educational setting. Day students are therefore protected from a risk of harm in the first instance by the suspension of the institution’s registration. The intention of these powers together is that all students in an independent educational institution, both day and boarding where applicable, can be protected more effectively from serious risk from harm.
The noble Baroness asked me a number of specific other questions, which I will do my best to write to her on.
On Amendment 171Z, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, schools and colleges are already under legal duties to exercise their functions to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This includes having regard to Keeping Children Safe in Education, statutory guidance which is clear on the role all staff have to play. Children and young people who attend a school or college are afforded protection through these provisions. In all cases where concerns about the welfare of children are identified, Ofsted will pass the information on to the relevant police or local authority to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of children cared for at the registered provider.
As we set out in March 2018, in response to the reporting and acting on child abuse consultation, there was no clear evidence to show that introducing a mandatory reporting duty would help keep children safe, and therefore the case was not made for a mandatory reporting duty. We are keeping this under review, and as noble Lords have referenced, we are awaiting the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is expected this autumn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the MacAlister review. I believe we have addressed that in previous groups. The Government will be publishing an implementation plan by the end of year, to consider all of those recommendations.
With that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw her amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to respond now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank Tom Perry and Mandate Now, who have been advocating for mandatory reporting for many years, all the survivors of abuse at schools who have been in contact with me, and indeed some of the teachers who have written to me about how difficult it was for them after they reported abuse at their school.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a slightly jokey but important point about the Secretary of State’s powers, but the difference with Amendment 171Z is that those powers are detailed in the Bill. It is not giving a blind, blank cheque to the Secretary of State to produce regulations that Parliament cannot then comment on. I do not know whether others have better suggestions about who should take those powers. Clearly, somebody has to be able to do it for independent schools. Under the earlier parts of the Bill, it seems the Secretary of State is doing everything else as well. If we can get changes, that may work.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a missed consequential amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(g) paragraph 4 of Schedule A1 (breach of education and childcare behaviour order).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of breaching an education and childcare behaviour order to the list of offences in clause 63, meaning that the new powers of entry and investigation in the Bill would be exercisable in respect of a suspected offence under this Schedule.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting clarification to make it clear that the reference to independent educational institutions inserted into s.141A(1) (teachers to whom the misconduct provisions apply) only catches such institutions that are not schools. Schools are already covered by s.141A(1)(a), so this amendment avoids an overlap between existing paragraph (a) and new paragraph (bb).